Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:26 pm

centerstored wrote: This company flies around with VFR fuel in IFR conditions all the time. They knowingly put people at risk.

Can you prove that allegation? If not I suggest you retract it as it's actionable in civil court. As has already been pointed out anybody can sue anyone at anytime; and you've given Keystone a golden opportunity. At the very least they could use some of the settlement from you to pay off the settlement they're going to have to make to the families in this incident. Time to put up or shut up!

BTW before anybody starts accusing me of being a Keystone hack; i've never worked there, i've only met the owner once several years ago and I really don't like him. But that's just me.

neechi · Post by **neechi** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:30 pm

In this business the only asshole that matters is the one you sit on, don't let anyone tell you what to do, passengers, your boss, nobody." And it’s as simple as that as far as im concerned. It’s too bad there are shitheads out there get bullied around for the sake of hour building, puts an extra stress all the good pilots. (I have no idea if that’s the case with Keystone or not).

Nobody held a gun to the guys head and told him not to put on enough gas. I choose not to work for people who treat me/pilots poorly and I have left jobs and refused trips when I felt safety was an issue. Some people choose risk safety to build hours. Some get away with it and some don't. If you choose to take that risk than pay the price if you fuk up.

Quagmire · Post by **Quagmire** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:10 pm

This is a big time slippery slope. It's easy to condemn the pilot in a case that is so cut and dry. But if this goes ahead there will be charges brought in accidents that will be much more iffy as to what happened. Juries will just see the pilot error and convict. The general public knows nothing of aviation.

think of what happens at parties when you tell people you fly. "Oh you mean you want to fly 747s"... etc. Now think these people will be judging if you where compitent.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:54 pm

As I have stated in previous posts, this guy should have his ass handed to him on a platter. It's sad that only he will pay though. I agree that this company and it's managers should pay as well, however, nothing can be done about this $hitty company until someone from inside gets a pair of nuts and spills the beans. Everyone who works around this company sees the bullshit on a regular basis. TC does an audit, finds a few things, suspends the OC for a few days, they patch the holes and back to business they go. Exactly as someone recently stated, you get the big bucks to have the responsibility and now half of you want out, you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you don't act in a negligent manner, you have nothing to worry about.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:23 pm

Sorry, but again no slippery slope and your imaginations are running away with you. Too many American TV cop shows.

The crown does not approve charges unless they are confident that they have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They do not proceed on "iffy" evidence. Rather, they tell the cops to go investigate further and come back if they can find the evidence to build a case with a strong liklihood of conviction. As well, YOU chose whether you are tried by judge and jury, or judge alone. If you don't think a jury will make a fair decision, go with a judge.

Again, criminal charges are not brought on in cases of honest mistakes and errors. I'm sure this young pilot feels bad about what happened and would make different choices today if he could go back and do it all again. No different than the young person charged with crim neg after a street race that causes a fatal accident. Problem is, you can't go back. Our laws say that you can not knowingly act in an irresponsible and reckless manner so as to inflict harm on others. Can't do it in a car, an airplane, with a gun, or by anyother means you can dream up. Can't do it then claim I made a mistake after it blows up in your face.

cplanedriver · Post by **cplanedriver** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:06 am

This gives every pilot 2 things: some ammunition in our constant fight against owners, ops mgrs, dispatchers, customers who want you to do more with less and carry more for less, and carry less (fuel)with more payload and stretch imagination in loading and performance, (and if you ain't fighting you ain't payin attention, unload some of that shit) AND what should be the unending realization that YOU ARE RESPONSBILE FOR WHAT YOU DO. Not the loader, ops mgr, fueler, dispatcher, customer, your Mommy, your flying instructor. I enjoy knowing my fuel and performance are not marginal for conditions.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:31 am

This is a cut and paste from the Pprune and speaks for itself:

I have no problem with criminal sanction of such things as operating aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, criminal penalties for "pilot error" should not be sanctioned.

In the United States, ALPAUS has managed to preclude, in so far as I know, the filing of criminal charges at the Federal level as a consequence of aircraft accidents where pilot error is alleged or suspected. I believe that is true in most State courts as well. Police officers and District attorneys know next to nothing about aviation matters. Neither do judges or juries 99% of the time. A "fair" trial would be virtually impossible.

