Keystone blames Transport Canada.

stratcat · Post by **stratcat** » Tue May 01, 2007 5:54 pm

What if he thought he had enough gas because keystone pushes to believe the fuel guages as gospel truth when no other company with navajos do.What if they keep adding frieght or people and if you dont take it your the bad guy, maybe the guages came down a lot faster than anticipated. Maybe when he seen they were coming down quick he was where he couldnt do much.There is a lot of maybes, none of us were there with him,all we know for sure is how keystone operates. The pilot is one of us, people,lets realise we dont know what really all took place.we could be supporting him because this is a start of a bad precedence for all of us.Any of us people with real experience can understand how this could happen.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:44 pm

Nice try. While I admire where you're coming from, it just ain't Okay! I have "real experience" and there is just No excuse for this. Sorry. If we keep 'sugar coating" it (and that's just what you're doing) it'll just happen again. Until there is a real "example" made, no young will stand up to companies like Keystone, because they don't think they have to. Well children, you HAVE to!
Let's forget the excuses for once, and admit we are capable of screwing up. And when we screw up, be big enough to face the music.
If this case goes badly for this pilot, it'll be a long time before a young pilot allows his company to "push" his ass out the door! Drop this case, and the same thing will happen. Again, and again. Next time Keystone tries to send out an aircraft with no auto-pilot, or not enough gas, the pilot will tell them to "pound sand" up their butt!
I've been to Budd's Guneseo Lodge (no I can't spell it!) in the Caravan. Many times. And it would require full gas in a HO......fill the prick up, and stop trying to pass the buck!

tofo · Post by **tofo** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:33 pm

Tofo,

I believe Doc's premise was that the BA crew should have been fired for putting themselves in a position where they became unfit for duty. As an aviation manager I expect that my crews will cancel a flight when unfit. However, I also expect that they will understand the ramifications if their unfitness for duty was as a reslut of their irresponsibility.

There is a difference between self induced (i.e. 26 ounce flu) and real illness.

The problem being there was construction going on in the hotel that the company put them up in. self induced yeah fire them, but company induced and not finding out what happened and then firing them, just shows what kind of attitude doc has for saftey, and maybe he's not the best person to comment on the saftey of others. He would have fired a crew that through no falt of their own, refused to fly in unsafe conditions.

the thing that blows my mind is people still ask his opinion

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:27 am

tofo...you really need to get past that. It has nothing to do with the thread. So, give it up. It's past. History. i know you didn't agree with me. Good day on the subject. Cheers

tumbleweed · Post by **tumbleweed** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:53 am

Doc wrote:Nice try. While I admire where you're coming from, it just ain't Okay! I have "real experience" and there is just No excuse for this. Sorry. If we keep 'sugar coating" it (and that's just what you're doing) it'll just happen again. Until there is a real "example" made, no young will stand up to companies like Keystone, because they don't think they have to. Well children, you HAVE to!
Let's forget the excuses for once, and admit we are capable of screwing up. And when we screw up, be big enough to face the music.
If this case goes badly for this pilot, it'll be a long time before a young pilot allows his company to "push" his ass out the door! Drop this case, and the same thing will happen. Again, and again. Next time Keystone tries to send out an aircraft with no auto-pilot, or not enough gas, the pilot will tell them to "pound sand" up their butt!
I've been to Budd's Guneseo Lodge (no I can't spell it!) in the Caravan. Many times. And it would require full gas in a HO......fill the prick up, and stop trying to pass the buck!

That is exactly it. We are talking about low to no experience and taking guidance from people who may or may not be giving misguided advice if not condoning bad habbits by not offering good advice. The arguement isn't if he is guilty it is if Kewstone aided and abbeded.

You have experience Doc, but how did you get it? Who guided you when you were young. I still can remember my first navajo job can you? It sounds like you have been flying turbine for a decent company for a number of years now. Try to remember when you were first out there. If you can't, look at your F/Os. They make lots of rookie mistakes that we would assume was common sense, but we as captains are their to correct and amend that decision. Now remember you only need 1000 hours + 50 on type to fly single pilot IFR. Where is that guy/gal going to get guidance from? It should be the Chief Pilot.

