Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .

[Cat Driver]

Why is he the only one to have been put through this life changing process?

Somehow I have this nagging feeling that something is not quite right with this considering he is the only pilot I can remember having been put through this legal process. And how come no one else in the company were held culpable?

I am sure there have been many other pilots who did as bad or worse but were not charged.

[Doc]

Knowingly continuing a flight with a very high probability of running out of fuel, and therefore risking the lives of your passengers, is NOT like driving your parent's minivan into another car.
Don't forget, the weather didn't "close in" on him. He overflew places he could have used to refuel. He chose not to. He made that choice. Using "company pressure" as an excuse, is just that....an excuse. Passing the buck. Not taking responsibility for his actions.
It's not like skidding off a really long runway in a Dash 8.
It's not like exceeding the speed limit in your Buick.
It's not like neglecting to wear a seat belt.
It's not like hiding a "few extra pounds" in your paperwork.
It IS a TOTAL DISREGARD for the safety and lives of all on board.
It is NOT a mistake.
It should not be treated as a mistake!
And no, I would not hire him to fly my airplane.

[Finn47]

He should have declared an emergency and gotten himself preferential treatment and maybe ATC could have talked him down on the first approach which he botched. But no, he was having none of it. I have no understanding for people who say they would hire him as a pilot. He caused plenty of bodily harm and a death and wrecked the aircraft - and it could have been a lot worse. Sometimes I wonder what gets into people who keep trying to come up with excuses for "a fellow pilot". There are NO excuses for what he did.

[snoopy]

Doc, this is precisely what I am talking about! Who are you to judge what is more or less worse than running out of gas in an aircraft? If you smoked a kid while driving intoxicated or speeding in your Buick, I'm sure the parents would consider that a total disregard for safety. If you ran over my dog in this instance, is it ok for me to want your life in exchange? An over-run from landing long on a "really long" runway with a performance aircraft like the Dash 8 might be considered irresponsible, even reckless by some - poor planning? too fast? no reject? And how much is "a few extra pounds" over? When does "a little over" become too much? Who quantifies what is a little and what is a lot? If one engine quits and the aircraft is unable to maintain altitude on the other engine and crashes, does it really matter by how much the pilot exceeded the manufacturer's hard numbers?

Why is one pilot punished and others go unscathed? Why do people consistently condone and support similar poor decisions from themselves and those around them? And isn't it easier to point fingers at this heinous lawbreaker than to admit we might be less than perfect ourselves? That some of our minor little indiscretions might be considered reckless endangerment by others?

Again, I do not in any way agree with the decisions Mark made, but did you read my post? The fact is, many companies reward poor decisions and punish good decisions. And the same people that want to hang the law breakers just as quickly want to hang the law abiders - it seems to just depend on which way the wind happens to be blowing that day.

Just my two cents.

Kirsten B.

[Slats]

Wow Snoopy, is it difficult to sleep at night or is it easy for you to justify your hypocrisy............here's a few of your past gems from previous posts in just ONE thread:

How about taking a bit of responsibility for the lives of the people on board your aircraft. I'm willing to bet that given the choice, your future passengers and their loved ones would prefer not to have you playing russian roulette with their lives as you play test pilot in an aircraft you rendered unairworthy.

Westward_Bound,

If you're so desperate for a job that you'll break whatever laws you have to in order to get it, and will do anything you're asked by an operator, regardless of the fact you would be risking other people's lives without their permission, stop and think for a moment. Think about the economy, the rate cutting, the lack of regulatory oversight and protection for people employed in the aviation industry. Now think about what that operator is willing to do, or not do, in order just to survive in a cut throat industry.

Maybe, just maybe, he or she is taking even further risks with your life, without your permission or knowledge. Mistakes, that combined with you operating outside the operating limits of the aircraft, could cost you your own life.

Trust me when I say I have a passion to fly, and I love aviation - despite all the flaws in the industry. I've been in this business a lot longer than you and have acquired some pretty good experience and qualifications. However when times get tough, or you stand on the side of right, it ain't no frigging picnic for anyone. Nearly everyone in this business has suffered hardship, unemployment and extreme poverty.

I can tell you that nobody that I would care to work for would deliberately risk, or ask me to risk the lives of myself and/or my passengers, without our knowledge or permission. Chances are pretty good that if they wouldn't do that, they're not very likely to ask me to do it deliberately either.

Only you can decide how you will conduct yourself in your new career, and the type of peer/operator pressure you experience will depend on the circumstances YOU keep yourself in.

Fuel Requirements

602.88 (1) This section does not apply in respect of any glider, balloon or ultra-light aeroplane.

