Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence

[Cat Driver]

They didn't know they were short on fuel? They dipped the tanks, and made conversion errors calculating the fuel load. In any other industry, that is the DEFINITION of professional incompetence.

Are you saying the pilots got up on the wing of that 767 and dipped the fuel?

[Tiny Voices]

They didn't know they were short on fuel? They dipped the tanks, and made conversion errors calculating the fuel load. In any other industry, that is the DEFINITION of professional incompetence.

Are you saying the pilots got up on the wing of that 767 and dipped the fuel?

Probably used the fuel measuring sticks located on the underside of the wing and the centre tank. Sometimes refered to as drip sticks. Like to see that though...scrambling across the top of the wing in their shiney shoes and gold braided hat.

[CID]

This whole disussion has completely re-inforced my opion that pilots in general should not be considered 'professionals' in any shape or form. The effort that they put into passing the buck in this type of case sure proves it.

If memory serves, the Gimli pilot was held ultimately responsible and dismissed. Or at very least reprimanded.

[goldeneagle]

They didn't know they were short on fuel? They dipped the tanks, and made conversion errors calculating the fuel load. In any other industry, that is the DEFINITION of professional incompetence.

Are you saying the pilots got up on the wing of that 767 and dipped the fuel?

I dont remember all of the details I've read on this over the years, but it stands out in my mind, reports indicated the tanks WERE dipped. Wether it was the pilots, or somebody else, I dunno. There's a decent writeup on wikipedia that suggests it was the pilots, and i dont feel like hunting thru the tsb site looking for an old report right now.

The upshot of it all was this. Tanks were dipped, and a measure in liters was obtained from the dip. Converting liters to kilograms was where the error was made, and it was made consistently, by a bunch of different folks, in reality, they used the conversion factor for pounds, not kilos.

The final summary boils down to, pilots had the info from a dipping of the tanks, wether they did it themselves or somebody else, doesn't matter. The raw data from the dip was correct. It was the subsequent conversion math where the error was made. By definition, doing that correct is the job description of the flight crew, they are the last link in the chain, and, licensed to make the final fuel load decision. 'Qualified for the type' implies, they know how to use the metric units of measure on the type.

It follows on then, that when the engines went quiet to do lack of fuel, somebody screwed up. By definition again, when something like this happens, the buck stops with the person that is licensed to make the final decision, it is thier responsibility to ensure the decision is correct. Be it something as simple as accepting a radar vector from an air traffic controller, or something as basic as checking fuel loads, the buck stops with the PIC. If that person is not capable of doing something as simple as ensuring correct fuel load on an airplane, by definition, they are not qualified to act as PIC on that airplane.

You can go on and on with all the politically correct bull**** about 'resource management' and 'workload' and yadda yadda yadda, but the raw facts dont change. The final decision on fuel load rests in the front left seat. If that person isn't capable of ensuring correct fuel load, that is the definition of incompetence. End of story. doesn't matter if it's a ho going from a fishing camp to an airport, or a 767 going from out east to out west. By definition, the PIC is responsible for fuel requirements, says so in the regulations. If an airplane gets quiet all of a sudden in flight, then by that same definition, buck stops in the front left seat. The charge should be negligence, and, if folks died because of it, then it should carry the rider 'causing death'.

I do realize many of the pilots here will disagree with me, but, that is thier perogative. They would rather play the pass the buck game, and deflect any liability for thier decisions. The sad part of all this, in my opinion, if the high profile gimli glider had been turned into an example event, and licenses suspended due to professional incompetence, then, that example would have made professional pilots think twice over the 25 years since then, and most would have been more inclined to put a little 'granny fuel' on board.

But, alas, the industry did set an example. Folks ran out of fuel after tanks were dipped, and did so in a system full of checks and balances. The pilots in question got off without even a slap on the wrist, and, it became acceptable to fly around on minimum fuel, because, there would be no consequences if you ran out. Maybe this time around, the courts will change that. Transport doesn't seem to lift licenses, but some assignment of liability may be even more effective.

right now, for most folks, the decision making process often end with a chuckle along the lines of 'what are they gonna do, lift my license???', laughing because they know that isn't going to happen. But, if the thought train changes to 'sheesh, I could lose my house if I screw up at this, and it works out bad', suddenly the decision making process will become slightly more of a 'self preservation' process, and that, is a good thing in the long run, the only issue is, it's going to take a couple of examples along the way to get the message out.

