Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Crash-landing pilot's convictions overturned - Alberta pilot's appeal succeeds on 5 of 6 convictions from 2002 Winnipeg crash
Click Here Winnipeg Free Press story.
Click Here CBC News
TSB Report of PA-31 Navajo C-GPOW of Keystone Air Service on June 11 2002.
Click Here Winnipeg Free Press story.
Click Here CBC News
TSB Report of PA-31 Navajo C-GPOW of Keystone Air Service on June 11 2002.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Wow, when you read the report, you wonder how anyone could argue this wasn't criminal negligence... 

Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Sad day. Wrong message. I guess, it's not criminal to(knowingly) continue to operate an aircraft with insufficient fuel to complete the trip. $20 says this guy will be picked up by the airlines within 2 years. Any takers? But then, a car thief got, what....75 days for killing a cab driver? And, we acquitted the guy we though responsible for the Air India bombing. And, he's actually suing over it?? Some justice system.
Bingo fuel will be fine, thanks. She glides pretty good.
Bingo fuel will be fine, thanks. She glides pretty good.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I for one congratulate the decision, lots of mitigating factors here that were never read in court or released to the general public I suspect....think that had a bearing on the decision ?
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
You mean, like "it's not my fault, there were mitigating factors....." Name ONE! Just ONE "mitigating" factor that would make it not criminal to do what he did.warner wrote:I for one congratulate the decision, lots of mitigating factors here that were never read in court or released to the general public I suspect....think that had a bearing on the decision ?
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I'm with warner on this.
The judges did not overturn the conviction for dangerous operation of an aircraft. If I recall correctly, even the original judge made some comments that seemed to imply that Mr. Tayfel's errors had been implicitly condoned by other circumstances. Why were TC, the fishing lodge and Keystone named in the lawsuit? And what were the findings and settlement? What would have happened in criminal court had Bill C-45 (the Bill that made employers criminally responsible for OH&S) been enacted BEFORE this crash?
I met Eric Vogel recently. The pilot made infamous by the Wapiti crash. I also met Mr. Tayfel last spring. I find their stories, and regrets, eerily similar.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ ... 99732.htmlThe Transportation Safety Board of Canada ruled mistakes by Tayfel and Keystone Air led to the crash. The pilot was fined by Transport Canada and had his licence lifted for 45 days, and Keystone was fined $13,750 and grounded for a week.
A lawsuit was later filed by the family against the airline, fishing lodge and Transport Canada. It was settled out of court.
The judges did not overturn the conviction for dangerous operation of an aircraft. If I recall correctly, even the original judge made some comments that seemed to imply that Mr. Tayfel's errors had been implicitly condoned by other circumstances. Why were TC, the fishing lodge and Keystone named in the lawsuit? And what were the findings and settlement? What would have happened in criminal court had Bill C-45 (the Bill that made employers criminally responsible for OH&S) been enacted BEFORE this crash?
I met Eric Vogel recently. The pilot made infamous by the Wapiti crash. I also met Mr. Tayfel last spring. I find their stories, and regrets, eerily similar.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Maybe because the passengers were from the United States of Litigation, and that's the way they do it down there. Sue everyone for all you can get!Widow wrote:...Why were TC, the fishing lodge and Keystone named in the lawsuit?...
Cheers,
Brew
Brew
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: Prairies
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
In order to get any money out of it they have to sue everyone involved. We all know they wouldn't be able to get any money from a pilot. 

Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Eric Vogel was included in the Wapiti lawsuit. It is typical when filing a claim, to include everyone under the sun - even in Canada. It is the findings and settlements that are of greatest interest. Like in the Wapiti suit. But in this one, as in so many others where TC has been named (like SonicBlue), the suit has ended in settlements, so we'll never know.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Does the company's defence of admitting to being a long running sh*tshow count as one?You mean, like "it's not my fault, there were mitigating factors....." Name ONE! Just ONE "mitigating" factor that would make it not criminal to do what he did.
You can interpret that however you would like.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
No, it doesn't.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
There is a difference between civil negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence requires mens rea, or meaning you had a "guilty mind". My guess is this is why his conviction was overturned.
- The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Bingo Bede!
It meant the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pilot was aware a fatality would be a certain result of his actions. This is a very high legal hurdle to leap.
In this case, it was overturned on appeal because the burden of proof was not met.
If Mr Tayfel had any money, the victims would be more likely to be successful by suing for compensation in civil court where the burden of proof is based upon a preponderance of the evidence.....a lower standard than in criminal matters.
OFD
It meant the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pilot was aware a fatality would be a certain result of his actions. This is a very high legal hurdle to leap.
