Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence

mikegtzg · Post by **mikegtzg** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:14 pm

Likely the first verdict like this in North America.

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?src=loc&rem=78475

Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence
NOV 01 2007 07:50 PM

A pilot has been found guilty for a plane crash that killed a man and injured four others in Winnipeg five years ago..
A judge has found #### ##### guilty of one count of criminal negligence causing death and four causing bodily harm. He was also convicted on a charge of dangerous operation of an aircraft.

##### was the pilot of a plane that crashed at a busy McPhillips Street intersection in June 2002

The accident resulted in the death of an American fishermen on board, while injuring other passengers.

Court heard the aircraft was low on fuel when it hit the ground.

No date for sentencing has been set.

CJOB's Jeff Keele reporting

desksgo · Post by **desksgo** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:18 pm

Well it sets a dangerous precedent that's for sure. What I don't understand is why we see this pilot being hung out to dry but we don't see more operators being tagged with the criminal negligence charge.

I guess if you're negligent for the purpose of YOUR business making money, that charge goes from criminal negligence to transport canada's $500 wrist slapping

The penalty for not using cargo nets is less than buying cargo nets...same old story.

And what of transport? If they are aware that an operator is demonstrating gross negligence but turn a blind eye and someone gets hurt. Is that not criminal negligence too?

ywg9 · Post by **ywg9** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:29 pm

How is it that Mr Tyfel gets hung out to dry and yet the company gets nothing but a slap on the pee pee. i understand it is the pics responsibility but we all know the presure the company put on him that morning and that at that time jobs were not as easy to come by as they are now. so basicly crappy operates like this can intimidate you a threaten you with losing your job but your the only one who goes to jail, just thinking but isnt that the definition of duress. The company has to have some culpability for there actions it isnt like there perfectly clean. anyway that is the end of my rant

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:37 pm

See these threads ...

Is the Keystone verdict known yet?

Keystone Blames Transport Canada

Bill C-45 (Criminal Code amendment making organizations criminally liable) did not come into force until 2004 ... after this accident.

I would be interested in knowing how the lawsuits are going.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:15 pm

No matter how shitty a company is, the buck has to stop somewhere.

If you can't handle it and make the tough choices than you shouldn't be PIC. I have no sympathy for the guy, BUT I do think it is wrong that the company isn't also bearing the weight.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:26 pm

I wonder who's paying his legal bills? Any bets whether his company is?

"There, but for the grace of God, go I."

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:32 pm

The article doesn't mention any cupability of the part of the company the pilot was working for. However, it could be that for the article the reporter concentrated solely on the judges' decision concerning the pilot.

somepilot · Post by **somepilot** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:35 am

This will now establish case law in Canada.
I wonder if police investigations and criminal proceedings will now become more commonplace after an aircraft accident ?
I wonder if this will hinder TSB investigations in the future?
Will the aviation industry become safer or will we just have more lawyers, red tape and secrets ?

It will be interesting to see what (if any) affect this will have on the evolution of the aviation industry in Canada.

JBI · Post by **JBI** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:51 am

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:09 am

I'm kind of surprised this didn't happen years ago. No, it's not a happy day, but what did everybody really expect? Some of you feel we should have "cart blanch" to pass the buck. I should think this kind of court action will be pretty rare, in all but high profile cases. So, we should be able to continue rolling them up in balls in the north for a while yet, without fear of the court system....and that's too bad, really.

prop2jet · Post by **prop2jet** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:54 am

hmmm... I wonder how the "ISMS" is going to work if the threat of criminal negligence is loomiing. True there should be no free ride, however the company ulimately has to share in any blame. That flight should never have left single pilot without a serviceable autpilot.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:43 am

Let's everybody thank Keystone for pushing guys to break the rules, for having airplanes that are not airworthy for single pilot operations being dispatched on such flights.

Boys and girls, ask yourself, where is keystone know? Still flying.

What's the scum bag owner of keystone doing now? Driving his new corvette while this dude's life is ruined.

