Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash

[R580XD]

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.

Pine Dock and Gimli would be right enroute to Winnipeg.

Gimli has a restricited approach available as well.

[golden hawk]

580, of course as you know that is that weather phenomenon known as "the miracle cylinder", about 5 nm in diameter and about 750' high.

This wasn't covered in standard meterology, because it is a secret - it only occurs around remote airports served by a solitary NDB, and only a select few are privy to witness it - but once exposed to it, the "miracle cylinder" will re-appear when you most need it again and again! The wonders of nature...........

[Big Bird Anonymous]

There is one point that has not been raised yet. This is just a charge not a conviction. We don’t know the defense plan or what the evidence will be.

It is the city police that have laid the charge and I doubt it is a slam dunk case.

[grounded]

There are very few sure things in life, but one of them is that this trial is going to be very interesting. I am a YWG based pilot and will try to see some of it if I can. I don't think he should go to jail, but the fact remains that anyone who's ever flown a Ho knows that trip is not possible without a fuel stop.

[Donald]

Would they normally have re-fuelled in YWG prior to heading to the lodge? The fact that the positioning flight was 1hr 38mins sounds to me like that was his "reserve" fuel. After reading the TSB report, the fact he was a 3000hr pilot, who "had done the trip many times before" makes me suspicious that there was another error not reported.

But I know nothing about the company or the people involved, so maybe I am way off base. Just being optimistic.

[Schlem]

Would they normally have re-fuelled in YWG prior to heading to the lodge? The fact that the positioning flight was 1hr 38mins sounds to me like that was his "reserve" fuel. After reading the TSB report, the fact he was a 3000hr pilot, who "had done the trip many times before" makes me suspicious that there was another error not reported.

But I know nothing about the company or the people involved, so maybe I am way off base. Just being optimistic.

The Wx was forecasted for YWG to be around 300 feet all day and from what I remember, the only good alternate was The Pas at the time.

I, as many others here, have flown anxious US fisherman who can't wait to get the lodge so it's possible that the load of fishermen and their gear was more important then the IFR fuel at the time. I'm only speculating but when you tell one of these guys that the Wx is crap and you need more fuel so less payload can be taken, they aren't very receptive to it. I have even seen cases of the group of fishermen going to a different operator because of it. That same ole mentaility in aviation... "you can't do the trip, well I'll find someone who can."

This possibley could have put pressure on the management as well as the pilot.

[Cat Driver]

If everyone flew in compliance with the rules the customer would not have the choice of going to another operator.

[Donald]

Schlem: I meant, would they have normally been fully fuelled leaving YWG at the start of the day? After reading the report, it appears there was a 1hr 38min flight before going to the lodge and back. Is that right?

[Schlem]

Schlem: I meant, would they have normally been fully fuelled leaving YWG at the start of the day? After reading the report, it appears there was a 1hr 38min flight before going to the lodge and back. Is that right?

I would assume so if there wasn't a fuel cache at the strip. I have never flown a Ho but Swan to YWG to Gunisao and back with IFR reserves doesn't sound possible to me.

[Hot Fuel]

Shitdisturber wrote...

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.

On November 4, 2003, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed at Montreal in 1999 ("the Montreal Convention]") came into force in Canada through amendments to the Carriage by Air Act....I wrote about this sometime back in another string, The Montreal Convention was probably the biggest but least talked about reason air carriers insurance rates have gone through the roof. Legal action for damages can be initiated in Canada for Canadians involved in accidents while travelling outside of Canada and the reverse also applies, now a US citizen can hold court in their backyard when the accident happens in Canada. This panicked the insurance company because of the new exposure to out of control US settlements. Ask anybody in the outpost camp bussiness that caterers to flying US citizens what happened to their insurance rates over the last year or two, especially if their underwriter is aware that they cater to a US market.

The Montreal Convention updates and modernizes the Warsaw Convention of 1929, a widely recognized set of international rules governing the liability of an air carrier in the event of the death or injury of a passenger, loss of baggage or cargo or delay during international air transport.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/23851.htm

Of note is the phrase "where the carrier has a commercial presence in that state" the courts have interpretated "Commercial Presense" to mean something as simple as making your corporate website accessable to a market, publishing a phone number, advertizing of any type can be considered a "presense".

[shitdisturber]

If that's the case hot fuel then god help us all since insurance rates will go through the roof again after the insurance company gets through paying for that one!

