New laws are not usually successful at being applied retroactively.
The are not really any requirements for New Law .There is a need to enforce the existing laws .That would only require vigilance and enforcers.The Government is short of both RCMP and Transport Inspectors .The shortage of RCMP has led to Canada becoming a Drug export nation.We may become the next on the list of our neighbours if we do not exercise our sovereignty in dealing with these matters.
The Cars are backed by the criminal code and all that is required is for the Present laws to be applied and justice will be served.
Keystone blames Transport Canada.
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Thu, May 3, 2007
Pilot's bosses blamed: Flight examiner testifies
By DEAN PRITCHARD, SUN MEDIA
Pilot Mark Tayfel made some mistakes, but his bosses at Keystone Air should shoulder their share of the blame for a harrowing crash landing on McPhillips Street, a Transportation Canada flight examiner told court yesterday.
"Analyzing a pilot's split-second decision is easy to do in hindsight," testified Robert Lamoureux. "He kept his cool, and for the most part, people walked away from the accident."
Tayfel was flying six passengers from Gunisao Lake to Winnipeg on June 11, 2002, when the Piper Navajo Chieftain -- out of fuel -- lost both its engines over the city and made an emergency crash landing on McPhillips Street.
None of the six Keystone Air passengers was killed in the crash, but 79-year-old Chester Jones died three months later of his injuries.
Tayfel is on trial charged with one count of criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and one count of operating an aircraft in a manner dangerous to the public.
Testifying Tuesday, Tayfel said he took on one extra passenger and was flying without an autopilot when he left Gunisao Lake. Tayfel said Keystone's chief pilot Andrew Arlt was made aware of both facts but did nothing to resolve the situation.
'Looking for support'
"He was looking for support from his chief pilot and what he got was a shrug and another passenger," Lamoureux said. "Once you become aware of a breach or potential breach of regulations, you must take action, you can't ignore it."
Lamoureux said young pilots working with small air taxi services are under pressure to tow the company line if they want to move on to a better job. "These young men and women are trying to get enough hours to get a job with an airline."
Tayfel admitted not fuelling up in Winnipeg or in Gunisao Lake, saying he thought he thought he had more than enough fuel for the return trip.
Crown attorney Brian Wilford accused Tayfel of relying on the readings of his fuel gauges rather than making sure the plane had enough fuel, as he was trained to do.
Tayfel said the fuel gauges had proven reliable before.
Lamoureux said yesterday Tayfel did nothing wrong in relying on his fuel gauges. In cases where you can't visually check (for fuel), the gauges are your best tool."
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
I would be really interested in knowing who moved this into the criminal system, and why. Because this is new territory for the criminal courts, vetting of this case and approval to proceed with the prosecution almost certainly occurred at very high levels. Was it TC wanting to make an example of someone to set precedent, or was it from within a provincial government ministry who, although lacking legislative authority in the aviation realm, was tired of the number of accidents and lack of adequate enforcement action and oversight by TC? Or, was it some entirely different motivation?
One thing is for sure, everyone in the Manitoba aviation community should see themselves as "on notice" if this fellow is convicted. Managers and supervisors who come up short in the future may also find themselves on the wrong end of a prosecution under C45.
One thing is for sure, everyone in the Manitoba aviation community should see themselves as "on notice" if this fellow is convicted. Managers and supervisors who come up short in the future may also find themselves on the wrong end of a prosecution under C45.
Doc Wrote:
BTW for this particular boss,that is just a drop in the bucket.
And for those quote labour code bullshit, it doesn't protect you because
they don't use your refusing to do dangerous work as the reason they lay you off or just here's your 2 weeks pay in leiu of notice, if it's less than a year they don't need just cause, I looked into because I've had to deal with this BS. I don't have a problem saying no to duty day or mechanical issues but the operators do and if I didn't want to keep my anonymity the companies in question may surprise you, they surprised me.
Also when I was "laid off" from one of them, the owner actually said one the reasons was, I told other pilots to snag the plane if something was broken. Oh to have a recorder at times like that. Transport doesn't investigate claims like that from former employees because of the revenge aspect.
Guess what Doc, I've worked for an operator who has done just that. He would give you such a hard time when you arrive at his lodge and tell him you need fuel and would not hide the fact that he was less than happy about it. Always making threats about how many pilots were after your job etc... So your choice is deal with that or leave with enough fuel for the round trip, which means less payload out of Y#%, oh no we can't do that we need all the passengers and their luggage in one trip, you'll have to find another way. So hence the term granny gas, I always have it, you just show that you fueled during the turn around because no one is tracking the fuel at the lodge. So it comes down to, which is the lesser of the 2 evils, being overweight outta Y#% or dealing with the dickhead boss.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!