(2) No pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall commence a flight or, during flight, change the destination aerodrome set out in the flight plan or flight itinerary, unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to
....
(4) An aircraft operated in IFR flight shall carry an amount of fuel that is sufficient to allow the aircraft

(a) in the case of a propeller-driven aeroplane,

(i) where an alternate aerodrome is specified in the flight plan or flight itinerary, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, to fly to and land at the alternate aerodrome and then to fly for a period of 45 minutes

I posted the CARS and emphasized in red the part that many people, including operators, forget when planning payload for a given flight.

I wondered if you would respond and I'm glad you did. In my mind it was a grave mistake when legislation bowed to pressure from industry and reduced the minimum fuel requirements for Day VFR (airplane) to 30 minutes down from 45. 30 minutes of fuel, in a turbine engine forced to fly low due to low cloud cover; a radial or other carbureted engine; twin-engine aircraft or at a time of year or aircraft configuration where alternate landing sites may be few and far between, is completely asinine.

This is where safety comes into play. If you feel that 30 minutes is not enough, and you can't justify contingency fuel to your operator (such as no obvious reason for it), then one solution is to approach the owner, safety officer or other appropriate person in your company and explain why you feel 30 minutes is not enough. If it is a good company and has a mature safety culture (and I don't mean SMS), then you should be able to at least have a good discussion over possible changes to the way payloads are calculated for your company.

If that doesn't get you anywhere, or in conjunction with the above effort, you can try the following:

Many companies I have seen or worked for, use block aircraft speeds, that are often unrealistic, to calculate published payloads for given destinations. Check the numbers on the published "standard" for the company and verify they are right for your aircraft. Often you will find they are out of date (old weight and balance), or do not account for different performance in various aircraft. Be sure the weight and balance information is accurate for your aircraft and the equipment list reflects installed equipment. Engineers make mistakes too, and pilots don't always bother to check the accuracy of the aircraft paperwork.

Is your company using actual or standard weights for the passengers? In my opinion, small aircraft should be required to use actual weights for passengers as there are not enough seats to average out the differences in weights. It is not uncommon for a C-185, DCHC-2, DHC-3, Beech 18, Navajo etc. to be over gross in passenger weights alone using standard weights. The CARS do provide for passengers who obviously are not a standard weight - you must use actual. Not only that, the inappropriate use of standard weights violates the C of A for the aircraft. What to do when out in the field with no scale... R-22 captain claims he uses a bathroom scale. I've done that when based in remote northern communities and flying full payloads. If you do that from the start, your passengers will get over their initial surprise and possible razzing - later they will simply expect it from you. You can point out that nothing gets on board an airliner in Canada that isn't weighed first.

Then there is the topic of contingencies - in addition to checking the upper level winds, weather, possible bad conditions at the destination, deterioration in aircraft performance due to operating altitude, moisture in the air, external load, poorly performing engine etc. don't forget this one:

(e) any other foreseeable conditions that could delay the landing of the aircraft.

While I agree that the company can't make any money if the aircraft is tankering fuel all over the place, they certainly won't make any money if the aircraft runs out of fuel and something could have been done about it.

Sometimes the regs are not enough, and carrying the minimum, though legal, isn't safe. If none of the above options allow you to squeak in some extra fuel and justify it in the CARS, or you can't change the safety culture in your company, and you feel the extra fuel you need is essential for your comfort zone and safety of the flight, then you have a tough decision to make. In the end you may be faced with a choice to leave, operate in the way you feel safe and risk the operator making you leave, or operate in strict accordance with the CARS and feeling uncomfortable.

How about taking a bit of responsibility for the lives of the people on board your aircraft. I'm willing to bet that given the choice, your future passengers and their loved ones would prefer not to have you playing russian roulette with their lives

I could go on quoting excerpts from your previous posts but like a previous poster stated, when compared to what you've written regarding this topic...it makes me want to vomit. It seems the gal who feels it is completely unacceptable to take off ten pounds overweight, doesn't see the problem with knowingly taking off with insufficient fuel and killing someone. I'm not going to crucify this guy the way some others would but I certainly won't sit here and give some bleeding heart defense for him either. How do you reconcile this BS of yours?

[warner]

Doc don't be such a pious ass, guess your so perfect you've never made any mistakes, I for one know thats not true,, so cut the guy some slack here, if the shoe was on the other foot I would think its the least you can expect from your fellow aviators.....I also stand behind what cat said on his last post.......makes sense to me

[AEROBAT]

the question one may ask of themselves is this........would I hire Mark Tayfel to fly my airplane ? I know I would without a moment of hesitation , the benefit of experience whether good or bad is still experience is it not but to condemm a person and deny them the opportunity to show who they really are under proper tutalege is in itself wrong

I wouldn't let him near any controls of anything. If he was not criminaly negligent then he must be incredibly stupid. What else could you call it?

[Strega]

He should NOT have declared an emergency,,,

He SHOULD HAVE landed for fuel..

way to raise the bar...

