Why only the pilot?

[Cat Driver]

The thread about the keystone pilot is drifting.

I want to know why it was only the pilot who got hung?

[Doc]

Well, as I understand it, he wrote a letter to TC admitting guilt. That made him an easier target than Keystone as a company. They do (I understand) have an ex TC inspector, if not at the helm, very close to it?
Did they not go after the company at all?

[CD]

Here's a news article from October 2004:

Pilot facing charges
Criminal negligence alleged in crash-landing

By PAUL TURENNE and DEAN PRITCHARD, Staff Reporters

The pilot of a twin-engine plane with seven people on board that crash landed on Logan Avenue two years ago, killing one American passenger, is facing criminal charges. Winnipeg police charged 36-year-old Calgary resident Mark Tayfel yesterday with criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of an aircraft. The maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death is life in prison.

On June 11, 2002, Keystone Air Flight 208 was flying from Gunisao Lake Lodge, about 80 kilometres southeast of Norway House, to Winnipeg International Airport. The American passengers had been on a fishing vacation and were on the first leg of their return trip home.

But the plane, a Piper Navajo Chieftain, ran out of gas less than a minute from Runway 25 and Tayfel had tried to land on Logan Avenue at the intersection of McPhillips Street. The plane bounced off a five-ton truck and hit a van, but it missed houses and businesses in the area.

None of the seven people on board was killed in the crash, but 79-year-old Kansas resident Chester Jones died three months later of his injuries.

"I'm glad to be alive," Ed Heene, one of the passengers, said from his home in Kansas yesterday.

Heene suffered injuries to his ribs, scapula, leg, ankle and some cervical vertebrae in the crash. "I'll never be 100% again," he said. "In general, it'll never be the same."

Involved in lawsuit

Heene would not comment on the charges because he's involved in a lawsuit against Keystone Air, the pilot, the fishing lodge and Transport Canada.

Winnipeg lawyer Winston Smith, who is acting on behalf of the passengers, said he hopes the lawsuit is settled within six months, but it could take much longer if it has to go to court.

"All of the passengers, to one degree or another, are suffering either physically or emotionally as a result of this crash," Smith said yesterday.

He said the passengers are seeking substantial damages in the range of $5 million.

A Transportation Safety Board report released in April 2003 stated the main factor in the crash was Tayfel's incorrect calculations of the amount of fuel needed for the flight. The report also criticized Keystone Air's lack of proper supervision in allowing the plane to take off without enough fuel or a functioning autopilot.

Police charged the pilot and not the airline on the recommendation of the Crown, said police spokeswoman Const. Shelly Glover.

She said several factors accounted for the two-year gap between the crash and criminal charges, including the number of witnesses who had to be interviewed -- many of them the American passengers injured in the crash -- the number of agencies investigating the crash and the unique nature of the investigation.

"It was a very complicated investigation. You don't see a plane land in the middle of an intersection during rush hour very often. This was a first for us and certainly we did a very thorough investigation. That takes time."

It's very unusual for police in Canada to pursue criminal charges against pilots who crash, said David Ross, an operations investigator with the Transportation Safety Board in Winnipeg.

From the Winnipeg Sun

Police launch probe into Winnipeg plane crash - Updated Thu. Jun. 27 2002 4:27 AM ET

[CD]

How about the outcome of this law suit?

Keystone blames Transport Canada
Pilot of crashed plane suing Transport Canada

[oldtimer]

I am not all that surprised that criminal charges were laid but what surprises me is why both the airline and the lodge were not also charged as co-cospirators. Maybe everyone is waiting for either the appeal to a higher court or are letting the civil suits draw blood. I hear many people slag the operator. I know nothing about the operator so I will not comment but it does appear there must have been pressure applied, maybe not directly but certainly by schedule, lack of resources or whatever but I thnk the pilot had other choices, such as nipping over to Norway House or stopping at Swan River for fuel. In my opinion, taking 7 passengers (or was it 6 + 450 lbs) out of Gunisao would require maximum performace from a "Ho and hence leading the pilot to cut back on fuel. I know many pilots have come home skinney on fuel. I have done it myself, but never, ever this close and never, ever in weather. Fuel to destination and to an alternate and a bit skinney on reserve fuel. But this trip was idiotic. I imagine TC weighed the baggage after the accident and there is amost no doubt in my mind that at some point, the aircraft was operated over gross. Having read only the official accident report, there are many questions that only a good lawyer in a court of law could find answers to. It is sad and I hope this pilot's career is not over.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks for that CD.

I was unaware that the pilot was a complaint in that suit.

That means that at some point in time the company owner and the pilot were on the same side in their attempt in trying to defend what happened'

Interesting.

Keystone Air Service owner Cliff Arlt, pilot Mark Tayfel, and Budd’s Gunisao Lake Lodge filed documents in Court of Queen’s Bench this month, alleging Transport Canada is to blame for the 2002 crash because it didn’t ground the airline.

