The former TC guy was with enforcement in both the prarie and atlantic regions.
I am interested in what those accusing us of still breaking rules have to say. If you guys have some solid information, such as dates and times, locations, idents of the a/c involved, how about you PM me everything you have and I will look into the accusation and get back to you. Part of a safety management system is taking comments from every available source, so I'm going to use those of you in the industry around me.
Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Actually jackass, if you had bothered to do your research before posting, you would have learned that Captain S&J was actually hired as a rare direct entry captain at Perimeter. Nice try though.Flying Newf wrote:S&J -- I know most of the pilots at Keystone and they don’t bust mins and go VFR in IFR weather, I hear them IFR all the time. You are just sulking cause the small guys get in & you don’t (had you done any real flying instead of going direct into the right seat of a metro at perimeter) you would realize that a Navajo approaches quite a bit slower than the Metro and if you do it properly seat fwd, gear down, flaps out, you can be ready to get down in a mile or less. That’s why small guys get in and you don’t… I pity the day you get captain.
Not sure why I am defending him though?
"The South will boogie again."
The accident report is an interesting read, but bear in mind that police investigators will probably have much more information about the pilot's actions and decision making processes that day. The evidence in the report clearly indicates company policy required him to calculate his fuel requirements, but he didn't. Notes relating to fuel calculations were found in the wreckage. Were they the only calculations he performed? Were they only made well into the return trip after he came to the realization that he might not make it? Did he actually measure how much fuel he had on take-off, or did he just eyeball it or estimate the balance based on what be believed had been flown off the night before? Why did he not land enroute to fuel up, or at least declare an emergency coming into YWG? Did he put his pride and fear of paperwork ahead of safety?
On the surface, this report seems to support the criminal negligence charge, however, we must wait to see what evidence the crown actually brings to trial. As well, don't be surprised if he is allowed to plead out to the lessor charge of Dangerous Operation of an Aircraft. To save court time and costs, and to guarantee the outcome, the crown often accepts a plea bargin. Especially if there is no compelling purpose to see the person convicted of the more serious offence; as with this fellow. Whatever the outcome, there is little chance the crown will be seeking prison time as it just won't serve any purpose.
The company management do not appear guilty of criminal wrong doing in their actions. However, their lack of oversight as required by their own rules and allowing the A/C to remain in service without the autopilot will certainly provide the plantiff's lawyers will all the ammo they need for the civil suit.
On the surface, this report seems to support the criminal negligence charge, however, we must wait to see what evidence the crown actually brings to trial. As well, don't be surprised if he is allowed to plead out to the lessor charge of Dangerous Operation of an Aircraft. To save court time and costs, and to guarantee the outcome, the crown often accepts a plea bargin. Especially if there is no compelling purpose to see the person convicted of the more serious offence; as with this fellow. Whatever the outcome, there is little chance the crown will be seeking prison time as it just won't serve any purpose.
The company management do not appear guilty of criminal wrong doing in their actions. However, their lack of oversight as required by their own rules and allowing the A/C to remain in service without the autopilot will certainly provide the plantiff's lawyers will all the ammo they need for the civil suit.
S&J
As you said I am not here to defend I am here to comment and I am more than a little shocked at the civil tone of your posting today. Why such a good mood
I am not related to the management of the company, yet I do have an obvious personal interest in the safe operation of the a/c at Keystone. I do not want my future reputation in the industry to be shaped by the fact that I am currently working for this company. It is merely a stepping stone.
Your belief that IFR alternate were few and far between that day are correct. I believe Island Lake was the only one suitable that day, which means that the a/c was a staggering 2 hours and 5 min short of IFR fuel. I can not comprehend how he could continue this flight knowing he had so little fuel. I know that the cloud deck that covered Winnipeg that morning did not cover Pine Dock because we had multiple planes going to the lodge that morning and other pilots recall seeing the airport on their way past. I am sure that had the pilot told management that the trip would require a stop in Pine Dock for fuel enroute there would have been no arguement on their part.
