Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
awww... shucks xsbank...
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Doc,you must be in a different industry than the one Ive been in for 20 years. If you think companies dont mind taking extra fuel your out to lunch. Do you think companies dont mind taking golf clubs off on a golf charter because you want granny gas? They are more concerned about pleasing the client than having extra gas. Companies do not want to have to buy fuel up north because its too expensive. The company in question is notoroius for that. This guy should have had some balls but he fell into try to please everyone and get the job done. When you have low experience, stuck in a training bond, have an asshole of a boss that plays pilot against pilot, and yes men pilots that do the flights if you dont, the next thing you know all you want to do is get the job done and stay off the radar.This is when things start happening and Im sure this was the case.If you have never had problems with companies over fuel I want to fly the airplane you fly because it must be able to take any load with full fuel and any distance. Even in the airlines there are fuel issues between dispatch and the captain.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Sure, but I would think that they expect you to bring enough gas to get to your destination!
Wahunga!
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Can't see where I was advocating "granny" gas. (Granny gas, BTW for those of you who don't know the term, is gas in your tank, that ONLY YOU know about. Used to be a pretty common practice, that I'm sure is still in fairly wide use today. I might even consider it a wise idea if you work for a company like Keystone.) Pretty sure they'd all rather leave the golf clubs behind than have to walk the last 10 miles. Poll your passengers. Do it. On the other hand, how much gas could you take for the weight of a set of Pings? You think gas up north is expensive? Try running out of gas.......you'll find the price of 87 octane at the corner of Portage and Main to be pretty costly!stratcat wrote:Doc,you must be in a different industry than the one Ive been in for 20 years. If you think companies dont mind taking extra fuel your out to lunch. Do you think companies dont mind taking golf clubs off on a golf charter because you want granny gas? They are more concerned about pleasing the client than having extra gas. Companies do not want to have to buy fuel up north because its too expensive. The company in question is notoroius for that. This guy should have had some balls but he fell into try to please everyone and get the job done. When you have low experience, stuck in a training bond, have an asshole of a boss that plays pilot against pilot, and yes men pilots that do the flights if you dont, the next thing you know all you want to do is get the job done and stay off the radar.This is when things start happening and Im sure this was the case.If you have never had problems with companies over fuel I want to fly the airplane you fly because it must be able to take any load with full fuel and any distance. Even in the airlines there are fuel issues between dispatch and the captain.
I've had to divert for fuel. Haven't you? I've never been hassled over it. Have you?
Keep in mind, if you're "stuck in a training bond", you did it to yourself. And at the end of the day, YOU were the one who ran out of gas....not that mean, nasty, company who plays one pilot against another....
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Wow I leave for a day and things heat up lol. Doc you say you don’t want to get personal but the comments your making sure sound personal and directed at a few, if anyone is making this personal you are and please stop talking to people like were al idiots your not the only one who has brains...not trying to get personal. I worked for said company and if you are telling me they were happy and supportive if you said you wanted to take extra gas for approaches and the chance you might have to hold you’re WRONG. A friend of mine who left in the near past was striped of his cap't spot for stopping for extra gas. If that’s what you mean by okay with it than I guess your right, the company in practice is forcing pilots to take granny and lower there flight planed fuel (which we all know what it is thank you). If the company was okay with extra fuel why weren't all the pilots ever questioned or disciplined for flying VFR in IFR weather (don’t tell me the C.P didn’t know it’s his job to know). We never said Mark was the major factor behind this he could have said go get stuffed, but to ignore all the other behind the scenes stuff and say it didn't play into this accident is ignorant. Yes it did however like you said he still could have said NO, but if we ignore the rest than the problems with bad company culture will never get solved. That culture (at any company) could be fuel, snags, anything.