BTW for this particular boss,that is just a drop in the bucket.
And for those quote labour code bullshit, it doesn't protect you because
they don't use your refusing to do dangerous work as the reason they lay you off or just here's your 2 weeks pay in leiu of notice, if it's less than a year they don't need just cause, I looked into because I've had to deal with this BS. I don't have a problem saying no to duty day or mechanical issues but the operators do and if I didn't want to keep my anonymity the companies in question may surprise you, they surprised me.
Also when I was "laid off" from one of them, the owner actually said one the reasons was, I told other pilots to snag the plane if something was broken. Oh to have a recorder at times like that. Transport doesn't investigate claims like that from former employees because of the revenge aspect.
Of course, this incident is the little acorn from which the great oak tree of SMS grew - TC not wanting to be in a position of liability over their enforcement or lack thereof.
Solution: thrust regulatory compliance and enforcement onto the operators.
Now the non-punative aspects of the SMS have many good sides; don't get me wrong. SMS has been introduced and is operation in several other countries, and in Australia, the system is "mature".
It's just that this incident (Keystone) has precipitated action on implementation of SMS in Canada. Why do you think they're still in business? Because they earnestly convinced TC of their credibility and diligence in implemention of, and voluntary compliance with, a SMS.
Solution: thrust regulatory compliance and enforcement onto the operators.
Now the non-punative aspects of the SMS have many good sides; don't get me wrong. SMS has been introduced and is operation in several other countries, and in Australia, the system is "mature".
It's just that this incident (Keystone) has precipitated action on implementation of SMS in Canada. Why do you think they're still in business? Because they earnestly convinced TC of their credibility and diligence in implemention of, and voluntary compliance with, a SMS.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Exactly, and I'll be God Dammed if I can understand why the RCMP should be responsible for policing drug dealers, robbers, rapists, child molesters etc.Why should the regulator be responsible for the actions of slimey operators? This guy knew the rules and he broke them.
The policing of these slimey people should be turned over to their peers.
To start with lets let NAMBLA police child molesters.
SMS should become the way everything in society is policed.
The world is truly going insane.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat Driver, you missed a subtle but important nuance. I never said TC should not be responsible for regulating the industry or enforcing the rules. I said they should not be responsible for the actions of slimey operators.
Is it a cop's fault when someone runs a stoplight or drives drunk? Should the RCMP take responsibility for a criminal's actions?
When someone breaks the law should they sue a cop for not preventing his crime?
Should Paul Bernardo blame the cops?
Now this young pilot isn't Paul Bernardo but he appears to have done something that was at very least, grossly negligent and careless. The company he worked for created a culture that was at least a contributing factor.
In the era that the accident occured, pilots were pretty much left to twist in the wind by their employers when there was an accident since the owners (especially the bankroll guys) were at arms length just enough to avoid prosecution.
SMS should help ensure the people at the top, the guys who allow coersion and intimidation of pilots share the blame.
Is it a cop's fault when someone runs a stoplight or drives drunk? Should the RCMP take responsibility for a criminal's actions?
When someone breaks the law should they sue a cop for not preventing his crime?
Should Paul Bernardo blame the cops?
Now this young pilot isn't Paul Bernardo but he appears to have done something that was at very least, grossly negligent and careless. The company he worked for created a culture that was at least a contributing factor.
In the era that the accident occured, pilots were pretty much left to twist in the wind by their employers when there was an accident since the owners (especially the bankroll guys) were at arms length just enough to avoid prosecution.
SMS should help ensure the people at the top, the guys who allow coersion and intimidation of pilots share the blame.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
TC should be responsible for enforcing the law.Cat Driver, you missed a subtle but important nuance. I never said TC should not be responsible for regulating the industry or enforcing the rules. I said they should not be responsible for the actions of slimey operators.
How many pilots or engineers reading this forum would go to TC with a complaint against a company and be comfortable in the knowlege their complaint would be fairly acted on and they would be protected from retaliation by the operator?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
There are methods in place for anyone to do exactly what you're saying. Unfortunately, as proven by a recent thread many are quick to "rat" on another operator for commercial reasons rather than any concern for safety.
On the other hand, the overal industry culture needs to change a great deal. There are still too many AMEs and pilots that are willing to do whatever the boss tells them.
The "common sense" that is preached by the owners infects the young guys and before you know it, they all know better than the regulations. Another recent thread proves that pilots bend the rules all the time and they base their decisions on "common sense".
