Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
edited....
not worth commenting anymore on this issue.
not worth commenting anymore on this issue.
Last edited by Johnny#5 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
And this wouldn't apply at all to the criminal matter, only a civil case. A good analogy would be a drunk driver killing a passenger who knew he was drunk (which would be volenti). The crown in concerned with preventing drunk driving (or in this case wreckless behaviour in control of an aircraft), not with whether the victim knew better. The estate in a civil matter would be concerned with whether the defendant contributed to the victim's death, and the defendant could try to mitigate any award of damages by showing that the victim played a part in it as well (by getting into a car when he shouldn't have, or standing directly beneath a low flying aircraft).2R wrote:Volenti non fit injuria (Latin: "to a willing person, no injury is done" or "no injury is done to a person who consents") is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm actually results. Volenti only applies to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk."
Volenti is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to run a risk." In this context, volenti can be distinguished from legal consent in that the latter can prevent some torts arising in the first place (for example, consent to a medical procedure prevents the procedure from being a trespass to the person, or consenting to a person visiting your land prevents them from being a trespasser).
In any case, it would be hard to show significant contributory negligence or volenti unless you could show that the victim knew that the pilot was going to fly VERY low. As others have said, there have been plenty of low passes which have been done safely (even if in contravention of the CARs), which the plaintiff could bring up in any civil case. Bringing your wingtip into contact with a person's head is considerably different. It'd be interesting to see if any audio was recorded of the people on the ground having knowledge of how low the pilot was planning to fly.
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Photo C-FBAX of Cessna involved.
Mitigating factor is the victim wanted to videotape an aircraft he flew, and got his friend to buzz him to take the video.
The pilot, clearly was operating the aircraft in an unsafe manner, and caused an accident that took his friends life.
As I am not privy to the Crown's evidence, nor am I in any position to judge someone else, especially on an internet forum!!, I can only assume the pilot and his lawyer - if they feel the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, will have no choice but to negotiate a plea.
Then hope the judge accepts the joint submission.
The victim unfortunately will not have a 2nd chance, nor his family.
The young pilot - faces jail, fines, loss of license, possible lawsuit - yet all pales in comparison to the death of his friend.
There will be no winners, no happy ending.
So in keeping with the wishes of the victim's Mom, and as she stated what the victim himself would have wanted - is there anything positive to be learned or changed as a result of this tragic accident.
Rather than bicker unwavingly - are there any positive suggestions or area's of agreement, that can possibly be past on to our younger up and coming pilots who may stumble upon this thread.
Mitigating factor is the victim wanted to videotape an aircraft he flew, and got his friend to buzz him to take the video.
The pilot, clearly was operating the aircraft in an unsafe manner, and caused an accident that took his friends life.
As I am not privy to the Crown's evidence, nor am I in any position to judge someone else, especially on an internet forum!!, I can only assume the pilot and his lawyer - if they feel the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, will have no choice but to negotiate a plea.
Then hope the judge accepts the joint submission.
The victim unfortunately will not have a 2nd chance, nor his family.
The young pilot - faces jail, fines, loss of license, possible lawsuit - yet all pales in comparison to the death of his friend.
There will be no winners, no happy ending.
So in keeping with the wishes of the victim's Mom, and as she stated what the victim himself would have wanted - is there anything positive to be learned or changed as a result of this tragic accident.
Rather than bicker unwavingly - are there any positive suggestions or area's of agreement, that can possibly be past on to our younger up and coming pilots who may stumble upon this thread.
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
It's pretty simple really, when "you do the crime, you pay the time". Always has been, always will be.
Keep the dirty side down.
- Hawkerflyer
- Rank 5
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:50 pm
- Location: Here today, gone tomorrow
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
It was a tragic mistake and the fellow deserves to be punished. He will live with this the rest of his life. Prison is not the answer but he should pay for his reckless actions in some other way. Shit, look at Dany Heatly, whats the difference?
"Six of us broke formation, five Jerries and I". - George "Buzz" Beurling
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
I have to post this. I hope some will understand.