[Hot Fuel]

You need only look at the first two "benefits" of the montreal convention identified on the U.S. State departments website...

The significant new benefits of the Montreal Convention include:

Completely eliminating liability limits for death or injury of passengers.


Allowing lawsuits in cases of passenger death or injury to be brought in the courts of the passenger’s “principal and permanent residence” where the carrier has a commercial presence in that state, which will in almost all cases ensure that U.S. citizens and permanent residents can bring an action in U.S. courts.

Like I said there has already been a few ruling on what a "commercial presense' is and is not, it doesn’t take much to meet the test of what constitutes a commercial presense and the state department is quick to point it out on their website.

which will in almost all cases ensure that U.S. citizens and permanent residents can bring an action in U.S. courts.

[Cat Driver]

God help us. bang head

Cat

[Cap'n P8]

This industry is in a deplorable state! If we want to get rid of shady operators, maybe what we really need to do is educate the public. These less than reputable operations would have less power if the flying public wasn't so cheap; if they really new how much risk they were exposing themselves to. Maybe that would even up the playing field.

We could make a documentary on the industry. Show the travelling public just how expensive it is to run a decent company. Explain to them why it isn't in there best interest to fly with the sleazebag that always gets in, no matter what.

Maybe we could get Michael Moore to do it. He should have some free time in November after George Dubya gets kicked to the curb (please!!!!)

[southbound]

Big Bird Anonumous......

I am baffled how the defence will even present this case. Once the CARS req are stated and the case is presented I think the jury or whom ever it is will roast this guy alive....maybe temp insanity. There do seem to be things that just don't add up for pete's sake....like why or how a 3000 hr guy would do something like this?
I had no idea the CP and OPS MNGR are still working there at Key Stone??? Or did I just misread something? If It's true that makes me friggin sick.....

[ZLIN 142C]

Boy, I remember a time in my life when the good guys and bad guys were easy to identify and all things were a little more clear-cut. What do we have here? No good guys I can see. A reckless pilot who finally got caught out, a company that covertly supports and encourages this recklessness, and a bunch of scumbag lawyers representing family member(s) bent on revenge! Perhaps the best option would be to collect ALL the concerned parties in one room and immolate them all. Then we could all get on with our lives. . .okay, that was my kneejerk reaction. Please ignore it.

Litigation will be the death of aviation in this country if allowed to gain a foothold. The costs associated with insurance are already unreasonable, and will become prohibitive if even a few civil lawsuits succeed. I realize that we're talking about criminal charges in this case, but where criminal charges appear increasingly civil suits follow. I like to think that no one here wants to see this industry crippled like that. The root problem here lies in people's basic attitude. No one wants to accept the risks associated with the things they choose to do. Flying involves some risk. As pilots we accept that risk because we want to be up there, and it's a measured chance we take. Some of us stack the deck in our favour, others less so. Passengers and their families don't understand or accept these risks. And therein lies the problem. If every effort is taken to operate the aircraft in a safe manner, no one should "pay" if something goes wrong and everyone dies. Revenge is pointless anyway. At best, it accomplishes nothing and brings no one back. At worst, it is a way to profit from the death of a loved one.

However, in this case it is evident that the pilot either made a serious mistake, in which case charging him is pointless, or chose to operate in an unsafe manner. If he chose to operate unsafely, the logical consequence is that he would have died in the crash. But he didn't. And since he's still alive, someone thinks he should be punished. But whether you think he should be or not, the sad fact is that his fate is tied to our own through precedent. And if he goes down, others from our ranks will too. This is larger than any one person. Does anyone other than Oldtimer remember the effect that frivolous lawsuits had on GA manufacturers twenty years ago? When you buy that new Cessna, you have some lawyer to thank for the pricetag. Think about that for a moment. Do you think this race would ever have learned to fly if the Wrights, for example, had had to worry about liability?

No, the solution is simple but impossible. If we all chose to accept responsibility for the choices we made, this would all be unnecessary. If the company chose to operate without needing to make excuses, if the pilot reminded himself that he was sitting in that plane too, and if the passengers and families chose to accept that flying has certain risks and that people die from time to time - but that won't happen. Perhaps only pilots should ever fly. Or maybe transport's right - maybe all aircraft should stay on the ground, where they'll be safe. . .and we can look at them from a distance, where they can't hurt anyone ever again.

My God, was that a rant?

