Well, Okay, we all know how operators "push" pilots. Including Keystone. But if you (or I) hop in an airplane, without enough fuel....WE DID THAT TO OURSELVES!!!!! Yes, Keystone pushes their pilots (from all I've seen and heard...notice, that's second hand information, ie. hearsay) but I have NEVER seen a company ANYWHERE that advocates carrying too little fuel than is actually required to make the trip. I have NEVER heard a CP, or anyone in the "boss" seat say..."Son, I know you'll run out of gas. You'll probably land on a highway somewhere and kill a passenger or two. But off you go now. No more of your bitching!" Nope! Never heard that said...EVER! And I'd wager, neither have you?
Is Keystone free of blame? Probably not. But don't tell me they don't allow their pilots to carry enough fuel...because that's a crock!
Keystone blames Transport Canada.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Is this what I said doc? that they tell them to go without having enough?Doc wrote:Well, Okay, we all know how operators "push" pilots. Including Keystone. But if you (or I) hop in an airplane, without enough fuel....WE DID THAT TO OURSELVES!!!!! Yes, Keystone pushes their pilots (from all I've seen and heard...notice, that's second hand information, ie. hearsay) but I have NEVER seen a company ANYWHERE that advocates carrying too little fuel than is actually required to make the trip. I have NEVER heard a CP, or anyone in the "boss" seat say..."Son, I know you'll run out of gas. You'll probably land on a highway somewhere and kill a passenger or two. But off you go now. No more of your bitching!" Nope! Never heard that said...EVER! And I'd wager, neither have you?
Is Keystone free of blame? Probably not. But don't tell me they don't allow their pilots to carry enough fuel...because that's a crock!
When you have a mature answer to what I'm talking about, let me know.
I did fly for Keystone, it was the hardest flying job I ever had not because of working AT Keystone but because of flying a light piston twin, single pilot IFR in northern MB/ON...
At the time (spring 06) I received excellent training, the ground skool didn't take very long but covered everything, the non-specific training was the best I had ever received.
I did divert on one occasion for fuel and I never got any troubles doing it.
I was never asked to perform anything beyong my personnal abilities...
that being said and knowing the facts of what happend in the spring of 2002 I sincerely believe that BOTH accidents were pilot error and had nothing to do with the compagny.
cheers
At the time (spring 06) I received excellent training, the ground skool didn't take very long but covered everything, the non-specific training was the best I had ever received.
I did divert on one occasion for fuel and I never got any troubles doing it.
I was never asked to perform anything beyong my personnal abilities...
that being said and knowing the facts of what happend in the spring of 2002 I sincerely believe that BOTH accidents were pilot error and had nothing to do with the compagny.
cheers
Go west young men, go west...
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Spring 06 and already out? I bet they love you. How long did you stay there again? Did you break 2 months?gowest wrote:I did fly for Keystone, it was the hardest flying job I ever had not because of working AT Keystone but because of flying a light piston twin, single pilot IFR in northern MB/ON...
At the time (spring 06) I received excellent training, the ground skool didn't take very long but covered everything, the non-specific training was the best I had ever received.
I did divert on one occasion for fuel and I never got any troubles doing it.
I was never asked to perform anything beyong my personnal abilities...
that being said and knowing the facts of what happend in the spring of 2002 I sincerely believe that BOTH accidents were pilot error and had nothing to do with the compagny.
cheers
Care to elaborate on the best training that you got there? Cos to my knowledge, it's a few trips, 3-4 on the ho, and off you go. If you got anything different, please do let us know. Ground school should not be called ground school, you sit one on one at the esso in the back room and go through the systems quickly.
Company is spelled as such, and not compagny (i.e. compagnie
). I hear more and more french accents in there, they got a small french club now called, le keystone.Anyways, you claim to know the facts of both fuel related accidents, yet you say it was pilot error. The first one, as said by the TC report and the owner of keystone was a maintenance issue. Sure the pilot could have swiched tanks earlier and found out the problem much earlier, however, maintenance was the main problem.
No one here is saying that the pilot wasn't at fault. We're discussing the culture that these companies promote.
If it's true that 4 hours in a ho were the best training you ever received, I do not want to be your passenger!
p.s. this is not to knock the last training captain that was there, it has nothing to do with him, this is talking about the company and people lying and claiming its top notch training or the best training.
Bob Sacamano, you are right on the money.
A lot of small operators promote the "do this or else" attitude. Unfortunatly its the lower experienced people who are flying for these operators and get pushed beyond their experience level and can get themselves into a whole lot of trouble.