[Cat Driver]

GE:

I am in agreement with you on the end responsibility for sufficient fuel.

As I recall the Air Canada 767 was a screw up on all levels...

.....using the wrong conversion factor was of course why the thing only got half way to its destination ( 2.2 pounds per kilo )

To make it even murkier and thus more blame spreading I believe the airplane was flying with a fuel totalizer inoperative...another reason for the crew to take a double look at the figures.

Anyhow I sure hope this court case and conviction of this pilot jolts every pilot on earth to say no when that is the correct decision to make....if pilots refused to break the law the Keystones of aviation would be forced to abide by the rules.

[goldeneagle]

This whole disussion has completely re-inforced my opion that pilots in general should not be considered 'professionals' in any shape or form. The effort that they put into passing the buck in this type of case sure proves it.

If memory serves, the Gimli pilot was held ultimately responsible and dismissed. Or at very least reprimanded.

Again, I dont really want to spend a lot of time researching this old stuff, but, here's a cut for wikipedia, I suspect its relatively accurate.

------------
It has been reported that, following Air Canada's internal investigation, Captain Pearson was demoted for six months, and First Officer Quintal was suspended for two weeks. Three maintenance workers were also suspended.[9] However, both pilots continued to work for Air Canada, and in 1985 were awarded the first ever Fédération Aéronautique Internationale Diploma for Outstanding Airmanship.[10] C-GAUN was patched up at Gimli and flown out two days later.
---------------

The upshot, there were no license suspensions or revocations. There was no liability assigned. Do not confuse a/c internal suspensions or demotions with licensing actions. Transport Canada did not lift licenses, and sent a message to the entire industry because of it. Pilots can pass the buck when they screw up, and, TC will not come down on them by revoking professional credentials. The license, therefore the livelihood, is not at risk when the pilot screws up.

If anything good is going to come out of the incident over which this thread started, it's going to be a huge wake up call for the rest of the industry. Pilots are NOT isolated from the liability of thier professional decisions, and, maybe thier decision making process will start to have a little more 'self preservation' rolled into the mix.

[the_professor]

The auto pilot had no part in this accident as far as cause is concerned.

That is true if Tayfel purposely flew a high approach because of the fuel concern.

Has he ever admitted the deliberate high approach, or is that speculation?

[the_professor]

Anyhow I sure hope this court case and conviction of this pilot jolts every pilot on earth to say no when that is the correct decision to make....if pilots refused to break the law the Keystones of aviation would be forced to abide by the rules.

[Emphasis mine.]

That is an excellent point. Keystone, Sonicair, [insert shady operator here] would all go out of business without the need to break down the problems (perceived or otherwise) at TC and the TSB.

Revenue comes from trips. Pilots refuse to do trips under shitty circumstances (maintenance, weather, loads, whatever) and there's no revenue. The company either changes it's tune or goes out of business. Period.

[CID]

Has he ever admitted the deliberate high approach, or is that speculation?

He hasn't to my knowledge but what other explaination would there be? He was flying the ILS and using needles that would have fed the autopilot anyway.

Anyhow I sure hope this court case and conviction of this pilot jolts every pilot on earth to say no when that is the correct decision to make....if pilots refused to break the law the Keystones of aviation would be forced to abide by the rules.

Yes. Totally agree and have raised this point before. Of course when I state it, I get some smarmy feeback about how the poor pilots can't resist cohersion.

[Cat Driver]

Yes. Totally agree and have raised this point before. Of course when I state it, I get some smarmy feeback about how the poor pilots can't resist cohersion.

The reasons why pilots have bowed to coercion and intimidation to fly in non compliance of the rules are due to companies being able to just plain fire those who refuse to go along with these actions.

