Next time you taxi out, check your fuel load. A little extra fuel, and all this could have been avoided! Just a thought.
SMS=CYAWP
Keystone blames Transport Canada.
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Ah no, I don't mean "check the fuel gauges".......glider pilots rely on the dials. The rest of us actually KNOW how much fuel we have.
I used to fly an Aztec, who's gauges would read FULL for a whole hour, before they started to move.....this is not all that unusual. I've also flown with gauges that don't move at all....ever.
I used to fly an Aztec, who's gauges would read FULL for a whole hour, before they started to move.....this is not all that unusual. I've also flown with gauges that don't move at all....ever.
And you wrote up the snag? Fuel gauges are not calibrated or inoperative. Or operated under MEL.Doc wrote:Ah no, I don't mean "check the fuel gauges".......glider pilots rely on the dials. The rest of us actually KNOW how much fuel we have.
I used to fly an Aztec, who's gauges would read FULL for a whole hour, before they started to move.....this is not all that unusual. I've also flown with gauges that don't move at all....ever.
I’m not trying to be smart with you Doc, and this is not aimed at you rather at the culture that lives with substandard mechanical performance. If the fuel gauges don’t work properly…..get them fixed. Having said that there are limitations as to how accurate they can be due to technical limitations of the 1940 fuel gauge installed in a 1985 Navajo. That is why some people have added equipment like fuel totalizer flow meters. Therefore one should always use a secondary method of determination an accurate fuel load and fuel flow.
You're not being smart with me. Good points. The ones I mentioned, I always either flew with full fuel, or in the case of DC3's, we could "dip" the tanks, so therefore, the gauges were just along for the ride. Still, don not put all your "eggs" in the gauge "basket! That's very unwise. Most of the modern stuff works pretty well, but I'd still track the fuel taken on board at fuel stops.
Did anyone read the winnipeg sun a couple days ago. The pilot testified bringing up the autopilot to the chief pilot the morning of and all the chief pilot did was shrug and put another person on board. This is just an example of how things work at these companies. If you dont want to do a trip you will be getting a phone call and an ear full. Your pushed to use wrong fuel burns, carry lots of weight,work 24 hours a day, it doesnt end. The day of the accident the pilot checked the fuel and thought he had enough which is the way its done there. If your a yes man and do whatever to get the job done,your a great pilot. If your cautious and safe,everyone talks about you behind your back. Nice work environment.I think the owners should be in court too. Its like arresting the little drug dealer on the street but batting a blind eye to the kingpin.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I often fly without fuel guages that are not working or not even in the instrument panel.
In fact I sometimes fly long flights without fuel guages.
In fact I sometimes fly long flights without fuel guages.
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.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
CID
good one!!!!!!
I don't normally jibe with people on here, but some of your comments reflect an ignorance of PRACTICAL aviation.
Your comment on native stuff, certainly, I have responded positively to that. I have long agreed with your view.
I am not alone in thinking your aviation comments are somewhat off the wall. You seized on the point about fog o n the West coast as if everyone out there is taking chances constantly. That reflects a poor vision of what the reality is for working pilots out here.
It is just that it seems your hour hand goes faster than your minute hand.
good one!!!!!!
I don't normally jibe with people on here, but some of your comments reflect an ignorance of PRACTICAL aviation.
Your comment on native stuff, certainly, I have responded positively to that. I have long agreed with your view.
I am not alone in thinking your aviation comments are somewhat off the wall. You seized on the point about fog o n the West coast as if everyone out there is taking chances constantly. That reflects a poor vision of what the reality is for working pilots out here.
It is just that it seems your hour hand goes faster than your minute hand.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
The recent comments about fuel burn have sparked a notion.
If it was Keystone culture to produce Operational Flight Plans that reflect less than normal fuel burns for the PA 31, are they not culpable both in training and negligent in the conduct of flights?
The filed airspeed is directly related to the fuel burn, so if they were making pilots use a lower fuel burn, then it is obvious that the OFPs were 'contrived'.
So, on that premise, a TCCA Inspector should be able to provide evidence in Court that would affirm some management responsibility in this matter.
