Keystone blames Transport Canada.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
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
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
Readingthrough the posts prompted me to think of the Wapiti situation and I am glad others remembered it also. I remember TC Inspectors making black humour about that company for ages before the infamous accident. My thought was always "Well, if they are SO bad, why the #@$#@ don't you shut them down?"
It was a very bad event and showed that TC seemed to lack the courage or the will to act in any kind of way until blood was shed.
Since then, TC's inability to provide an across-the-board (and understandable policy) towards EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY seems to put them in a lose-lose, damned if you do and damned if you don't situation..............which, as was correctly pointed out, is a direct result of POLITICAL instead of POLICING thinking.
It was a very bad event and showed that TC seemed to lack the courage or the will to act in any kind of way until blood was shed.
Since then, TC's inability to provide an across-the-board (and understandable policy) towards EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY seems to put them in a lose-lose, damned if you do and damned if you don't situation..............which, as was correctly pointed out, is a direct result of POLITICAL instead of POLICING thinking.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the story was replayed in Winnipeg while I was there a few years ago. This time it was Keystone, not Wapiti in the title role of the same play.
If it was not for my tax dollars being squandered, I would say good luck to them in the lawsuit and hope they make enough money to give aviation a break and they go do something else.
If it was not for my tax dollars being squandered, I would say good luck to them in the lawsuit and hope they make enough money to give aviation a break and they go do something else.
keystone sues transport
i have read many of the comments concerning this issue - for starters none of you know what you are talking about because none of you are involved with this company intimately enough to know what happened, only what you've read in the press. secondly, the comments in the wpg free press and the calgary paper are inaccurate concerning the lawsuit. the reporter did not understand the suit. thirdly, the pilot that worked for the airline ran out of gas plain and simple and he did it all by himself. it is up to the pic of the aircraft to determine that he has enough fuel for the flight he has planned, period. these are small airlines not air canada where someone else does all the work for you and all you do is jump in and fly the plane. the pilot had many hours (over 3000) and much time on type. keystone does not purport to blame tc for not shutting them down. that statement is ludicrous and any decent employee in the airline industry would know it would be stupid to claim such a thing. lastly 100% of the articles you have seen in the press other than ones filed by Keystone have contained gross inaccuracies. so all of you people are a bunch of gossiping hens because you dont know the facts...maybe you should shut up.
-
Canus Chinookus
- Rank 7
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:30 pm
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Well it looks like the new boy "Fanny " may have something to contribute to the debate ,perhaps he has some insider information that we do not have.Perhaps he can explain why the same company has the same type of accidents with different pilots and he/she assume's that it is not the corporate culture of that company to blame .How remarkable that two different pilots have the same type of accident and it is not corporate culture to blame?
It is unfortunate that the second accident resulted in a loss of life ,had corrective measures been enforced after the first lack of fuel accident the second lack of fuel accident would not of happened ?is speculative but most would agree the first accident should not have happened,and for the powers that be to allow that company to operate after such a primary error they must bear some of the responsability,and to allow that same company to continue to operate is a risk that only someone with deep pockets should take .As you know that god forbid'that company has another preventable' accident the lawers will have a field day.
They are going to hang the pilot out to dry on this one,as nobody in transport will admit to failing to ensure corrective measures after the first similar accident occured and the company will blame the pilot .Cliff likes to play the HEAVY ,to a polite canadian he could be intimidating ,when he came the wannabe gangster talk with me I showed him the door !
It is unfortunate that the second accident resulted in a loss of life ,had corrective measures been enforced after the first lack of fuel accident the second lack of fuel accident would not of happened ?is speculative but most would agree the first accident should not have happened,and for the powers that be to allow that company to operate after such a primary error they must bear some of the responsability,and to allow that same company to continue to operate is a risk that only someone with deep pockets should take .As you know that god forbid'that company has another preventable' accident the lawers will have a field day.
They are going to hang the pilot out to dry on this one,as nobody in transport will admit to failing to ensure corrective measures after the first similar accident occured and the company will blame the pilot .Cliff likes to play the HEAVY ,to a polite canadian he could be intimidating ,when he came the wannabe gangster talk with me I showed him the door !
-
pilotbyosmosis
- Rank 0
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:26 am
I think that part of the point being missed is that Keystone is not likely responsible for their own Defence.
Whether or not it is right or wrong to include TC in the suit, which they already were by the Plaintiffs, it would not be Keystone's decision.
