Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Post by shitdisturber »

.80 you're close; if i'm not mistaken, the daughter of the passenger that died is an attorney. Also keep in mind that all of these guys had enough money to come up from the states and charter Keystone to take em wherever it was they were going on their little hunting trip. In other words they have bucks, probably lots of em! Now these many moons later, someone has seen fit to lay criminal charges; coincidence? I think not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

Golden Hawk.

Yes, this is truly mind boggling in its ramifications for every one of us.

The first thing we should do is get that pilot the best legal defense lawyer in the world to defend this charge...

We should all donate money for this....

If someone can set up the account I will start with one hundred dollars.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

S&J...do us all a favour...dont be an ass. Okay?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
JigglyBus
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 5:09 pm

Post by JigglyBus »

SnJ,

Lets try something different for a change.

Rather than personal attacks which have little to do with the topic, how about we just have a civilized discussion?

We can state our opinions, you can state yours, and we'll discuss the differences. It doesn't require the use of sensationalist fragments, and the stirring of emotion and anger, which simply distract from the conversation.

I know 'your thing' is to get all fired up, and to say things to get others upset. You perfectly correct that it's a free world, and everyone can have their own opinion and voice. However, it appears at most time, that your goal isn't simply to state your opinion, rather the sole focus of your posts is to attempt to upset someone.

I can't stop you, nor would I condone 'stopping' you. I would actually prefer to hear your opinion, presented in a factual argument, devoid of name-calling, and distraction.

But, I'm not holding my breath.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

No S&J, I won't go that route. You are more than welcome to your opinion. In this case however, this could rise up and bite us all on the ass. Because, none of us is perfect...and if the courts make this thing stick, who know's where it'll end? While I'm the first one to call somebody who runs out of gas.....simply because he didn't bother refueling...as apposed to wx or headwinds...a complete idiot, I know that more than a few of us have, in the past got away with crap, mainly due to luck and certainly not great pilot skills! Admit it. You've had your moments. I've sure had mine...I'm a lot more careful now in my old age, BTW!!
But, we can come up with incidents from the past that with the mind set of the Winnipeg Police, would be offences! I seem to remember a certain AC heavy that didn't have quite enough juice on board. They got away with that one through a combination of skill and dumb luck! But, somebody Phuqued up for sure! Now, there's a couple of you who think this is as it should be. And sometimes I dont know if you are really serious, or just yanking our chain...because you're SO good at that!!
I feel that this whole thing is to take the heat off TC, who, I feel should have locked the doors the day it happened!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
.80@410
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: CYYC

Post by .80@410 »

cpt sweet'njuicy wrote:irresponsible murdering shit box pilot ...

SnJ: Would you like to be referred to this way if you'd made a mistake ( which you admit you have ) but instead of a violation you'd killed someone?

Does the severity of the mistake now dictate what title the offending pilot
receives? If so, please explain how to differentiate between mistakes which make you a "shit box pilot" and "just human"- why he is a shit box pilot and you are simply a pilot who has made mistakes... :?:

.80
---------- ADS -----------
 
Just callin it like it is.
User avatar
Spitfire
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:17 am
Location: My own personal Hell

Post by Spitfire »

SnJ if you have all this proof that the company is breaking rules and hasn't changed in all this time, what's stopping you. Come on man, shit or get off the pot. Or are you all bark and no bite like i'm sure most of the readers on this board believe. :?
---------- ADS -----------
 
centerstored
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:16 pm

Post by centerstored »

Ok...first of all, I never intended to bring up total time, until Doc brought it up. No it's not important or really relevant to these conversations...it could be BS anyways. Let's get one thing straight here...there are two ways to run out of gas. You can make an honest mistake, miscalculate the winds, hit the wrong button on your calculator, read your whiz wheel wrong, or put in litres instead of gallons....etc. These are mistakes, and yes they are pilot error. I don't think the courts should put us down for these types of mistakes. Nobody is perfect. With Keystone, the pilot and the company both new the Ac was not airworthy for starters. Second the company pressures pilots to take Bull$hit fuel loads...even after the accident. The pilot clearly didn't have his IFR fuel onboard. If he can prove that it was an honest mistake, than maybe you guys have a point. If he BS'ed his fuel load to jerk his boss off than he deserves what he gets. It' s all about the intent guys. That is what the court will decide.
---------- ADS -----------
 
jackrabbit
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:27 am

Post by jackrabbit »

This is probably the best thread I have seen on here in a long time. And f@$king scary. I have to agree with Doc and the others. The precedent from this could have implications that I can't even imagine. I know it has already been said but what would have happened if no one died, or if the pilot didn't have to overshoot on the ILS?
Early in the thread on someone said (I think it was S&J) that a gear up landing wouldn't be cause for something this. Why not?? Is that not part your job as PIC to make sure the gear is down? Is that not negligent? Is it not stupid? Where is the line drawn? Pehaps a fatality. Well some would argue that a person can suffer more with a serious injury as opposed to being killed. OK, then serious injury will be the line. But what would be a serious injury then? It will be neverending.
I'd like to think that I won't go to jail, or have to declare bankruptcy due to civil suits because on the 10th leg of a 14 hour day I pressed a wrong button on my calculator and ended up taking 100 lbs overweight when an engine fails and ended up in the trees.