We are making a concerted effort to rebuild this tattered airline, as S&J said it takes a great deal of effort and money. One of which appears to be in short supply. I encourage the other pilots from MB who read and post on this board to take me up on PMing me anything that you think is questionable. I would like to see this become a way for pilots of different companies to share information, instead of sitting on it till they finally get fed up and call TC or someone gets hurt.
My anchor in YWG has nothing to do with this company, however I would like to see it suceed because that means more flying time and more money for me. When the chain that holds me here is finally broken I will gladly be moving on to greener pastures (I Hope!)
As you said I am not here to defend I am here to comment and I am more than a little shocked at the civil tone of your posting today. Why such a good mood
I am not related to the management of the company, yet I do have an obvious personal interest in the safe operation of the a/c at Keystone. I do not want my future reputation in the industry to be shaped by the fact that I am currently working for this company. It is merely a stepping stone.
Your belief that IFR alternate were few and far between that day are correct. I believe Island Lake was the only one suitable that day, which means that the a/c was a staggering 2 hours and 5 min short of IFR fuel. I can not comprehend how he could continue this flight knowing he had so little fuel. I know that the cloud deck that covered Winnipeg that morning did not cover Pine Dock because we had multiple planes going to the lodge that morning and other pilots recall seeing the airport on their way past. I am sure that had the pilot told management that the trip would require a stop in Pine Dock for fuel enroute there would have been no arguement on their part.
We are making a concerted effort to rebuild this tattered airline, as S&J said it takes a great deal of effort and money. One of which appears to be in short supply. I encourage the other pilots from MB who read and post on this board to take me up on PMing me anything that you think is questionable. I would like to see this become a way for pilots of different companies to share information, instead of sitting on it till they finally get fed up and call TC or someone gets hurt.
My anchor in YWG has nothing to do with this company, however I would like to see it suceed because that means more flying time and more money for me. When the chain that holds me here is finally broken I will gladly be moving on to greener pastures (I Hope!)
If you KNOWINGLY take off with less fuel than required to complete a trip safely, then you are criminally negligent. As pilot's we are not somehow absolved of any criminal responsibililty for our actions anymore than a taxi driver or a truck driver. If it is truly an error in judgment or an "accident" then the justice system will probably take a pass. However, explain to the family of the dead passenger why the pilot shouldn' t be held responsible any more than if he had been hit by a car.
If you don't want to be a precedent setter, then fly safe and use your head. We as aircrew are not some special group in the labor force where the laws of the land do not apply. As a matter of principle, we should be held to a stricter standard than most, due to the nature of our work.
I agree with Cat Driver however, that the regulatory agency charged with our oversight is woefully inadequate, and that may be an understatement.
If you don't want to be a precedent setter, then fly safe and use your head. We as aircrew are not some special group in the labor force where the laws of the land do not apply. As a matter of principle, we should be held to a stricter standard than most, due to the nature of our work.
I agree with Cat Driver however, that the regulatory agency charged with our oversight is woefully inadequate, and that may be an understatement.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I would just love to spend some time with their new Ops manager and get his thoughts on all this.
I would especially like to get his opinion on why TC allows such operations to get to the point that someone has to die before they finally enforce federal law.
I don't buy the excuse that they don't know about the culture behind these companies.
Cat
I would especially like to get his opinion on why TC allows such operations to get to the point that someone has to die before they finally enforce federal law.
I don't buy the excuse that they don't know about the culture behind these companies.
Cat
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
tripleseven
- Rank 4
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 9:56 am
I have had a Keystone flight come into "our" airspace while we were doing an approach up north. We were in the procedure turn above a solid overcast when some navajo called 15 back VFR. That makes me pretty nervous when some clown is less than ten miles away and I can't see him and we are "both" IFR. The thing that scares me the most about these types of aviators is you don't have any clue what they are going to do next. We missed the approach (didn't see a damn thing), and he shot an approach anyway!!! What a joke. He followed us to our alternate, then told us how he went down to 200 ft (Probably almost 400 feet low for the published circling approach.) and didn't see anything either. Anyway, the moral of the story, is this was my first impression of this company, and I was not impressed. I'm gonna have to side with C S&J on this one.