It is the same ball park.

tofo · Post by **tofo** » Wed May 02, 2007 5:43 am

funny, I'd put his experiance around the piston, single pilot, single engine but I would put him for a round engine driver though.

winger · Post by **winger** » Wed May 02, 2007 5:47 am

Keystone now trains their pilots with different Navajo fuel burns than they did before the accident.

2R · Post by 2R » Wed May 02, 2007 8:54 am

Wow did someone read the POH or AFM .
How big a difference are you talking ???

tripleittt · Post by **tripleittt** » Wed May 02, 2007 9:38 am

20 to 30 lbs per hour

LH · Post by LH » Wed May 02, 2007 9:43 am

Sorry folks, but here's the hard facts of life in aviation. This case will be "tied" to this pilot's ass for as far into the future as you or I can see.........and his career may now well be over as it stands.

Now let's see how the other parties in this debacle will survive. Both Keystone and the lodge are being sued. Even IF they loose their lawsuits and the cost of said penalties should "break their financial backs", their businesses can file for bankruptcy. The business owners can't be touched financially because they and their businesses are two entirely separate entities in the eyes of the law. So the owners get to keep their cars, their houses , their cottages and all their "toys"..........even their reputations because "Joe Public" doesn't know their names anyway. BY law, they only have to wait 31 days and they can start this all over again using another entirely different company name..........and using another pilot to do the exact same thing all over again.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed May 02, 2007 9:52 am

BY law, they only have to wait 31 days and they can start this all over again using another entirely different company name

Actually, no. Transport is quite intentionally choosing to let them do it over again, by not exercising Aeronautics Act 6.71(1)(c) which says that the Minister is empowered to refuse the issuance of any document which is "not in the public interest".

6.71 (1) The Minister may refuse to issue or amend a Canadian aviation document on the grounds that

(c) the Minister is of the opinion that the public interest and, in particular, the aviation record of the applicant or of any principal of the applicant, as defined in regulations made under paragraph (3)(a), warrant the refusal.

That's what Transport has used to "ban me for life" from ever performing at another airshow in Canada, and I have a perfect safety record.

So, the interesting question is why Transport sometimes uses this very questionable and powerful part of the Aeronautics Act, and sometimes it doesn't.

It's difficult to avoid concluding that is who you know that counts.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:36 am

I would add (yes, I would, wouldn't I!?!) that TC's failure to use their enforcement power and recommend criminal charges against Keystone under Bill C-45 might also be at issue.

2R · Post by 2R » Wed May 02, 2007 12:01 pm

One of the pilots from one of the accidents was in court today in ywg

pushyboss · Post by **pushyboss** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:02 pm

Widow,

Charging the owners with any crime would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. How do you charge an organization for a "criminal culture". Chasing that down in the criminal code would be like herding cats. At the end of the day, unless clear evidence that ownership was complicit in the accident by directing the pilot to take off without enough fuel, there could be no criminal charge. Pilots make the final decision. Accountability always has and hopefully always will remain with the pilot.

Should Transport hold ownership's feet to the fire for promoting an unsafe culture? Sure. But it is highly unlikely that it could ever meet the legal standard of criminal INTENT that would be necessary for a conviction.

The ramifications of such an ownership conviction would be stunning, and not all for the better.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Wed May 02, 2007 2:02 pm

Doc,

Why don't you get off your king air 100 and get a grip. Where do you come off telling me to take responsibility for myself? You don't know who I am, nor if I am a responsible pilot or not. We are debating an issue here.

You clearly don't grasp the concept of the chain of events.

A good day to you.

p.s. Owner of keystone still pushes pilots to do trips without stopping and getting the fuel required. Even though it is self dispatch, he gets in your face, even after you've checked the winds and flight planned, and tells you that he looked at the winds and thinks it can be done. What's up with that?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:21 pm

Still "pointing the finger" there bob. You just can't admit, that maybe, just maybe, he should have thought about taking more gas? I wasn't telling YOU to take responsibility for YOURSELF...it was PILOTS taking responsibility for themselves. You're using a "pushy" boss, as an excuse. Keep preaching the "chain of events", it's the popular "buzz" word of the day...but it's an excuse, in this case. Document your comments about Keystone "pushing". Name dates and times. Name who's involved...then take your FACTS to Transport.
Who flies a King air 100?

