Guest_From_Mars wrote: He did not have the transport Canada required amount of fuel, but he did have enough fuel to make it...
...Does anyone really think management didn't have a part to play in this, there just no way. No one would push that far unless someone was pushing them.
Enough fuel to make it? Enough fuel to get the mains on the runway and taxi into the apron had he flown the ILS properly... would YOU leave with that much fuel as a professional pilot? Would you leave with that much fuel as a rec pilot?
He knew he was on fumes and had a fuel gauge reading empty before he shot the approach. He flew it high in order to keep some gliding distance from what I was told... which is what ultimately put him on Logan Ave.
There is absolutely no way that the pilot should go down alone. The CP, OPS mngr and the weasel owners as well. What a crock of sh*t eh! It wouldn't surprise me if the owners etc pin the whole thing on the pilot and try coming away smelling like a rose. The culture was obviously extremely suspect with that organization.
It might be helpful (Wilber could maybe comment here) to point out that putting this pilot in prison (or house arrest) is only a feel-good measure designed perhaps to make passengers feel safer getting on an airplane.
Putting a murderer behind bars ensures that they will not murder again. Putting a child-molester in Stony will mean that your kids will be safe from him. Putting a pilot whose career is over in the slammer is not going to benefit society in the least!! (Don't feed me crap about the "deterrent" ; dying in a cart wheeling airplane is a far more compelling one and we ALL deal with that possibility every day).
I'm sure almost everyone of us who are pointing the finger at the pilot are pilots and we as a group love to weigh in with "what really happened" and thus reassure ourselves that it could never happen to us. As cut and dried as this case seems to be (he didn't have enough gas to make his destination IFR for christ's sake!) we don't have all the facts. Maybe we also need to remember that for whatever reason, we are ALL lucky that WE never went cart wheeling through a city intersection.
Lastly, even the exalted S&J has broken the speed limit while driving to work (except that he would never be late) and if he were to get into an accident and kill someone, by the self-righteous logic of his posts he would be culpable of the same offence as this pilo
Some have argued on this thread that in the future prosecuting a pilot will be used only when there is suffiecient evidence of gross negligence.
They are missing the fact that the judicial system in Canada is highly politicized. How much time and money did the crown waste in trying to build a case agaist Brian Mulroney in the Airbus scandal with basically no evidence. Just something to think about.
---------- ADS -----------
"Hey there's a plane! And where there's a plane, there's a pilot. And where there's a pilot there's a bar!"
Neverever - thanks for the flattery about my age. Unfortunately, I have seen my share of hallowe'en's.
As for my position, my posts in this thread have mainly been aimed at correcting some inaccurate statements regarding our legal system, and providing some links to similar legal situations for everyone's consideration.
I am in favour of our country's laws being applied fairly and equally throughout without bias - that's all. You'll notice I suggested that we not proclaim this particular pilot guilty or innocent before his actual trial.
Some people here have been saying "hang" this fellow, however, many like myself are simply saying that he should face due process if the crown has the evidence to support a criminal charge. Personally, I don't know much about this case other than that he ran out of gas and crashed on a Winnipeg street. None of us have a clue what evidence the police and crown have. Let the system work, it usually does.
The idea of punishing this guy if convicted will speak primarily to the principle of general deterrence. That is, it will cause others to think twice before doing the same thing. Perhaps it works, perhaps it doesn't, but that is the theory. Personally, I think it works better than the fear of the natural consequence of rolling yourself up in a ball. It's easy to tell yourself your to good to have that happen. But once you have exposed yourself to the justice system you have given up control of what happens regardless of how good a pilot you think you are. Punishing perpetrators of crimes also helps provide some sense of justice to the victims and the victims families.
As to TSB vs police investigators; no contest. A police detective will conduct more investigations in a year than a TSB investigator will in a lifetime. They get more and better training, and more practice (that's probably a good thing). The TSB guys will, of course, be much better in unravelling the unique aviation technical aspects of the investigation. At least that's my opinion.
And yes, most of us have done things, that if they went wrong, would have put us in this very same situation. Such is life. Better to be lucky than good, and kids, hope like hell you grow up and act responsibly before you do this sort of thing to yourself.
Guest from Mars....your post worries me. Are you with Keystone? Your remarks about "he knew it would be tighter than.." or words to that afect? It's just the fact that you think it was Okay...that he had enough fuel to "make it". Good Gawd man, with the pin-point accuracy of a Navajos fuel guages....you would TRUST them?? Then this WILL happen to you as well! That scares the living shit out of me! There are no fuel guages in any aircraft that should be trusted! They should be considered "paper weights"!