-
Circuit-Jockey
- Rank 1
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:43 am
Well IFLY, good to see that you've added your honest view of the inside. I respect your choice to voice your opinion...unfortunately, I too have seen and heard of this BS with VFR fuel loads in IFR conditions. We all know that a 99 can't take 16 people from YWG to YIV with IFR fuel!? Secondly, you say that managers don't push you guys....well I'm sorry, but if you say that you can't do the flight, and your manager goes instead, what kind of message does this send??? That is bad management skill...period, and it whether you admit it or not, makes pilots make poor decisions. If the weather sucks, the load doesn't work, or the airplane is broken, the PIC has the right to cancel the flight...and so he should and that is where it should end. When your manager steps in, or sends another cowboy up North for you, this creates tension. All crews are then influenced by these negative repercussions....nobody wants to look inferior!
I think you have just posted one of this company's major flaws...hope I have shed some light on it for you!
I think you have just posted one of this company's major flaws...hope I have shed some light on it for you!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I am curious as to what the former Chief Pilot and the former Ops. Manager of Keystone are doing now, anyone know?
If a pilot refuses a trip for reasons of safety such as weather that is not suitable and any manager takes the trip, that is intimidation at its lowest, in my humble opinion.
Cat
If a pilot refuses a trip for reasons of safety such as weather that is not suitable and any manager takes the trip, that is intimidation at its lowest, in my humble opinion.
Cat
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
shitdisturber
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
They're doing the same thing they always were Cat, owning Keystone.Cat Driver wrote:I am curious as to what the former Chief Pilot and the former Ops. Manager of Keystone are doing now, anyone know?
If a pilot refuses a trip for reasons of safety such as weather that is not suitable and any manager takes the trip, that is intimidation at its lowest, in my humble opinion.
Cat
Hopefully the pilots will continue to stick to their guns and refuse these trips; as someone said earlier on, "the only asshole they need to be concerned with is the one in their seat." Truer words were never spoken.
Last edited by shitdisturber on Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
southbound
- Rank 2
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:40 pm
Ok every one. Here is what I think should happen.
1. The pilot should be tried in a court of law, criminally. He should be given a fair trial with everything laid on the table. A jury should determine his fate.
2. The CP and OPS MNGR should be delt with by TC resulting in a heavy fine of some sort ( ie... $50000.00 ) If they are unable to pay the fine then they don't fly....simple as that.
The result would be a hightened sense of responsibility and liability of those holding mngmnt positions. There would be no more " CP " on paper bullsh*t just to satisfy the CARS requirements. Pilots would also think long and hard before doing something voluntarily in violation of the CARS. We all want respect, we want to be autonomous in our positions as CPTNS and FO's but guess what. We don't want to take the fall that is representative of those that hold high level positions of responsibility and prestige etc...
If we want to be treated as professionals and have the status of professionals then we need to buck up like professionals. When an engineer signs his name to bottom of a piece of paper stating the building he just built won't fall down...there is tremendous liability associated with that.
There you have it gang......my cards are all on the table.
by the way flying newf....I'm still f--king walking!
1. The pilot should be tried in a court of law, criminally. He should be given a fair trial with everything laid on the table. A jury should determine his fate.
2. The CP and OPS MNGR should be delt with by TC resulting in a heavy fine of some sort ( ie... $50000.00 ) If they are unable to pay the fine then they don't fly....simple as that.