So VMC on the west coast is apparently different than VMC in the Prairies. It's "marginal" but "do-able" they say.
The bottom line is more people in this industry need to learn how to say no whether its flying without an autopilot, or without enough gas, or in "marginal" weather that may see you having to conduct an emergency landing with almost no visibility and no attitude indicator.
Apparently "everyone" knows who the bad operators are but nobody is saying shit to stop them. So you say TC is responsible for enforcing the law. That's right. So I guess its the operator's responsibility to break the law?
I see it differently. The operator is responsible for operating within the law and TC is responsible to set the regulations and enforce the law. I think the roles are clear. If you break the law and you're caught you go to jail.
In order for TC to guarantee nobody breaks the law they would need an inspector sitting in every airplane and every hangar.
On the other hand, the overal industry culture needs to change a great deal. There are still too many AMEs and pilots that are willing to do whatever the boss tells them.
The "common sense" that is preached by the owners infects the young guys and before you know it, they all know better than the regulations. Another recent thread proves that pilots bend the rules all the time and they base their decisions on "common sense".
So VMC on the west coast is apparently different than VMC in the Prairies. It's "marginal" but "do-able" they say.
The bottom line is more people in this industry need to learn how to say no whether its flying without an autopilot, or without enough gas, or in "marginal" weather that may see you having to conduct an emergency landing with almost no visibility and no attitude indicator.
Apparently "everyone" knows who the bad operators are but nobody is saying shit to stop them. So you say TC is responsible for enforcing the law. That's right. So I guess its the operator's responsibility to break the law?
I see it differently. The operator is responsible for operating within the law and TC is responsible to set the regulations and enforce the law. I think the roles are clear. If you break the law and you're caught you go to jail.
In order for TC to guarantee nobody breaks the law they would need an inspector sitting in every airplane and every hangar.
Unfortunately, the current wording of Bill C-6 is more likely to allow for protection of information. Read Ken Rubin's statement to the Committee that Snoopy posted here. Keep in mind that Rubin is a very respected civil libertarian who has a lot of experience with information, secrecy and TCCA.CID wrote:SMS should help ensure the people at the top, the guys who allow coersion and intimidation of pilots share the blame.
Under Bill C-6, as it stands, it is more likely that no-one would have access to any of the information which discredits either the pilot or the company.
Oh ya ... TC is responsible for "policing" the aviation industry. Cops patrol the streets ... watching for something to happen - because they know the bad guys can't be trusted to let them know before they break the law. But they do it. Because it is their job.
Last edited by Widow on Thu May 03, 2007 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
CID, you and I always get into a circular argument wherein neither of us actually finishes any one issue under discussion.
My opinions and concerns about aviation safety come from having worked in the industry in just about every corner of it both fixed and rotary wing.
I make my observations backed up by a record as a pilot/ mechanic over the last fifty four years that is supported by a perfect safety and compliance record.
I can not circular argue with you about how to fly airplanes because you are unable to accept the fact that I do understand safety and how enforcement " should " be conducted.
Maybe you could read the last two posts by Snoopy and you will find that our concerns are legitimate.
Nothing will really change until the culture in TC changes.
Quite frankly I do not see much hope for that.
And please, please do not be condesending to me CID, I have been around far to long to be fooled by smoke and mirrors from TC or anyone else.
My opinions and concerns about aviation safety come from having worked in the industry in just about every corner of it both fixed and rotary wing.
I make my observations backed up by a record as a pilot/ mechanic over the last fifty four years that is supported by a perfect safety and compliance record.
I can not circular argue with you about how to fly airplanes because you are unable to accept the fact that I do understand safety and how enforcement " should " be conducted.
Maybe you could read the last two posts by Snoopy and you will find that our concerns are legitimate.
Nothing will really change until the culture in TC changes.
Quite frankly I do not see much hope for that.
And please, please do not be condesending to me CID, I have been around far to long to be fooled by smoke and mirrors from TC or anyone else.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Oh. That's why there is no more crime in the streets!Cops patrol the streets ... watching for something to happen - because they know the bad guys can't be trusted to let them know before they break the law. But they do it. Because it is their job.
Pardon the sarcasm widow but like I said unless you sit an inspector in each airplane and in each hangar you won't stop crime in aviation 100%. Same goes for street crime. (Just replace airplanes and hangars with street corners and buildings)
The law needs to evolve with the criminals. Loopholes are being plugged with new laws. Some laws of course are more effective than others. In general, the police often concentrate their efforts on the guys at the top. If you go after the guy with the money and control you topple the organization under him. Kind of like going after the responsible executive.
