Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash

neechi · Post by **neechi** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:35 pm

Pilot charged in Logan crash landing
The pilot who was at the controls of a plane that crash landed on Logan Avenue in two years ago faces six charges, including one of criminal negligence causing death.

Thirty six year old *** ********* of Calgary is to make his first court appearance later this year.

About 9:20 in the morning of June 11, 2002, a Piper Navajo Chieftain aircraft carrying six passengers and one pilot, crashed at the intersection of Logan Avenue and McPhillips Street. The aircraft was owned and operated by Keystone Air Ltd. It collided with several motor vehicles before it finally came to a stop in the middle of the road.

A 79 year old male passenger died of his injuries in September. All the other occupants survived but some of them still suffer the effects of injuries sustained in the crash.

The Winnipeg Police Service initiated a criminal investigation into the crash and the Crown authorized charges against the pilot late last week.

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:45 pm

Where did you find this information?

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:35 pm

I see the same story here:
http://www.cjob.com/localnews.php?artic ... 46a26e7535

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:45 pm

I know, when this happened, I was all ove Keystone, and the pilot. BUT, no matter how dumb running out of gas and ending up in downtown Winnipeg is, and it IS really DUMB, the idea that we can be held criminally responsable for an ACCIDENT scares the living shit out of me!! And it should scare YOU as well, becaue as perfect as we all like to think we are, some of us are not all that perfect! This is a terrifing precident! Simply because running out of gas is not illegal! It's not all that bright, but then if we all had to go to court every time we did something noat all that bright, well, you get the drift....I mean, this guy could end up in the slammer, for a long time!
It would be nice to see all of us as a "band of brothers" park all our bloody airplanes, until the charges are dropped! But, of course, in aviation, that'd never happen....because we eat our young!
One only has to think for a couple of moments, to realize how many accidents, that could have been prevented through a little more planning, that could very well end up in the same situation! Every CFIT crash could have been prevented by NOT descending below published values...and the list is never ending!
Just a thought.

LT · Post by LT » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:06 pm

Lesson to be learnt, screw the parachute, and screw your stupid "forced landing" bs...

If you're in trouble, let the plane crash and pray you die with the ship...

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:12 pm

Doc is perfectly correct in his assertion that this charge is without precedent in the Western World. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened before. Regardless if the pilot is completely in the wrong this is not the way that we should let the profession precede.

Hey TC where are you in this regard?

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:15 pm

It's one thing to run out of gas...it's another thing to break every reg in the book because your company sucks, and put your passengers lives in danger!

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:17 pm

centerstored

You’re missing the big picture..

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:37 pm

Rebel, the big picture is the sad fact that you marginal pilots without any standards feel sorry for another pilot who broke several regs and ran out of gas. As far as I'm concerned, this guy should have had the book thrown at him long ago....and the company should have been finished as well. They are still pulling this BS today...it's only a matter of time!

jimmyjazz · Post by **jimmyjazz** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:38 pm

I agree that being charged for an accident isn't right, but if this guy was drunk and crashed because of that would you feel the same? I usually don't like getting into stuff like this because you never know what the future holds for yourself,but he knowingly left without leagal fuel and a A/C that wasn't certified for the Flight 99.9 percent of the time you'd be ok but there is a reason for the 45 min. I think the OPs Man & CP should be in on this as the PIC was supposedly pressured into it, though it does always comeback to PIC so you gotta watch out for yourself and stick to your guns.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:42 pm

cpt sweet'njuicy

You really don’t understand the full significant to the aviation community of what’s about to go down. Wake up before it’s to late..

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:45 pm

Yeah, a company and pilot who have $hit for standards and refuse to change the way they do business are about to get hung out to dry...it's about time.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:50 pm

S&J, and centrestored...NOBODY, and I MEAN NOBODY called this guy an ass more than I did! And I did it right here on this forum. And you all read it! I ranted like an idiot...so much so, that I felt guilty talking to some Keystone drivers in the 'peg. BUT, there is no way in hell this should be treated this way...NO WAY!! I mean, have you seen this in the USA??? Have you? Nope! This opens the flood gates from Hell! Now, S&J, I know you're perfect...hell, you tell us that on a daily basis! But, if God forbid, anything happens when you're in control...and it can...we'll be right there calling you a total ass...BUT, nobody will wish on you what this poor sot from Keystone is getting.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:56 pm

Doc, I couldn't agree more about the flood gates, but as I stated earlier, it's one thing to make a mistake and another to knowingly put your pax at risk by busting regs. The reality is that this guy should have never left the ground in this unequipped AC. Even if it were fit for the air on that day, he didn't have enough gas for IFR flight. Those aren't mistakes, that is complete negligence, which is what he will pay the price for.
If you run someone over driving a car and it was a mistake, you won't go to jail, but if you drive drunk and kill someone you'll spend time in the joint with bubba!