Their insurance company is calling the shots. Once you have an incident in any kind of company with any kind of insurance if you ever hope to see $1.00 of insurance money you let the insurance company and the lawyer they pay for call the shots.
Whether or not it is right or wrong to include TC in the suit, which they already were by the Plaintiffs, it would not be Keystone's decision.
Their insurance company is calling the shots. Once you have an incident in any kind of company with any kind of insurance if you ever hope to see $1.00 of insurance money you let the insurance company and the lawyer they pay for call the shots.
2R, either you are confused or have just disregarded information that doesn't suit your opinion. The 2 accidents you are speaking of were not the same, one guy ran the plane completely dry for no good reason whatsoever. The other had a fuel line blocked by ice and when the engine failed became distracted on the ILS, instead of switching back to the outboard fuel tanks, or feathering the engine and landing, he ended up in the trees.
Either of these accidents could reflect a lack of training perhaps, but they are not the same situation.
Either of these accidents could reflect a lack of training perhaps, but they are not the same situation.
Two fuel mismanagement problems by two different pilots employed by the same Company .That sir would be a sad coincidence if only that.
Without getting into a semantics debate when a company has similar problems at two crashes it would be fair to say that the problems of the first crash were never resolved . I am not the confused one here.
How can you manage risk if you deny that it exists,a failure to identify and mitigate the problems involved in the first crash clearly added to the risk of another incident /accident .
When a pilot takes a perfectly servicable aircraft into the air and invents a new way of crashing we can all learn from that.But when you see a repeat of an accident someone was not paying attention.
the winnipeg free press article's on the crash's by the same company makes for some interesting reading.
When a company has any accident it is sad ,when they repeat the same accident it is a morale crime .To hang it all on the pilot is dishonest and dodging responsability and will only lead to more grief or perhaps a repeat of the first accident and nobody would want that.
As to a lack of training, the pilots had I assume" current PPC's as required by the companies OC" or would you like to cast more doubt at the pilots.Or do you have some reason to believe that the present training regime for navajo's is not sufficient.Are there other navajo operators having similar bad luck and crashing/and killing or are you just defending the undefendable for sport.Is this type of crash common for this type of plane? If so how many have crashed without fuel?
I have seen some aircraft suck fuel at alarming rates and the ame's not find anything wrong ie normal fuel burn on one short trip was almost double what it should have been.the only reason it was noticed as the aircraft was topped off before the flight and after and the owner thought he was getting robbed by the fueler or we were using the aircraft for our own use. One of the guys flying the plane had to divert to get fuel before continuing onward.
The only time you have to much fuel is when you are on fire.
Without getting into a semantics debate when a company has similar problems at two crashes it would be fair to say that the problems of the first crash were never resolved . I am not the confused one here.
How can you manage risk if you deny that it exists,a failure to identify and mitigate the problems involved in the first crash clearly added to the risk of another incident /accident .
When a pilot takes a perfectly servicable aircraft into the air and invents a new way of crashing we can all learn from that.But when you see a repeat of an accident someone was not paying attention.
the winnipeg free press article's on the crash's by the same company makes for some interesting reading.
When a company has any accident it is sad ,when they repeat the same accident it is a morale crime .To hang it all on the pilot is dishonest and dodging responsability and will only lead to more grief or perhaps a repeat of the first accident and nobody would want that.
As to a lack of training, the pilots had I assume" current PPC's as required by the companies OC" or would you like to cast more doubt at the pilots.Or do you have some reason to believe that the present training regime for navajo's is not sufficient.Are there other navajo operators having similar bad luck and crashing/and killing or are you just defending the undefendable for sport.Is this type of crash common for this type of plane? If so how many have crashed without fuel?
I have seen some aircraft suck fuel at alarming rates and the ame's not find anything wrong ie normal fuel burn on one short trip was almost double what it should have been.the only reason it was noticed as the aircraft was topped off before the flight and after and the owner thought he was getting robbed by the fueler or we were using the aircraft for our own use. One of the guys flying the plane had to divert to get fuel before continuing onward.
