Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence

[Widow]

I think this whole incident is a metaphor for how bad the aviation system has become in Canada and points out, with bells on, how useless SMS will be for regulating operators who are not interested in safety but are interested solely in profits.

xsbank;

You nailed it right on the head. As tragic as this entire situation is, IF the regulator had been doing it's job in the first place, this may have never reached this sorry state.

I was two blocks away when this aircraft hit the ground. Keystone was the topic of many conversations around St. Andrews airport concerning their questionable practices, long before this event took place.

I refer back to many of my earlier comments, that TC is the enabler of many of the bad situations which exist, certainly in 703.

carholme

Me too gentlemen ... I hope the MP's opposed to C-7 get a whiff of this.

[CID]

This indeed is a sorry state of affairs. Pilots who historically take ultimate responsibility for the safety of their passengers now looking to TC and their employers as scapegoats.

So now when I board an airplane I guess the pilot is sitting up front thinkging how he isn't responsible for his actions.

Wonderful.

[Widow]

How has the pilot looked to TC as a "scapegoat"? The pilot can't sue TC or his employer even if he wants to - he was working. It's the passengers who named TC in the suit. Pretty silly of Keystone to have tried to sue them too, but rather telling at the same time.

It is we, THE PUBLIC, who demand TC take responsibility for shutting down this kind of operation BEFORE people die. They failed to do that. Like Wapiti, they will likely share in the the blame when the time comes.

[carholme]

CID;

We were blaming the regulator before the Keystone accident as this organization was a disaster waiting to happen, just as there are so many still left out there.

This is not a case of TC bashing after the fact. What is fact is that TC did nothing about a known situation and allowed it to develop to the point of an accident. Nobody is certainly letting the operator or the pilot off the hook.

Let me ask you a question as you are so constantly defending TC?

What is it you would have us do about known bad operators? Please inform us where we should take our complaints. We wait with anticipation.


carholme

[CD]

The pilot can't sue TC or his employer even if he wants to - he was working. It's the passengers who named TC in the suit. Pretty silly of Keystone to have tried to sue them too, but rather telling at the same time.

I'm still not clear on what would prevent an employee from suing their employer? Anyway, here is an article I posted in one of the other threads:

The owners and pilot of a plane that crashed into a busy intersection more than two years ago, causing the death of an American passenger, are hoping to pin the blame on Canada’s aviation regulator.

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.

Pilot of crashed plane suing Transport Canada

[CID]

carholme,

An operator isn't worthy of having his O/C suspended just because you say so or becuse there are negative comments made about them on the internet.

You of all people should be aware of that. So what inside information does everyone here have against this operator in particular?

It's easy to find a disgruntled former employee. It's difficult to defend against baseless allegations though.

It's all pretty subjective and for every call for TC to shut someone down, there's another complaining they are being too hard nosed.

From what I understand, the operator in this case has gone to great lengths to fix problems identified and his operations were suspended until he got his stuff together. Do you all propose that we just ban the guy (and the jobs he offers) from aviation all together?

How has the pilot looked to TC as a "scapegoat"?

widow, my comments were meant to be directed to the pilots posting in this thread and not specifically towards the acccient pilot. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[xsbank]

CID, sometimes you post such twaddle.

This quote via Widow, from Hansard, is a good one:

"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."

[carholme]

CID;

The question was not in reference to Keystone in particular but the industry in general. You talk a fair bit about the slimey operators. If we and other operators know that certain operators are not above board, what can be done about it? If the regulator, the one empowered and mandated to oversee the safe operation of the industry cannot do, who is supposed to do it?

Or are you of the same idea as one senior TC official in Ontario who sent us a letter suggesting that because of our concerns, we rat on other operators? Is this what it has come to, TC cannot do their job and expects us to do it for them?

You can't have it both ways CID, protecting your vision of TC and at the same time not answering the questions. There are times when I view your posts and suspect you are seeing things through rose coloured glasses.

carholme

[xsbank]

Um, Carholme, what colour are the glasses? Very restrained, for sure.

[Wilbur]

In Canada, upon arrest you have the right to retain and consult counsel without delay, and you are not obliged to say anything in answer to the charge. Anyone who does not exercise those rights is a fool.

The choice of individual pilots and their employers to violate regulations and laws is not the fault of TC or anyone else. TC is responsible for allowing the industry to seemingly have an abundance of dishonest, unethical employees and owners, but TC is not the cause of their behaviour. If the only way to stop YOU from breaking regs is to have TC looking over your shoulder, YOU are the problem.

In sentencing this pilot, the judge will be looking at a variety of factors including the severity of the offence, how frequently he engaged in this type of behaviour, his liklihood to re-offend, the danger he presents to the public, impact the event has had on his life, his level of remorse, and the principle of general deterrence to other pilots who may engage in similar recklessness. As a starting point, it's unlikely he will go to gaol. However, if crown has done some digging and found he freqently flew in violation of regs, or that this type of behaviour is commonplace in the industry, then they may really try emphasizing the deterrence aspect and seek a couple years behind bars. My bet is about a 1 year conditional sentence.

[justplanecrazy]

wilbur, the fact that they've waited so long to press charges and are charging him with Causing death by criminal negligence not Dangerous operation of an aircraft causing death, leads me to believe the crown is pushing hard to get a very stiff sentence. This quote, if reliable, also confirms that.

I'm not sure about that, but I can tell you that a friend of mine who is a Crown Attorney had warned me very shortly after the crash that the Crown was going to be making an example of this.