Our company has four zero tolerance activities, one of which is low flying "buxx jobs"
They are brought up twice in ground training, and included in the exam. "zero" tolerance is emphasized.
Yet every couple of years we have to fire a pilot for doing a buzz job. Their reactions are usually incredulous. No harm...no foul.. We used to try explaining to them that they put our whole company in jeoprady.. Our reputation, no insurance, and the possibility of someone being hurt or worse. Doesnt seem to fizz on them and they just cant understand why they are being fired.
Then I read this thread..Buzz jobs are safe? Everyone does them? guilt is enough.
Perhaps, if this person is found guilty and has to go to jail some of you posting this nonsense will get it through your thick heads that what you consider sport endangers peoples lives, puts companies that people have spent years building at risk, and demonstrates the very worst of professionalism...you simply cannot be trusted with someone elses machine.
Please people..Think about it.. It is all good sport until something goes a little bit wrong..and every year there are pilots who simply have things go wrong...It is not an accident when you intentionally put a plane in a risk situation. It is intentional, and feeling guilt for your misplaced judgement after the fact is no help to those who suffer the consequences.
and you will find people like me have zero sympathy for your guilty feeling after the fact.
Before you do something like this in a plane take a moment and ask yourself....if this does not go according to plan, who am I hurting.
Our company has four zero tolerance activities, one of which is low flying "buxx jobs"
They are brought up twice in ground training, and included in the exam. "zero" tolerance is emphasized.
Yet every couple of years we have to fire a pilot for doing a buzz job. Their reactions are usually incredulous. No harm...no foul.. We used to try explaining to them that they put our whole company in jeoprady.. Our reputation, no insurance, and the possibility of someone being hurt or worse. Doesnt seem to fizz on them and they just cant understand why they are being fired.
Then I read this thread..Buzz jobs are safe? Everyone does them? guilt is enough.
Perhaps, if this person is found guilty and has to go to jail some of you posting this nonsense will get it through your thick heads that what you consider sport endangers peoples lives, puts companies that people have spent years building at risk, and demonstrates the very worst of professionalism...you simply cannot be trusted with someone elses machine.
Please people..Think about it.. It is all good sport until something goes a little bit wrong..and every year there are pilots who simply have things go wrong...It is not an accident when you intentionally put a plane in a risk situation. It is intentional, and feeling guilt for your misplaced judgement after the fact is no help to those who suffer the consequences.
and you will find people like me have zero sympathy for your guilty feeling after the fact.
Before you do something like this in a plane take a moment and ask yourself....if this does not go according to plan, who am I hurting.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
- The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Excellent post Trey Kule, and an excellent policy by the company too.
I'll add just one thing, nothing needs to go wrong ... all that needs to happen is for your best client to witness the act, and withdraw their business based upon the demonstration of bad judgement. In these days where company officers of a corporation is directly responsible for the safety of their staff as per the Westray Mine precident, stuff like that is taken very seriously by executives of large corporations.
Maybe its different for the one-man owner of a small diamond drilling operation, but even those places are smartening up.
Even worse than an exec seeing it himself would be that a third party witnesses it, and then tells your best client ... the tale will always grow in the telling, and the first impression "the buyer of your bread and butter" gets is something grossly distorted. The event will become the equivalent of your staff pilot flying under a bridge with a full load of company employees on board as passengers while doing consecutive rolls.
So one bozo on staff that wants to emulate the squadron ace coming back from an operational mission after bagging another Hun can put everyone on the unemployment line.
The Old Fogducker
Edited .... for those not familiar with the outcome of the Westray Mine disaster, here's a copy and paste which explains the rocess whereby executives of corporations are directly responsible for the safety of their workers.