[gelbisch]

No one wants to accept the risks associated with the things they choose to do.

that's the funny thing about the western world.

i was in china a few years back, and one afternoon we went to a mountainside where chiang kai-shek hid, or something like that. anyway, there were some steep drops and i remember being very taken aback that there were no rails or other means of preventing people from falling. we're so used to being protected from ourselves here that the lack of coddling really struck me. the mentality there seems to be that if you hurt yourself, you probably shouldn't have been doing what you were doing!

over here we seem to have deluded ourselves into believing that nothing bad will ever happen in our rosy, sheltered little worlds... and if it does, then obviously there's someone else to blame for it.

not saying that a completely dispassionate approach is a good one (i seem to recall that cars in china had right-of-way over pedestrians and cyclists... this doesn't seem to be a brilliant philosophy ), but i do think that we in capitalist utopia do go a little overboard at times...

[Big_Oaf]

Over here we seem to have deluded ourselves into believing that nothing bad will ever happen in our rosy, sheltered little worlds... and if it does, then obviously there's someone else to blame for it.

AMEN!

I can't stand to listen to the news and how some idiot can sue a company for their own retarded actions. The most recent one i heard was a mom who sued Nintendo when her eight year old son had a ceasure. Turns out the kid was playing video games 8 hours or more a day...every day! what the hell do you expect to happen? phucking irresponsible ass! Most people want to beleive that the human race is getting smarter and better.......I think we are going down the shitter!

[golden hawk]

The average wrongful death claim in Canada averages about $600,000

The average wrongful death claim in the USA averages about $3,500,000

The difference is that US courts award punitive damages; Canadian courts don't.

If you want to avoid being sued, do all you can to prevent it.

Know your airplane

Know your limits

Know when to say no

NEVER fly with a complacent attitude.

[Big Bird Anonymous]

This may not have much bearing on the outcome of the trial, but the pilot has paid his fine and done his time as charged by TC...and it was significant amounts from what I understand.

TC's intent is that if you are found in violation of the CAR's, are fined or suspended and you pay the fine or serve the suspension, then future compliance is assured as you are deemed to have learned a lesson.

That's the theory anyway.

[golden hawk]

Here's the link to TC's website dealing with enforcement. I suggest EVERYONE read it. I've cut a section out for this post - note the reference to criminal activities.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegSe ... /About.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Enforcement Actions

Upon completion of an investigation the RMAE will review the case to determine the appropriate deterrent action to impose if the evidence indicates that an individual has contravened a provision of the Aeronautics Act or the CARs. This decision may significantly affect the individuals attitude towards aviation safety and voluntary compliance in the future.

The RMAE will decide whether to proceed administratively or judicially. Judicial action involves the prosecution of the alleged offender in the criminal courts and is only applicable to a few of the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and the CARs. Administrative action comprises all other measures taken by the Minister pursuant to the provisions of the Aeronautics Act, and includes oral counseling, the suspension of documents and the assessment of monetary penalties.

[shitdisturber]

I had no idea the CP and OPS MNGR are still working there at Key Stone??? Or did I just misread something? If It's true that makes me friggin sick.....

Of course they still work there; the former Ops Manager is the owner and the CP is his son.

[Wibble]

Guys, and Gals,

I do agree that this does set a bad presedent. I dont feel that pilots should be put on trial for making mistakes (honest ones anyway). However, this guy knowingly went in bad weather without enough fuel. And I dont mean enough for destination, alternate, and 45 minutes. This guy didnt take enough to get to the destination! He was obviously panicking at the time he was doing the approach. He was extremely high and fast. He got himself into a situation that was completely out of control. But he let himself get there. He has to be held acountable for this one. This situation was as bad as drinking and driving.

I have lived and worked in the north. I know how it works. I have done stupid things as a pilot. But when I did some of these stupid things I knew that I would be held acountable if something tragic happened.

I guess you have to ask yourself. If someone from your family was on board that aircraft, and that pilot knowingly did what he did. Would you not go after him too?

[golden hawk]

Wibble;

Your last question is a civil action; these types of suits have been around for a long time.

This thread is dealing the question of criminal law.

GH

[southbound]

[quote]


I was under the understanding from previous situations that family members holding these positions in the same company was considered a conflict of interest. TC should have been all over those guys for holding those positions in the company and watched them very carefully. I guess the fish always stinks from the head down eh!

As long as the money kept rolling in I guess that was enough of a temptation to not adequately audit their own internal processes.......grave mistake.

South.[/quote]