Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash

[LT]

I was shocked. He did not lose his licence and was flying
Why didn't he lose his licence?

If this happens and he is found guilty it will have a nagitive effect on the industry,

I'm sure he feels horrible

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.

However doesn't the family have a right to sue?

managment are no where to be found?

He knows someone in TC?

Yes, it will have a negative effect(which many people don't see).

If he felt remorse, he would have killed himself.

Lol, have fun trying to get any of the above parties to admit their guilt and having them sign off on any future flights..

Fine let them sue. But from now on we're giving every pax a waiver to sign.

Are you suprised that the company is hiding?

[sprucemonkey]

I wondered how three pages could be accumulated in just one day.......a whole lot of BS.

Give us all a break you self-right................

[...]

S&J,

Once many moons ago you paid me a compliment. I will replay you the compliment by stating that was a well written post. (phucken finally)

Except the part that you walk on water and you're the guy God speaks to while the rest of us sleep.

Other readers:

Make your passengers sign waivers before they get onboard...or they dont fly at all. Simple...? I think so. Bungie cord jumpers or sky divers dont even get to touch the equipment until they have signed their life away.
Sure Transport has to make sure airtravel is safe for the public...however why not get all the bases covered. Maybe this will lower insurance rates.....Jyeah ziff! But worth a try!

[KAG]

Like most I have a few thoughts:

First off: S&J, I liked your post. I may disagree with your style of “teaching” (beating would be a proper term), but for the most part, the message is a good one. Safety, rules, by the book.

In a perfect would, we would all follow the rules, but we don’t. Dip down here, pack a little extra in there, and the “rules/mins” become replaced with what is now your “comfort level”. That comfort level continuously gets pushed, creating your new
Comfort level.
At what point do we draw the line? When you scare the shit out of yourself and you come to your senses? Or when it’s too late and you end up a topic of discussion on this board when you discovered first hand the King Air won't climb out on 1 engine when 500 pounds overweight?!?!
I don’t mean to come off “holier than thou”. With a few exceptions, I have committed most sins listed on this board, and it’s something I’m not proud of. It’s threads like this that make me rethink my “comfort level”.

As for the pilot getting charged, I see both sides of the argument. If I trusted someone to fly my loved ones, and that person crashed due to pure negligence (IE taking off with not enough fuel), I would want his/her head on a platter. Lock them up, throw away the key.

At the same time, I also think if this lawsuit is successful, the shit is going to hit the fan!

Past accidents could come back to haunt those at fault, and in future accidents the pilots could be prosecuted unfairly. People make mistakes; lord knows I’ve made them.

Again in a perfect (legal) world, each accident would be investigated case by case, and if it was clear cut criminal negligence, then and only then would charges be laid (to the pilot AND management, such as in this case). But lets get realistic this isn’t a perfect world. Convict one pilot, it’s gonna be open season. Weather it’s a simple mistake or negligence, the courts (public) won’t differentiate. And for that reason, I hope this case fails.

But here’s a thought, and please think objectively on this. Putting our personal feelings/practices aside, is one “sin” any worse than the other? Not taking enough fuel, breaking published mins, to going over weight – isn’t it all negligence? Were assessing risk with our deliberate illegal actions when it’s not necessary. The risks have been published and proven for us. So why do we continue to role the dice each time???
Food for thought.


Cheers.

[LT]

Yet, that doesn't explain the number of pedestrians that have been hit by TTC vehicles."

http://www.varsity.utoronto.ca/archives ... tcars.html

http://www.transit.toronto.on.ca/archiv ... 990330.htm

a bloated and inefficient management team that was dreaming of future expansion while the system rotted...

and poor driver training practices as the main culprits.

I didn't see Mr. Bus(train) driver go to jail..

Don't you love being a second class citizen and a second class worker?

[golden hawk]

Make your passengers sign waivers before they get onboard...

This would help with civil law - we are dealing with criminal law here

[hz2p]

Signing waivers is useless for two reasons:

1) people can claim they were pressured to sign the waiver, and since they didn't have a lawyer, didn't understand what they were signing.

2) no one can waive the rights of others to sue. Even if someone signs a waiver, and it holds water, their family can still sue (and this is usually the big one). Look up subrogation. The waiver will often include such nonsense, which is technically referred to as a "dom facto" if memory serves - I'm not much for Latin.

Back on topic - you guys here that are happy about this legal dementia remind me of chickens at the end of the line at the slaughterhouse. There's a lot of guys ahead of you that will get killed first, and you don't care about them, and figure that it won't ever happen to you.

P.S. The best thing to do with trolls and wind-up artists like SnJ is to ignore them. They act like idiots to get attention, much like a spoiled child.

[Disco Stu]

I told you guys this was coming!