Legislation
As a result of the failure to successfully prosecute the mines owners and managers, the Canadian Labour Congress and some of its affiliates initiated an intense lobbying campaign in the mid 1990's to amend the Criminal Code of Canada in order to hold criminally liable managers and directors of corporations that failed to take steps to protect the lives of their employees. Using the tactic of having a private member's bill introduced, typically by an MP from the New Democratic Party of the Bloc Quebecois, this agenda was advanced. Each time that the House of Commons was prorogued, the private members bill would die on the order paper, and the process would start again in the next session of Parliament. On about the fifth attempt, in late 2003, the federal government enacted Bill C-45 in direct response to the Westray Mine disaster. The bill provided a new regime outlining the framework of corporate liability in Canada. It also provided a new punishment scheme to allow the Courts not simply to fine corporations, but also to put them on probation to ensure that the offences were not repeated. However, some observers believed Bill C-45 was largely seen as an exercise of political posturing by the federal government, as it is doubtful that the new provisions would have had any effect on the legal implications of the disaster. Because of the division of powers in the Canadian Constitution, the province is the only government that would be able to enact any real change.
Conversely, the United Steelworkers, the union that represented the miners and that spearheaded the lobbying effort, touted the law as an important new tool with which to hold accountable corporate leadership in on-the-job disasters. The key amendment to the Criminal Code reads as follows: "217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task."
I'll add just one thing, nothing needs to go wrong ... all that needs to happen is for your best client to witness the act, and withdraw their business based upon the demonstration of bad judgement. In these days where company officers of a corporation is directly responsible for the safety of their staff as per the Westray Mine precident, stuff like that is taken very seriously by executives of large corporations.
Maybe its different for the one-man owner of a small diamond drilling operation, but even those places are smartening up.
Even worse than an exec seeing it himself would be that a third party witnesses it, and then tells your best client ... the tale will always grow in the telling, and the first impression "the buyer of your bread and butter" gets is something grossly distorted. The event will become the equivalent of your staff pilot flying under a bridge with a full load of company employees on board as passengers while doing consecutive rolls.
So one bozo on staff that wants to emulate the squadron ace coming back from an operational mission after bagging another Hun can put everyone on the unemployment line.
The Old Fogducker
Edited .... for those not familiar with the outcome of the Westray Mine disaster, here's a copy and paste which explains the rocess whereby executives of corporations are directly responsible for the safety of their workers.
Legislation
As a result of the failure to successfully prosecute the mines owners and managers, the Canadian Labour Congress and some of its affiliates initiated an intense lobbying campaign in the mid 1990's to amend the Criminal Code of Canada in order to hold criminally liable managers and directors of corporations that failed to take steps to protect the lives of their employees. Using the tactic of having a private member's bill introduced, typically by an MP from the New Democratic Party of the Bloc Quebecois, this agenda was advanced. Each time that the House of Commons was prorogued, the private members bill would die on the order paper, and the process would start again in the next session of Parliament. On about the fifth attempt, in late 2003, the federal government enacted Bill C-45 in direct response to the Westray Mine disaster. The bill provided a new regime outlining the framework of corporate liability in Canada. It also provided a new punishment scheme to allow the Courts not simply to fine corporations, but also to put them on probation to ensure that the offences were not repeated. However, some observers believed Bill C-45 was largely seen as an exercise of political posturing by the federal government, as it is doubtful that the new provisions would have had any effect on the legal implications of the disaster. Because of the division of powers in the Canadian Constitution, the province is the only government that would be able to enact any real change.
Conversely, the United Steelworkers, the union that represented the miners and that spearheaded the lobbying effort, touted the law as an important new tool with which to hold accountable corporate leadership in on-the-job disasters. The key amendment to the Criminal Code reads as follows: "217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task."
Last edited by The Old Fogducker on Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
( I agree with the zero policy above, but ahhh - the olde days . . . )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE
Like a barrel roll in a B707 in front of I.A.T.A. members.
The plane lands at Boeing field and Tex gets out and starts to walk away from the plane. A Boeing official runs over to Tex and tells him Mr. Allen wants to see him now. Mr. Allen is the president of Boeing.
So Tex heads off across the street to the Boeing Exec offices and into Mr. Allens office.
Tex walks in. Mr Allen from behind his desk says "How are Tex...Hows the family"? Tex answers the boss.