Obviously, the pilot bears the final responsibility. I see that as unavoidable and cannot be argued. However, there are many victims in this world (or, out of it) who suffered because they followed management dictates.
If it was Keystone culture to produce Operational Flight Plans that reflect less than normal fuel burns for the PA 31, are they not culpable both in training and negligent in the conduct of flights?
The filed airspeed is directly related to the fuel burn, so if they were making pilots use a lower fuel burn, then it is obvious that the OFPs were 'contrived'.
So, on that premise, a TCCA Inspector should be able to provide evidence in Court that would affirm some management responsibility in this matter.
Obviously, the pilot bears the final responsibility. I see that as unavoidable and cannot be argued. However, there are many victims in this world (or, out of it) who suffered because they followed management dictates.
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
-
tripleittt
- Rank 1
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Look up, Look wayyyyyy up
The fuel gauges on the accident aircraft were functioning properly. The pilot who crashed GPOW even said that to the media at one point in the freepress. It was the uncalibrated fuel flow gauges he referred to. My experience is not to trust the fuel flow gauge either. We had one aircraft at keystone which had a fuel totalizer and it was taken out as unrequired equipment I believe. Every other Navajo there had fuel flow gauges that would read differently from aircraft to aircraft. Therefore it was necessary to set the mixture with nothing but the EGT as specified in the POH.
You can have every piece of fancy fuel reading equipment out there, but unless you have something for them to read, like gas, they are useless. Bottom line, the pilot did an easy trip with insufficient fuel and someone had to pay the price with his life.
The fact that the owner and his chief pilot son aren't anywhere to be found to back up their pilot who screwed up, kind of gives an all new meaning to the name of the company. KEYSTONE capers. They are stealing away lives, make sure you have your hooks in yours if you work for them. Don't let them motherf!###ers push you to do anything. Just walk. I did!!!!
You can have every piece of fancy fuel reading equipment out there, but unless you have something for them to read, like gas, they are useless. Bottom line, the pilot did an easy trip with insufficient fuel and someone had to pay the price with his life.
The fact that the owner and his chief pilot son aren't anywhere to be found to back up their pilot who screwed up, kind of gives an all new meaning to the name of the company. KEYSTONE capers. They are stealing away lives, make sure you have your hooks in yours if you work for them. Don't let them motherf!###ers push you to do anything. Just walk. I did!!!!
Just a reminder to the new and uninitated. They make some very small and very nice recorders nowadays and they even come with a liitle suction cup for recording telephone calls when you're on the phone.
There comes a time when you will have a conversation in person or over the phone with an Ops manager or CP and they will go on to say things that you wish you had a witness to. Of course when the "shit hits the fan" the answer is....."Oh no, you misunderstood what I said and don't try to lay the blame on me for your mistake. Why I was flying when you were...........". At THAT point and in front of their superiors AND others........you pull-out your trusty recorder, lay it down on the table, turn the volume up and watch while he listens to his own voice and his face turns a sickly colour. Now if you wish to really "stick the knife in and turn it" you do the exact same thing, but in private with the exact same person. The "fireside chat" that then ensues behind closed doors should then be cranked decidedly in YOUR favour at that point.
It's called deciding quickly whether you want to be "the fucker" or "the fuckeee". It saves whining, bitching and moaning about your lot in life and what others have done to you.
There comes a time when you will have a conversation in person or over the phone with an Ops manager or CP and they will go on to say things that you wish you had a witness to. Of course when the "shit hits the fan" the answer is....."Oh no, you misunderstood what I said and don't try to lay the blame on me for your mistake. Why I was flying when you were...........". At THAT point and in front of their superiors AND others........you pull-out your trusty recorder, lay it down on the table, turn the volume up and watch while he listens to his own voice and his face turns a sickly colour. Now if you wish to really "stick the knife in and turn it" you do the exact same thing, but in private with the exact same person. The "fireside chat" that then ensues behind closed doors should then be cranked decidedly in YOUR favour at that point.
It's called deciding quickly whether you want to be "the fucker" or "the fuckeee". It saves whining, bitching and moaning about your lot in life and what others have done to you.
