Is the Keystone verdict known yet?

tripleittt · Post by **tripleittt** » Fri May 18, 2007 12:08 pm

Does anyone know what the outcome was in the trial against the pilot, or if it is even over yet? I haven't been able to find any new information on the internet recently.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Sat May 19, 2007 9:07 am

No, but I know that keystone is EDITTED, jc

and that TC is investigating the reasons that their new hires are failing all their rides.

Not sure if it will get anywhere, it probably won't, but for the industry, we can all see what type of company they are.

I wonder which court date he's got today.

JBI · Post by **JBI** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:58 am

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun May 20, 2007 8:51 am

Defense wrapped up on the 8th.

Machines 'can fail'
Pilot did his best, says lawyer
May 9, 2007
By DEAN PRITCHARD, SUN MEDIA

Pilot Mark Tayfel did the best he could with an airplane that failed him, his lawyer told court yesterday.

"These are pieces of machinery, they can fail. It's rare, but it happens," said Balfour Der, in his closing argument before Justice Holly Beard.

Tayfel was flying six passengers from Gunisao Lake to Winnipeg on June 11, 2002, when the Piper Navajo Chieftain -- out of fuel -- lost both its engines over the city and made an emergency crash landing on McPhillips Street.

None of the six Keystone Air passengers were killed in the crash, but 79-year-old Chester Jones died three months later of his injuries.

Tayfel is charged with one count of criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and one count of operating an aircraft in a manner dangerous to the public.

Tayfel stated his fuel gauges showed he had ample fuel when he took off from Gunisao Lake. Tayfel said it was only when he was well into the flight that his fuel gauges plummeted and he knew he was in trouble.

"The actions he took were not unreasonable and therefore not a departure from a reasonable and prudent pilot in this case," Der said.

Crown attorney Brian Wilford argued Tayfel acted recklessly in neglecting to calculate his fuel reserves and then lied to cover up his mistakes.

"Mr. Tayfel ought not to be punished merely for running out of gas," Wilford said. "Mr. Tayfel was the author of what befell that plane and those passengers."

Beard reserved her verdict.

JBI, I think what you found was the statement of defense for the civil suit against TC.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun May 20, 2007 9:59 am

My car failed me yesterday! It ran out of gas. Bloody machines! Always letting us down.......I did the "best I could", but the car "failed" me. Yah, Okay, sure....

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:16 am

The Manitoba Court registry is showing that there was a judgement in the civil suit against Keystone, TCCA and the Attorny General on March 27, 2007.

tripleittt · Post by **tripleittt** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:30 am

Do you know what the verdict was against Keystone?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:34 am

The judgement and disposition don't seem to be posted anywhere. You would think this would have been a highly publicised case. I have some contacts that may be able to help find out though ... I'll be sure to let you all know if I find out!

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Tue May 22, 2007 7:18 am

my eyes were opened at the pilots trial listening to both expert witnesses and the pilots own testimony.

After the lawyers closed the judge said after one month, lets look for the verdict july 03

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Tue May 22, 2007 7:32 am

So when are we going to find out what went on? I can't decipher the faces in the above post....

Sulako · Post by **Sulako** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:41 am

It's been a while since I flew a Navajo.

I can't remember if the fuel gauges are generally reliable, or if they are like C-172 fuel gauges and mostly ornamental.

Which is it?

//Not like it really matters, I'm just curious.

rfcPilot · Post by **rfcPilot** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:47 am

One would think an actual inspection of the fuel tanks to be mandatory. Regardless of what the gauges say. So in my eyes, the pilot is responsible for the accident that occured.

At the same time, its not the pilot's fault the old guy's body is so damn frail that he died later, due to the injuries. s**t happens, people die. Flying is dangerous, and anyone who thinks otherwise... shouldnt get on a plane. Just like driving a car is dangerous. Just like crossing the street in Quebec is dangerous too

That the pilot be charged by TSB with either a fine or suspension for being an idiot and not checking the tanks, I agree. For the pilot being charged with murder and criminal negligence... wtf?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue May 22, 2007 9:18 am

I'd wager that in North America, about 100 times a year pilots run out of fuel.