[Doc]

Gee, I really think Transport Canada is guilty of letting us get to the point where we had no option than to run out of gas, through no fault of our own, over downtown Winnipeg. Are they frikken serious? This Arlt guy is a moron!

[tripleittt]

They do (I understand) have an ex TC inspector, if not at the helm, very close to it?
Did they not go after the company at all?

The ex TC guy quit sometime ago. I heard from friends who worked there that he was extremely frustrated and clashed with clifford quite often.

Oh and Pine Dock would have been the most logical choice for gas. Swan River is a fair ways off course from Gunisao but it does have an approach. Anyway, it was heard in court that Pine Dock was in the clear the day of the accident.

What I don't get is why are people still making Keystone successful by giving them their business. There are lots of charter companies out there in competition with Keystone. They are likely getting all of these trips through undercutting the competition and cutting the pilot wages.

[Cat Driver]

The ex TC guy quit sometime ago. I heard from friends who worked there that he was extremely frustrated and clashed with clifford quite often.

Why did he quit?

[witness keystone]

i know him quite well; he quit in 1996 over avionics and instrument maintenance issues not related to the autopilot senario; but worse.

the TC evidence was not enough to persue tombstone at the time of the pilot being charged in 2005. was enough evidence gathered at the trial to move forward now is the question ?

it was another ex TC that helped tombstone get back in the air after the crash; and i think is still on their payroll in the SMS role.

[witness keystone]

I know nothing about the operator so I will not comment but it does appear there must have been pressure applied, maybe not directly but certainly by schedule, lack of resources or whatever but I thnk the pilot had other choices, such as nipping over to Norway House or stopping at Swan River for fuel. In my opinion, taking 7 passengers (or was it 6 + 450 lbs) out of Gunisao would require maximum performace from a "Ho and hence leading the pilot to cut back on fuel. I know many pilots have come home skinney on fuel. I have done it myself, but never, ever this close and never, ever in weather. Fuel to destination and to an alternate and a bit skinney on reserve fuel. But this trip was idiotic. I imagine TC weighed the baggage after the accident and there is amost no doubt in my mind that at some point, the aircraft was operated over gross. Having read only the official accident report, there are many questions that only a good lawyer in a court of law could find answers to. It is sad and I hope this pilot's career is not over.

oldtimer;

testimony said the plane flew past fuel at matheson island, pine dock, arnes, gimli, selkirk, and st andrews.

this ho was a 1973 chieftain with an empty weight of a straight ho. so at 4399 lbs, pilot, with six pax and 450 gear there was room for 800 lbs of fuel for 1 1/2 hour flight.. hmmm

testimony from most included granny gas as a norm. the god complex allowed for many swan river - winnnipeg - guniseo - winnipeg trips on a full fuel load. the first leg took 20 minutes more than normal .. leaving the morning subject pilot 20 minutes less fuel than normal god complex allowance.

[witness keystone]

from my memory of the trial six months ago

testimony from the pilot included switching both engines to the same main tank after exhausting the other three with twenty miles to go.

testimony from the pilot said he flew high and above the glide path because he planned to glide into winnipeg.

radar evidence showed the approach was flown at 160-170 kts, the afm gives a range / endurance speed of 135 kts in a descent to stretch your fuel.

no m'aide was given until in the overshoot .. humm

[witness keystone]

The thread about the keystone pilot is drifting.

I want to know why it was only the pilot who got hung?

Cat Driver; with the above evidence the pilot was a sitting duck to be hung and defeathered.

the ex TC guy i know agrres with you regarding the company, but real evidence is required, and testimony of many ex pilots for very similar senarios to this fatefull tombstone flight.

[Doc]

"testimony from the pilot included switching both engines to the same main tank after exhausting the other three with twenty miles to go."

So, that would be pretty much over St. Andrews? They do have gas at St. Andrews, yes?

[Cat Driver]

the ex TC guy i know agrres with you regarding the company, but real evidence is required, and testimony of many ex pilots for very similar senarios to this fatefull tombstone flight.

It's always the same in this business, everyone knows what companies should be shut down because of their unsafe operating culture but nothing is ever done for lack of evidence.

If there was effective whistle blower protection I wonder if these companies would still be operating?

[CD]

It's always the same in this business, everyone knows what companies should be shut down because of their unsafe operating culture but nothing is ever done for lack of evidence.

If there was effective whistle blower protection I wonder if these companies would still be operating?

Sort of like the proposed protection of safety information in this proposal?

Use prohibited

(4) Information reported under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) may not be used against the person who reported it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.

Use prohibited

(5) Information reported by an employee under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1) may not be used against the employee to take any reprisals, including any measure that adversely affects the employee's employment or working conditions.