Doc et al, I think you boys might be overreacting slightly. This case will set a precident, I agree, but does that mean every pilot who gears up, eats trees or runs out of fuel is going to jail? Hell no! But those who screw up through wanton negligence will have there feet held to the fire.

This in NO WAY was an accident. The pilot knowingly and intentionaly took off without legal fuel requirements, and without legally required equipment being serviceable. Chance are, if the AP was working, he would have gotten in on the first approach and noone would have been the wiser.

However, as a DIRECT RESULT of his flagrant disregard for mutliple areas of aviation law, SOMEONE IS DEAD.

He deserves to be charged because of this.

Had it been a true accident, where a miscalculation was made, or a fuel line had busted, or even he didn't remember to put his gear down, no charges would have been laid.

In automobiles, when people are flagrantly breaking the law by excessively speeding or drinking, and someone dies as a result, drivers are charged. Why should aviation be any different?

People need to be held responsible for their actions.

Unfortunately TC doesn't have a strong enough mandate for this sort of thing. A small fine and a 45 day licence suspension amounts to a slap on the wrist as far as I am concerned.

The final repsonsibility lies with the PIC. Hopefully the precident that comes out of this is that pilots who work for shady operators such as Keystone will finally stand up for themselves when asked to fly airplanes over gross, without legal fuel, or with U/S equipment. Finally people will now see that there are consequenses for their actions beyond losing their jobs. Jail or the EI line? Simple decision.

[Beaver Driver]

It's all about where the line will be drawn. I agree with Stu that we won't be going to jail for every little infraction. The CARs will look after most stuff, and the criminal code should cover the serious stuff. ie drinking and flying. It is against the CARs to fly after drinking, but it is not a criminal offense untill you are over .08.

If you get away with flying over weight, not enough fuel, under minimums it is a CARs issue, but when you kill someone then it's time to get serious. Sure we've all gotten away with things in our careers, but maybe it's time to start cracking down. Just like the Dryden crash brought icing to the forefront, maybe this crash will turn the spot light onto fuel starvation.

It's just too bad that people have to die to do that.

[Guest_From_Mars]

At the very least he should lose his licence for life. I don't agree with charges, but 45 days for killing people is a joke. If Transport had actually done something, the family might not have felt the need to sue.

Rules get streached and even broken, however when that goes so far as to kill people there is a price to pay. If it was your family on that flight knowing what you all know about avation you would want blood. My big point is for an incident like this to remain with in the industry, the industry would have to do something to say hey we will handle it.

If you willfully let a situation go so far human life is lost you never be able to fly again. The worst thing is even if he goes to jail it will change nothing. Untill the day shitty managment is forced to take the heat along with pilots the situation will always be there waiting for two or three more links in the chain to kill someone again. These guys will be somewhere again shortly cutting cornors and tell new pilots if you don't I'll find someone eles who will. And pilots will continue to say this sucks, I don't want to do this, What are the odds it will happen to me, I really need this job. Sad but true.

[xsbank]

Back in the late 80s, I was asked to appear as a witness for the estate of a pilot who disappeared in an Islander with a load of 8 (I think) very wealthy Germans who were enroute to the interior of BC. The a/c was never found. There was a flight plan and the a/c was serviceable according to the logs etc.

I was asked to appear because I took off from the same place about a half hour after the lost a/c and was going roughly to the same place. The whole experience was humiliating as they tried to discredit me and tell the whole world that I had broken the same rules as the lost pilot.

The immediate result was that I my fees are now 100,000 per day (plus expenses) to appear as a witness again.

The next result was the pilot, presumably dead and not living in Mexico, was found guilty of pilot error and his estate was sued. His wife and family got dick. NOBODY, even 20 years later, knows what happened to this flight, but it was the pilot's fault!

Pilots are tried by civilian courts by people who are not in this industry. How often have you flown when the w/x is good but iffy? Have you weighed all your pax? Did you do one last trip before the w/x closes in? Gets dark? Throw in one more suitcase? Not pump your floats?

Criminal courts are very expensive. How will you pay your lawyer to defend you for the 'crime' that you did not commit? Sell your car and your David Clarks?

Who will raise your kids while you are incarcerated? With a criminal record you permanently lose your license - like to wash cars?

Added to this, there isn't anyone except the courts who are willing to interpret the CARS.

Ask your boss, who is probably paying you $25/hr, how much help he is willing to provide to defend you? An while you're at it, find out how much insurance coverage you have...

Even if this guy was Charles Manson in a Navajo, this is a bad thing for all of us.

[hz2p]

Obviously management has no knowledge of, or responsibility for what happened - they can claim they were inept and incompetent - the gov't does it all the time.

Obviously maintenance has no knowledge of, or responsibility for the aircraft equipment not being serviceable.

Obviously Transport has no knowledge of, or responsibility for the what was going on, even though they constructed the paperwork nightmare and were supposed to be providing oversight, and didn't.