Arguably, TC does a better job of preventing crime in their jurisdication than the RCMP or the local/provincial police forces do in theirs.
Cat,
Yes, you've been around since the Wright Brothers and you have the potential to be quite informative. It's too bad you're so fixated on TCCA and the apparent wrong they did you.
You crap all over TC for not preventing accidents but you rant continuously about how they shut you down and harmed you financially. Did they possibly prevent an accident by shutting you down? I guess we'll never know.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
No, but you are the only one who incessantly whines about it. In my opinion, Cat Driver has a case. Many of his statements have been verified. All you have is the need to be heard and to antagonize.CID wrote: Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
Even Bob Sacamono and Niss have slowed the rhetoric. Why don't you try the same. People might even listen to what you have to say.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
CID once again your statements have done far more to discredit your opinions than anything anyone here could do.You crap all over TC for not preventing accidents but you rant continuously about how they shut you down and harmed you financially. Did they possibly prevent an accident by shutting you down? I guess we'll never know.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
I have no idea of why you detest me so much seeing we have never met, however using my problem with TC in the manner you did above proves beyond doubt that your agenda is to discredit at all cost with whatever means you can imagine at the time.
Now lets get to a couple of facts.
My issue with TCCA concerned wrong doing by TCCA officials, not wrong doing by me.
This comment is in a class of its own for stupidity in posing possibilities:
No CID we will never know, but we can examine the probabilities of TC having prevented an accident by preventing me from operating two Cessna 150's in a flight school.Did they possibly prevent an accident by shutting you down? I guess we'll never know.
Yes, when one looks at the question in an objective manner they quite possibly may have prevented an accident from having occured. Therefore they must refuse to ever approve another FTU OC application as this will prevent accidents from occuring.
As to me personally having had an accident flying a Cessna 150, who knows what would have happened.
To be fair to me though CID you have to take into account that by refusing to allow me to run a flight school I was forced to fly in various other countries and for the last three years away from home I was employed as an airdisplay pilot flying all over Europe in the air show circuit........
...I didn't have an accident in the airshow circuit so common sense would lead one to surmise I could have survived the training circuit here in Nanaimo in a Cessna 150.
It's time for you to get a grip on reality CID.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I don't detest you Cat Driver. I'm just a victim of your wrath when you're confronted with questions that you feel threatened by.
When I first started reading your posts, I asked some simple questions in an effort to understand your beef with TC. I never did really get any definitive answers. Just plenty of insults.
I feel I'm well rooted in reality as are you Cat. I just stopped caring about what exactly has your panties in such a tight bunch. It just seems to be a recurring theme since you use it as a basis for pretty much everything you post and its hard not to make reference to it. (over and over and over)
When I first started reading your posts, I asked some simple questions in an effort to understand your beef with TC. I never did really get any definitive answers. Just plenty of insults.
I feel I'm well rooted in reality as are you Cat. I just stopped caring about what exactly has your panties in such a tight bunch. It just seems to be a recurring theme since you use it as a basis for pretty much everything you post and its hard not to make reference to it. (over and over and over)
Stratcat -------"Bonds" are illegal. They are termed "Indentured Servitude" in law and that was proclaimed such by the Supreme Court of Canada. They mean nothing to you and nothing but a world of legal hurt to any company trying to foist them on some unknowing and unsuspecting person. What authority do I have for stating so? It was MY case brought before the Supreme Court in 1969 that made that ruling so. It absolutely blows me away that companies are still pulling this scam.
Oddly enough and in-tune with the present subject and location, the company I "danced with" in the Supreme Court was also a Manitoba air service. Did they try to "blackball" me in the industry? They sure did and after all the evidence concerning same was collected, further lawsuits filed and 5 years later, it cost that same company anough money that I paid cash for my home the following year. Score: Christians 2 - Lions 0.
Oddly enough and in-tune with the present subject and location, the company I "danced with" in the Supreme Court was also a Manitoba air service. Did they try to "blackball" me in the industry? They sure did and after all the evidence concerning same was collected, further lawsuits filed and 5 years later, it cost that same company anough money that I paid cash for my home the following year. Score: Christians 2 - Lions 0.
Good point LH,Its usually young keen pilots who dont know any better.Back then i would but Today i wouldnt sign one. Its a good way for employers, especially ones like keystone to rape you over, as far as they are concerned they own you. They can push,push ,push and make life bad when you wont play their way.Thats why stuff like what this post is about happens.Good for you on fighting it and winning.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