The result would be a hightened sense of responsibility and liability of those holding mngmnt positions. There would be no more " CP " on paper bullsh*t just to satisfy the CARS requirements. Pilots would also think long and hard before doing something voluntarily in violation of the CARS. We all want respect, we want to be autonomous in our positions as CPTNS and FO's but guess what. We don't want to take the fall that is representative of those that hold high level positions of responsibility and prestige etc...
If we want to be treated as professionals and have the status of professionals then we need to buck up like professionals. When an engineer signs his name to bottom of a piece of paper stating the building he just built won't fall down...there is tremendous liability associated with that.
There you have it gang......my cards are all on the table.
by the way flying newf....I'm still f--king walking!
-
stallnfall
- Rank 1
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: The Peg
Circuit jockey
The 99 has a max seating capacity of 14, so you are correct, it cannot take 16 and IFR fuel. The flights we were doing were to YST, with one-way fuel and YIV as an alternate you can take a payload of 2628 lbs which is 14 males at standard weight. However, we normally had a mixture of men and women and some freight. If YIV is not suitable, the next alternates we would use were YNE, YWG or YTH, the payload would be adjusted accordingly. I did not personally fly the a/c overweight or fly VFR in IMC, I cannot speak for certain about the other pilots of the a/c when I was not around (since two of them are the owner and his son)
Your second point is valid. The managment normally does refer to the pilot, but, in come cases they do not. I personally believe this is because of the shortage of money flowing through the company. A family run business can be a very difficult place to work, you have to get along to go along and you have to make an effort to try your best, or else you will get the privilage of doing all the holding trips. I do not pretend to think this is the way it should be, I would feel much better knowing that if I got fired for standing up for something I believe in there wouldn't be 10 other pilots waiting to take my job, but thats the way our industry is.
The 99 has a max seating capacity of 14, so you are correct, it cannot take 16 and IFR fuel. The flights we were doing were to YST, with one-way fuel and YIV as an alternate you can take a payload of 2628 lbs which is 14 males at standard weight. However, we normally had a mixture of men and women and some freight. If YIV is not suitable, the next alternates we would use were YNE, YWG or YTH, the payload would be adjusted accordingly. I did not personally fly the a/c overweight or fly VFR in IMC, I cannot speak for certain about the other pilots of the a/c when I was not around (since two of them are the owner and his son)
Your second point is valid. The managment normally does refer to the pilot, but, in come cases they do not. I personally believe this is because of the shortage of money flowing through the company. A family run business can be a very difficult place to work, you have to get along to go along and you have to make an effort to try your best, or else you will get the privilage of doing all the holding trips. I do not pretend to think this is the way it should be, I would feel much better knowing that if I got fired for standing up for something I believe in there wouldn't be 10 other pilots waiting to take my job, but thats the way our industry is.
-
Flying Newf
- Rank 2
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:09 am
-
shitdisturber
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
This is getting us somewhere at least we are really trying to get to the root causes of these issues.
If a company has a shortage of money flowing through the company, the owners who are the Chief pilot and Ops manager can take a flight that one of their line pilots turned down because it was not safe and the pilots should not feel intimidated?
Cat
If a company has a shortage of money flowing through the company, the owners who are the Chief pilot and Ops manager can take a flight that one of their line pilots turned down because it was not safe and the pilots should not feel intimidated?
Cat
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
southbound
- Rank 2
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:40 pm
Flying Nuwf,
I am finding your comments lacking in depth...flippant if you will.
This industry is going down hill because we have insufficient accountability for the positions of responsibility that we hold. You look up the CARS definition of CP and tell me what it says he is responsible...I know personally a pilot or two that have taken a CP position because it will enhance "his resume". That makes me F--king irate. You had better be prepared to bleed in that position otherwise you are not looking after you pilots or the company or the customer. How is that for responsibility. Should the pilot be any different when he has a bunch of passengers in the back.
Just like in carpentry...measure twice amd cut once. This industry is not a game chump....it just so happens to be fun!
I am finding your comments lacking in depth...flippant if you will.