A lot of small operators promote the "do this or else" attitude. Unfortunatly its the lower experienced people who are flying for these operators and get pushed beyond their experience level and can get themselves into a whole lot of trouble.
hello Bob,bob sacamano wrote: Anyways, you claim to know the facts of both fuel related accidents, yet you say it was pilot error. The first one, as said by the TC report and the owner of keystone was a maintenance issue. Sure the pilot could have swiched tanks earlier and found out the problem much earlier, however, maintenance was the main problem.
No one here is saying that the pilot wasn't at fault. We're discussing the culture that these companies promote.
If it's true that 4 hours in a ho were the best training you ever received, I do not want to be your passenger!
p.s. this is not to knock the last training captain that was there, it has nothing to do with him, this is talking about the company and people lying and claiming its top notch training or the best training.
to answer your questions:
-best non-specefic training I ever received
-yes, the training Capt was top-notch!
-703 ops are mostly "shitty" compare to 705 standarts
-things break down on a Navajo anyways!
about the accident/fuel line: losing engine on take-off on the Ho= crash= the plane/maintenance fault.
loosing an engine in a descent on approach and loosing control of your plane = pilot error...
thank you for your spelling support, english is my 3 rd language and I appreciate any help to make it better!
cheers
Go west young men, go west...
-
tripleittt
- Rank 1
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Look up, Look wayyyyyy up
I flew for Keystone at the time of the last accident. I even flew that day and was only a few minutes behind P.O.W. before it went down. Heck I even had the pleasure of flying that plane after it came back all refurbished within the 10 days or so before being destroyed.
It wasn't an easy job by any means. GoWest may have taken it a little far by saying the training was the best ever, but it was sufficient.
Basically all I will say here, not in anyones' defense really, is that, NEVER was I or anyone who worked there, told to fly with insufficient fuel. There is not an operator out there who would say that. Keystone, of course, wanted to make money like any operator out there, so they had preferred refuelling stops. Gunisao wasn't one of the preferred places to fuel, but fuel was and is available there. Pine Dock isn't preferred either, but a good alternative to wiping out a city block.
Keystone and its' owner are not responsible for the accident, but they are responsible for the attitude the pilots take on when bullied and threatend. Ultimately, it isn't a safe environment. Sure SMS works and could work at Keystone if they would remember the key element in a functioning safety system which is non punitive, no repercussions for a reported safety concern. As long as the current owner oversees day to day operations, the culture will not change.
As for the passenger with 45 years experience. The wonderful media has cheated us pilots again by getting the facts all messed up. I will put money on it that the passenger has been a private pilot for 45 years with maybe 1500 hours total time in a 172. He was not a hired crew member for Keystone. Keystone runs its' Navajos single pilot. His comments about being uncomfortable with the plane leaving with what he thought to be 2 hours of fuel just shows me that his experience is worth shit. I agree with Doc, if it was me or anyone with 45 years flying as a hired pilot that plane would not have left until it got gas. I would have also mentioned a thing or two about the missing auto pilot.
It wasn't an easy job by any means. GoWest may have taken it a little far by saying the training was the best ever, but it was sufficient.
Basically all I will say here, not in anyones' defense really, is that, NEVER was I or anyone who worked there, told to fly with insufficient fuel. There is not an operator out there who would say that. Keystone, of course, wanted to make money like any operator out there, so they had preferred refuelling stops. Gunisao wasn't one of the preferred places to fuel, but fuel was and is available there. Pine Dock isn't preferred either, but a good alternative to wiping out a city block.
Keystone and its' owner are not responsible for the accident, but they are responsible for the attitude the pilots take on when bullied and threatend. Ultimately, it isn't a safe environment. Sure SMS works and could work at Keystone if they would remember the key element in a functioning safety system which is non punitive, no repercussions for a reported safety concern. As long as the current owner oversees day to day operations, the culture will not change.
As for the passenger with 45 years experience. The wonderful media has cheated us pilots again by getting the facts all messed up. I will put money on it that the passenger has been a private pilot for 45 years with maybe 1500 hours total time in a 172. He was not a hired crew member for Keystone. Keystone runs its' Navajos single pilot. His comments about being uncomfortable with the plane leaving with what he thought to be 2 hours of fuel just shows me that his experience is worth shit. I agree with Doc, if it was me or anyone with 45 years flying as a hired pilot that plane would not have left until it got gas. I would have also mentioned a thing or two about the missing auto pilot.
-
tripleittt
- Rank 1
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Look up, Look wayyyyyy up
-
The Hammer
- Rank 6
- Posts: 446
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:46 am
Really ???
A man breaks one rule openly why not others ???
A company that expects a pilot to fly without the required equipment .It would not take a quantum leap to see that such a company would expect a pilot not to have the required fuel .Never mind granny fuel
What is a young inexperienced pilot to do .
