Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash

southbound · Post by **southbound** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:56 pm

FLYING NEWF........

I am trying really hard to think of a good reason why you are taking a defensive posture of this fellow who deliberatly flew a trip knowing he would not land with the required minimum fuel on board the a/c. Work with me here champ????? If you had been reading the previous posts you would know that we all agree that there is a difference between an accident and a willfull decision to do something that elevates the risk factor of a trip.....agreed?

Threrefore, I am assuming that this fellow is your friend and you are feeling like he is being unfairly treated or judged in this thread. Remove yourself from the emotional side for one minute and you will come face to face with same conclusions as the rest of us...... fuel doesn't magically wind up in the tanks all on its own. From my experience you have to actually land somewhere and have a refueller put it in. Maybe it's different in Manitoba. I persoanally would not trust this individual to make a common sense decision in any other scenario if he has demonstrated a willingness to push something like this to the absolute outer limit!

PS how do you train for common sense........?

So, I will enjoy the walk thankyou.

southbound · Post by **southbound** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm

FLYING NEWF.....

You've got me pissed off now. Before you start defending someone why don't you personalize it a bit. Would you still feel the same way if your mother or wife or family was on board the plane? Before you piss in everyones cornflakes step back and take an objective point of view...if that is possible.

Second of all Keystone shouldn't be given a second chance to become a " Good Company"

PS....Now I'm really going to enjoy my F--king walk!

Flying Newf · Post by **Flying Newf** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:33 pm

Southbound – show me where I defended the guy

I just don’t think that aviation can be justly policed by civilian courts. Where do you draw the jurisdictional line? All I‘m trying to make clear to some of you not so intelligent apes is that the company is different now…different pilots and operations…so slag the pilot all you want…he f*cked up and should never fly again. He has lost his career, he probably beats himself up daily …if he is any kinda human being at all. Does he need to do time as well? Most of the guys who fly there now weren’t even around when the sh*t came down. Just regular pilots trying to make a living, they seem like a good bunch of guys…so cut them some slack. They too, cannot be guilty by association.

I hope you don't walk into a sh*t storm

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:46 pm

Let's say a bus driver knew his bus was in lousy shape - bald tires, steering shot, worn suspension, etc., and decided to chance it and take out on the highway because a full load of passengers want to go skiing at Whistler.

He comes around a sharp corner on the Sea to Sky highway, starts sliding and loses control, goes over a hill, and a passenger is killed.

He'd likely be charged with "Criminal Negligence Causing Death"

Flying Newf says, "He has lost his career, he probably beats himself up daily …if he is any kinda human being at all. Does he need to do time as well?"

Who would agree with Newf?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:07 pm

I would agree with jail time if they put the Ops. Manager and the Chief Pilot in jail with him.

Maybe that would get the message across to the rest of aviation?

Cat

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:48 pm

centerstored wrote:
shitdisturber wrote: a human being who can't add anything of value to a discussion so he shoots for controversy
Sorry, but I found this comment quite ironic and humorous given YOUR name....SHITDISTURBER!?

Hey I don't deny it; I like to stir up the pot for the sheer enjoyment of watching someone else's blood pressure rise.

That being said, I notice you chose to ignore the other half of my statement where I mentioned that my opinions were at least thought out and i'm not above being helpful where the situation warrants.

southbound · Post by **southbound** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:51 pm

Absolutley......I think the pilot would never have done what he did unless there was pressure from above.....or at least a culture that was propogated from above. The CP and OPS MNGRs were cognizant of all that was going on there at the time. They could all share the same cell....:)

Flying newf.....I definately think that the civilian judicial system can handle the situation....and I think they can handle it with far more competence than TC can. If you doubt that for any reason take a look at they way some of the TC inspectors and even some of the Superintendants interperate the CARS....even in your region.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:06 pm

The judicial system has lawyers with credentials to demonstrate they are trained in law.

The judicial system has judges who are likewise qualified for the position.

The judicial system has police officers who are trained and familiar with the job they do.

And last but not least the judicial system will give you the opportunity to be tried by a jury.

Transport Canada on the other hand hires their people based on ???......based on????.......

O.K. I've been thinking about what they look for in qualifications and can't pin it down, but for sure they have a lot of losers who couldn't make it working outside the protected cocoon of a Government position.

So you are at the mercy of people who may well be untrained and unqualified for the positions they hold.

There are two very frightening problems you can run into at the hands of TC, one is even if they are wrong it matters not if they decide to punish you they can and will and their bosses will never, never, admit wrongdoing on the part of any TC official.