This industry is going down hill because we have insufficient accountability for the positions of responsibility that we hold. You look up the CARS definition of CP and tell me what it says he is responsible...I know personally a pilot or two that have taken a CP position because it will enhance "his resume". That makes me F--king irate. You had better be prepared to bleed in that position otherwise you are not looking after you pilots or the company or the customer. How is that for responsibility. Should the pilot be any different when he has a bunch of passengers in the back.
Just like in carpentry...measure twice amd cut once. This industry is not a game chump....it just so happens to be fun!
-
shitdisturber
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
My attitude is fairly straight forward in these circumstances; "if you want to take a trip that I think is unsafe, go nuts. If you fire me for it, make sure the settlement is very generous or you can add a wrongful dismissal suit to your problems and a visit from TC over your practises." There aren't too many out there who will continue to push if you stand your ground. You always have to be prepared to back up your words with actions though; if you have to walk, do it. At least you'll still be alive.
-
southbound
- Rank 2
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:40 pm
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
There are not many pilots out there flying for crap companies that try and intimidate them into flying in unsafe conditions that can afford to sue after being fired, I know I've been there.
From my experience in going to TC with complaints, it was a waste of time.
And that includes as Chief Pilot of a fair sized airline, Air West in Vancouver in 1974. TC will weasel around and nothng gets done. I finally took TC to a Federal court to force them to enforce the regulations, that did the trick and I got the mess cleaned up.
The question that still bothers me is why should any chief pilot have to take TC to court to force them to do their duty???
Anyone able to answer that for me?
Cat
From my experience in going to TC with complaints, it was a waste of time.
And that includes as Chief Pilot of a fair sized airline, Air West in Vancouver in 1974. TC will weasel around and nothng gets done. I finally took TC to a Federal court to force them to enforce the regulations, that did the trick and I got the mess cleaned up.
The question that still bothers me is why should any chief pilot have to take TC to court to force them to do their duty???
Anyone able to answer that for me?
Cat
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I have to admitt that I have not read in depth all postings on this subject but appears to me that the majority of respondents are discussing, ridiculing, endorsing, not endorsing, recommending, not recommending criminal action in a court of law.
But, since one of the fatalities was American, I think I would be more inclined to be concerned about civil lawsuits. There the rules are totally different.
Has anyone read about some of the totally insane judgements that have come about in civil court.
What about that broad who barbecued her beaver with a hot cup of McDonalds coffee!.
Or the family that won a huge settlement from Cessna when a suicide stole a 414 and headed westbound out of Van Nuys Calif. The estate(Ambulance chasing lawyers) claimed that if Cessna put better door locks on their airplanes, this yoyo would not have been able to steal the airplane.
Or the guy who crashed his 414 into a Colorado mountain when the heading hold on the autopilot crapped out and the airplane turned into a mountain. He was not even in the cockpit, he was in the back with his passengers.
Stupid people doing stupid things and holding the deep pockets accountable.
The only salvation in this case is that the owners do not have very deep pockets. I think I might be better off taking my chances with TC in a criminal court of law.
Out of curiosity, departing Gunisao, how many refueling points are there enroute? I seem to recall there is a lot of water and bush north of YWG.
But, since one of the fatalities was American, I think I would be more inclined to be concerned about civil lawsuits. There the rules are totally different.
Has anyone read about some of the totally insane judgements that have come about in civil court.
What about that broad who barbecued her beaver with a hot cup of McDonalds coffee!.
Or the family that won a huge settlement from Cessna when a suicide stole a 414 and headed westbound out of Van Nuys Calif. The estate(Ambulance chasing lawyers) claimed that if Cessna put better door locks on their airplanes, this yoyo would not have been able to steal the airplane.
Or the guy who crashed his 414 into a Colorado mountain when the heading hold on the autopilot crapped out and the airplane turned into a mountain. He was not even in the cockpit, he was in the back with his passengers.
Stupid people doing stupid things and holding the deep pockets accountable.