And do not forget shit slides downhill
A man breaks one rule openly why not others ???
A company that expects a pilot to fly without the required equipment .It would not take a quantum leap to see that such a company would expect a pilot not to have the required fuel .Never mind granny fuel
What is a young inexperienced pilot to do .
And do not forget shit slides downhill
Some of what has been posted here strikes me as inferring this pilot should not be held accountable for his actions because "he was pushed," "company culture," etc.
Some of you need a reality check. Nobody outside aviation gives a shit about the fact that young pilots will do anything they think they need to in order to keep or obtain a job. It's not an excuse for breaking the law, injurying, and killing people and we are all individually responsible for our own behaviour. As this fellow has found out, once the police and other non-aviation agencies become involved they will hold you to the behaviour standards normally expected within society; not just the aviation community. "They made me do it" is very rarely going to be an accepted defence to criminal conduct.
Is the missing auto-pilot relevant to him running out of gas; absolutely. It is further evidence of his attitude toward regulations. He was willing to place his passengers at risk by knowlingly flying without the required equipment in contravention of regulations. If he was willing to break those rules, was he also willing to knowningly attempt the trip with less than the legally required fuel? I'm sure crown will argue he was. It will help paint a picture of him as a pilot with a pattern of showing disregard for the lives and safety of his passengers.
No matter the outcome of the trial, he is screwed. Even if aquitted, his legal bills will ruin him financially. If found guilty, he will be looking at nothing less than a significant conditional sentence, and quite likely a year or so in prison. When he's finished with his criminal trial, he, the company, TC, and potentially the individual owners/managers will then be in court for the civil lawsuits they will all be co-respondents in. And contrary to Widow's statement, nobody is protected from a lawsuit by Worker's Compensation unless the passengers (litigants) were on the job and covered by a WCB claim; and they were not.
You may work for a company that "expects" you to violate regulations, but be aware, that won't protect you if things go wrong. If it was an acceptable defence, I'm there are plenty of Hell's Angels strikers that would use it a defence. "I'm not guilty, the club told me to traffick those drugs or they would give me the boot."
Some of you need a reality check. Nobody outside aviation gives a shit about the fact that young pilots will do anything they think they need to in order to keep or obtain a job. It's not an excuse for breaking the law, injurying, and killing people and we are all individually responsible for our own behaviour. As this fellow has found out, once the police and other non-aviation agencies become involved they will hold you to the behaviour standards normally expected within society; not just the aviation community. "They made me do it" is very rarely going to be an accepted defence to criminal conduct.
Is the missing auto-pilot relevant to him running out of gas; absolutely. It is further evidence of his attitude toward regulations. He was willing to place his passengers at risk by knowlingly flying without the required equipment in contravention of regulations. If he was willing to break those rules, was he also willing to knowningly attempt the trip with less than the legally required fuel? I'm sure crown will argue he was. It will help paint a picture of him as a pilot with a pattern of showing disregard for the lives and safety of his passengers.
No matter the outcome of the trial, he is screwed. Even if aquitted, his legal bills will ruin him financially. If found guilty, he will be looking at nothing less than a significant conditional sentence, and quite likely a year or so in prison. When he's finished with his criminal trial, he, the company, TC, and potentially the individual owners/managers will then be in court for the civil lawsuits they will all be co-respondents in. And contrary to Widow's statement, nobody is protected from a lawsuit by Worker's Compensation unless the passengers (litigants) were on the job and covered by a WCB claim; and they were not.
You may work for a company that "expects" you to violate regulations, but be aware, that won't protect you if things go wrong. If it was an acceptable defence, I'm there are plenty of Hell's Angels strikers that would use it a defence. "I'm not guilty, the club told me to traffick those drugs or they would give me the boot."
Hells Angels is an illegal gang and not an employer. Keystone is legal and employs people legally. I don't say it is okay to accept the lack of fuel/equipment but it is understandable. It's the company's responsability to enforce strick adherence to laws and regulations. And I fully understand a pilot that will break regs for the sake of saving his job.Wilbur wrote: You may work for a company that "expects" you to violate regulations, but be aware, that won't protect you if things go wrong. If it was an acceptable defence, I'm there are plenty of Hell's Angels strikers that would use it a defence. "I'm not guilty, the club told me to traffick those drugs or they would give me the boot."
Max
-
Stir The Pot
- Rank 0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:34 pm
I have been following this and would like to ask if the company was such a shining star that some alude to, then why would the autopilot be removed from the aircraft long before the crash with the company operations manager, company chief pilot, company safety officer, company director of maintenance and the company owner all fully aware of this item missing, allow the aircraft to be dispatched on an IFR flight plan not just the day of the crash but on earlier dates? Would such a piece of equipment that everyone knows is a requirement for single pilot operation be just OVERLOOKED, FORGOTTEN, PIC'S RESPONSIBILITY be so blatently ignored? Where was the all the support for the pilot on this day? How many other defects were just the pilots problem and not the companies management and support team?