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:56 pm

jimmyjazz...he wasen't drunk...if he'd been drunk, yes, it would be a different story. And the aircraft not being airworthy...you're talking the autopilot, correct? When's the last time an autopilot prevented fuel starvation? No son, this was an accident, pure and simple. If he were drunk, it would have demonstrated malice of forthought..and he wasn't. BTW, it's not against the law to run out of gas.
Geeeze, now I'm sticking up for the guy?

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:02 pm

It's not this particular case which is in question here... it's the precedent.

How many accident reports list 'pilot error' as a contributing cause?

Nearly all.

Does that mean that in each and every one of those accidents that the pilot should be brought up on charges??

Apprently, this precedent would suggest that.

We've all made mistakes before, well, all of us besides F/O S&J.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:07 pm

Jiggly, I agree with you except this was not an accident! When your company operates like that, and you refuse to take the most important equipment for the flight....your GAS, you're ignorant, negligent...whatever you wish to call it....or whatever the JUDGE wishes to call it I shoud say!

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:08 pm

S&J, if you have more than a few thousand hours, I'd be more than willing to bet a dinner at the KEG that you have knowingly, flown over gross, been out without an autopilot by youself IFR, pushed at least one approach below published mins, had a beer within the time limit, had something on your MEL u/s and continued the flight, descended, or climbed through an assigned altitude...or done something that is outside the CARS. If you haven't, you're not normal, and are probably a veggie and it'll be a cheap date. HA!

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:33 pm

JigglyBus

“It's not this particular case which is in question here... it's the precedent. How many accident reports list 'pilot error' as a contributing cause? Nearly all"

Bingo and that’s what it’s all about “the precedent”. Only the inexperienced don't understand what's at stake.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:39 pm

Well, with 8500 hours turbine time I still feel that the only precedent set is the PIC has to be accountable. In the court of law, no body holds you accountable for an accident. You will be and should be held accountable for criminal negligence. Your missing the priciple and only looking at the big picture and how it could effect you.

.80@410 · Post by **.80@410** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:55 pm

True True True,, it's the precedent.

We are truly opening the gates as suggested before, and the scary thing is once we go forward with this there is no turning back...

Think about this al you idiots who don't see the big picture:

As soon as this case is lost by the PIC, every lawyer in the country will know. And if ( God forbid ) you now cause a fatality or even general harm due to "pilot error" , and this precedent has been set- expect to be held accountable... jail...DUE TO A MISTAKE ...and NOT JUST YOU this will open the gates to civil cases : Your wife/ children could suffer the rest of THEIR lives financially due to lawsuits even if you're dead and buried.

I CANNOT understand the short-sightedness some pilots on this board show.

PS: Interesting thought...: I heard 1 year ago that one of the wives of the pax was a top-level attorney and that the pilot was gonna roast...I dismisssed it at the time..I wonder now if this had anything to do with it?

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:56 pm

Centerstored, I don't think this is one of those "I have more hours, so I'm right" issues.

Accident is defined in Websters as...
1.[n] anything that happens by chance without an apparent cause
2.[n] a mishap; especially one causing injury or death

So, in a sense, very few crashes are actually 'accidents' by defintion 1.

The NTSB or TC generally investigate crashes to find the 'cause'. If it has a 'cause' then by definition, it is not an accident.

If it's not an accident, and 'pilot error' is listed in the report as a 'cause', then this precedent will make all pilots legally accountable for almost all crashes.

Or do you think they have a list which describes which mistakes you're accountable for, and which you are not??? I assure you they do not.

Oh, and I have 134,453 hours on the space shuttle, so I'm right.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:00 pm

I must be missing something here.

I do not ever recall a pilot charged with criminal neglegence causing death in a commerical aviation accident before...ever.

Running out of fuel is not uncommon even in large airplanes, of course the pilot is responsible for running out of fuel unless there were extenuating circumstances that may have contributed to running out the pilot will be alone in being responsible.

However where was that little item called " Operational control" where was the company owner and what was the history of the "culture " of this company.

Where was the Ops manager and the chief pilot in "Operational control" not only with regard to this accident but in the past "culture" in this company.

For Gods sakes everyone here consider the implications of this criminal charge against this pilot, regardless of his culpibility in this, I cannot ever recall such a charge being laid ever.

The implications for all pilots is mind boggling.

Is there something about this accident or this pilot that sets it / him apart?

Cat

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:05 pm

8500 hours of turbine time...and what? A law degree? How would your relative low time have anything to do with it? You're out there in "lala" land on this one. If you do have "8500 hours of turbine time" you just haven't been caught yet. So, toss out the first stone!

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:13 pm

Cat,

I have heard of this in Turkey, I believe, where pilots can be charged. But here?? This IS the dawn of a new era.....

This will also affect how insurance responds - they don't generally insure criminal acts!