The second frightening issue is should you appeal to TC's version of a Judge and Jury you will be at the mercy of another group that are appointed to their positions and could easily be nothing more than political hacks getting a little Baksheesh Canadian style.

Yeh, the more I think about this the more I am begenning to think that the courts may be the best way to resolve such issues.

Cat

southbound · Post by **southbound** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:02 pm

Cat....I 110% agree with you on this issue. TC has on many occasions proven their incompetence in CARS interpretation scenarios.....and demonstrated pure and simple concern only for their own liability than anything else. It's almost as if they think they exist only and soley for themselves.....they play a vital role in the support structure of general aviation....helping and providing advisory fctns and even the occasional violation for good measure......yet they have limitations as well, did I actually say that?????

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:33 pm

Cat;

Good post. And, here's a few examples of these professionals being subject to criminal law

"The judicial system has lawyers with credentials to demonstrate they are trained in law. "

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/ ... 54-ap.html

"The judicial system has judges who are likewise qualified for the position."

http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.c ... 0fraud.htm

"The judicial system has police officers who are trained and familiar with the job they do."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toron ... /2004.html

If members of these distinguished professions are subject to Canada's criminal code in the course of their work, why shouldn't pilots be??? These professions have a higher standing than pilots surely......

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:48 pm

golden hawk wrote:Cat;

Good post. And, here's a few examples of these professionals being subject to criminal law

"The judicial system has lawyers with credentials to demonstrate they are trained in law. "

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/ ... 54-ap.html

"The judicial system has judges who are likewise qualified for the position."

http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.c ... 0fraud.htm

"The judicial system has police officers who are trained and familiar with the job they do."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toron ... /2004.html

If members of these distinguished professions are subject to Canada's criminal code in the course of their work, why shouldn't pilots be??? These professions have a higher standing than pilots surely......

A slight difference there goldie; these "professionals" are sworn to uphold the law and are held to a higher standard on that basis. Or at least they should be. Unfortunately all too often, especially in the case of the police, they are found to be no better than the rest of us; or worse since quite often the "thin blue line" will cover for them.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:05 pm

......then, by your own statement SD, since pilots aren't held to this higher standard, they are the same as a bus driver or trucker facing criminal charges as mentioned earlier in this thread.

http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/V ... nspo041007

Sorry, but there should be no immunity from the law regardless of your occupation (the one notable exception being MP's named Svend)

Flying Newf · Post by **Flying Newf** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:10 pm

Cat Driver -- it sounds like you have been around for a while. How often has an ops manager or a chief pilot come and dipped your tanks

You have a PPC, you are qualified to know how much fuel you have on board. I have been in aviation for a while and I have worked for some bad companies

(as has anyone who has been in the industry for a while). I have never had a boss come to me and say “hey, I see you have the bare minimum legal fuel on your flight plan, think you could knock off the 30 min reserve and throw that case of fried chicken on? I’ll have the tug ready to come tow ya off the runway when ya glide her in. GOOD LUCK??

” In fact I have had the opposite. I have had bosses come to me and say take a little extra today the Wx isn’t so good

.

I have never met this pilot. I’ve only heard of him and from what I’ve heard he was a top-notch pilot and a genuinely nice guy. Most say he is the last one anyone would have expected this to happen to. For a guy like that this to leave without enough fuel to complete the trip…do you really think it was intentional? For god sakes he was in the plane too. He just had every pilot’s worst nightmare, and he left his brain at home that day. . Granted his judgment was not top notch that particular day…any number of scenarios could have played themselves out and this would have ended very differently. I don't know what he was thinking, & neither do any of you.

I am not a religious man, but many nights I have prayed that I never have that bad a day!

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:19 pm

Flying Newf et al

Perhaps you should read the TSB report, if you haven't done so already.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/200 ... 2C0124.asp

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:40 pm

I just gave the report a quick glance but it seemed to me that TC were giving him a defence in the report. It stated something to the effect that he miscalculated the time required for the trip; which should eliminate the criminal negligence charge. An error in calculation does not negligence make.

Granted he didn't have legal fuel now matter how you slice it but a good lawyer should be able to argue that if not for the error in time required for the trip, the accident never would have happened. I still maintain that having lost his career and the guilt he has to face every day; is punishment enough.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:55 pm

Remorse is not a defense, though - it may help with sentencing.

By the was, I haven't said at anytime in this thread that this pilot is guilty or innocent - in fact I have said we should leave this pilot be.

What I have said throughout is that pilots are subject to criminal law just as everyone else is.

Also, when debating these issues, speak from facts, and don't be emotional. There has been some incorrect statements here and some childish mudslinging.