Sorry about the rant but everybody was getting along and having a good conversation and you don’t want to make it personal but yet your talking down to people and treating them as if they are idiots...lets all just get along damn it, its Christmas
YWG
Sorry about the rant but everybody was getting along and having a good conversation and you don’t want to make it personal but yet your talking down to people and treating them as if they are idiots...lets all just get along damn it, its Christmas
YWG
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I have absolutely no idea who, or what you're talking about. You lost me. Didn't know anybody wasn't getting along. Another rum and coke, perhaps?ywg9 wrote:Wow I leave for a day and things heat up lol. Doc you say you don’t want to get personal but the comments your making sure sound personal and directed at a few, if anyone is making this personal you are and please stop talking to people like were al idiots your not the only one who has brains...not trying to get personal. I worked for said company and if you are telling me they were happy and supportive if you said you wanted to take extra gas for approaches and the chance you might have to hold you’re WRONG. A friend of mine who left in the near past was striped of his cap't spot for stopping for extra gas. If that’s what you mean by okay with it than I guess your right, the company in practice is forcing pilots to take granny and lower there flight planed fuel (which we all know what it is thank you). If the company was okay with extra fuel why weren't all the pilots ever questioned or disciplined for flying VFR in IFR weather (don’t tell me the C.P didn’t know it’s his job to know). We never said Mark was the major factor behind this he could have said go get stuffed, but to ignore all the other behind the scenes stuff and say it didn't play into this accident is ignorant. Yes it did however like you said he still could have said NO, but if we ignore the rest than the problems with bad company culture will never get solved. That culture (at any company) could be fuel, snags, anything.
Sorry about the rant but everybody was getting along and having a good conversation and you don’t want to make it personal but yet your talking down to people and treating them as if they are idiots...lets all just get along damn it, its Christmas
YWG
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Doc
No rum and cokes...yet lol
however comments like this
"This comment is an absolute, and total crock of shit!" - rude and uncalled for
"Granny gas, BTW for those of you who don't know the term, is gas in your tank, that ONLY YOU know about." - sounds condecending to me
now maybe there is the possibility that ove the net i lose the tone in the way your saying but over all thats the way its coming across.
now that you have got me thinking about rum and coke it might be just that time got to hurry before i hit the 10hrs before mark lol
have a good one all
YWG
No rum and cokes...yet lol
however comments like this
"This comment is an absolute, and total crock of shit!" - rude and uncalled for
"Granny gas, BTW for those of you who don't know the term, is gas in your tank, that ONLY YOU know about." - sounds condecending to me
now maybe there is the possibility that ove the net i lose the tone in the way your saying but over all thats the way its coming across.
now that you have got me thinking about rum and coke it might be just that time got to hurry before i hit the 10hrs before mark lol
have a good one all
YWG
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
The "crock of shit" remark may have been a little "out there", but I really think it was just that.ywg9 wrote:Doc
No rum and cokes...yet lol
however comments like this
"This comment is an absolute, and total crock of shit!" - rude and uncalled for
"Granny gas, BTW for those of you who don't know the term, is gas in your tank, that ONLY YOU know about." - sounds condecending to me
I explained the meaning of "granny gas" simply for the benefit of some really new drivers, who may not have been exposed to the term. Absolutely no offense intended with that one.
The rum and coke remark was a simple indication of my present thirst!
Cheers
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Jeez Doc, perhaps you should join in the sharing circle around the campfire and talk about how you felt when jerk bosses of the past have pressured you and how you weren't hugged enough as a child and now you have to take it out on avcanadians with thinly veiled passive aggressive witty remarks. 