Pilots have known that if they stand up and refuse they will be out of work and replaced by someone who will do as the operator wants.

There has been no recourse for these pilots who have been fired for refusing to break the rules.

I can speak from experience as I have been fired for refusing to fly in contravention of law.

I very early in my career learned not to seek help from TC as that just made things worse.

Now there is a whole new reason for pilots to refuse and hopefully they will.

[CD]

Flight Safety Australia: The 156-Tonne Gimli Glider

[CID]

I can speak from experience as I have been fired for refusing to fly in contravention of law.

And that's why you've managed to become an "old" pilot. You didn't bow to pressure to be a "bold" pilot.

[Cat Driver]

And that's why you've managed to become an "old" pilot. You didn't bow to pressure to be a "bold" pilot.

You really think so?

How about all the support I got from TC?

Don't you think that was the reason for my success?

[anonymity]

The reasons why pilots have bowed to coercion and intimidation to fly in non compliance of the rules are due to companies being able to just plain fire those who refuse to go along with these actions.

Pilots have known that if they stand up and refuse they will be out of work and replaced by someone who will do as the operator wants.

There has been no recourse for these pilots who have been fired for refusing to break the rules.

Couldn't agree more, I have been Fired, wait "Laid off" for this and when I approached the people who are supposed to be there to enforce the regulations, I was told, that they treat complaints from pilots who were "laid off" as a complaint made by a disgruntled employee therefore baseless and embelished. It's also very hard to prove.
I myself have been very stubborn over the years even when I had 250 hrs and was flying a single for a norhtern operator who has since been shutdown and is now operating a medevac operation, hope I was vague enough to protect the innocent. He Told me once that the 45 min reserve was there to be used for deviating around known CB'S, I said no it's for the unforseen not the reported line of storms I would have to go around. Long story short if I took the extra fuel and left freight behind there would be consequences. I had my pink slip shortly there after. There were many instances in my short stay with them.
I have many other instances with other operators and my advice to someone in this position would be go to radio shack get a little pocket recorder and get them on tape when they put pressure on you to do something. Without proof T.C is more useless than usual.
I used to worry that if I reported an operator for this I could be blackballed from the industry, the truth is you don't want to work for anyone who wouldn't hire you for reporting someone else, if they don't want you they are probably just as bad.

I also worked for an operator out of St.Andrews and when I was "laid off"
I didn't even consider going to "Drops like a stone" knowing what I knew then, they had a reputation going way back. That knick name came from the previous incidents in the forest short of the runway. I chose to drive a truck until something better came along.

I feel for Mark, as he is the example that has been needed for quite some time, he's not the first and certainly won't be the last to break the regs and make bad decisions(unfortunatley)

I also don't believe T.C doesn't know whats going on there, I asked an enforcement guy why a certain company at that airport hadn't had a major audit in quite some time, his response, they haven't had an accident or hurt(killed) anyone so they are kinda staying under the radar.
So I said you're reactive instead of proactive and was told they didn't have the manpower to handle all of the operators.

[TheEvilTwin]

Pushing this topic a little further.... I find the fact that we can "legally" be pushed 14-15 hours a day ridiculous... I personally think its the stupidest F'n rule around... Honestly guys and gals how safe are you coming onto the 12th or 13th hour flying in IMC all day, doing approaches down to minimums, and the fact you've probably been awake for 14 hours already... Come 10 hours I've had enough of it already and just wanna go home. Its just another contributing factor to incidents and accidents that is legally approved... but if you pull the fatigue card you're just going to get written up by management.... go figure

[Liquid Charlie]

I have to agree -- the law makers are boot kissing idiots -- they have good examples from other countries - not U S of A --- on how the rules could be written -- there is far too much influence from operators -- look at the approach ban -- it boggles the mind - what ever happened to the KISS way -- there certainly one place that there is no common sense at work --

[Doc]

The ONLY reason companies can fire a pilot for refusing a trip due to weather, loads, duty hours, or what have you, is that very low life form standing behind him. I speak of the "pond scum" pilot who will, after one of his peers says "NO", will step up to the "plate" and say "YES"!
I've had more than a few calls to do a trip that one of my fellow pilots has turned down. If he's turned down a trip for a legal reason, I just roll another one, or have a another beer!
I think Widow brought up the point of backing our peers when they exercise their right to say "NO"? It's a good point.
Nothing will emasculate a pilot faster than saying..."Well, if you won't do the trip, Captain Suckass-asskiss, will be more than happy for the miles!"!!
Do not be this person!