In this case, it was overturned on appeal because the burden of proof was not met.
If Mr Tayfel had any money, the victims would be more likely to be successful by suing for compensation in civil court where the burden of proof is based upon a preponderance of the evidence.....a lower standard than in criminal matters.
OFD
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Let me suggest and again its just that but given another opportunity to complete the flight without any "sutble" pressure from a company perhaps all this might not have happened, but when one is faced with options that may hinder one's career path, loss of anything remaining of the $10,000 training bond if dismissed and allegedly this had been done to others in the past, financial concerns with a potential job loss......and of course nothing written down to substantiate anything to the authorities but the message is loud and clear non the less......maybe with the overturning of the charges TC will get off their collective butts and do something constructive....... look what happened to Wapiti after the dust settled and they had ignored all the rules and regs for years.......hmmmmmmDoc wrote:You mean, like "it's not my fault, there were mitigating factors....." Name ONE! Just ONE "mitigating" factor that would make it not criminal to do what he did.warner wrote:I for one congratulate the decision, lots of mitigating factors here that were never read in court or released to the general public I suspect....think that had a bearing on the decision ?
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I also agree with warner, having worked for the above mentioned company I have a pretty good idea how the conversation went down. I'm not saying it wasn’t his fault but there was pressure from the company to make this happen and the company had to have or should have known this was happening. Management at the company fly’s the Ho's all the time if they look at old flight plan's they would have noticed people flying VFR fuel in IFR weather or, they choose to turn a blind eye and may even suggest (strongly) to do it. In the end I don’t think any of that had a baring on the overturn because to say he committed criminal actions you would have to say that he took off out of Buds KNOWING he would run out of gas short of YWG (which I cant see anyone doing unless they are maybe suicidal), in the end he took VFR gas which turned out to be not enough for the given flight but he didn't leave the lodge thinking I wonder where I can glide this plane to. Dangerous operation of an A/C oh yea by knowingly leaving and flying into IFR flight with out the proper fuel and for not having enough fuel for foreseeable delays and weather and blah blah blah and for flying without an auto pilot (I know that didn’t cause the crash but it was a CARS violation and proves the dangerous part). If the criminal charges had have stayed we could all be in trouble, imagine next time someone lands on a runway with a low CFRI and slide's a bit and some one bumps there head and gets a boo boo technically under the way Mark was found guilty you would could be found guilty of negligence too as you knowingly landed on a runway where sliding was a possibility and as a result some one got hurt just 1 example of many I could think. Just my opinion however, who knows
YWG
YWG
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
The previous poster said: "...Management at the company fly’s the Ho's all the time if they look at old flight plan's they would have noticed people flying VFR fuel in IFR weather or, they choose to turn a blind eye and may even suggest (strongly) to do it....
...Dangerous operation of an A/C oh yea by knowingly leaving and flying into IFR flight with out the proper fuel and for not having enough fuel for foreseeable delays and weather and blah blah blah and for flying without an auto pilot (I know that didn’t cause the crash but it was a CARS violation and proves the dangerous part)...."
Regrettably, it is not only the small operators that do this. It seems to be common practice with many operators, including some large "safe" operators, where uncontrolled airspace is considered operationally VFR, even though the flight is actually IFR. Its funny, when one references IFR fuel requirements in the CARS, there is no reference to any so-called "grey" area of uncontrolled airspace. According to the CARS, if you're IFR in ANY airspace, you require IFR fuel. Conversely, if you want to carry VFR fuel, you must remain VFR, which means you can't climb through 8,000 feet of solid cloud deck to maximize fuel burn on a long distance flight, and conduct an IFR approach to minimums at the other end - particularly when there is a complete absence of nearby landing options.
And why should there be a difference of controlled versus uncontrolled? Clearly, the justification is "out of sight, out of mind".
So, if a pilot carries proper fuel for a given flight, and others within the company don't, they now have a very big problem - with more fuel comes less payload and suddenly the pilot becomes very unpopular with a lot of people. That can bring a lot of ugly pressure to bear, particularly if the company is seen as "safe" - and might cause the pilot to change their thinking if their job becomes at stake.
If a company does not support good decision making at all levels - from management to peers - and all a pilot ever knows is punishment for trying to conduct a safe flight within the performance envelope of the aircraft, it is easy to see how eventually some give up and play the game by the industry rules in order to be seen as a "good guy".
A lot of things have to change, at a lot of levels, for this to change for the better.
Cheers,
Kirsten B.