It amazes how so many people are pussy-footing around this issue and throwing out words like "mistake" and "accident" and "granny gas"; all red herrings that do nothing but water down a very cut and dried topic with very clear and simple lessons to be learned. Perhaps it's too much of an affront to some of you and your delicate sensibilities and if that's the case you might want to stuff your fingers in your ears now and start shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA!" I'm not going to sit here and crucify Mark Tayfel, he has probably already served a life sentence in the prison of his conscience. But the fact of the matter is that when he did what he did, he made himself an example to the rest of us, and it doesn't serve any of us or our industry or even him for that matter if we gloss over it. This was no accident. An accident is something like a gear collapse on landing. This was no mistake. A mistake is something like getting distracted and forgetting the fuel cap off. And this certainly had nothing to do with granny gas. To have granny gas you need to have more than the bare minimum of fuel; he didn't even have that. Yes, I'll admit he did make a mistake. He mistakenly calculated that he would land in Winnipeg with 50 minutes of fuel rather than the actual 6 minutes remaining. But that's where the mistakes stopped and the CHOICES began, because 50 minutes or 6 minutes-neither constitutes an IFR reserve for what he had flight planned. He chose not to take on any fuel. (And this had nothing to do with the cost of fuel "up north" as some would suggest, because there was an hour and 38 minutes of fuel already burned out of the tanks from positioning the aircraft to Winnipeg, so he could have easily topped up in YWG.) So, while he knew that he did not have enough fuel to complete the trip, he chose to depart without adding fuel. Did the company management play a part in that decision? Sounds like they did. But that's where he made another choice. A choice to gamble rather than grow a spine. And to be honest, had it not been for his earlier mistake calculating fuel, he probably would have gotten away with his choice to roll the dice. If he had in fact had 50 minutes of fuel he would not have had to cross-feed and would have likely flown the ILS properly down to mins and had a successful landing. But that didn't happen. Unfortunately for him his ealier mistake had stacked the deck against him and his decision to gamble. It would have all been avoided if he had taken on some more fuel. Would the boss have liked it? Maybe not. Would he have had unpleasantness to deal with from the company? Maybe. Would he have lost his job? Maybe. Would one person be dead and his career likely over? Probably not.
But I think that's the lesson to be learned here. It isn't some air regs BS about "Thou shalt always depart with appropriate VFR or IFR reserves." We all already know that. It's about the choice you may one day face and the fact that choices invariably come with consequences, like it or not. Consequences that as an adult human being who chose to assume command responsibilities of an aircraft, you will have to man up, and deal with. A boss may want you to do something unsafe. You have a choice: gamble or grow a spine. Grow a spine and you may have some flack to deal with. Hell, you might even lose your job. Those are the possible consequences of growing a spine. If you chose to gamble, on the other hand, you might get away with it. In fact, more often than not, you might get away with it. Some get away with gambling their whole careers. But not everyone can win every time. And the consequences of losing are alot more serious than losing a job for a company that, if they cared so little about you so as to put you in that position in the first place, you can be sure will abandon you and send you down the river, finger pointed in your direction when the time comes to answer the tough questions.
Those of you who couldn't handle the above can take your fingers out of your ears now and go back to the cocoa and Kumbaya.
It amazes how so many people are pussy-footing around this issue and throwing out words like "mistake" and "accident" and "granny gas"; all red herrings that do nothing but water down a very cut and dried topic with very clear and simple lessons to be learned. Perhaps it's too much of an affront to some of you and your delicate sensibilities and if that's the case you might want to stuff your fingers in your ears now and start shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA!" I'm not going to sit here and crucify Mark Tayfel, he has probably already served a life sentence in the prison of his conscience. But the fact of the matter is that when he did what he did, he made himself an example to the rest of us, and it doesn't serve any of us or our industry or even him for that matter if we gloss over it. This was no accident. An accident is something like a gear collapse on landing. This was no mistake. A mistake is something like getting distracted and forgetting the fuel cap off. And this certainly had nothing to do with granny gas. To have granny gas you need to have more than the bare minimum of fuel; he didn't even have that. Yes, I'll admit he did make a mistake. He mistakenly calculated that he would land in Winnipeg with 50 minutes of fuel rather than the actual 6 minutes remaining. But that's where the mistakes stopped and the CHOICES began, because 50 minutes or 6 minutes-neither constitutes an IFR reserve for what he had flight planned. He chose not to take on any fuel. (And this had nothing to do with the cost of fuel "up north" as some would suggest, because there was an hour and 38 minutes of fuel already burned out of the tanks from positioning the aircraft to Winnipeg, so he could have easily topped up in YWG.) So, while he knew that he did not have enough fuel to complete the trip, he chose to depart without adding fuel. Did the company management play a part in that decision? Sounds like they did. But that's where he made another choice. A choice to gamble rather than grow a spine. And to be honest, had it not been for his earlier mistake calculating fuel, he probably would have gotten away with his choice to roll the dice. If he had in fact had 50 minutes of fuel he would not have had to cross-feed and would have likely flown the ILS properly down to mins and had a successful landing. But that didn't happen. Unfortunately for him his ealier mistake had stacked the deck against him and his decision to gamble. It would have all been avoided if he had taken on some more fuel. Would the boss have liked it? Maybe not. Would he have had unpleasantness to deal with from the company? Maybe. Would he have lost his job? Maybe. Would one person be dead and his career likely over? Probably not.