Keep the discission going people. Please. The more people talking about this and thinking about this.....well hopefully some good will come out of a tragic mistake.
---------- ADS -----------
 
centerstored
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:16 pm

Post by centerstored »

Point taken Jackrabbit, but it's about intent. Think about murder and manslaughter charges. Just because you kill someone on the street doesn't mean your getting a dirt nap. If you "intended" to kill, you pay the big price, if not, you get a lesser sentence. Nobody intends to land with the gear up. This company flies around with VFR fuel in IFR conditions all the time. They knowingly put people at risk.
---------- ADS -----------
 
luke
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:26 pm

Post by luke »

it looks to me that transport canada has already acted on this issue. they suspended the pilots licence for whatever time already.

if transport was still after the pilot, the enforcement department would already have a further case against the pilot(is there a case still pending?) based on the C.A.R.S. . the american family of the person who passed away, from what i can see is trying to launch a civil suit. our freinds down south are so used to this. thats why a C 172 is now worth about 275,000.00 USD!

good luck to the winnipeg lawyer who is trying do this. in a court of law in this case they will look at the canadian law, CARS, resposibility, and negligence.... because tranport is not pushing the issue, i don't think much further will happen other than what keystone had in place already for liability insurance etc.

lets hope that our goverment will not give in to them down south be subject to all the litigation they have there.

safe flying buds!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

If this case is about money, for sure they will not get it from the pilot.

That leaves insurance, just sit back and ponder that one for a while and decide if it will affect the industry and your jobs.

Then decide how bad you want this pilot convicted.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
.80@410
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: CYYC

Post by .80@410 »

jackrabbit wrote:I'd like to think that I won't go to jail, or have to declare bankruptcy due to civil suits because on the 10th leg of a 14 hour day I pressed a wrong button on my calculator and ended up taking 100 lbs overweight when an engine fails and ended up in the trees.

.

Exactly Now here is someone who gets it.

Very well said. Including the part about " where is the line drawn" which is where the people on this site who agree with the charges don't seem to comprehend.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Just callin it like it is.
User avatar
.80@410
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: CYYC

Post by .80@410 »

centerstored wrote: This company flies around with VFR fuel in IFR conditions all the time. They knowingly put people at risk.
So why not nail the company ? You think a pilot would run VFR gas in IFR conditions 4 fun?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Just callin it like it is.
jackrabbit
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:27 am

Post by jackrabbit »

I see what you're saying centerstored, but I think that the big fear is (at least with me) is that once the precendent is set then there is no going back. I would have to prove that I hit the calculator wrong instead of packing on the extra fattie. I still think it is too scary to think about but agree with you that something HAS to be done and want the end result to be the same (as far as safety, etc) Just disagree on the way to get there.

If this company does this regularly then why the hell doesn't someone go after them. Change the culture. I can't stress enough how important that is. Enough of this 'do as I say, not as I do' BS. Give people the tools to do the job.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

Jackrabbit :

There have been many, many companies operating exactly like that ever since I can remember.

For decades everyone has asked why they are allowed to operate that way, if someone knows the answer please tell me.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
golden hawk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:43 am

Post by golden hawk »

Of similar interest.....about halfway down the paragraph re Captain Hazelwood.........while there were no fatalities, the impact of this negligence is still being felt today.

____________________________________

CURWOOD: The Exxon Valdez spill continues to resonate in the world's consciousness, but the ship itself and its notorious captain have fallen back into obscurity. The ship was repaired after the spill but was banned from Alaskan waters by an act of Congress. Last year Exxon tried but failed to overturn that ban in the courts. Today the ship carries oil from the Middle East to Europe, and since the accident it hasn't spilled a single drop. The ship is no longer called the Exxon Valdez, though. Exxon removed its name from all its tankers following the Alaska spill. The Exxon Valdez is now known as the Sea River Mediterranean. As for Captain Hazelwood, he stood trial on several criminal counts. He admitted drinking before boarding the ship but argued he was not drunk, and an Alaska jury agreed. The captain's only conviction in the case was for negligently discharging oil. He was fined $50,000 and performed 1,000 hours of community service, picking up litter along Alaska highways. After his trial Captain Hazelwood became a teacher at a maritime academy. Recently, he's been working as a consultant for a law firm in New York.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
LT
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by LT »