My other question is that why are all these people mentioned above who employed this pilot in such good faith to trust him with valuable property, not be there in the thick of court to support him if not only for moral support? Where is the loving company and that old "we'll stand by our man"??? All of these folks put on the blinders and are carrying on business because they are the best company in Manitoba because they are SMS compliant?
I agree that many mistakes were made but the fact is that this scenario has been played out in this company (I suspect) and other companies many times. This time the fuel ran out in the air and not taxiing in to the hangar. I'm sure you know who you are. I am sure that most of us have come home short on the tank by miscalculation or unforseen circumstances or because of company pressure to get the pax connected to their next flight........
If the pilot in this case goes down then why on earth are the other's not directly linked to this accident not be standing beside the pilot?
Shame on all of those that think that this Captain was the sole person who should be sitting waiting for a verdict of guilty or not guilty!! He must feel very alone and isolated. Where have all those super pilots gone?
No smiles in this post.
End of rant.
My other question is that why are all these people mentioned above who employed this pilot in such good faith to trust him with valuable property, not be there in the thick of court to support him if not only for moral support? Where is the loving company and that old "we'll stand by our man"??? All of these folks put on the blinders and are carrying on business because they are the best company in Manitoba because they are SMS compliant?
I agree that many mistakes were made but the fact is that this scenario has been played out in this company (I suspect) and other companies many times. This time the fuel ran out in the air and not taxiing in to the hangar. I'm sure you know who you are. I am sure that most of us have come home short on the tank by miscalculation or unforseen circumstances or because of company pressure to get the pax connected to their next flight........
If the pilot in this case goes down then why on earth are the other's not directly linked to this accident not be standing beside the pilot?
Shame on all of those that think that this Captain was the sole person who should be sitting waiting for a verdict of guilty or not guilty!! He must feel very alone and isolated. Where have all those super pilots gone?
No smiles in this post.
End of rant.
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Are you kidding me?Doc wrote:An inop auto pilot has as much to do with running out of gas, as the pilot needing a haircut. I know, it is a legal requirement, but it wouldn't have made a difference.
I know you like to say dumb things most of the time to stir the pot, so I hope this statement is just for that.
They send out a single pilot IFR with no functioning auto-pilot.
Once again, it's the pilot's fault for taking it, but the company is also at fault.
This pilot is in court while keystone is still flying and owner still looking for his new victim.
-
tumbleweed
- Rank 1
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:08 pm
- Location: Hell - if it froze
Exactly. If that company was so safe dispatch would have been instructed to keep that airplane on the ground unless it was vfr. That is a break down from the DOM to the Ops manager to the Chief Pilot. Which would lead me to believe they quietly condoned ingnoring the inconvenient CARs. That is what needs to be stopped.
I am not defending this pilot. He should be make an example of to scare anyone currently in simular situations straight and maybe prevent it from happening again.
I am not defending this pilot. He should be make an example of to scare anyone currently in simular situations straight and maybe prevent it from happening again.
Oh, I hears ya bob.....it goes towards "attitude", no doubt about it. The pilot's, and the company's. For sure. But, just between us girls, if he'd had enough gas on board, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would never have known about the missing auto-pilot. And, if we're really honest, the auto-pilot, or lack thereof did not cause the aircraft to run out of gas. Most of us, at one time or another, have departed with something not quite up to "par". Some won't admit it, but they're full of poop. I'm sure if we REALLY look, we find something wrong with a large number of single pilot flown aircraft. Most, I admit will be of a very minor nature, but we could find something.......but not carrying enough fuel to actually do the trip, with no intentions of fueling somewhere in route, I must put to you, would be pretty frikken rare!
And, i DO NOT BUY the fact that ANY company, including Keystone, would "force" the pilots "out the door" without fuel.
And, i DO NOT BUY the fact that ANY company, including Keystone, would "force" the pilots "out the door" without fuel.
tumbleweed, you're correct in that statement. No doubt about it. But, again it sounds like "finger pointing". We always blame somebody else. And they are to blame. But we, the pilots are the ones who are getting ourselves killed here. We ARE the last line of defense! It's our "bacon" in the fry pan! If we don't say "NO", this will never change! I offer up as proof to this statement, the very fact that Keystone is still allowed to operate! TC isn't on our side. They have their own agenda! People still climb aboard Keystone's Navajos. People just like you and me. The flying public has a very short memory. And, Keystone is cheap!