Mr Allen the says "I hear you rolled the plane today, Tex".
Tex says quietly....."Yes sir I did".
Mr Allen answers..."Don't do it again.......Bye Tex..say hello to the wife..".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE
Like a barrel roll in a B707 in front of I.A.T.A. members.
The plane lands at Boeing field and Tex gets out and starts to walk away from the plane. A Boeing official runs over to Tex and tells him Mr. Allen wants to see him now. Mr. Allen is the president of Boeing.
So Tex heads off across the street to the Boeing Exec offices and into Mr. Allens office.
Tex walks in. Mr Allen from behind his desk says "How are Tex...Hows the family"? Tex answers the boss.
Mr Allen the says "I hear you rolled the plane today, Tex".
Tex says quietly....."Yes sir I did".
Mr Allen answers..."Don't do it again.......Bye Tex..say hello to the wife..".
- The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
There seems to some confusion among our forum members as to the role "intent" plays in the legal system. There are some offences where intent enters the picture, and these are generally the most serious of crimes such as First Degree Murder .... where somebody developed a plan to kill somone and carries it out. Matters which involve intent are called "Mens Rea" (guilty mind) cases ... and intent must be proven to meet the criteria for conviction. Mens Rea cases are very difficult to prove without some superb evidence that the act was preplanned.
The other family of offences are "strict liability" where all that needs to be proven is that the prohibited event happened, and you were the one that did it ... no intent is required .... ie ... speeding ... limit posted as 100, you were caught doing 135. Your asertation that you didn't mean to go 135 has zero to do with anything ... you're guilty.
Negligence, not intent is the test which must be met to lay a charge of criminal negligence causing death. A person is considered negligent if his behaviour falls below the standard of care which would be exhibited by an "average member" of society ... or in this case, a member of a professional group of like-qualified persons.
Canadian "Negligence" definition:
A failure to act as a reasonable person would be expected to act in similar circumstances.
So, as one of my old mentors used to say .... "This fellas for the high jump" ... (whatever that means.)
For those who are inclined to become ever so slightly educated on the matter, here is a link to an on-line law reference site ... in this case, discussing a similar incident, but to do with the Captain of a ship who killed a passenger when the boat capsized in Lake Okanagan ...
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/C ... ssels.aspx
The Old Fogducker
The other family of offences are "strict liability" where all that needs to be proven is that the prohibited event happened, and you were the one that did it ... no intent is required .... ie ... speeding ... limit posted as 100, you were caught doing 135. Your asertation that you didn't mean to go 135 has zero to do with anything ... you're guilty.
Negligence, not intent is the test which must be met to lay a charge of criminal negligence causing death. A person is considered negligent if his behaviour falls below the standard of care which would be exhibited by an "average member" of society ... or in this case, a member of a professional group of like-qualified persons.
Canadian "Negligence" definition:
A failure to act as a reasonable person would be expected to act in similar circumstances.
So, as one of my old mentors used to say .... "This fellas for the high jump" ... (whatever that means.)
For those who are inclined to become ever so slightly educated on the matter, here is a link to an on-line law reference site ... in this case, discussing a similar incident, but to do with the Captain of a ship who killed a passenger when the boat capsized in Lake Okanagan ...
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/C ... ssels.aspx
The Old Fogducker
Last edited by The Old Fogducker on Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Interesting.
We have the case in Toronto click here where 5 workers fell from the 13 floor scaffolding collapse on Christmas eve last year.
Three owner/supervisor's have been charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death among the 61 charges and are being sued for millions. Two lawsuits, one for 14 million and another for 16 million so far!
The Star one comment, 'no allegation of criminal intent'.
We have the case in Toronto click here where 5 workers fell from the 13 floor scaffolding collapse on Christmas eve last year.
Three owner/supervisor's have been charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death among the 61 charges and are being sued for millions. Two lawsuits, one for 14 million and another for 16 million so far!
The Star one comment, 'no allegation of criminal intent'.