Perhaps the concept of a "fair trial" is lost on some nationalities but that is not a reason to subject US citizens to practices of those jurisdictions. Since we fly "abroad" it is in our interest to stop the practice of criminal indictment of errant pilots wherever possible. If we cannot avoid this in a country like Canada, what will we do if it happens in Lagos or Rydah and one suddenly finds himself subject to Islamic "law". Maybe you would like to be sentenced under Sharia to 150 lashes, spend 10 years in an Istambul dungeon or try your luck in a Rawandan prison. Would you like to be the JAL Captain who just went through hell in Tokyo because one of his flight attendants died in a clear air turbulence encounter?

If criminal indictments and sanctions cannot be precluded, there will be no cooperation whatever from pilots involved in any incident/accident, CB's on CVRs and FDRs will be routinely pulled, and accident investigation set back for years.

The subjective nature of "pilot error" detirminations also does not lend itself to criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution is applicable to deliberate acts voluntarily committed. It should not be applicable to accidents resulting from human error.

ALPAUS and IFALPA as well have actively sort to avoid the same in countries other than the USA. I support that position.

Let us hope that those of you so quick to condemn never find youselves behind bars due to an operational error that you may one day make.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:56 am

Ya, er, like Rebel said. Well put.

Bcn-In-Bnd · Post by **Bcn-In-Bnd** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:00 am

I have this image that keeps going around my head.
Some pilot declares an emergency because his gear will not come down. He lands gear up, there to meet the airplane are the fire rescue guys BUT standing beside them are the city POLICE.
I may have an over active brain but I can not believe anyone thinks CRIMINAL charges are, OK!

.80@410 · Post by **.80@410** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:22 am

Excellent post Rebel:

All those that are still thinking these charges are a good thing, try reading his post.

Can you imagine how our world would change if we were req'd to have insurance like the Doctors in the US? Can any of you posting about " fry the pilot" understand this ? You tell me how after spending 40,000$ on licenses some 18 yr old kid can now afford the equivalent of a mortgage payment

Again, maybe those people that are ready to fry this pilot should ask themselves why the rest of the Aviation world ( but most interestingly the US governing bodies ) for the last 80 years have decided that criminal charges for pilot error were not appropriate.

Or are you guys smarter than all of them?

O Cr@P , where's that "Arguing on the internet " pic I had??

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:04 am

.80

Liability Insurance will only cover you for a civil action.......criminal acts are not insurable.

An operator's aviation insurance policies will cover and defend an employee pilot should there be a civil lawsuit only.

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:43 am

ya he was the PIC and yada yada.....we all know that at times we have done things that perhaps were 'bending' the rules. Also lets not forget that some of the 'rules' are not safe to begin with! Point here is that it should be the entire organization that is liable here not just the pic...if pilots are now going to start ending up in court everytime something happens they better start rewritting contracts to protect the pic when they turn around to the operator and say 'stick it!' when they are being pushed into something that isnt by the book!

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:50 am

Rebel wrote:This is a cut and paste from the Pprune and speaks for itself:

I have no problem with criminal sanction of such things as operating aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, criminal penalties for "pilot error" should not be sanctioned.

I think the reaction we are seeing from some here to hang this pilot out to dry is coming from the fact that what he did can't be considered "pilot error". Pilot error would be more like CFIT or a gear up landing for example.

What was done here falls outside of pilot error and into pilot negligence. It's a fact he knew exactly what he was doing when he left YWG without fueling up in a non autopilot equipped plane and what the potential risk was to himself and his passengers. I'm sure that management also knew exactly what he was doing when he left that day.

This factor of known negligence is what is being exploited by the lawyers and I bet they go after the company just as hard as they go after the pilot.

It's ugly but as others have said, maybe it will be a wakeup call to the entire air taxi industry in Canada.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:22 am

.08 et al, you guys just don't get it. This pilot is not charged with "pilot error" or some other unintended mistake. He is accused of knowingly and deliberately doing something he knew placed his passengers lives at risk. What he is accused of doing would be in the same class as if he decided to do a roll after take-off, fly under bridges, etc, etc. Crim neg is a charge that applies to people who deliberately carry out acts that any reasonable person would see as grossly stupid.