...Dangerous operation of an A/C oh yea by knowingly leaving and flying into IFR flight with out the proper fuel and for not having enough fuel for foreseeable delays and weather and blah blah blah and for flying without an auto pilot (I know that didn’t cause the crash but it was a CARS violation and proves the dangerous part)...."
Regrettably, it is not only the small operators that do this. It seems to be common practice with many operators, including some large "safe" operators, where uncontrolled airspace is considered operationally VFR, even though the flight is actually IFR. Its funny, when one references IFR fuel requirements in the CARS, there is no reference to any so-called "grey" area of uncontrolled airspace. According to the CARS, if you're IFR in ANY airspace, you require IFR fuel. Conversely, if you want to carry VFR fuel, you must remain VFR, which means you can't climb through 8,000 feet of solid cloud deck to maximize fuel burn on a long distance flight, and conduct an IFR approach to minimums at the other end - particularly when there is a complete absence of nearby landing options.
And why should there be a difference of controlled versus uncontrolled? Clearly, the justification is "out of sight, out of mind".
So, if a pilot carries proper fuel for a given flight, and others within the company don't, they now have a very big problem - with more fuel comes less payload and suddenly the pilot becomes very unpopular with a lot of people. That can bring a lot of ugly pressure to bear, particularly if the company is seen as "safe" - and might cause the pilot to change their thinking if their job becomes at stake.
If a company does not support good decision making at all levels - from management to peers - and all a pilot ever knows is punishment for trying to conduct a safe flight within the performance envelope of the aircraft, it is easy to see how eventually some give up and play the game by the industry rules in order to be seen as a "good guy".
A lot of things have to change, at a lot of levels, for this to change for the better.
Cheers,
Kirsten B.
Last edited by snoopy on Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
BINGO!!!!!cpl_atc wrote:I, for one, hope Tayfel never works in the industry again, regardless of how our farcical "justice" system classifies him. I think everyone knows that he was criminally negligent, and there's a family without a grandpa this Christmas because of his actions, and his actions alone.
Nobody held a gun to his head.
Keep "passing the buck" kids. He did this all by himself, KNOWING he didn't have enough fuel for the trip, and overflew airports with fuel.
Nothing will loose my respect faster than some pilot not willing to take responsibility for his/her mistakes.
If this happened in a Ford, it would be criminal negligence causing death. We wouldn't be having this debate. It would be "black and white". And, he'd be doing jail time.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I think after all the years this has been going on, I think he learned his lesson.I for one think he should work in the industry. I would rather fly with someone like him who screwed up and learned his lesson than someone who thinks they are above having an accident. It is common knowledge in the industry how Keystone operates. Everybody knows how they push pilots, when the weather is really bad up north they are the only ones getting into airports. Flying IFR with VFR fuel.The list goes on and on. What I wonder is where is transport?They havnt done anything, Im sure this is still going on there. He made some bad decisions that he wouldnt make again. I think he deserves a second chance. The Northwest pilots that overflew their destination should never work in the indusrty, thats NEGLIGENCE. People have short memories and I bet they will be flying again.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
While I do not agree with Mark Tayfel's decision making on that fateful day, I neither condemn nor condone him as a person for his mistakes. Because in order to do that, I would have to apply the same level of moral scrutiny to myself.
You that are so quick to condemn and "stone" Mark Tayfel for his crimes - have you been above reproach in all aspects of your life? Have you ever driven above the speed limit? Driven over the legal alcohol limit? Not worn your seatbelt? Taken on a few extra pounds of freight and hidden it in the paperwork? Shall I go on?
There are many pilots, AMEs and operators who make both minor and major indiscretions every minute of every day, and get away with them. They got lucky. Mark Tayfel got very unlucky.
Somehow as a human race, it seems to be easier to be judge, jury and executioner of others, than provide the same service on ourselves. So yes, Mark made some very bad decisions, and has now been made a public scapegoat, but others continue to get away with their bad decisions.
Only Mark Tayfel can examine himself and decide to take responsibility for his actions, and learn from his mistakes.
The question is, the next time the person next to you makes a safe decision contrary to the masses, and upholds professional standards, will you stand by them and support their good decisions? Will you include them in your "inner circle" of good 'ol boys? Or will you stone them too?
Cheers,
Kirsten B.
You that are so quick to condemn and "stone" Mark Tayfel for his crimes - have you been above reproach in all aspects of your life? Have you ever driven above the speed limit? Driven over the legal alcohol limit? Not worn your seatbelt? Taken on a few extra pounds of freight and hidden it in the paperwork? Shall I go on?
There are many pilots, AMEs and operators who make both minor and major indiscretions every minute of every day, and get away with them. They got lucky. Mark Tayfel got very unlucky.