The only time you have to much fuel is when you are on fire.
keystone sues transport
aha...I see we have more genius comments from guys who know everything. the first crash was a different situation than the second and I see there was one person who knew a bit about it. the first crash was not caused because he ran out of fuel it was caused because there is a defect in the feed for the fuel tanks...ice formed in the feed which caused fuel starvation...yes the pilot was distracted, rather distracting to lose an engine wouldn't you say? ...the second crash was caused from running out of gas. he also could have remedied this many times prior to approach in wpg...there was fuel at the lodge, fuel at pine dock, he never declared an emergency which would have deflected a vector over the city etc etc. as to training keystone has some of the most stringent training in the industry even t.c agrees with that as evidenced in some of their comments. as to comments that perhaps t.c. should have shut keystone down after the first crash, the conclusion was the crash was caused because of the defect in fuel tank design which has been thrown back to piper mfr. by the by how come t.c. didn't shut down perimeter? 3 crashes in one year, all with fatalities??? or Air Canada? or Northwest? ms. floodman, whose father passed away 4 months after the keystone crash, notat the time of the crash as some seem to think, flew to canada on northwest...they've suffered crashes and fatalities but no one grounded them or seems to think they should. the pilot of the keystone crash is paying dearly for his bad day but so did the families involved in the crash, as did the compnay pay dearly. the guy has already paid in spades mentally...anyone who has been in this situation knows how devastating it is for the company and the pilot involved. as one of you said, beware, next time it could be you and until it is you have no understanding of what the parties involved go thru...
-
stringbender
- Rank 1
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:27 pm
-
stringbender
- Rank 1
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:27 pm
stringbender - thank you = nine times out of ten the ones with the biggest opinionsdon't know as much as they should and can't be bothered to research it 0 they just react to gossip be it in the papers or third hand from someone else. thanks again for your support. - fanny
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Fanny, I have read all your comments and I still think you are full of crap.
So convince me that the management had no idea about how their pilot was operating that aircraft fuel wise? and convince me that the company had top notch training.
I do understand the subject so now you convince me that that company had proper operational oversite and control of the flight opeartions.
Cat
So convince me that the management had no idea about how their pilot was operating that aircraft fuel wise? and convince me that the company had top notch training.
I do understand the subject so now you convince me that that company had proper operational oversite and control of the flight opeartions.
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.
okay cat here goes - any small airline like keystone that runs 7 or 8 aircraft in the summer months in wpg trains their pilots to self dispatch with the company giving them instructions on there destination and pax loads etc. and teaches them the responsiblity of fuelling, flight planning, including weather checks etc. the pilot is responsible for checking his aircraft re: oil levels, fuel loads etc and is responsible for calculating these according to his pax and freight load. they have to be able to do these things on their own because if they are somewhere other than their base and have to take on fuel before returning to base it makes sense that they must know how to do this. anyone who gets behind the controls of a plane better know how. every airline has their standards concerning the number of hours a pilot has and how many hours on type are required etc. training is no joke for keystone and their pilots require higher hours total time and multi from their pilots than many small operators in the area. they must not only do the ground training on type, but must do several runs with a qualified pilot before they are allowed to go on their own. i don't know what you know about qualifications, but for each aircraft flown (even if they are all pipers, but different sizes) the pilot must have a PPC)pilot proficiency check) on each type and are required to take the company's training, put in a certain number of hours before going on their own, as well as pass transport's training and flight test with flying colors before they are deemed safe enough to go. not only that if a pilot is just starting to go on their own and are at all uncomfortable with the weather or such on a day they are to fly, then they talk to their immediate supervisor and they do not have to do the flight. the boss at keystone has personally done many flights for a pilot that did not feel confident enough to go. they are not dummies...dont forget that keystone had more than 15 years with no incidents and many many inspections by t.c. where they found no fault with the operation. they are there to try to run an honest business and serve the public...also dont forget that most aviation accidents are the result (unfortunately) of pilot error and very few are due to mechanical failure. people are fallible even pilots. aviation accidents kill far fewer people than do road accidents but they are much more publicized and that stat is no comfort for anyone who has lost someone in a crash. all they can do is try to learn from what happened and pray it never happens again.
-
Northern Flyer
- Rank 6
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:40 pm
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
fanny :
You ask, quote :
" i don't know what you know about qualifications, "
Pilot qualifications is how I earn my living, my business is teaching exactly that subject.
You may be genuinely sincere in your thoughts, I have no direct knowlege of the company in question outside of what has been printed in various places.
However from what I have read I am not convinced that the pilot acted on his own initiative with no outside pressure to push his limits, which in this case exceeded the limits.
So I shall wait and see how all this unfolds.
But one more thing is confusing me.
" the boss at keystone has personally done many flights for a pilot that did not feel confident enough to go. they are not dummies... "
If as you state all Keystones pilots are picked for experience and their training is so exceptional that they pass their TC checks with flying colours, so why would their boss have to fly trips they were uncomfortable with?