[goldeneagle]

The ONLY reason companies can fire a pilot for refusing a trip due to weather, loads, duty hours, or what have you, is that very low life form standing behind him. I speak of the "pond scum" pilot who will, after one of his peers says "NO", will step up to the "plate" and say "YES"!
I've had more than a few calls to do a trip that one of my fellow pilots has turned down. If he's turned down a trip for a legal reason, I just roll another one, or have a another beer!
I think Widow brought up the point of backing our peers when they exercise their right to say "NO"? It's a good point.
Nothing will emasculate a pilot faster than saying..."Well, if you won't do the trip, Captain Suckass-asskiss, will be more than happy for the miles!"!!
Do not be this person!

We are on the same team doc, always have been, spouting the same stuff in different ways.

The thing about your scenario that is often 'just a little different', the guy you call 'captian suckass' is actually 'captain been there-done that', and uses his/her boatload of local knowledge to make different decisions.

My primary example of this, take the run from vancouver out to tofino. Tofino is an interesting place, there is often a 'localized' weather phenomena out there that makes it look like 100-1/2 to the official observer, but, in reality, it's a lot better than that on every other part of the airport. I cant count the number of times I've done the approach into that field, to have the entire length of the runway plainly visible from the beacon, and yet the official report is less than a mile.

So, now we have the scenario, captain new-kid has been assigned a trip to tofino, and checks the weather. The forecast has light to moderate mixed on the way over, and the field is reporting 500-1/2. Capn new-kid correctly decides that the weather is not going to give a good probability of actually arriving, so wants to scrub the trip. Thats when I get involved, being the old fart captain been there-done that, many times. I have local knowledge of the phenomena that always makes official weather at the field report way worse than it normally turns out to be with regards to ceiling and visibility. So, I go to the lighthouse reports from the west coast, and check what THEY report. For the most part, they are reporting light rain, visibility of 5 to 10 miles. Now I know, the airport report is more than likely a localized phenomena, which I often suspect to be pot smoke between the observer and the window, but that's just a personal suspicion with no evidence to back it up.

The run to tofino out of vancouver is interesting, passes thru a few microcosm of different climates. First you leave from yvr, and head out over the ocean, then you cross a mountain range, and finally descend into a coastal mist, all in less than 200 miles. The icing forecast is 'to be expected' and invariably comes from stratus being pushed up into those mountains. So, I consider what I see in the reports, and, what I've seen many many times before with similar reports. If the lighthouses have good vis, lets put on a good jag of 'granny fuel' so we have the option to do a lot of extra climbing, and lets go take a good look out the windshield. Off we go. Capn new-kid probably originally filed down near the mea, it's a short trip, but, I'll change that bit, take us up another 6 or 8 thousand feet. On 7 out of 10 days on the west coast, that's the difference between slogging along inside the cu, and sitting either in blue sky, or between layers, looking down at the tops of the lowest layer. We do the climb over that first chunk of ocean, and are sitting happy in the clear crossing the rocks.

The next phase is the approach into the airport. Since it's a rather high mea leading into the beacon, and, there's really no way to get down early, it's almost always a case of running around the racetrack to descend. Add to this my personal paranoia, I dont descend into ice until the mea below is below the freezing level, so I'm going to likely stay high to the beacon, and do an extra lap around the racetrack. The racetrack is pretty much over the ocean, so, if there is a bit of ice on the way down, we know it's not going to be a show stopper, we will be down thru the freezing level well before we get down to the ractrack minimums. If fl is below the racetrack minimum, we didn't leave in the first place. After a trip around the shuttle, we go inbound, and down to the MDA. 7 out of 10 times you do this, by the time you get to the beacon inbound, the whole runway will be visible, but, you can already see from the beacon, on the far side of the airport, it's pushed up in the hill, so, going around to the other side and getting turned into wind is not an option. It's decision time, take 10 knots on the tail and go strait in, or put on the power and head home. For most of the airplanes used on that run, 10 knots on the tail into that runway is not a big deal, and is a much smarter choice than trying to fly around the circuit and get nose to the wind with the .. pushed up into the hill on the other end. If the wind is actually blowing 40, we are going home, but likely didn't even leave in the first place.