He knew it would be tight, yet overflew places to land and get gas! The airplane wasen't full the morning of the flight, and he knew it. It's been a few years since I've flown a 'ho, but I KNOW it cant do the trip in question without full fuel...I know this..he should know this!
You stated he used "block fuel numbers"...then TC (the toothless wonders) should lock you doors and throw away the keys!!!
I feel the autopilot is a non issue...but it'll loom really large as far as this guy's ability to make the right decision goes.
And yes, several of us have punched it down that extra hundred feet. Usually it's an educated move, preformed when something is visible below. And most of the time we actually have enough fuel to piss off if nothing is seen!
As far as extra weight goes...yes some are guilty of the heinous crime of being overweight because we carry enough fuel to actually get the trip done. I have never seen TC go after anyone because they were overweight by extra fuel.
While I am against this going to court as a criminal case, because of the precident it'll set, posts like yours, defending an undefendable situation makes me wonder. Do we NEED to send a message?
This thread got me thinking, I wonder if more murders have been justified by religion or by the quest for profits? Sometimes "God is on our side" sounds a lot like "Have to make a buck somehow".
Rebel wrote:Doc is perfectly correct in his assertion that this charge is without precedent in the Western World. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened before. Regardless if the pilot is completely in the wrong this is not the way that we should let the profession precede.
Hey TC where are you in this regard?
Actually this has happened before. Anyone remember the story about a British Airways 747 lining up to land on the M5 mistaking it for the runway? He did a missed and barely cleared the roof of a hotel.
His F/O and engineer were both incapacitated at the time and had been removed from the flight deck. He did a single pilot approach to minimums and had been vectored too close for the auto pilot to capture the localizer.
Anyway, he landed on the second approach, was charged with criminal negligence, convicted and he committed suicide before his sentencing.
Once again, the pilot should definately not do down alone.....absolutely not....!
Just becuse the guylanded in the middle of Winnipeg,is what he did anymore tragic or lawless than the ho' pilot who went below mins in Fort Liard two yrs ago? Some of the passenegers died of exposure with himself narrowly escaping death??? Both events were conducted with the respective crews 100% cognitive of their environment and the risks yet chose to proceed. The pilot of the ho crash in FT Liard is still 75% F--ked up for pete's sake.
We are all liable and responsible for the decisions we make....NO???
How about the American Eagle crew( I think) that were caught under the influence???? Huge penalty for them wouldn't you say??? I don't think the pilot should ever turn a prop again personally....and along with him should be the CP, OPS mngr because they knew the shit that was goung on yet played the game as well.
cpt sweet'njuicy wrote:
It is because I have been busted that I am the way I am..you could learn a thing or 9 from my fuk ups. I am no longer ashamed of them..its just the past and hard lessons. I never even came close to killing anyone..wasnt that type of fuk up.
No I'm not stupid enough to bust regs repeatedly.
You know Im a convicted fuk up because I decided to tell you I was...to turn and use that against me is shallow and ineffective...you remind me of a woman...gathering bits of personal info and then using it against you in front of your friends...truelly witless.....get new material. You are the type of person that stops people from sharing anything on this forum...nice work...you really Keystoned that reply
I did mention that you were an admitted fuk up did I not? I gather reading isn't one of your skills, certainly can't be compared to your ability to beak off and offend. The point I was trying to get through to your little pea brain is that you of all people should be somewhat sympathetic to the guy. Luckily for you there isn't the three strikes and you're out policy or you'd be flipping burgers at McBarf for a living. He only screwed up once; on the other hand, seem to take a little longer to learn from mistakes. Despite your vitriol to the contrary; that's what he made, a mistake. Granted, a stupid one; but still a mistake. Do you, from your all seeing all knowing position; honestly think he wouldn't take it back in a heartbeat if he couldn't? I'm not stopping anyone from sharing anything on this forum, myself included; but if you're going to be a hypocrite about it, bet your ass i'm going to call you on it!
...dont bring up the bible again ..if you are a believer of this"document" ill type things here that will make you so angry you will use a potato peeler to remove all your skin and jump out the fuking window ...try to leave "god" out of the general section please
I'll quote anything I please on the forum, from the bible to the Simpsons; who the hell are you to tell anybody what they can and can't quote? For the record, the last time I was in a church for any purpose other than the death of friends; either by natural causes or marriage, probably half the denizens of Avcanada weren't even born yet.
S&J, you are one odd duck man. I can't say I agree with just about anything you post, but they have a certain entertainment value. Kinda on par with a traveling freak show.
Been reading through all the responses on this thread. Very interesting.
It's no secret that flying an airplane is mostly about decision making. I believe it also to be true, that flying, as in most of life, is 10% what happens to you, and 90% how you deal with it.