I have no sympathy for the dude, he was PIC, and he exercised bad judgement, however, this was a chain of events, and one of the links was keystone management and maintenance.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:49 am

Here is the official TC report. Pilot apparently made a couple of serious errors.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/200 ... 2C0124.pdf

tailgunner · Post by **tailgunner** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:09 am

The pilot made bad decisions that impacted people greatly. He has to hold the final responsibility. That said, this should EMPOWER all other PIC's to say NO. We now have the realization that there is a hefty weight and responsibility with being the PIC. It is not just another stripe, and the niceity of people calling you Captain. There can be great and lasting consequences for our actions. How do go forward from here ? The answer is quite simple really. We, as Captains, must do our due diligence before each flight. Check the wx., check the fuel, logbook for snags and airworthiness, Alternates, CARS duty day limits, Fatiue issues, pressures from the company and from home etc...If we do not like ANY aspect of the abovethen DO NOT release the park brake. Sh#t happens anyways, do not be that pilot who goes and steps in it. If you due your due diligence first a lot of potential troubles will be sorted out, and you will better protected under the law. It is now YOUR career and your FUTURE on the line. OUT.

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:09 am

bob sacamano wrote:Let's everybody thank Keystone for pushing guys to break the rules, for having airplanes that are not airworthy for single pilot operations being dispatched on such flights.

Boys and girls, ask yourself, where is keystone know? Still flying.

What's the scum bag owner of keystone doing now? Driving his new corvette while this dude's life is ruined.

I have no sympathy for the dude, he was PIC, and he exercised bad judgement, however, this was a chain of events, and one of the links was keystone management and maintenance.

He's the one who should have the book thrown at. Abso-fucking-lutely.

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:23 am

btw, does anyone know where I could find the OTHER Keystone crash short of R36 in YWG due to fuel starvation? ?I believe the pilot attempted a pukatawagan, direct ywg on that one... or maybe flin flon direct.

That flight is a stretch with bad winds from The Pas, let alone anywhere north of The Pas in that plane.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:25 am

This one?

http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/200 ... 0c0260.asp

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:35 am

I don't think this case is going to open the flood waters for criminal prosecution of pilots. If a pilot truly does everything possible to ensure the safety of his passengers AND obeys the regulations I don't think you'll see criminal charges.

If, like in this case, a pilot shows this level of negligence I think this is a useful precedent. Let’s remember, he not only took off with questionable fuel but continued to operate without declaring and emergency or even minimum fuel.

The issue surrounding the broken autopilot is a bit of a red herring. Even if the autopilot was operating I think the pilot’s decision to go high and hot wouldn’t have changed. After all, even without the autopilot he could shoot an ILS and land safely. It appears he chose to be high and hot to keep his options open in case of engine failure.

Blame the operator? Slimy operators can’t operate without slimy staff who are willing to break the rules along with the owner.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:11 pm

This whole operation sounds like a gong show, but I am uncomfortable with the pilot being charged with criminal negligence. That offense is just slightly less serious than murder. It sounds like the entire operation was complacent and fostered an atmosphere of indifference. The company should have never sent the a/c flying without an autopilot; it should have been collecting and filing the W&B forms so it would be fully aware that they were not being done. They obviously had no supervision in place. The pilot, as he was trained by the company, showed a total lack of professionalism, fostered by the company culture; failing to fuel, doing a dangerous approach, not contacting ATC etc. and filing Island Lake as an alternate - he wouldn't have enough gas even with full tanks. Like Vancouver to Whitehorse with Watson as an alternate, you gotta have the gas.

Merely slapping the company on the wrist and saying "don't do it again" is wrong, the owner, the Ops Manager and the C.P. should be shot and pissed on because they set the stage for this sad event.

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:27 pm

I have to laugh about the attitude on here sometimes. One day we have threads raving about how we should consider ourselves "professionals" and be paid as such, and the next we have this. Well guess what folks, part of the definition of being a professional is taking legal responsibility for your decisions. That is why being a certified engineer is so important, it attaches the full force of the law to your signature certifying that a bridge is safe. Over and over in class the point is brought home that if that bridge falls down, and if it's shown that you didn't use due diligence or designed outside of legal or code specifications, it's your ass on the line.