Do you mean that the owner of Keystone is an exceptional pilot and even though his standards for his pilots are so high he is still forced to fly the really difficult trips?
Cat
You ask, quote :
" i don't know what you know about qualifications, "
Pilot qualifications is how I earn my living, my business is teaching exactly that subject.
You may be genuinely sincere in your thoughts, I have no direct knowlege of the company in question outside of what has been printed in various places.
However from what I have read I am not convinced that the pilot acted on his own initiative with no outside pressure to push his limits, which in this case exceeded the limits.
So I shall wait and see how all this unfolds.
But one more thing is confusing me.
" the boss at keystone has personally done many flights for a pilot that did not feel confident enough to go. they are not dummies... "
If as you state all Keystones pilots are picked for experience and their training is so exceptional that they pass their TC checks with flying colours, so why would their boss have to fly trips they were uncomfortable with?
Do you mean that the owner of Keystone is an exceptional pilot and even though his standards for his pilots are so high he is still forced to fly the really difficult trips?
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've flown the province of Manitoba since 1967 and there's not an area of it I haven't covered at one time or another. I've did every dirt strip in existence in northern Manitoba, including some that don't exist anymore.
I believe a 1/4 of what I read in any newspaper, including the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun. I do that because CBC once reported me as having crashed and died.....and I hadn't crashed and hadn't died of anything. They waited 4 days and then called my wife to interview her. She knew nothing about all this and you can appreciate the result. That cost one Al Johnson, CEO of the CBC and the Corporation $150,000 plus a letter of apology from the CEO.
I've therefore read the preliminary accident report and await further reports, so I consider myself informed to date or else TSB are liars. Now I'm against defaming people or companies that cannot defend themselves. When however, someone wishes to throw Perimiter Airlines into the fray, then they have opened up a big can of worms and stepped in the "doggie dew-dew". They've been shut down, fined and a host of other actions taken against them for the last 35 years and they are still flying. That's not their fault......that's DoT's/MoT's fault.....and even though MoT can be assh*les at times, they aren't wrong that often and aren't THAT big of an assh*le. So let's leave them out as a comparison before I puke. Let's just call that a bad comparison. No further mention of Flying Colours needs to be stated because I'm recently informed that they also are "not on the scene" as of late. 'Nuff said on that.
The a/c was operating without a working auto-pilot BEFORE the flight, the approach was wrong, not declaring the emergency was wrong and the turn over a heavily populated area of the city was wrong knowing full well the fuel situation. The resultant crash did not kill the gentleman in question onsite, but was the main contributing factor to his later demise.
Somewheres in this event some parties made some very wrong decisions or no decisions at all. The amount of justice dispersed will be in proportion to who has the deepest pockets to hire the best lawyer. The Winnipeg track-record of the past 40 years, in similar cases, indicates that Keystone will resume flying onwards and upwards and the pilot will disappear into the past, never to fly again or not for a very, very long time.
So Fanny, I may not be close to the "inner sanctum" as far as intimate knowledge is concerned, but I've landed at dear 'ol Winnipeg Int'l since the Winnipeg Flying Club had their clubhouse on the same airport.......so I know it reasonably well.....and I can read posted accident reports quite well. There are also numerous places in Manitoba where I know some of the trees on a first-name basis. I also trust TSB with their excellent investigations and expertise. I'll await their further findings and then I'll see if they agree with my assessment to date, based on the information THEY have provided. At that point in time, IF it is determined that the a/c took off with the company knowing about certain items not functioning properly, then they should be treated exactly like the pilot in question probably will be.......not operate again ever or not for a long, long time. I doubt that will be the case though, otherwise Perimter Airlines would have been out of business back about the time of the gold bullion robbery at the same airport in '66.
I believe a 1/4 of what I read in any newspaper, including the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun. I do that because CBC once reported me as having crashed and died.....and I hadn't crashed and hadn't died of anything. They waited 4 days and then called my wife to interview her. She knew nothing about all this and you can appreciate the result. That cost one Al Johnson, CEO of the CBC and the Corporation $150,000 plus a letter of apology from the CEO.