The only salvation in this case is that the owners do not have very deep pockets. I think I might be better off taking my chances with TC in a criminal court of law.
Out of curiosity, departing Gunisao, how many refueling points are there enroute? I seem to recall there is a lot of water and bush north of YWG.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
-
shitdisturber
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
On the bright side of that issue oldtimer, since it happened on Canadian soil in a Canadian aircraft; when, not if, they sue they'll have to do it in our courts. The settlements are much lower here since the govt has put a ceiling on death etc. While Keystone will lose, it wouldn't be as bad as it would in an American court.
-
Circuit-Jockey
- Rank 1
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:43 am
-
rightseatwonder
- Rank 6
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:21 am
- Location: M.78 FL410
Ive always looked at flying as a an inheirently risky activity (weather, mechanical dependancy, human error etc) and that the job of the PIC as well as cheif pilot ops manager rest of the crew, was to minimize those risks...for him/herself and the pax etc. ( i am sure this is how most pilots view their role)
The EASIEST way to do that is...FOLLOW THE RULES!
If you knowingly follow all the rules and and something bad happens, its not negligence...but a true "accident" is it not? The industry is regulated to near disaster with all the little rules and obscure details...but they are there for a reason...to serve SOME function..many being post-incident/accident accountabilty and finger-pointing after the fact yes, but something like FUEL requirements doesnt take even a shred of common sense to comprehend the obvious purpose. Auto pilot..!!!...there is no hidden TC agenda or "interpretation" behind that requirement. (it seems to me) but hey im a vfr guy.
There are situations that arise that make doing business and following every rule to a "T" difficult.
BUT...
If you decide to break or ignore any regulation you either pay a fine or have your licence revoked suspended etc.
AND if in the process of knowingly breaking any of those regs, and it leads to the horrible death of someone under your care and responsibility, you pay the price.
If this guy goes to jail...it still isnt even a fraction of the cost of his dead or injured passengers have already paid.....and thats WITHOUT having had the option of getting out when he decided for them to do the flight as it was. He decided to do it...he is responsible for the result of that decision.
Its hard to imagine anybody would think otherwise.
As for the owner cheif pilot ops manager etc...i agree with those who think they are also accountable.not just the pilot.
I think instead of trying to form a legal fund to protect a fellow pilot who made the conscious decision to not only minimize the risks but GREATLY increase them, (but breaking the rules) we should be drawing attention to the fact that there may be other people involved at other levels that contributed to the end result.
As for capt S+J, although I think most of your rants and attacks are cutting edge perverse, and overtly tacky for their own purpose, they are for the most part entertaining in a perverse way all their own...and oftentimes annoying.......it is generally agreed upon after all that you are in fact a JAck-Ass (which i am as well its been said....i digress..).....
...but i have to say you never stray from a very narrow path of "stick to the rules"...albeit it extremely narrow. I agree with the underlying intent to strive towards and expect nothing short of perfection from yourself and colleugues whose hands hold the lives of others, but you may do well to approach other pilots in a different way because the pitbull/blackfly approach is as i said distractingly entertaining/annoying.
I am in no way stating that i have never taken a bit of extra fuel because the gauges, although legal, weren't, anything id bet my ass on...or pushed weather etc....but i think the difference is that any decision i make, i feel is the SAFEST choice at the time...NEVER NEVER NEVER the "easiest" or most "convienient".
I think thats why this accident is such a shitstorm...because it appears he made some major decisions not based on the safest alternative, but on convienience....and somebody freaking DIED!!! BUt as stated many times now...this is conjecture until they do a full criminal investigation. I personally hope that it ends up illuminating something a lot deeper than a pilot making a bad decision and un-necessarily risking his own ass as well as the pax (and i suspect along with most that there were more factors involved..it seems there always are)
As for the industry I too am afraid of this precedent because the CARS are specifically designed to end all investigations in the hands of the PIC...historically because this insulated companies, TC, insurance brokers manufacturers etc....and as stated there has been very few if any criminal charges laid in Canada against a pilot and so it worked. If the pilot had made a decision or mistake that was serious enough...they took away the chance that he/she could do it again...licence revoked...go be a dentist now.