But I think that's the lesson to be learned here. It isn't some air regs BS about "Thou shalt always depart with appropriate VFR or IFR reserves." We all already know that. It's about the choice you may one day face and the fact that choices invariably come with consequences, like it or not. Consequences that as an adult human being who chose to assume command responsibilities of an aircraft, you will have to man up, and deal with. A boss may want you to do something unsafe. You have a choice: gamble or grow a spine. Grow a spine and you may have some flack to deal with. Hell, you might even lose your job. Those are the possible consequences of growing a spine. If you chose to gamble, on the other hand, you might get away with it. In fact, more often than not, you might get away with it. Some get away with gambling their whole careers. But not everyone can win every time. And the consequences of losing are alot more serious than losing a job for a company that, if they cared so little about you so as to put you in that position in the first place, you can be sure will abandon you and send you down the river, finger pointed in your direction when the time comes to answer the tough questions.
Those of you who couldn't handle the above can take your fingers out of your ears now and go back to the cocoa and Kumbaya.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
So what you're saying is that this pilot chose to run out of fuel and ruin his career? "Gee, I think I will take less fuel than I need because it's too much trouble and I don't care if I crash."
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
No, I think he figured that with the mythical 50 minutes of fuel he thought he had, he probably figured he could shoot a couple of approaches if necessary and make it in without having to go to his alternate which he filed, despite knowing that he did not have enough fuel to reach that alternate destination. I'm saying he chose to undertake the trip but not take the legal minimum of fuel.
Conversly, are you saying that his company forced him to do the trip with insufficient fuel? Did someone have a gun to his head? I think not. Bottom line, he could have stood up and said, "I'm taking at least legal IFR reserves, or someone else can do the trip." He had that choice to make. That's all I'm saying xs.
Conversly, are you saying that his company forced him to do the trip with insufficient fuel? Did someone have a gun to his head? I think not. Bottom line, he could have stood up and said, "I'm taking at least legal IFR reserves, or someone else can do the trip." He had that choice to make. That's all I'm saying xs.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I doubt he did any "calculations" at all. He probably took somebody's word for what was previously burned, hopped in and blasted off.
"Jeez Doc, perhaps you should join in the sharing circle around the campfire and talk about how you felt when jerk bosses of the past have pressured you and how you weren't hugged enough as a child and now you have to take it out on avcanadians with thinly veiled passive aggressive witty remarks."
I sure don't know where you came up with this lame ass remark? If you read my early posts on the subject, you'd realize I'm in the same camp as you, Slats.
ie. I'm not buying into..."my company made me do it....."
"Jeez Doc, perhaps you should join in the sharing circle around the campfire and talk about how you felt when jerk bosses of the past have pressured you and how you weren't hugged enough as a child and now you have to take it out on avcanadians with thinly veiled passive aggressive witty remarks.
"I sure don't know where you came up with this lame ass remark? If you read my early posts on the subject, you'd realize I'm in the same camp as you, Slats.
ie. I'm not buying into..."my company made me do it....."