This thread is a good one - let's keep the discussion professional. People like Cat and Wilbur have made excellent points, and make these forums worth reading.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:57 pm

Flying Newf. :

It is not my desire to get into a discussion on a personal basis with you because it will solve nothing.

I also have been around for a while, in fact long enough to know that any Chief Pilot or Ops Manager who is truly doing their duty to ensure safety do not need to dip tanks, because there are many other ways to determine how safe or unsafe " ALL" the pilots are flying under their supervision.

I have been Chief Pilot for quite a few companies flying both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft and I can assure you that I knew how each and every one of the pilots under my supervision flew, and if they were risk takers I gave them a chance to correct their behaviour. If they did not I terminated their employment.

I also refused to bend to any owner of any company who tried to intimidate me into doing things that were unsafe and consequently had to leave several of these companies.

There are just to many operators who skirt around the rules and some are chronic law breakers.

These companies hire Chief Pilots and Ops. Managers who will do as they are told and consequently at the line pilot level they are really under intense intimidation to bend and break the rules.

The system has been like this ever since I can remember and it will remain so until someone really does more than just give lip service to safety.

Cat

southbound · Post by **southbound** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:07 pm

Ok.....lets assume for a moment that he miscalculated the time req to do the trip....just like we all have done at somepoint in the past. Or he ran into unseasonable headwinds etc...What I have done in this situation once I realized that I was going to be lower on fuel than I had planned or wasn't going to make it with my req fuel reserves.....I diverted to an airport enroute and p/u some gas. I cannot comprehend no matter how I try...how you can plod along watching the fuel levels go down and realizing that your ETA is the same as your tanks empty time.............and yet not duck into an airport and get some gas.......help me out here.

Am I way out to lunch or is there a huge gap in the thought process here. At the very least there should have been a missed approach and alternate fuel plus 45 min left in the tanks upon arrival at Winnipeg????????????????????????????? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:20 pm

A thought for pilots in the Winnipeg area, and others who could get to Winnipeg.

Find out when and where the trial is, and try to attend, or at least keep up with it - it may not get national media coverage.

You'd serve several purposes.

1) You'd learn more about how this accident developed, and be safer for it hopefully (the old 'learn from others' motto)

2) You could observe and learn how the trial process works (and why you don't want to be cross-examined by a sharp lawyer under oath)

3) You could post observations on this forum and talk about what you witness to others throughout your career.

Further advice for everyone. Learn about law (and learn about insurance). You can't escape them in aviation, or in life.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:25 pm

south I don't think anyone is arguing that huge mistakes weren't made. They were let's face facts here. The whole argument is whether or not he deserves to go to jail for it. This is not some incident a la Todd Bertuzzi where he chased someone around the rink before sucker punching him; this is a case of someone who thought they were going to be ok and found to their horror they weren't. What probably infuriates me most is that if he's found guilty; he'll probably get a stiffer sentence than Bert will, who has a few million witnesses to his attack.

As for the fuel guages, i've always had a simple rule that I passed to every student I ever flew with as an instructor and still use today; "only trust a fuel guage when it reads empty." Which brings up another point, did the guages work in that aircraft and if so, how accurate were they?

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:26 pm

Anyone who's flown the HO knows that you'd have had a better chance winning the super 7, than making it to YWG from Gunisao without a fuel stop, IFR, with your alternate fuel and reserve gas. Sorry, but try again! Sounds like the Newf has some deep emotional attachments to this poor excuse for an airline. And, no I'm sure the managers didn't say to fly without fuel in so many words, but it's all about the job they expect you to do with the equipment you have!?

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:03 pm

I believe he left Swan with gas and when he got to YWG he didn't add any for the return trip to Gunisao. How could he not know he didn't have enough gas?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Back in 1999 when we flew to Gunisao, Keystone had a fuel cache at the strip. Was there no cache this time?

tripleseven · Post by **tripleseven** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:28 pm

From the Criminal Code:

Motor Vehicles, Vessels and Aircraft

Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft
249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;

(b) a vessel or any water skis, surf-board, water sled or other towed object on or over any of the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of those waters or sea and the use that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be made of those waters or sea;

(c) an aircraft in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of that aircraft or the place or air space in or through which the aircraft is operated; or

(d) railway equipment in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of the equipment or the place in or through which the equipment is operated.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Dangerous operation causing death
(4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 249; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 57; 1994, c. 44, s. 11.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Ifly · Post by **Ifly** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:22 am

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:36 am

Ifly :

Just thinking about outfits such as Keystone makes me go nuts with pure revultion.

But could you maybe fill me in on the ex TC person that is now Ops Manager?

Was he / she in the Winnipeg TC office before Keystone finally had a fatal?

And if so in what position?

Cat