Yeah sure, let's hang the pilot out to dry. Lay all the blame at his doorstep and run away, just like the government does all the time.

[golden hawk]

DEFINITION OF SUBROGATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An insurance carrier may reserve the "right of subrogation" in the event of a loss. This means that the company may choose to take action to recover the amount of a claim paid to a covered insured if the loss was caused by a third party. After expenses, the amount recovered must be divided proportionately with the insured to cover any deductible for which the insured was reponsible.

Source: http://www.lcgroup.com/explanations/subrog.htm

[Cat Driver]

Someone mentioned the word "retroactive" on such criminal charges, should this pilot be convicted.

Now there is one that I am all for, as long as there is no statute of limitations.

Then we would be rid of one of our top level managers in TC....criminal negligence causing death sounds about right in his case. ( before he made it to TC )

"What is good for the goose should be good for the gander" , they say.

Cat

[golden hawk]

Related story, gentlemen.


-------------------------------------------------------

Bus driver conveys condolences at trial opening

OTTAWA - The trial of an OC Transpo bus driver accused of criminal negligence in the death of a toddler from Toronto got underway Monday in Ottawa.

The bus slammed into the back of the Appuhamy's rental car, killing 18-month-old Chamin

Lawrence Burt, 49, is on trial for one count of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The bus he was driving on July 13, 2003, slammed into a car rented by the Appuhamy family, in Ottawa from Toronto for a wedding. Their car had run out of gas and was stranded in the bus lane on Regional Road 174.

The accident killed 18-month-old Chamin Appuhamy, and has left his father, Jude, with head injuries and paralyzed from the waist down. Chamin's mother, Kanchana, was also seriously injured but has more or less recuperated.

One of the first things the court heard was a message from Burt to the Appuhamy family.

"He's wanted to, since that very day, express his condolences and sympathies to the Appuhamy family and I did that on his behalf in the court session today," said lawyer Lawrence Greenspon.

But it wasn't an apology. Burt and his lawyer say this accident was not a matter of negligence.

As part of that, the court heard how a passenger was standing beside and speaking to the driver as the bus approached the Appuhamy's car at about 100 km/h.

Ross Molot, the Appuhamy's lawyer, said the family is keeping an open mind and is "just trying to find out what happened."

"We're frankly looking for more information about what happened and [to] discover why this accident happened in the first place," said Molot.

"That's really what we're trying to get out of this trial. Nobody's looking for any kind of conviction per se, nobody's looking for any kind of retribution."

This criminal trial, by judge, is scheduled to last two weeks.

Later this week, the family plans to file a $10-million civil suit against Burt, the City of Ottawa, and a city employee.


Source: http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/V ... rt20040928

[LT]

"We're frankly looking for more information about what happened and [to] discover why this accident happened in the first place," said Molot.

"That's really what we're trying to get out of this trial. Nobody's looking for any kind of conviction per se, nobody's looking for any kind of retribution."


Later this week, the family plans to file a $10-million civil suit against Burt, the City of Ottawa, and a city employee.

Good article, Goldy. It cheered me up..

Always good to see that people are not always looking for retribution they're only looking for 10 million.

Can the city or burt sue the family for negligence? If that was me, I'd be the first to do it..

"So, I killed your kid? You weren't looking after him properly, you were negligent, and now that you caused me to kill your kid, I have mental anguish. 10 million, pay up"

[golden hawk]

LT;

Anyone can sue another person anytime - whether the suit has merit or is frivolous is for the courts to decide.

Remember, everyone, there's two parts to law - Civil Law and Criminal Law.

[golden hawk]

Here's a related link on this stuff - read down a bit about the "Twilight Zone" helicopter that crashed during filming, killing Actor Vic Morrow and two children.

http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181901-1.html

[tailgunner]

could not agree with you more discu stu!
This crash was a very plausible outcome of the pilot's decision to take-off. He made a DECISION to break the law. He should be held responsible. We as A/C captains want the authority to make our own decisions, to direct the flight, to ensure our and our passenger's safety, that is what we demand and that is what we get paid for. It is somewhat hipocritical to now say that we should NOT be held resposible or accountable for our decisions and actions. If we want the authority we have to carry the responsibility. As other's have argued , I can see no "slippery slope" of impending jail time and such for accidents. However, If we decide to break the law, someone gets hurt, we should face the courts. This may compel newer pilots, faced with impossible working conditions and pressures, to refuse to fly outside of the regulations, thus making for greater responsibilty and accountability within our flight departments.

[Rebel]

Hmm I could be wrong but the Federal Government and not any Provincial Government issued my license. It has always been my understanding that the rules and compliance to those rules fell under Federal jurisdiction. It is also my understanding that the Manitoba Crown prosecutor is laying charges against this pilot. Why is a Provincial Crown prosecutor laying charges that fall under a Federal jurisdiction? Maybe for the glory whatever…

I expect that the pilot unions lawyers will tell this Manitoba Crown prosecutor to take a hike..