Voluntary Reporting

[Widow]

CD, do you think the whistleblower laws proposed in C-7 will protect the employee? Many experts believe C-7 goes to protecting the employer (and the regulator), and not so much the employee.

[xsbank]

The employee will always get it in the neck. There are many subtle ways of punishment that will accrue to the whistleblower even if he is protected by law.

Besides, its too expensive and therefore out of reach of the average pilot to use the courts for his own protection.

[bob sacamano]

Well, as I understand it, he wrote a letter to TC admitting guilt. That made him an easier target than Keystone as a company. They do (I understand) have an ex TC inspector, if not at the helm, very close to it?
Did they not go after the company at all?

Yes, and some ex-TC guy that is!

Let's put it this way, he teaches keystone on how to get around the system.

Cat, you'll know more about this than anyone else.

[bob sacamano]

The ex-TC guy is there! he was ops manager, now he's 704 maybe? 703 is someone else. Don't know, but he is there!

Him and cliff graduated from the same crooks 101 class.

[Flying Nutcracker]

Don't know anything about Keystone, and just bits and pieces of what happened... but the question I am sitting with right now is "what is the morale to the story, and lesson learned"?????

[CD]

CD, do you think the whistleblower laws proposed in C-7 will protect the employee? Many experts believe C-7 goes to protecting the employer (and the regulator), and not so much the employee.

I don't profess to be a lawyer so I'm not sure how one might twist the Use Prohibited paragraphs to protect an employer more than an employee. Provided the report doesn't involve a contravention that is excepted from protection by the proposed 5.396(2), the reporter should be protected.

As we've discussed in other threads, there is presently no 'official' protection of any kind for safety reports. That, in and of itself, places the system at risk as it may discourage employees from self-reporting.

So, I believe that this is a good thing that will protect the employee - of course, I'm still innocent and naïve enough to believe in Santa Claus as well...

[Widow]

From Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP):

Part of the problem with the bill, which I will highlight, is that it heightens secrecy. When there are public regulations and enforcement, there is public scrutiny. When safety requirements, their determination and enforcement are left to individual companies to determine, then a veil comes over the safety provisions and we will not have access to safety information.

Our amendments would have preserved the operation of the Access to Information Act in key areas but that proposal was defeated at the committee stage, which makes us very concerned about the secrecy provisions.

We are also concerned about the lack of whistleblower protection. While a form of whistleblower protection has been introduced, there is no effective redress mechanism for employees who face reprisals taken against them, other than a warning or possible fine.

However, it is small comfort to a person who, out of concern for the travelling public, raises an issue of public safety and then is penalized for doing so, potentially even losing his or her job, which is disastrous. It is a potential outcome that most people would simply not risk. I would hate to think that safety concerns are not brought to the attention of the public, especially if they have been brought to the attention of the airline and no action is taken.

Employees are granted immunity from prosecution for reporting violations only under certain conditions but conditional whistleblower protection is really no protection at all and this ought to be of great concern to all Canadians.

The bill would provide the airlines with the same opportunities as whistleblowers to divulge breaches in SMS regulations with impugnity, but under the new hands-off enforcement policy of Transport Canada under SMS, no action will be taken against corporate offenders if the problem is corrected in a timely fashion. It is like someone travelling down the highway at 150 kilometres and, even though it comes to the attention of the police, by deciding to voluntarily slow the car down under the speed limit no action will be taken. It is not the way the law of the land should work.

Hansard November 2nd, 2007

[Cat Driver]

Yes, and some ex-TC guy that is!

Let's put it this way, he teaches keystone on how to get around the system.

Cat, you'll know more about this than anyone else.

Bob S. I don't have any direct knowledge of Keystone or their employees....

...but I can without any reservations state that having spent decades flying in dozens of third world countries and having dealt with the corruption that is rampant in these countries I find that TCCA is every bit as morally corrupt as the any third world country I have worked in.

However the corrupt officials in most of the third world countries I have worked in at least have the excuse that due to their abysmal pay scales they feel they must be corrupt just to survive.

I can not see that Merlin Preuss and Dave Nowzek can use poor pay and poor working conditions to excuse their being moral degenerates who abuse the power of their office.

I use these two as examples because I have compelling proof they are morally corrupt....

...therefore it is logical to believe if the system is corrupt at the top it will be the same at the lower levels of their structure.

Does that support your position Bob?

[CD]

Well, today in Canada, there is nothing - no system to make reports (other than Securitas, which I'm not sure anyone uses) and no means to protect the reporter at all. I see this Voluntary Reporting provision of C-7 as giving Canadians a mechanism akin to ASRS in the US or CHIRP in the UK.

Personally, I see the pure safety benefits of such a system and hope that one can be established in Canada soon. The political posturing that goes on in Parliament will hopefully bring about a better product... but not unnecessarily delay provisions that are needed, imo.