Somehow as a human race, it seems to be easier to be judge, jury and executioner of others, than provide the same service on ourselves. So yes, Mark made some very bad decisions, and has now been made a public scapegoat, but others continue to get away with their bad decisions.
Only Mark Tayfel can examine himself and decide to take responsibility for his actions, and learn from his mistakes.
The question is, the next time the person next to you makes a safe decision contrary to the masses, and upholds professional standards, will you stand by them and support their good decisions? Will you include them in your "inner circle" of good 'ol boys? Or will you stone them too?
Cheers,
Kirsten B.
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Well put Snoopy, you are so right
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
Snoopy, a "mistake" is locking your keys in your pickup truck. His was no "mistake". In my book, he doesn't deserve another "kick at the cat".snoopy wrote: Only Mark Tayfel can examine himself and decide to take responsibility for his actions, and learn from his mistakes.
.
Although your comments are as usual, well written, I feel you've "sugar coated" it a bit. There is no room to make "excuses" for someone's easily preventable actions, when they result in the death of another human being.
Hard line? You bet!
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I guess numerous years without work in the field you have chosen for your life's work, court appearances and public humiliation, not to mention the guilt, isn't enough? If one of your teenage sons rear-ends someone in the family mini-van you would permanently prohibit him from driving? Or maybe lock him up and throw away the key? Shoot him?
I think your hard-line attitudes, your one-strike-and-your-life-is-over attitudes are unreasonable and harsh.
I think your hard-line attitudes, your one-strike-and-your-life-is-over attitudes are unreasonable and harsh.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
False analogy. If your teenager takes your car without permission and runs over a group of kids because he was speeding and drunk then yes, prohibit him from driving. If he has an accident (based on reflex not pretext) then by all means, give him another go.. but there is a difference between having an accident and knowingly endangering the lives of your passengers. In one instance there is a conscious decision to break the rules and endanger others, in the other instance there is no conscious decision.. I doubt we would be here if the ho had fallen out of the sky because of a fuel leak..I guess numerous years without work in the field you have chosen for your life's work, court appearances and public humiliation, not to mention the guilt, isn't enough? If one of your teenage sons rear-ends someone in the family mini-van you would permanently prohibit him from driving? Or maybe lock him up and throw away the key? Shoot him?
You have to deal with the consequences of your actions.. ALL of the consequences.. This guy does not deserve our sympathy, the victims of his INACTION deserve our sympathy. I believe this guy serves as the industry ass... the example we point to of what not to do. This is a pretty good contribution and will no doubt benefit the industry, however I do not believe that guilt, humiliation and court appearances are punishment, they are the process... punishment is the punishment, and that punishment should include a guilty verdict on the negligence and never flying passengers again.
There is a lot of room for second chances.. but this mess up is equivalent to all 9 of one cats lives.
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
I don't know - I'm sure he went to the same school that we did, learned his flying lessons like we did, tried to make a living like we all did. There is something missing here unless he is suicidal ('normal' people don't commit suicide, so he must be deranged?) otherwise I agree with the courts, there was no intent.
I cannot fathom a rational person willingly flying without enough fuel, so there has to be another reason. I don't buy that he is just an *sshole so we should just dispose of him. I don't buy that all of you who are so vocal about stoning this guy are blameless. If you are all paragons of virtue and have never made any kind of mistake, then I'll be quiet. This is a terrible event and I am really not trying to minimize the gravity of it, but what do you suggest should happen to him? Do you have some other humiliation for him because he didn't die himself?
Lyall Harbour Beaver?
Jazz Dash8 at North Bay?
CMA King Air?
Dempster highway Beech?
2 Geese?
Just some I can think of.
I cannot fathom a rational person willingly flying without enough fuel, so there has to be another reason. I don't buy that he is just an *sshole so we should just dispose of him. I don't buy that all of you who are so vocal about stoning this guy are blameless. If you are all paragons of virtue and have never made any kind of mistake, then I'll be quiet. This is a terrible event and I am really not trying to minimize the gravity of it, but what do you suggest should happen to him? Do you have some other humiliation for him because he didn't die himself?
Lyall Harbour Beaver?
Jazz Dash8 at North Bay?
CMA King Air?
Dempster highway Beech?
2 Geese?
Just some I can think of.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .
the question one may ask of themselves is this........would I hire Mark Tayfel to fly my airplane ? I know I would without a moment of hesitation , the benefit of experience whether good or bad is still experience is it not but to condemm a person and deny them the opportunity to show who they really are under proper tutalege is in itself wrong