Didn't the NY Ferry Captain blow his brains out after he killed 1/10th of his pax last year???*

Nevermind, he only tried to kill himself.. <pfft>
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by LT on Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tailgunner
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm

Post by tailgunner »

I feel that the Keystone pilot is the person on whom responsibility for the crash lies. But before everyone loses their collective heads lets remember that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. That is, they most prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that indeed the pilot made a conscious decision to fly without the legally required fuel. Thus I believe He/She may be found iable. However in regards to other accidents, I can not see how this would apply. A pilot may only be in jeapardy if He/She knowingly and consciously jeapardizes their a/c and pax. And if a pilot does this I firmly believe that they Should be held accountable. We should no longer hide behind the law. If this does set precident, then we as pilots should rejoice! Now we have a concrete reason, if following the rules wern't enough, for stating our rights and obligations for not knowingly breaking the CARs etc. that some outfits make pilots do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
SkyKnight
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:09 am
Location: Ontario

Post by SkyKnight »

Human factors obviously took part in this accident. For all we know it was a series of incidents that lead to a tradegdy. Bad judgement was probably not the single cause of this accident. The pilot should be held accountable for it but charging him would indicate he was fully aware of the consiquences of his actions. (i dont belive he flew with emty tanks knowing he would end up in downtown)
No matter how stupied an accident may seem sometimes theres always a logical explination of how it led to it. Of couse i do beleive there are bounderies, laws, regulaions that must be obeyed at all times.
People do need to be held resposbile in cases like dirnking n driving.(b/c they decided to get incapacitated first of all and should of made preparations)


We are not perfect we cant be preparred for everypossible situation out there. Therefore it would better to atleast try to learn from the chain of events that occured, rather then only focusing on the cause of the accident.
---------- ADS -----------
 
There's no such thing as a natural-born pilot.
User avatar
Airtids
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:56 am
Location: The Rock

Post by Airtids »

SnJ
At the very least, what I can say about you is that you constantly cause me to shake my head for one reason or another. I really don't mean this to be a compliment, because too often I'm shaking my head fro the wrong reasons, but it's nice to be sure that you're not stupid, just thinking in a different mode from most. Never cease to amaze...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here... A prosecutor needs to show INTENT to commit the crime, no? They may very well be able to show intent to break the fuel requirement reg, but do we really think they will be able to prove an intent to RUN OUT OF GAS? Or to kill someone? Does it make a difference?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Aviation- the hardest way possible to make an easy living!
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
golden hawk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:43 am

Post by golden hawk »

Here's a link to the charges in Greece

http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/greek_courts.html

And a link to an interesting article on the subject.

http://www.ifalpa.org/Interpilot/04INT0 ... bility.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
Out of Control
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: IMC

Post by Out of Control »

SnJ your my hero :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Say again, your coming in stupid
User avatar
LT
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by LT »

After the prudent and short, rather neutral declarations of ATC
controllers and of some airport employees, the head of the Greek
Civil Aviation Authority came to deny all responsibilities on behalf
of his Services: according to him, everything was in conformity with
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (I), and, if the foreign
airlines were not happy about Athens Airport, nobody compelled them
to operate on this airport.
Just like it'll be here soon, TC, NavCan and the Airport Authority will balme everything on the PIC..

Just as I have always stated..

PIC will always lose.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Guest_From_Mars
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:00 pm

Post by Guest_From_Mars »

I meet this guy once at a friends cristmas party last year. What bothers me is he still had a bit of a swager, not a totally cocky mavric type attitude, but a slight cocky swager which given what he was a part of was a little too much. he was even talking down to other pilots about how they operate I was shocked. He did not lose his licence and was flying at the time and left just befour it came out in the AIP updates.

Somethings to consider on this one,

Why didn't he lose his licence? What ever side of the fence your on with criminal charges should he keep his licence after haveing a part in killing inocent people?

If this happens and he is found guilty it will have a nagitive effect on the industry, However doesn't the family have a right to sue? Expecially against someone who walked away almost scott free? ( not to say he does not suffer, as I'm sure he feels horrible I'd never take that away from him) Wouldn't you if it was your loved ones on that flight?

If they win don't you think pilots will have to stop excepting full responsibilty for flights? We will be forced to have journey log books with entries that say I so and so PIC along with Maintance and the Chief Pilot and The Op's manger and the Owner and Transport Canada certify this flight.

And once again doesn't it seem like crap that managment who has as much a roll in this as the token pilot are no where to be found?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”