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Those flying in NW Ontario may remember this accident: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 1c0152.pdf. I remember this day very well - the pilot died pretty much outside my cabin. The report doesn't state it, but those that were working in the area know this was a buzz job that ended tragically.
In Red Lake a few years later, a privately registered Beaver, famous for frequent buzz jobs among other things, flew so low over another lodge operator's Cessna that the float hit the taxiing aircraft's wing, causing extensive damage to the Cessna.
There are many stories of buzz jobs ending badly, and in some cases tragically.
Cheers,
Kirsten B.
In Red Lake a few years later, a privately registered Beaver, famous for frequent buzz jobs among other things, flew so low over another lodge operator's Cessna that the float hit the taxiing aircraft's wing, causing extensive damage to the Cessna.
There are many stories of buzz jobs ending badly, and in some cases tragically.
Cheers,
Kirsten B.
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
- The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Snoopy .... Another one in your neck of the woods, around Kenora or Lake of the Woods... in roughly 1983 where a Cessna 180 on floats nailed a buddy who was in a boat ... hit him in the head and killed him.
OFD
OFD
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Mens Rea applies to all criminal matters as far as I can recall. Strict liability is pretty much limited to government regulations and non-criminal law.
The principle of Mens Rea is a bit more complicated in application to Criminal Negligence in that it can involve what you intended to do, or what you intentionally did not do. However, it is not a question of whether the low flying pilot intended to injure his friend on the ground, rather, Mens Rea will be satisfied on the basis of his intent to operate the aircraft in a manner that a reasonable pilot would see as wreckless (ie; did he intentionally fly low). If there was intent to cause injury, the charge would be manslaughter or murder rather than crim neg.
The charge of criminal negligence causing death means the crown beleives they can prove he intended to fly low, that his low flying caused the death of the victim, and his low flying would be seen as wreckless by the standards of other reasonable pilots and the outcome reasonably foreseeable.
His personal feelings of guilt will be a factor in sentencing, but also will be the principle of general deterence for other like minded pilots who might comptemplate engaging in similar foolish behaviour, as will the need to express societies general rebuke of irresponsible and dangerous behaviour that causes harm to others.
The principle of Mens Rea is a bit more complicated in application to Criminal Negligence in that it can involve what you intended to do, or what you intentionally did not do. However, it is not a question of whether the low flying pilot intended to injure his friend on the ground, rather, Mens Rea will be satisfied on the basis of his intent to operate the aircraft in a manner that a reasonable pilot would see as wreckless (ie; did he intentionally fly low). If there was intent to cause injury, the charge would be manslaughter or murder rather than crim neg.
The charge of criminal negligence causing death means the crown beleives they can prove he intended to fly low, that his low flying caused the death of the victim, and his low flying would be seen as wreckless by the standards of other reasonable pilots and the outcome reasonably foreseeable.
His personal feelings of guilt will be a factor in sentencing, but also will be the principle of general deterence for other like minded pilots who might comptemplate engaging in similar foolish behaviour, as will the need to express societies general rebuke of irresponsible and dangerous behaviour that causes harm to others.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:17 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Best post on this thread from you so far....Johnny#5 wrote:edited....
not worth commenting anymore on this issue.


The best "Brown Bear" of them all!


-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:07 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Buzz jobs are for dummies and are generally done by younger low timers, although I do know a few older fellas who have got in a wee bit of trouble doing them.
Professionals know their job is to get people and goods from A to B. Nothing less and nothing more. The job satisfaction should come from the fact that you are able to do this in the safest and most efficient way possible. It is about getting the job done right and this does not include thrill seeking!
Professionals know their job is to get people and goods from A to B. Nothing less and nothing more. The job satisfaction should come from the fact that you are able to do this in the safest and most efficient way possible. It is about getting the job done right and this does not include thrill seeking!
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:40 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Agreed. While the more seasoned pilots I worked with rarely performed such stunts, they didn't speak out against them either. That was my point in my previous posts in this thread. Education and enforcement will change the way buzz jobs are perceived, the same way impaired driving is no longer socially acceptable today. Standing by silently will change nothing.