I don't know all of the circumstances around this particular accident, but I did personally know the pilot who flew the Navajo into the river bank of the Liard river on a night, non-precision approach, in hard IFR (as was alluded to earlier).
The bottom line as I see it in the Keystone accident and any other accident is that they mostly occur due to a chain of events and poor decision making. If the pilot makes a bad call, about fuel or weather, or whatever, and crashes or kills someone in the process, then he has failed at his duties, as has the company, and now the courts are going to decide their fate.
You're the PIC and have the final say. It's all up to you.
---------- ADS -----------
"Come down, your head is in the sky, feet on the ground...come down."
shimmydampener wrote:S&J, you are one odd duck man. I can't say I agree with just about anything you post, but they have a certain entertainment value. Kinda on par with a traveling freak show.
No he's not odd, he's just a pathetic excuse for a human being who can't add anything of value to a discussion so he shoots for controversy. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view; he's not very good at that either.
Unfortunately when we choose to make the decisions that where made that led to this accident, you role the dice my friends. When snake eyes appear you pay the piper whether you like it or not....often in more ways than one.
Bottom line is that he should never fly again. Period. There has to be accountability in the industry...NO. Lets not forget that this isn't the first time type of thing has happened for this operator. How many chances should they have anyway?????
I would F--king walk before I would fly with those guys.
So if this pilot should never fly again what about the many before him who killed passengers through making bad decisions, some of which are still flying?
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat Driver...I think we have to bear in mind that every situation is different. Huge difference between making a decision that after the benefit of hindsight was the wrong one, versus one that was negligent. i.e. you experience a double engine failure and you carry a little too much airspeed causing you to land long, you skid off the end and kill a passenger. Upon reflection you wouldn’t have come in as hot but should you end up in court? Was your speed decision negligent…No I think not. Compare that with a guy who decides he will cut back on the fuel to make sure that he is as light as possible coming out of short, soft gravel/mud strip loaded with 6 linebackers and a ton of gear. He works the numbers and takes just enough fuel to get to the lodge and back to his airport of departure…no alternate fuel, as a matter of fact no reserve fuel, if lands straight in on his homeward leg he might have enough fuel if and when he gets on the ground to taxi back to the hanger. End result he misses the first approach and before he can turn a round and get lined-up with another runway the tanks fill with air and you’re parked in the middle of the city. You survived, one of your passengers didn’t…you have the benefit of hindsight, upon reflection you would have taken more fuel but should you end up in court? Was your fuel management decision negligent…I think so.
At the time of your decision, skidding off the end was not foreseeable, but in the other scenario running out of fuel before you were safe and sound on the ground was predictable and your decision to trade fuel for safety is what makes you negligent and puts you in court.
Snj, don't flatter yourself; although I can see where you would, since no one else on this forum has anything good to say about you. Take my word for it, i've been dishing it out for a long time; the difference between us is that I intersperse my sarcasm with opinions that are actually thought out and once in a while even helpful.
The premis that I am operating under is that we only get so many chances before we run out of lives.....if you know what I mean. We have an obligation to ourselves and our employers who we represent, not to mention the moral obligation we have to the customer sitting in the back. These paying travelers who are by and large fairly ignorant to the goings on behind the scenes and underlying stresses... assume their flight will be uneventfull barring any unforseen circumstances.
Assuming accidents will happen in and of themselves dare we tempt fate yet again by willing of our own volition make decisions that put ourselves and others at greater risk than we are already under???
Perhaps the next time we get the scatter brained idea in our heads that we should break the rules, perhaps we should include the customer in our decisions and see what he/she thinks.
Soooooooo Cat driver, let bygones be bygones. What happened yesterday is done. We have to crank the accountability factor up abit I think. Unfortunately the decisions we make drctly effect whether people live or die.....therefore that must come with a hightened sense of responsibility and accountabity. So I do believe that his flying career should be over... and since crap flows uphill in this industry so should the CP and OPS MNGRs as well.
This isn't pointed at you Cat or anyone else out there. Those of us out there who take the risks are in essence F--king the customer over. They are being ripped off!!! Perhaps we should ask them if we should bust mins today????? I bet they will help us live another day.
I am on your side as far as this issue is concerned, there is zero excuse for deliberately endangering any flight.. No excuse period.
It is just that this case has caught everyone by suprise and it will take some time to sort out what is about to happen.
If anyone in aviation "Hates " crooked operators and management that enables these parisites to the break rules it is me....If I had my way I'd chain these pricke to rocks up in the high Arctic and they could fight the husky dogs for food.
Cat
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