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I would like to know how the other planes did that trip.There would have been more than 1 plane leaving that morning. I dont remember a ho being able to carry 9 fishermen with 50 pounds of gear and full fuel. They would of had to lie about baggage weights to show legal fuel.Ironically I bet MTs plane was the only legal one on the way up. I would like to see if there would criminal negligence if there was an engine failure and crash on takeoff.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Easy there Doc, it was a tongue-in-cheek remark in response to someone taking a shot at you.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Any court documents worthy of reading as to how they came to this decision to overturn the conviction ?
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Opps....must be the rum and coke. Merry Christmas....all!Slats wrote:Easy there Doc, it was a tongue-in-cheek remark in response to someone taking a shot at you.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Keep an eye out on CanLII at http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/. They've got decisions from Dec 10th posted already. Tayfel's appeal decision came out Dec 16th, so it should be up before long. Once it's posted, there should be a PDF to link to.2R wrote:Any court documents worthy of reading as to how they came to this decision to overturn the conviction ?
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Thank you sidebar,an excellent source .That could keep a fella up all night reading some of that stuff
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
It seems really simple to me.
The guy tried to fly a broken airplane on a trip without enough gas to make it to the runway.
This wasn't an "Oops, I nearly forgot to put the gear down", this was a calculated decision he made, with time enough to consider the outcome. I hear talk about "He took VFR fuel but not IFR fuel", which is also inaccurate - he didn't even take enough gas to be legal VFR. He monitors his fuel (or doesn't), during the flight, and doesn't divert even when it becomes obvious he won't arrive in YWG with even VFR fuel. He doesn't tell ATC about his predicament, even after he completely pooches the first ILS approach. Then he crashes, and ends up killing a guy. Hell, when you think about it, he was really lucky - it could have been a lot worse - he could have crashed into a hotel, or hospital or school bus full of kindergartners due to his negligence and recklessness.
As far as outside pressures - I don't buy the "He had to do the trip because he would have been fired/demoted/yelled at/etc for diverting for gas". First of all, we are all grown-ups, and nobody forced him to either take the job or the trip. Also, as a Captain of any aircraft you assume a responsibility for the safety of your passengers, and he clearly didn't consider that at all. Last but certainly not least, if the company sucks so bad that they are asking for you to fly a broken airplane on a trip without enough fuel to get there, then the correct response is not "Suck it up and give'r a go", the correct response is "Decline the trip", followed by an anonymous call to Enforcement to explain how your employer is trying to make TC look bad in the media by killing you and your passengers.
I understand that his convictions for criminal negligence were overturned because he didn't think far enough ahead to consider the consequences of his recklessness, but that should be all the proof the prosecutor needs to convict him of "exceptionally retarded operation of an aircraft as a Captain" or something that would equally illustrate just how hard he dropped the ball, and for how long.
As far as whether or not he should fly commercially again: I'm not out to crucify the guy, but he should accept the consequences of his actions rather than trying to blame other people. He was the Captain, he had control of the situation, and he completely blew it. If the guy is making spectacularly bad judgement calls in a complete no-brainer situation like taking enough fuel, I don't think there's much that anyone can do to change that, and I would suggest the pilot pursue options for an aviation career outside the cockpit.
The guy tried to fly a broken airplane on a trip without enough gas to make it to the runway.
This wasn't an "Oops, I nearly forgot to put the gear down", this was a calculated decision he made, with time enough to consider the outcome. I hear talk about "He took VFR fuel but not IFR fuel", which is also inaccurate - he didn't even take enough gas to be legal VFR. He monitors his fuel (or doesn't), during the flight, and doesn't divert even when it becomes obvious he won't arrive in YWG with even VFR fuel. He doesn't tell ATC about his predicament, even after he completely pooches the first ILS approach. Then he crashes, and ends up killing a guy. Hell, when you think about it, he was really lucky - it could have been a lot worse - he could have crashed into a hotel, or hospital or school bus full of kindergartners due to his negligence and recklessness.