Johnny #5....I've never instructed and have several thousand hours in the north. I'd still be up there if it allowed for a better lifestyle. You don't need to buzz a camp or community to notify them of your arrival, 500 feet or so will do just fine. You don't do those things because you have to, you do them because they're fun...for a while anyway. I hope you mature enough to see how foolish those actions are before you get yourself busted, or worse.
Brown Bear, you've added nothing to this thread. Every post has been to slam a previous post, even those that agree your point of view. Low self-esteem perhaps? Baffling.
Johnny #5....I've never instructed and have several thousand hours in the north. I'd still be up there if it allowed for a better lifestyle. You don't need to buzz a camp or community to notify them of your arrival, 500 feet or so will do just fine. You don't do those things because you have to, you do them because they're fun...for a while anyway. I hope you mature enough to see how foolish those actions are before you get yourself busted, or worse.
Brown Bear, you've added nothing to this thread. Every post has been to slam a previous post, even those that agree your point of view. Low self-esteem perhaps? Baffling.
Back out on that road again
Turn this beast into the wind
There are those that break and bend
I'm the other kind
Turn this beast into the wind
There are those that break and bend
I'm the other kind
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:54 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
^
Excellent post, '79K20driver! That pretty much sums up my view on buzzing too.
Excellent post, '79K20driver! That pretty much sums up my view on buzzing too.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:17 pm
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
That will cause me sleepless nights....The Other Kind wrote:
Brown Bear, you've added nothing to this thread. Every post has been to slam a previous post, even those that agree your point of view. Low self-esteem perhaps? Baffling.


The best "Brown Bear" of them all!


-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
- Location: Further..further...ok, too far...
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
Hey Trey
Just out of curiosity, what are the other three zero tolerance activities?
ef
Just out of curiosity, what are the other three zero tolerance activities?
ef
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
I've done stupid things, buzz jobs and the like. Looking back I can say while fun, it was stupid and could have ended very badly. I think most here can relate.
It boils down to maturity and a true sense of potential loss. Until I met my wife, I had never really contemplated “real loss”. Sure I thought about the consequences of my actions, but I didn’t fully appreciate the magnitude of my actions and what I (or someone else) could be losing. I do now, what a difference.
That said I truly feel for both those guys. Yes the pilot screwed up in the most horrific way. It’s a tragedy for both parties on what should have been a great video and cool memory. I'll reserve judgment as I'm sure there isn't much a court could do that could be worse then living with the guilt this guy is living with.
Fly safe everyone, and if your doing something that gets your heart pumping, it’s for a reason and it’s most likely the wrong one.
It boils down to maturity and a true sense of potential loss. Until I met my wife, I had never really contemplated “real loss”. Sure I thought about the consequences of my actions, but I didn’t fully appreciate the magnitude of my actions and what I (or someone else) could be losing. I do now, what a difference.
That said I truly feel for both those guys. Yes the pilot screwed up in the most horrific way. It’s a tragedy for both parties on what should have been a great video and cool memory. I'll reserve judgment as I'm sure there isn't much a court could do that could be worse then living with the guilt this guy is living with.
Fly safe everyone, and if your doing something that gets your heart pumping, it’s for a reason and it’s most likely the wrong one.
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
KAG..the sentence imposed by the court may seem as an unnecessary extra in these cases, but it may just act as a deterence to some who will realize that if they do this type of activity they could end up in jail.
The other issue is society in general seems to think that when someone willfully does something wrong that feeling guilty is not enough. And I think you can see from reading many of these posts, that there are many who seen to think if you pull this kind of stunt and kill someone, your feeling bad about it should be enough.
And that is not making a comment on this case.
efin H.....1. illegal drugs 2. drinking within 12 hrs of sched duty time 3. driving a company vehicle after drinking anything or in a careless and reckless manner (which includes speeding and using a cell phone while driving)
Just as a comment, you would not think that a company would have to emp0hasize not undertaking these types of behavior with professionals, but we have learned, in some cases, the hard way, that they are necessary.