-
wanpaku-ed
- Rank 1
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:04 pm
One other 'survival' tip I was told about once - if you are ever asked by some authority to write a letter to explain what happened in some incident, go smartly to a lawyer with $50 in your hand and get him to write it/check it over for you.
Few of us can write a letter that won't incriminate us and hang ourselves out to dry. We are pilots - we are not trained to write concise factual letters - most of us can't even spell, let alone write coherently. You might think you are saying all the right things but believe me you are not, especially if it follows some incident where there was damage or injury. Its why the police try so hard to get you to write a confession or, when you were stopped for speeding, they ask "do you know how fast you were going?" or "do you know what the speed limit is here?"
Self-incrimination - don't do it.
You will see if you follow along during the trial of this unfortunate pilot, how very complex this event will become.
Few of us can write a letter that won't incriminate us and hang ourselves out to dry. We are pilots - we are not trained to write concise factual letters - most of us can't even spell, let alone write coherently. You might think you are saying all the right things but believe me you are not, especially if it follows some incident where there was damage or injury. Its why the police try so hard to get you to write a confession or, when you were stopped for speeding, they ask "do you know how fast you were going?" or "do you know what the speed limit is here?"
Self-incrimination - don't do it.
You will see if you follow along during the trial of this unfortunate pilot, how very complex this event will become.
"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."
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
So, here is something I do not understand...........
CARS
Accountable Executive
Appointment and Acceptance
106.02 (1) The applicant for, or the holder of, a certificate referred to in section 106.01 shall
(a) appoint an individual as accountable executive to be responsible for operations or activities authorized under the certificate and accountable on their behalf for meeting the requirements of these Regulations;
(b) notify the Minister of the name of the person appointed; and
(c) ensure that the accountable executive submits to the Minister a signed statement that they accept the responsibilities of their position within 30 days after their appointment.
(2) No person shall be appointed under subsection (1) unless they have control of the financial and human resources that are necessary for the activities and operations authorized under the certificate.
Accountability
106.03 The responsibility and accountability of the accountable executive appointed under subsection 106.02(1) are not affected by the existence of(a) a person responsible for the maintenance control system appointed under paragraph 406.19(1)(a) or 706.03(1)(a);
(b) a person responsible for maintenance appointed under paragraph 573.03(1)(a);
(c) an operations manager referred to in section 702.07, 703.07, 704.07 or 705.07; or
(d) a maintenance manager referred to in section 702.07, 703.07, 704.07 or 705.07.
I think I get 106.02 (1) (a). It means you are on the hook for operations and activities authorized under the OC. In other words, a legal responsibility to abide by the CARS.
106.02 (1) (c) is acceptance of (not properly defined) responsibilities.
106.03 then turns around and absolves the Accountable Executive of any responsibility if there are management people under him/her.
This apparently means (to me) that any blame will devolve only onto the management team (OM,CP, DOM etc) and the Accountable Executive cannot be held responsible.
So why did they write all this down if nothing has been changed?????
Had they written something like "By accepting responsibility for requirements under the issuance of an Operational Certificate, the Accountable Executive may be held liable for any infractions of the Air Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations."
Would not such a statement provide inclusion of the Accountable Executive if undue pressure on pilots precipitated an accident?
Shrug, shrug "I dunno."
The click you hear as you sign up as a OM, CP, DOM etc is not your retractable ballpen. It is the arming of a landmine you just stepped on.
CARS
Accountable Executive
Appointment and Acceptance
106.02 (1) The applicant for, or the holder of, a certificate referred to in section 106.01 shall
(a) appoint an individual as accountable executive to be responsible for operations or activities authorized under the certificate and accountable on their behalf for meeting the requirements of these Regulations;
(b) notify the Minister of the name of the person appointed; and
(c) ensure that the accountable executive submits to the Minister a signed statement that they accept the responsibilities of their position within 30 days after their appointment.
(2) No person shall be appointed under subsection (1) unless they have control of the financial and human resources that are necessary for the activities and operations authorized under the certificate.