As far as outside pressures - I don't buy the "He had to do the trip because he would have been fired/demoted/yelled at/etc for diverting for gas". First of all, we are all grown-ups, and nobody forced him to either take the job or the trip. Also, as a Captain of any aircraft you assume a responsibility for the safety of your passengers, and he clearly didn't consider that at all. Last but certainly not least, if the company sucks so bad that they are asking for you to fly a broken airplane on a trip without enough fuel to get there, then the correct response is not "Suck it up and give'r a go", the correct response is "Decline the trip", followed by an anonymous call to Enforcement to explain how your employer is trying to make TC look bad in the media by killing you and your passengers.
I understand that his convictions for criminal negligence were overturned because he didn't think far enough ahead to consider the consequences of his recklessness, but that should be all the proof the prosecutor needs to convict him of "exceptionally retarded operation of an aircraft as a Captain" or something that would equally illustrate just how hard he dropped the ball, and for how long.
As far as whether or not he should fly commercially again: I'm not out to crucify the guy, but he should accept the consequences of his actions rather than trying to blame other people. He was the Captain, he had control of the situation, and he completely blew it. If the guy is making spectacularly bad judgement calls in a complete no-brainer situation like taking enough fuel, I don't think there's much that anyone can do to change that, and I would suggest the pilot pursue options for an aviation career outside the cockpit.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
There's a lot of merit to your post, Sulako, looking at it in a factual anesthetic way. However when you involve the courts, there will arise all kinds of mitigating and aggravating factors, and so it will go on forever.
We all learn from our - and others - mistakes in 2 ways: a specific incident that we will never repeat, or globally, which implies an adjustment to our overall safety attitude. ("I had better smarten up my act, or these little things are going to bite me one day").
Undoubtedly Mr Tayfel learned from his specific error - he will likely NEVER run out of fuel again. But did he learn a global lesson at the same time as his maturity changed? If he did, then there's no reason he cannot start out afresh, and put his experience in the top drawer...which is what most of us have done over the years with our own experiences and screw-ups.
I recommend that we all put this matter to bed. It has gone as far as we need to take it.
We all learn from our - and others - mistakes in 2 ways: a specific incident that we will never repeat, or globally, which implies an adjustment to our overall safety attitude. ("I had better smarten up my act, or these little things are going to bite me one day").
Undoubtedly Mr Tayfel learned from his specific error - he will likely NEVER run out of fuel again. But did he learn a global lesson at the same time as his maturity changed? If he did, then there's no reason he cannot start out afresh, and put his experience in the top drawer...which is what most of us have done over the years with our own experiences and screw-ups.
I recommend that we all put this matter to bed. It has gone as far as we need to take it.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Swordfish, halleluja!
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Who the hell does that in the first place - and knowing it during the flight and not doing anything about it? Maybe he will not run out of gas, but what is he going to do next? ...Maybe get into icing and hoping that it wont be to bad, in the same way as hoping to get in before the tank is completely dry.swordfish wrote:...Undoubtedly Mr Tayfel learned from his specific error - he will likely NEVER run out of fuel again. ...
Wahunga!
-
The Hammer
- Rank 6
- Posts: 446
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:46 am
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
So who is offering to repeatedly put there kids/family in his airplane to see if really learned anything from this accident?
I know of +20 rampies that I have more confidence in than this individual because none of them have clearly demonstrated such poor judgement as Mr. Tayfel has.
I know of +20 rampies that I have more confidence in than this individual because none of them have clearly demonstrated such poor judgement as Mr. Tayfel has.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/20 ... ca124.html
96 The fundamental issue, as it was in Beatty, is the moral blameworthiness of the accused. The question is whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the mens rea of the offence of dangerous operation of an aircraft. In other words, does the evidence establish that the accused’s conduct was a marked departure from that of a reasonable and prudent pilot?
Does this mean he gets his job back ,grounds for unfair dismissal ?
96 The fundamental issue, as it was in Beatty, is the moral blameworthiness of the accused. The question is whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the mens rea of the offence of dangerous operation of an aircraft. In other words, does the evidence establish that the accused’s conduct was a marked departure from that of a reasonable and prudent pilot?
Does this mean he gets his job back ,grounds for unfair dismissal ?