The other issue is society in general seems to think that when someone willfully does something wrong that feeling guilty is not enough. And I think you can see from reading many of these posts, that there are many who seen to think if you pull this kind of stunt and kill someone, your feeling bad about it should be enough.
And that is not making a comment on this case.
efin H.....1. illegal drugs 2. drinking within 12 hrs of sched duty time 3. driving a company vehicle after drinking anything or in a careless and reckless manner (which includes speeding and using a cell phone while driving)
Just as a comment, you would not think that a company would have to emp0hasize not undertaking these types of behavior with professionals, but we have learned, in some cases, the hard way, that they are necessary.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
I know that saying "I feel terrible" is not punishment enough. I just feel bad for all those envolved. If I were this pilot, after whatever punishment is served, I would make it my life's work to educate new pilots by going school to school and putting on a CRM/PDM seminair.
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
OK, I'll add my $0.02.
Everyone knows buzz jobs decrease your safety margin, sometimes the margin is exceeded and someone dies. It's a tragic fact.
As a public service, I'd just like to add a little about how you'll get your licence yanked if you get caught. (To discourage this practice some more.)
If you're checking the runway/lake condition, you're allowed to go below 500 feet, so I'm sure this is what any pilot would say in his defense if busted by Transport Canada. To do a proper inspection, you can't get too low (like 15ft agl), because you'll just see fast moving runway/lake below you and not be able to tell the surface condition very well. And NO ONE taught you to go that low when you got your licence. So I think if you're buzzing, really low, you'll get busted, because a TC guy would know it's not a real inspection. And if you KNOW there's a person/obstacle right in the way of your "inspection", then you're willfully endangering someone or some property. You'll be busted for Hedley's favourite CAR.
And if you've pissed of the TC guy busting you, I'm sure there are many other CARs they could throw at you.
Keep it safe, and keep that licence, folks!
-istp
Everyone knows buzz jobs decrease your safety margin, sometimes the margin is exceeded and someone dies. It's a tragic fact.
As a public service, I'd just like to add a little about how you'll get your licence yanked if you get caught. (To discourage this practice some more.)
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#602_14Minimum Altitudes and Distances
602.14 (1) [Repealed]
(amended 2003/03/01; previous version)
(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft
(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than
(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,
(ii) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or
(iii) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the aircraft; and
(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
If you're checking the runway/lake condition, you're allowed to go below 500 feet, so I'm sure this is what any pilot would say in his defense if busted by Transport Canada. To do a proper inspection, you can't get too low (like 15ft agl), because you'll just see fast moving runway/lake below you and not be able to tell the surface condition very well. And NO ONE taught you to go that low when you got your licence. So I think if you're buzzing, really low, you'll get busted, because a TC guy would know it's not a real inspection. And if you KNOW there's a person/obstacle right in the way of your "inspection", then you're willfully endangering someone or some property. You'll be busted for Hedley's favourite CAR.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#602_01Reckless or Negligent Operation of Aircraft
602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.
And if you've pissed of the TC guy busting you, I'm sure there are many other CARs they could throw at you.
Keep it safe, and keep that licence, folks!
-istp
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
I think he should go to jail.He was directly responsible for someones death.His intentions were reckless. Everyone wanted to crucify the Keystone pilot, but seem more sympathetic for someone flying low enough to hit somebody with an airplane.
Re: Pilot charged in Norman Wells death
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCKGApBbdoM
That could have ended just as badly but didn't. I know this video was most likely set up through proper channles and was legal (the Norman wells accident was not), but the intent (low flying plane, cool shot) was the same. Very different outcome. I'm not condoneing it, just saying Something to think about.
That could have ended just as badly but didn't. I know this video was most likely set up through proper channles and was legal (the Norman wells accident was not), but the intent (low flying plane, cool shot) was the same. Very different outcome. I'm not condoneing it, just saying Something to think about.
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Chase lifestyle not metal.