BUt as a pilot working outside of the western world...I have finally developed an appreciation for the fact that where the regs say "PIC is responsible for..." what they really mean is "PIC LIABLE for..."!! And i hope that it doesnt come to that in Canada.
The EASIEST way to do that is...FOLLOW THE RULES!
If you knowingly follow all the rules and and something bad happens, its not negligence...but a true "accident" is it not? The industry is regulated to near disaster with all the little rules and obscure details...but they are there for a reason...to serve SOME function..many being post-incident/accident accountabilty and finger-pointing after the fact yes, but something like FUEL requirements doesnt take even a shred of common sense to comprehend the obvious purpose. Auto pilot..!!!...there is no hidden TC agenda or "interpretation" behind that requirement. (it seems to me) but hey im a vfr guy.
There are situations that arise that make doing business and following every rule to a "T" difficult.
BUT...
If you decide to break or ignore any regulation you either pay a fine or have your licence revoked suspended etc.
AND if in the process of knowingly breaking any of those regs, and it leads to the horrible death of someone under your care and responsibility, you pay the price.
If this guy goes to jail...it still isnt even a fraction of the cost of his dead or injured passengers have already paid.....and thats WITHOUT having had the option of getting out when he decided for them to do the flight as it was. He decided to do it...he is responsible for the result of that decision.
Its hard to imagine anybody would think otherwise.
As for the owner cheif pilot ops manager etc...i agree with those who think they are also accountable.not just the pilot.
I think instead of trying to form a legal fund to protect a fellow pilot who made the conscious decision to not only minimize the risks but GREATLY increase them, (but breaking the rules) we should be drawing attention to the fact that there may be other people involved at other levels that contributed to the end result.
As for capt S+J, although I think most of your rants and attacks are cutting edge perverse, and overtly tacky for their own purpose, they are for the most part entertaining in a perverse way all their own...and oftentimes annoying.......it is generally agreed upon after all that you are in fact a JAck-Ass (which i am as well its been said....i digress..).....
...but i have to say you never stray from a very narrow path of "stick to the rules"...albeit it extremely narrow. I agree with the underlying intent to strive towards and expect nothing short of perfection from yourself and colleugues whose hands hold the lives of others, but you may do well to approach other pilots in a different way because the pitbull/blackfly approach is as i said distractingly entertaining/annoying.
I am in no way stating that i have never taken a bit of extra fuel because the gauges, although legal, weren't, anything id bet my ass on...or pushed weather etc....but i think the difference is that any decision i make, i feel is the SAFEST choice at the time...NEVER NEVER NEVER the "easiest" or most "convienient".
I think thats why this accident is such a shitstorm...because it appears he made some major decisions not based on the safest alternative, but on convienience....and somebody freaking DIED!!! BUt as stated many times now...this is conjecture until they do a full criminal investigation. I personally hope that it ends up illuminating something a lot deeper than a pilot making a bad decision and un-necessarily risking his own ass as well as the pax (and i suspect along with most that there were more factors involved..it seems there always are)
As for the industry I too am afraid of this precedent because the CARS are specifically designed to end all investigations in the hands of the PIC...historically because this insulated companies, TC, insurance brokers manufacturers etc....and as stated there has been very few if any criminal charges laid in Canada against a pilot and so it worked. If the pilot had made a decision or mistake that was serious enough...they took away the chance that he/she could do it again...licence revoked...go be a dentist now.
BUt as a pilot working outside of the western world...I have finally developed an appreciation for the fact that where the regs say "PIC is responsible for..." what they really mean is "PIC LIABLE for..."!! And i hope that it doesnt come to that in Canada.