[Doc]

Doc don't be such a pious ass, guess your so perfect you've never made any mistakes, I for one know thats not true,, so cut the guy some slack here, if the shoe was on the other foot I would think its the least you can expect from your fellow aviators.....I also stand behind what cat said on his last post.......makes sense to me

"cut the guy some slack here....." Nope. Not going to happen. Everybody has made mistakes, warner. You, me, everybody. Most of us (you and me, included) know when to pull the plug and buy some gas. Hell, it ain't even our own money. This guy KNEW he didn't have enough gas on board, and continued the flight regardless. All he had to do, was drop in and pump a few litres of of dino juice. Sorry if you feel I'm being a "pious ass", but I wouldn't let him loose in a '76 Ford Pinto.

[jeta1]

deleted

[Cat Driver]

It is wonderful that everyone has the opportunity to try and retry this guy in the court of personal opinions.

Me I look at this in a more broad concept and still come back to the fact that in all the decades I have been watching these accidents happen where pilots finally run out of luck pushing the envelope this guy is the only one that has really been put through the wringer and probably will never fly commercially again.

If as most everyone here thinks the pilot is the last and only person responsible for flight safety then why are they some of the lowest paid " managers " in aviation.

Why not get rid of all Operations Managers, Chief Pilots and other management and take that money and pay the " Real managers " the pilots, a wage that reflects their responsibilities?

Or is that to simplistic for aviation?

[xsbank]

Cat and Snoopy, I'm with you. The rest of you Hang-'em-Highs should join the Immigration Appeal Board or the Parole Board. I can see a place for your talents - you're wasted here.

[Brown Bear]

My take on this whole is simple. I'll say this real slow for Snoopy and XS, and all of you "cut the guy some slack" fan club. The original conviction sent a message. The buck stops in the cockpit. It's that simple. That message has been taken off the table. The reprecutions are, among others, pilots will continue to push the limits, because they "think" it's a requirement to keep their jobs. The courts have opened the door for a repeat performance! And that's a bad thing. Should we cut this guy some slack on the bases, that we all make mistakes? That's up to you. Would I hire him? No. But, that's up to me. Not you.

[snoopy]

Slats,

I'm afraid I don't get your accusation. I advocate for and support in myself and others, good piloting, professional standards, airmanship and good operators who also support these qualities. I think that is a good thing, and worth my time and effort.

Some of those quotes were directed at a person entering the industry who was wondering where he/she could take a course on how to fly overloaded. I am certainly not going to agree with the thinking behind a request like that, for reasons I addressed to the poster.

While I don't agree with his/her thinking, at no time did I suggest the poster should be stoned, hung or banned from the industry. That pilot will have to learn for themselves the error in their thinking, and I can only hope they learn it before they take a life (and become a topic of discussion on AvCanada).

A quote from my quote you quoted: "Only you can decide how you will conduct yourself in your new career, and the type of peer/operator pressure you experience will depend on the circumstances YOU keep yourself in."

And for those of you standing there with rocks in your hand: "The question is, the next time the person next to you makes a safe decision contrary to the masses, and upholds professional standards, will you stand by them and support their good decisions? Will you include them in your "inner circle" of good 'ol boys? Or will you stone them too?"

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[xsbank]

What I'm hearing from you lot is that you have one chance, one chance only, you must learn your lessons well because if you pooch something, you're out.

Is that your lesson?

Never have I advocated feckless flying, irresponsible operations whether it be overweight, too much weather, contaminated wings, rough water, aerobatics in a King Air, rejecting after V1, whatever you can think of. Never. But I'll bet that at least a third of you have done something stupid in an airplane but you didn't get caught. You walked away without breaking something, without hurting anyone or without a violation. Most of you learned your lesson, gave your head a shake and moved forward. Did any one of you do something that your peers and your company said was the right way to do something, only to realize later that you were cutting your margins too fine, were operating outside the rules or flying overweight? Did you have the intention to hurt somebody?

Does anybody?

By the way, BBear, I haven't heard anything from you that will change my mind, even if you r--e--a--d i--t r--e--a--l--l--y s--l--o--w--l--y.

[Widow]

One of the positive things about SMS is the fact that it encourages looking at the big picture - like accident investigators are supposed to do. It is meant to bring the industry more in line with the Canada Labour Code, and consequently, Criminal Code Amendment Bill C-45. Again, if this Bill had been enacted prior to this accident, I believe that the operator would also have faced criminal charges, and rightly so.

Very, very seldom can an accident or incident (or near accident/incident) be attributed to one single cause. There are usually multiple findings as to cause and contributing factors, and still more findings as to risk.

If we are going to accept the "new" safety culture (forget for a moment about TC's methods of implementation, just focus on what SMS is supposed to be), we must also accept that ALL the risks need to be addressed and investigated for actions to mitigate those risks in future.