Why aren't those 100 pilots charged every year with criminal negligence and sent to jail?

The pilots of the gimli glider (AC Boeing) or the Azores glider (Air Transat Airbus) didn't do any jail time, and there was considerably more risk to the public in both of those events.

This consistent lack of consistency in applying the regulations is truly the hallmark of Transport. One person does something, no charge is laid. Another person does the same thing, he's going to jail.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue May 22, 2007 10:07 am

The pilots of the gimli glider (AC Boeing) or the Azores glider (Air Transat Airbus) didn't do any jail time, and there was considerably more risk to the public in both of those events.

The "Gimli glider" was the result of inop fuel gauges and a conversion error. The "Azores glider" was the result of improper maintenance and faulty flight manual procedures.

The pilot's in both those cases weren't aware of impending flame out. That is very different than a pilot who knows darn well he is very low on fuel but decides to take a chance without declaring an emergency etc.

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:16 am

INSURANCE SETTLED WITH VICTINS MARCH 27, 2007

SKYPILOT1956 · Post by **SKYPILOT1956** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:23 am

wtf ... i listened 3 days of testimony. (1) a pilot pax had said they landed at lodge with 1/2 mains (1+25) for a 1+24 IFR flight to dest wx 300',

NO calls made, (2) both gauges started to fall at 50 nm from YWG, (3) NO calls made, (4) at 15 nm an engine quit and restarted from other side main(double consumption), (5)

NO calls made, (6) pilot testified he fly approach high and fast planning a glide to YWG with wx at 300' (7)

NO calls made ( engine did not fail until over airport on the missed approached when pax said guages had been on empty for 15 minutes (

NO calls made until 2nd engine quit). PUT YOUR FAMILY IN THAT PLANE, and you make the call AN AERONAUTICS VIOLATION OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:49 am

Let me get this straight: this guy is going to jail because he didn't make the right radio calls?!

Anyone remember the recent emergency at DFW where a pilot declared an emergency after takeoff, and ATC wouldn't let him land immediately? They told him to get in line and use the runway ATC wanted, not his choice of immediate landing.

Or, how about the recent BA 747 captain who took off from LAX, had an engine failure, and was directed by ground ops to CONTINUE THE FLIGHT TO HEATHROW. That's right, all the way across the USA and the Atlantic Ocean, and his increased fuel consumption forced him to land short of Heathrow, in Prestwick?

Yes, this inexperienced kid screwed up. Does that make him a criminal? If so, then everybody that screws up is a criminal. Transport screws up more than their fair share - I have plenty of examples. Are we going to toss them in jail, too?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:10 pm

Skypilot1956 My family would not board a Keystone flight...ever.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:02 pm

I feel the same way about Air Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_189
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_646

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:02 pm

Hedley,

Are you serious?

A Regulator · Post by **A Regulator** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:20 pm

I don't think it is Transport who was taking court action, it was the city police who laid the charges, etc.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:01 pm

rfc I manually inspect the fuel tanks all the time; unfortunately this inspection on a Navajo is only really useful when the tanks are full.

Sully from the testimony that's been posted on here I'd say the fuel guages on that aircraft were ornamental. Which is why I have my personal motto; "if in doubt fuel up."

2R · Post by 2R » Tue May 22, 2007 4:00 pm

Nice of the insurance company to settle out of court .Save the families the grief of reliving the pain of the accident over again.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:22 pm

Was Keystone's insurance trying to get out of paying?

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:43 pm

pardon me... I withdraw my comment.

Is the Keystone verdict known yet?

Is the Keystone verdict known yet?

keystone pilot verdict July Maybe

IS THE KEYSTONE VERDICT KNOW YET

IS THE KEYSTONE VERDICT KNOWN YET