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Wed May 02, 2007 8:38 pm

Ok then get off your king air 200 or 90 is it?

Anyways, I was the first to say it's the pilot's fault, and I'm not making excuses for the pilot. Re-read my posts, and you will see that I said that.

I also said that we cannot lay down a judgement on the pilot, that's in court and out of our hands. What we can talk about is that keystone and companies alike are a cancer to this industry.

Let me ask you, you pretty much disagree with every post here, all you can say it's the pilot's fault, so what are you debating here? what is it that you're trying to get across here? the pilot is in court, because we all KNOW that it's his fault, yet all you can do here is repeat it.

How are dates and names any proof to transport? Nothing is recorded nor on paper, so how can I take anything like this to transport?

Did you work at keystone? if not, you do not know first hand of what happened there in the past, nor what happens here now.

Someone calling transport canada and telling them that last year, the owner of keystone told them to fly without getting fuel across the province and back, how is that proof? what will transport do?

stratcat · Post by **stratcat** » Wed May 02, 2007 8:55 pm

well put bob,that is so true that he gets in your face,about every decision. everyone is scared of him and noone is in any real position to leave because of bonds or need the job. Thats what people who havnt worked there dont understand.

Apache64_ · Post by **Apache64_** » Wed May 02, 2007 9:54 pm

Unfortunately, the pilot is at fault. Hate to say it as I know him. The owners didnt help and still dont. The list of retarded things they push and demand of their pilots is long. Like pulling the power on the 200 into beta/reverse in the flare prior to wheels down, planning for a fuel burn of 240 for the first hour and 210 for every hour after that on the navajo. Pretty sure it burns more than that. I know they have quoted trips to lodges that the company I was flying for couldnt do without stopping for fuel where they could do it with no fuel stops. The list of abuses they try and do get away with is amazing.

BUT, for this accident, at some point in time, the pilot needed to get fuel. Whether it was at the lodge or enroute he should have had the required fuel.
And not just by the CARS, by what he knew he needed to make sure his butt landed in his bed that night.

A little off topic but a little trick I heard of a few years back. When the weather is the shits, and you will never get in and you have a suitable alternate. Go to destination, drop into cloud, drop the gear, fly around a little, go missed go to alternate. Passengers have no clue, you get to go to a suitable alternate, boss gets the avgas burnt as demanded.

This being said, if you can do a safe approach, with required fuel and still continue on to your alternate do so.

All being said, if you feel safe in what you are doing and what you intend do, carry on. If you dont, don't carry on stop and get to the point that you do.

Apache

Check Pilot · Post by **Check Pilot** » Wed May 02, 2007 9:56 pm

Here is what the pilot had to say at his trial as reported by the Winnipeg Sun:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipe ... 2-sun.html

Check Pilot · Post by **Check Pilot** » Wed May 02, 2007 10:04 pm

And more testimony from the Winnipeg Free Press:
Link : http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ ... 8885c.html

LH · Post by LH » Wed May 02, 2007 11:04 pm

Hedley ------ and the owner of a given company is only the name appearing on the company Incorporation documents? Hedley my man, surely you aren't that naive sir? You or I can own as many companies as we like and never have our names appear anywhere on any Incorporation documents on either the Provincial or Federal level. We just arrange with others for their names to appear on those documents and to act and manage said company(s) under our directions. Let the Minister sort that one out. It's an old trick in this business and a host of thers and wasn't invented yeaterday either. In otherwards, the public "Owner" or "President" of a given company is not necessarily the REAL owner or where "the buck really stops".

2R · Post by 2R » Thu May 03, 2007 6:38 am

Hence the requirements for an accountable executive these days.

Pay attention Criminal Negligence causing death can carry a long prison term.

Thank you for the link check pilot

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu May 03, 2007 6:50 am

I would add (yes, I would, wouldn't I!?!) that TC's failure to use their enforcement power and recommend criminal charges against Keystone under Bill C-45 might also be at issue.

I think that bill got royal ascent after the incident. I'm no lawyer so I wonder how that works. Can you apply new laws to this situation?

pushyboss · Post by **pushyboss** » Thu May 03, 2007 7:43 am

Apache64,

Who taught you that trick