Now don't take this to mean that management should get away with anything, or that I believe in a "hang-'em-high" approach to enforcement. Canadian court is a far cry from TC tribunal, so if a pilot makes reasonable decisions and follows the regs I doubt any criminal negligence charge will stand up. Nonetheless, people need to be aware of the consequences of screwing up, and the results of this case should be mandatory for the CPL groundschool.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:12 pm

Page 4:

Technical Records indicated that the autopilot was removed from the aircraft on April 29. 2002, however the appropriate journey log entries had not been made.

Company supervisory personnel were present, preparing for their own flights on the morning of the accident flight. They were aware, as was the aircraft pilot, that C-GPOW was not equipped with an autopilot and that one was required for single-pilot operations in the conditions of that morning.

Although there were company supervisory personnel present when the pilot began his flight, none took any action when the pilot of C-GPOW began his flight into IMC without an autopilot. The level of supervision that the company should have provided was not achieved on this series of flights. Company practices did not conform to the company operations manual regarding flight release; the operations manual was apparently incorrect with respect to the requirements for flight release.

Findings as to Risk

1. The company did not provide an adequate level of supervision and allowed the flight to depart without an autopilot.
2. The company operations manual did not reflect current company procedures.
3. The company did not provide an adequate level of supervision and allowed the flight to depart without adequate fuel reserves. The company did not have a safety system in place to prevent a fuel exhaustion situation developing.

So why is Keystone's owners, who are the managers allowed to continue to fly?

I will repeat what I always said concerning this. The PIC is responsible for his actions in this case. He made bad judgement calls and made many mistakes. His first one being that he worked for keystone.

Why did he take the airplane without an autopilot as single pilot in IMC conditions? Why didn't he refuse it?

My other questions are why did the Chief Pilot, who at that time was the owner of keystone, the bafoon, dispatch this aircraft on an IMC day? He did not exercise his operational control, and he is still flying, and STILL telling people to skimp out on fuel!

Being a PIC means the responsibility is all yours. We are taught that since day 1. However, now that this is in court, the owner of keystone, who has the title of chief pilot (until it got stripped form him by TC, even though he still acts the part, quite poorly if I may add), did allow the rules to be broken in the first part, which was a link in the chain of events that took place that morning.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:31 pm

Bob, my sentiments exactly.

swordfish · Post by **swordfish** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:54 pm

I hope all the contributors to this topic underrstand that as Pilot-in-Command of an aircraft, THE BUCK STOPS HERE.

That's why you are given this position - you make decisions and perform actions that ultimately affect others, just like a doctor, dentist, lawyer, transport truck driver, judge, hardrock driller...etc.

Any professional accepts the RESPONSIBILITIES of the position.

There is nothing clearer in legislation governing our operations. All the other bullshit manuals and documentation that accompany our daily work support this.

This pilot did not exhibit "poor judgement". He took a calculated risk and made a decision that is blatantly absurd: he departed with insufficient fuel. The other corollary factors of this trip become irrelevant from this point on.

That is apathy...not poor judgement. As a result, he pays the price.

Anyone sympathetic to his plight should take a good hard look at their own responsibility level.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:23 pm

Well lets put aside the fact that the pilot is responsible for his/her own actions.

If as many here allege the owner of Keystone has been managing his company in contravention of the CAR's and seems to be getting away with it, we must ask where TC is in all this.

Are they unaware of this situation?

Are they for some reason being held to ransom by said owner because said owner has something on someone in TC?

Is someone in TC being payed off?

Are the people in charge of TC in that region incompetent?

Or are all these allegations false and Keystone is a safe professionally run company and there is no need for TC to worry about the safety and compliance to the rules at Keystone?

desksgo · Post by **desksgo** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:45 pm

The scary part is how many have, in their younger, less experienced and more impressionable stages of our careers, gone up done and something to please the boss and anger the safety gods, but for some reason got away with it?

This guy rolled the dice and came up with snake eyes. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say 75% of us/you could have gotten tagged with the same thing at some point in our careers. What does that say of our industry?
[/b]