If they don't have enough evidence to prove criminal negligence, then yes he may get off with a 1 year conditional. If the pilot has given a written statement admiting that he knowingly flew the aircraft in an unsafe manner and if they've managed to get flight logs showing previous fuel loads or other contravention to regulations, he will likely be convicted of negligence, not dagerous operation of an aircraft. Even dangerous operation of an aircraft, carries with it a possible 14 year sentence. Seeing as he was carrying numerous passenger, not just a teenager racing his car with a buddy, I still stand by my guess of anywhere from 5-10 years depending on the judge and evidence given. I have no doubt that the defence will attempt to appeal a crim negligence charge though and in the end he'll probably walk away with a light sentence but the orginal one will be stiff.

[2R]

It will be interesting to see the grounds used for appeal.

[desksgo]

It will be interesting to see the grounds used for appeal.

He has plenty of grounds in which to appeal the decision. The problem is, think of the legal debts he'll run up in the appeals process of his case. Perhaps he'll just fold his hand. What an ugly situation.

[CID]

You can't have it both ways CID, protecting your vision of TC and at the same time not answering the questions. There are times when I view your posts and suspect you are seeing things through rose coloured glasses.

Carholme/xsTwaddle,

Talk about rose coloured glasses. I’m not sure exactly what you guys want but it sure seems like you want to hang TC for every shortcoming of the industry and in turn shirk responsibility. Let me remind you that slimy operators aren’t born from regulation or even lack of regulation.

Slimy airplane operators aren’t much different than any other law breaker. If you guys feel justified in blaming TC for the existence of slimy operators, you’re just not part of the solution. And you just may be part of the problem based on what I’ve read in other threads.

[carholme]

CID;

If you want to have a serious discussion, please go ahead but I certainly do not feel any urge to engage you in petty school boy banter.

You still have not offered any constructive response. I can understand your defensive position but you seem incapable of understanding anyone elses opinions if they don't match yours, Good discussion is great but not when it sinks to this level of response.

carholme

[tripleittt]

..

[xsbank]

Thank you Carholme, I tend to lose it with CID.

[CID]

Good discussion is great but not when it sinks to this level of response.

I agree. So why did you sink that level in the first place? And why don't you scold xsbank while you're at it?

[xsbank]

"This indeed is a sorry state of affairs. Pilots who historically take ultimate responsibility for the safety of their passengers now looking to TC and their employers as scapegoats.

So now when I board an airplane I guess the pilot is sitting up front thinkging how he isn't responsible for his actions.

Wonderful."

This is why, CID, I tend to descend to your level; a useless, ill-considered waste of space. When you post stuff like this I have trouble staying nice. If you have nothing intelligent to say, go watch TV.

[Widow]

Slimy airplane operators aren’t much different than any other law breaker. If you guys feel justified in blaming TC for the existence of slimy operators, you’re just not part of the solution. And you just may be part of the problem based on what I’ve read in other threads.

CID, neither Carholme nor xsbank said anything quite so childish (and untrue) as what you said above.

We aren't blaming TC for the existence of shoddy operators.

We are saying that once they DO know, they should DO something about it before people DIE. How is it possible that everyone within a hundred miles knows when an Op is an "accident waiting to happen", but TC either doesn't know or does nothing to ENFORCE?

We are saying that when someone dies when flying with a KNOWN shoddy operator, that operator should be held ACCOUNTABLE.

By not doing anything effective BEFORE OR AFTER, they have not only allowed it to happen, but CONDONED the behaviour.

If TC cannot keep better control of the shoddy operators now, how the heck is SMS going to make it better?

[justplanecrazy]

CID has a good point, I don't see how we can pin the blame soley on the operator.

If we feel TC should come in and shut down these operators, TC should also come in and take away the licences of the pilots that agree to knowingly operate outside of the regulations. Why should one be responsible and not the other.

Like I said before, our excuse of pressure from the company firing us and being out of a job unless we agree to break the rules for them is NO different then the pressure the company feels to break the rules to stay in business.

Both the operator and the pilots should be held accountable.

Carholme you tend to be real quick to put yourself on a high horse and call everyone elses points petty school boy banter. In my opinion that is pretty childish.

[tripleittt]

Widow, what we need are operators with a conscience. Pure and simple, but .... we all live in the real world. So unless priorities are reconsidered and changed in most operations, you are right, SMS is worth nothing.

[carholme]

justplanecrazy;

And why shouldn't TC come in and take away pilot licences of those or anybody who knowingly operates outside of the regs. What do we have them for? Presumably in your operation, if a pilot is breaking the regs, the CP would know about it before it gets to the TC level and the problem would be rectified one way or the other. It is when the system in house breaks down for whatever reason that the regulator should step. SMS is not going to change this.


carholme

[Cat Driver]

If TC cannot keep better control of the shoddy operators now, how the heck is SMS going to make it better?

widow, widow, please, please settle down stress will make you want to smoke.

We have two simple issues here.

(1) Good companies do not need SMS to operate within the rules. And SMS will enable bad operators and allow them to keep on operating as they now do by generating paperwork to placate TCCA.

(2) CID either has some problems connecting the dots or he just likes to shitdisturb...oh and he seems to hate pilots.

[justplanecrazy]

Carholme

Well if you agree that the pilots should be punished also then yes I agree with you. I think what CID was saying is why are we as pilots complaining that TC never shut the operation down and not complaining that TC never shut the pilots down. You're right the regulater F'd up big time on this one. Reading this banter though sounds like we're standing behind the pilot that let the company run, because it wasn't his decision how the company ran. He could have and should have refused every flight outside of reg's and if he got fired, than so be it. Just like the operator could have and should have operated inside the regs and if he went broke, then so be it. Maybe I'm reading CID's remarks wrong but I think that was the point he was trying to make. We're the PIC's don't blame the company you work for, for having to make those dangerous flights... blame yourself.