Accountability
106.03 The responsibility and accountability of the accountable executive appointed under subsection 106.02(1) are not affected by the existence of(a) a person responsible for the maintenance control system appointed under paragraph 406.19(1)(a) or 706.03(1)(a);
(b) a person responsible for maintenance appointed under paragraph 573.03(1)(a);
(c) an operations manager referred to in section 702.07, 703.07, 704.07 or 705.07; or
(d) a maintenance manager referred to in section 702.07, 703.07, 704.07 or 705.07.
I think I get 106.02 (1) (a). It means you are on the hook for operations and activities authorized under the OC. In other words, a legal responsibility to abide by the CARS.
106.02 (1) (c) is acceptance of (not properly defined) responsibilities.
106.03 then turns around and absolves the Accountable Executive of any responsibility if there are management people under him/her.
This apparently means (to me) that any blame will devolve only onto the management team (OM,CP, DOM etc) and the Accountable Executive cannot be held responsible.
So why did they write all this down if nothing has been changed?????
Had they written something like "By accepting responsibility for requirements under the issuance of an Operational Certificate, the Accountable Executive may be held liable for any infractions of the Air Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations."
Would not such a statement provide inclusion of the Accountable Executive if undue pressure on pilots precipitated an accident?
Shrug, shrug "I dunno."
The click you hear as you sign up as a OM, CP, DOM etc is not your retractable ballpen. It is the arming of a landmine you just stepped on.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
I read it the other way, such that the Accountable Executive cannot say something along the lines of "The operations manager was responsible for making that decision - I didn't know anything about it."
Basically, it looks to me that the Accountable Executive doesn't get to pass the blame on to anyone else...
Edit to add link: Accountable Executive
Basically, it looks to me that the Accountable Executive doesn't get to pass the blame on to anyone else...
Edit to add link: Accountable Executive
The company in question has a website which states that they have SMS incorporated into their system. The real question for Accountable Executive is whether or not TC has approved the system within the company manuals. If it is not approved, the Accountable Executive is meaningless. If it has been approved, the AC is accountable for all of the decisions or actions taken by managers or crews under him, unless of course the defendant purposely broke the rules which applied to him/her in contravention of SMS policy. The AC cannot control independant or arbitrary actions but the system should pick up these infractions and action should be taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again. In the case described, the AC is responsible if it can be proven that these types of operations were known by the management and nothing was done to correct it, no matter who committed the infraction. The PIC is also liable for knowingly flying an aircraft which is in violation of any rule.
A real scenario in in this circumstance, based on the title of the thread, is if a cagey lawyer decides that TC in fact was an enabler of the operations through their lack of enforcement. The blame factor will swing both ways once it gets to court
Regards
carholme
A real scenario in in this circumstance, based on the title of the thread, is if a cagey lawyer decides that TC in fact was an enabler of the operations through their lack of enforcement. The blame factor will swing both ways once it gets to court
Regards
carholme
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
Thanks CD. I figured you would be all over that.
I agree with your opinion. But I still agree with mine.
I do not see a definitive and clear message here (CARS!!!!)
How about :-
There is no personal liability associated with the position of an Accountable Executive as this individual represents the certificate holder. The certificate holder retains all liability for non-compliance with the regulations.
Sorry, I have to go back to the medicine cabinet for a bottle of asprin and pause by the bar for something to wash them down.
Maybe I'll look at again tomorrow......and the next day........and the next day........
I agree with your opinion. But I still agree with mine.
I do not see a definitive and clear message here (CARS!!!!)
How about :-
There is no personal liability associated with the position of an Accountable Executive as this individual represents the certificate holder. The certificate holder retains all liability for non-compliance with the regulations.
Sorry, I have to go back to the medicine cabinet for a bottle of asprin and pause by the bar for something to wash them down.
Maybe I'll look at again tomorrow......and the next day........and the next day........
No kidding... Once the lawyers get finished re-writing the English language, what seemed to start off nice and simple often seems to get a wee bit complicated.snaproll20 wrote:Sorry, I have to go back to the medicine cabinet for a bottle of asprin and pause by the bar for something to wash them down.
For me, I find that this can help...-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