But, that's all changed now too. Capn been there-done that is now completely overridden by the new approach ban stuff. The decision has been taken away from pilot, and placed in the hands of the wx observer. If the reports are 500-1/2, it no matters what reality is, we cant go. Capn new kid can no longer be co-erced by capn suckass, and capn been there-done that may as well take his 30 years of hard won local knowledge, and toss it down the gutter. We now have an approach ban that takes the pilot decisions, and puts them in the hands of the wx observer. This is somehow going to make the world a better and safer place.

So tell me Doc, prior to approach ban becoming definitive on this trip, if I used my years of local knowledge experience to make a different decision, toss on a jag of granny fuel, and go take a look, does this make me a low life pond scum?

[Doc]

You are not "pond scum" as long as some common sense enters into the equation, and the "new guy" isn't being pressured by the company to push his limits. Whole different ball game. If the company IS really pushing the guy, and belittles him by calling you, then you should have another beer. You know that. I'll sometimes take trip if, for example, the wind is up to a point where someone new is uncomfortable. But then, I kind of specialize in strong crosswinds. No, I'm talking more legal issues. Overloads. Obvious weather below limits. Not an experience issue. More when they use YOU to belittle, or to bully. We all know the situations of which I speak.
Cheers

[xsbank]

We used to go into Whatchamacallit Lake on Nootka Island and we'd file IFR, go over the top and go direct Estevan Point, where we'd do a descent in a racetrack heading out to sea if the lighthouse was good enough, clear of cloud we'd cancel and noodle off to Nootka, VFR. The return was the same, VFR to Estevan, climb and pick-up a clearance back to YVR.

Same for Rivers Inlet, IFR to Egg Island, descend, cancel with Port Hardy, VFR to Rivers and back the same way.

It was routine then, but the lighthouses all gave great reports.

[bob sacamano]

Keystone is known for using pilots against each other. They would call you and tell you specifically who it was that turned down the weather because they were scared. They use these actual terms. And you better believe it, the other pilots will take the flight and go.

The owner of keystone would later use these examples in pilot meetings, and threatens that if pilots refuse flights, they will be even paid less than the peanuts that he pays them.

So not only does he bully the pilots and use them against each other, he threatens to reduce their wages.

[Doc]

And still, they work for him....walks away shaking head....

[Cat Driver]

Keystone is known for using pilots against each other. They would call you and tell you specifically who it was that turned down the weather because they were scared. They use these actual terms. And you better believe it, the other pilots will take the flight and go.

The owner of keystone would later use these examples in pilot meetings, and threatens that if pilots refuse flights, they will be even paid less than the peanuts that he pays them.

So not only does he bully the pilots and use them against each other, he threatens to reduce their wages.

This is just another example of why the industry is the way it is and why so many people have died for no good reason.

We can argue forever about the responsibility of the PIC to refuse to submit to such tactics, but as long as these operators are allowed to operate nothing will change.

Does anyone here think that SMS will change how companies like this operate?

[Wilbur]

Sounds like somebody needs to be willing to take a salary reduction right down to zero, and then give this guy a corresponding reduction in the number of teeth remaining in his mouth.

[bob sacamano]

This is just another example of why the industry is the way it is and why so many people have died for no good reason.

We can argue forever about the responsibility of the PIC to refuse to submit to such tactics, but as long as these operators are allowed to operate nothing will change.

Does anyone here think that SMS will change how companies like this operate?

Their "SMS" test project was made by the crooked ex-TC employee that works for them as ops manager.

Does that answer your question?