[jimmyjazz]

There not charging him with an aviation offence but criminal neglience and thats what we're all concerned about. Even if he was found guilty they'd have no authority over his license.

[oldncold]

I read all the pages of this post. and the hypocritical tone is sad

there is hardly a pilot out there with more than a 1000 hrs and worked
in the north that has not been faced with similar choices whether it be a 185 or bigger a/c . Did this guy make a bad choice that is obvious.

does he deserve to face this? the question of a justice is about recognizing the wrong and admitting it and not repeating the same mis
judgement again.

I have never met this chap. however if it were you , and you are
in the middle of a busy major city intersection with a wrecked a/c and
knowing that the shit storm of your life is about to descend upon you
would you not change your ways.

finally this thought- where are most of us when the pilot who stands up and rips a strip of a ops mgr or lame dick chief pilot for the abuses of
and outright aviation law breaking

yup probably on the cell phone phoning your pal instructing at the flight
school to get his resume in quick and as ya hang up .A pen to help the chief dick sign the pink slip. your next comments are usually anything I can do to help boss. it is ok you just gave him a mental b.j .

this chap is going to have to realize that for the next 10 yrs no insurance
company willcover the pilot at the normal company rate will in of its self
end his career. the legal fees the emotional scar he sees every day in
shaving .he will be punished enough.
the last thing he needs right is a bunch of self righteous hypocrites. with
dagger drawn . next time it might be you

[. .]

How far does this go if the guy is found guilty? Should the air transat pilots be charged with reckless endangerment? They should have followed SOP. By not following SOP they endangered peoples lives with that glide into the azores. Do pilots need malpractice insurance like doctors in the states do now?

[Wilbur]

The police and crown counsel have charged this guy with criminal negligence causing death. By defenition, that is a "wanton disregard for the lives and safety of others." They are accusing him of knowing what he was doing was wrong, knowing it was irresponsible and reckless, knowing there was a good chance someone could be injured or killed, and choosing to do it anyhow. For those who say he shouldn't be charged, do you say the same thing about the guys who go street racing and kill people? Do you say the same thing about the truck driver who doesn't maintain and adjust his brakes and then flattens a family in their car at the bottom of a hill? Give me a break. If he did the crime he should face the music.

Neither need anyone worry about being charged for making a mistake. There are two elements that must be met for a criminal charge. Committing the act and intending to commit the act. If you make an honest mistake you have not met the requirement of intent, therefore no crime has been committed regardless of the mayhem the error may have caused.

Crim neg is an intictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Enforcing the criminal law is a provincial responsibility, hence, this pilot is charged by a provincial crown counsel. The fact he is a pilot and where he got his pilot's licence from has no bearing on the jurisdiction, only the location where the offence occurred.

Time and again I've read posts claiming, "pilots deserve big salaries because they are responsible for the lives of their passengers." Now that a pilot is actually being held accountable for taking the life of a passenger we have people saying the opposite. Can't have it both ways folks. Also can't blame management pressure, "the culture," lack of TC enforcement, etc. That is all feeble excuse making. No different than a 16 year old kid who smashes up the car and then tries shifting blame to his buddies who influenced him to drive like a maniac. What would you call that kid? Irresponsible perhaps? You shouldn't need the cops (TC) looking over your shoulder to keep you from flying recklessly.

Crim neg carries a maximum life sentence. However, typical sentences range from probation to 2-3 years in prison. The average these days is probably about an 18 month conidtional sentence (house arrest) and a couple years probation. If he pleads guilty in provincial court his legal bill will be in the $5-10k range. Take it to trial and it could easily exceed $30k. He is on the hook to his lawyer for that money even if aquitted. Then, the civil suit will still be to follow. If convicted criminally, the insurance company will be able to come after him for his share of the judgement (you can't buy insurance for your criminal acts) if he has any money left. Simply put, he has f'd up his life big time.

Maybe this should serve as a wake-up call for some people. Grow some parts and stand-up to those who would influence you to behave recklessly. You, and you alone are responsible for what you do.

[Cat Driver]

oldncold :

Exactly, that is the real root of the problem.

First lets get rid of all the Ops Managers and Chief pilots who make a mockery of the position they hold.

I have no idea what can be done to intice TC to do something other than pretend they are doing their mandated duty of ensuring compliance.

Maybe this event will be the jolt that we need in aviation to really come to grips with the real problems.

Sure that pilot was in the wrong, sure his decisions were wrong but the truth is we have all been guilty at one time or another of doing these things because the system is corrupt at the very top.

And to all you self rightous posters who are slamming that poor devil who now faces this delima maybe you should rethink some of your statements.

Tomorrow it may be you or me who are in that position.

Cat