I've therefore read the preliminary accident report and await further reports, so I consider myself informed to date or else TSB are liars. Now I'm against defaming people or companies that cannot defend themselves. When however, someone wishes to throw Perimiter Airlines into the fray, then they have opened up a big can of worms and stepped in the "doggie dew-dew". They've been shut down, fined and a host of other actions taken against them for the last 35 years and they are still flying. That's not their fault......that's DoT's/MoT's fault.....and even though MoT can be assh*les at times, they aren't wrong that often and aren't THAT big of an assh*le. So let's leave them out as a comparison before I puke. Let's just call that a bad comparison. No further mention of Flying Colours needs to be stated because I'm recently informed that they also are "not on the scene" as of late. 'Nuff said on that.
The a/c was operating without a working auto-pilot BEFORE the flight, the approach was wrong, not declaring the emergency was wrong and the turn over a heavily populated area of the city was wrong knowing full well the fuel situation. The resultant crash did not kill the gentleman in question onsite, but was the main contributing factor to his later demise.
Somewheres in this event some parties made some very wrong decisions or no decisions at all. The amount of justice dispersed will be in proportion to who has the deepest pockets to hire the best lawyer. The Winnipeg track-record of the past 40 years, in similar cases, indicates that Keystone will resume flying onwards and upwards and the pilot will disappear into the past, never to fly again or not for a very, very long time.
So Fanny, I may not be close to the "inner sanctum" as far as intimate knowledge is concerned, but I've landed at dear 'ol Winnipeg Int'l since the Winnipeg Flying Club had their clubhouse on the same airport.......so I know it reasonably well.....and I can read posted accident reports quite well. There are also numerous places in Manitoba where I know some of the trees on a first-name basis. I also trust TSB with their excellent investigations and expertise. I'll await their further findings and then I'll see if they agree with my assessment to date, based on the information THEY have provided. At that point in time, IF it is determined that the a/c took off with the company knowing about certain items not functioning properly, then they should be treated exactly like the pilot in question probably will be.......not operate again ever or not for a long, long time. I doubt that will be the case though, otherwise Perimter Airlines would have been out of business back about the time of the gold bullion robbery at the same airport in '66.
Fanny...I find the fact that the "boss" will do a trip that the pilot finds "uncomfortable" with, really disturbing. If I, as a pilot turn down a trip due to wx or for whatever reason, and the "boss" says he'll do it, I would find that to be well and truly ignorant! I've seen pilots turn down trips that I've felt I could do without much problem, but I've never come forward and offered, because that would be showing a total lack of confidence in the other pilot. That said, this would lead to what I'll call "preceived pressure" placed on the pilot by the "boss". This can cause pilots to bite off more than they can chew simply to not be placed in the position of having the "boss" bail them out. This can lead to crashed airplanes and dead pilots and pax! I'd get my small cute hairy butt OUT ot any company, or situation that put me in that position! And so should you. Any company who's boss will do a trip for a pilot who's not "comfortable" with IS for and run by "dummies"!
On the auto-pilot point. While it may not be legal to fly single pilot IFR without one, the pilot RAN OUT OF GAS!!! Not the autopilot's fault.
On the auto-pilot point. While it may not be legal to fly single pilot IFR without one, the pilot RAN OUT OF GAS!!! Not the autopilot's fault.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Doc.....
Here is the part in fannys post ( if true ) that I find most disturbing and most damaging to the reputation of the management of said company.
" the boss at keystone has personally done many flights for a pilot that did not feel confident "
When any boss is known to over ride the decision of no go by a pilot on his payroll who has been licensed by and PPC certified by the regulator to make these decisions it is not " preceived " pressure, it is proof that said boss pressures his crews.... in my opinion at least.
The root problem we have in aviation is should a pilot request help from the regulator in issues such as these what would the result be for the pilot?
Cat
Here is the part in fannys post ( if true ) that I find most disturbing and most damaging to the reputation of the management of said company.
" the boss at keystone has personally done many flights for a pilot that did not feel confident "
When any boss is known to over ride the decision of no go by a pilot on his payroll who has been licensed by and PPC certified by the regulator to make these decisions it is not " preceived " pressure, it is proof that said boss pressures his crews.... in my opinion at least.
The root problem we have in aviation is should a pilot request help from the regulator in issues such as these what would the result be for the pilot?
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.
Ya know, Cat, I've never even seen that before....Oh, I've seen a pilot ask advice. I've even seen a pilot do a trip for somebody for many reasons....but not for "comfort zone"! If I feel it's unsafe...then it's unsafe. And I would expect others to respect my assessment.....I think that's the ticket....respect. And Keystone's whole 'tude shines through with lack of respect! Plus the "P" word...big time!
-
stallnfall
- Rank 1
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:24 am
- Location: The Peg