In Mr. Tayfel's accident, the TSB noted findings as to risk with respect to the company's operational control. I find it strange that there is nothing in the report about TC's recent audits and inspections. It seems unlikely that, given the lack of operational control, TC oversight was not also lacking in this case.

Which brings me back to Wapiti, or more recently, Davis Inlet.

These serious accidents indicate that some operators and crews have disregarded safety regulations and, consequently, put passengers and themselves at an unnecessary and unacceptably high level of risk. In these accidents, findings indicate that, in certain areas of commercial operations, the safety oversight efforts of TC have been somewhat ineffective. Therefore, the Board recommends that:

The Department of Transport undertake a review of its safety oversight methodology, resources, and practices, particularly as they relate to smaller operators and those operators who fly in or into remote areas, to ensure that air operators and crews consistently operate within the safety regulations.

A01-01

Assessment/Reassessment Rating: Fully Satisfactory

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 9a0036.asp

Despite the TSB Assessment showing a "Fully Satisfactory" response to Recommendation A01-01, this accident - and several more recent ones - make it very clear that some operators and crews continue to disregard safety regulations.

Like Mr. Vogel of Wapiti, Mr. Tayfel SHOULD have refused to fly. But the company culture, which it would seem TC implicitly condoned by its inaction, did not support such a refusal.

I am quite sure Mr. Tayfel has learned his lesson. But has the operator? Has TC?

The message that was sent by convicting Tayfel was received loud and clear. IMHO it was the wrong one. Overturning the causing injury/death convictions is, I believe one positive step in recognizing the Swiss Cheese of Reason.

[Brown Bear]

XS....The comment about reading slowly was a joke, son.
Do you really think what this guy simply "pooched" it??
I think it goes way beyond that!

Slats.....I'm totally with you. Snoop wears the "hat" of the day.

[Cat Driver]

Widow is it possible that T.C. had no idea what the culture in Keystone was like therefore it is unfair to question their lack of oversight?

[stringbender]

TC should know,Im sure some of the people who have worked there did talk to TC about them

[Doc]

Cat, I don't see how TC could have been unaware of the "Mickey Mouse" factor in the way Keystone operated.
But even with the worst company culture out there, it's pretty hard to believe it a factor in a pilot knowingly running the tanks dry with a cabin full of passengers?
"Yes son, we know you need four hours of fuel, but it's company policy to only carry three hours and fifty-five minutes. You'll just have to make do......"
I've made a couple of unscheduled fuel stops in my day. I'm sure several of you have. I've worked for a couple of companies with the same mind set as Keystone. I'm sure most of us have. I never got a hassle over a fuel stop. I'm sure there would have been no hassle in this case either.

[Widow]

Cat, from the evidence, it would seem the company culture was well-known, and was not (is not) limited to this company. If it was not known to TC, that in itself would indicate oversight was lacking. Either way, the reasons for not knowing, or knowing but not acting, should have been investigated and acted upon - as those reasons could continue be unacceptable risks. IMHO, of course.

[xsbank]

Of course it was a joke. I'm also too old to be your son. Quite restrained on your part though, well done.

I am very glad that we don't all have your sense of biblical justice; there would likely be a significant number of one-eyed, toothless ex-pilots wandering about cluttering up the streets.

[Doc]

Cat, from the evidence, it would seem the company culture was well-known, and was not (is not) limited to this company.

So, this means (to some, not me, BTW) that you can not commit an act of criminal negligence as long as your company culture is poor? Because, to me that seems like the excuse everyone is gravitating towards.

[Cat Driver]

The question was meant to be sarcasm.

For anyone to even wonder if T.C. knows about these companies is ludicrous.

As near as I have been able to figure out there can be no other reason why some companies get torn apart by T.C. for infractions and others are allowed to carry on as usual is someone in T.C. has to be getting something for turning a blind eye to some of these companies.

[Widow]

Cat, while I agree that it seems suspicous, and may be the case on occassion, I also think that, in some cases, inspectors are overworked and/or not supported by their own management. In other cases, I think that their hands have been tied by their own rules.

Doc, I don't think it was an excuse, but I do think it was a factor that needed considering. The TC enforcement actions are against both the pilot and the operator. Perhaps those repercussions were not enough, and perhaps that "not enough" was due to legislated limitations that in themselves need updating.

In criminal court, it is my opinion that being convicted for dangerous operation was enough. As Cat has indicated, that this ended up in criminal court is, in itself, remarkable. Pilots make this kind of "error" every day, yet very few of them are "punished" by TC, and how many have ended up in criminal court? It was American tourists - lawsuits - that made this case criminal.

Company culture, TC oversight - both are relevant to the case. Perhaps my view is coloured by my own experience - but one would think I would lean towards the "hang him" view as a result.