Regarding insurance, your comparison to medical malpractice insurance is way off the mark. Insurance protects doctors, pilots, and everyone else in the event they make an honest mistake that harms someone. For a doctor to be charged with crim neg he would have to have done something like operate on someone with instruments he knew were contaminated, or start an operation knowing he doesn't have enough blood available for a transfusion that will likely be required.

Remember the e-coli infection in the Walkerton Ont. water system? The guys responsible were charged with crim neg causing death because they knew about the contamination, knew the hazards it presented, and knowingly allowed it to continue.

Bcn, the only way your gear up landing could result in a criminal charge would be if you deliberately landed gear up. Something like, you are pissed at the company and decide you're going to land gear up in a plane full of passengers to cost the boss some money for props and engines. You know someone could get hurt, but you say to hell with it I can pull it off safely. But, in the end, it doesn't work out as you hoped and a passenger is killed.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:46 am

Wilbur;

I agree with you, excellent post. I think that there are many opinions being expressed in this forum that show a lack of understanding of our legal system.

Mainly, people don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law.

Criminal Law: deals with wrongs done against society

Civil Law: settles 'disagreements' between individuals not involving criminal acts. Two area are "contract law" and "tort" law.

Wilbur has explained criminal law well in his earlier posts, and regarding insurance, it covers Civil Law - not Criminal Law, again outlined by Wilbur.

Perhaps pilot training should include a more in depth study of our legal system.

Hot Fuel · Post by **Hot Fuel** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:00 am

Anybody that thinks they/we should not be accountable for their/our actions is living in dreamland. Why anybody feels the aviation community and in particular pilots should be exempt from accountability for their decisions is beyond me. I agree this may be precedent setting and have far reaching effects on the industry but I also believe that what the crown is attempting falls within their mandate and is also inline with what happens in any other employment sector.

If during the course of your job you make informed decisions that are contrary to what are considered accepted safe practices and that decision places persons or property at unnecessary risk you are being negligent in performing your duties.

If a person or property becomes injured or killed because of your negligence you should be held accountable in all cases. There is a lot of room between having an accident and being negligent causing an accident.

It should be pointed out the company is often just as guilty as the employee, in this case the employee happens to be a pilot. In most other industry’s the employer as well as the employee have to face the music. I suspect that in this case the crown feels they have the evidence necessary to obtain the conviction against the pilot on the basis that he was negligent in the performance of his duties. I think we can all agree that it would be a relatively easy task to gather the evidence to show that the pilot did not have enough gas and that he knew it, it should be a slam dunk for the prosecution. I’m not saying the company should skate in this case but my guess is that as far as criminal charges go the crown probably recognizes that it would prove to be a much more difficult task proving that the company was negligent in ensuring the pilot had sufficient fuel to complete the trip safely.

Keep in mind the issue is not that the pilot had an accident that resulted in a death, rather the crown is trying to prove the pilot was negligent in performing duties that resulted in that death.

neg•li•gence
1. The state or quality of being negligent.
2. A negligent act or a failure to act.
3. Law. Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

jimmyjazz · Post by **jimmyjazz** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:38 am

anybody else notice that most of the people thinking the charges are valid are based in ywg? maybe being around this area gives you some insight
into incident. Not saying that I agree haven't fully decided yet but this has been the best thread in a long time.

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:53 am

jimmyjazz wrote:anybody else notice that most of the people thinking the charges are valid are based in ywg? maybe being around this area gives you some insight
into incident. Not saying that I agree haven't fully decided yet but this has been the best thread in a long time.

Here's some insight...

After the accident, Gunisao Lodge got us to fly for them and I was the first plane(PC-12) into the strip following the accident. At the Avitat prior to loading the bags, I asked the lodge agent how much the bags weighed... her answer was that Keystone never asked her that before. Keystone had been flying the Beech 99 and Navajo's into the strip prior to the accident. When she said that I was dumbfounded.

Needless to say on return from the lodge, A few Transport inspectors were there waiting for me to check how much fuel I had on board.

oldncold · Post by **oldncold** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:13 am

crown attorneys will lay charges on case like this
because they have the financial resources (taxpayers money to fight )
to win .those of you who think otherwise are foolish.
Next take the example of a guy who know that D.U.I. is wrong and
decides to sleep in his vechicle until the next morning.
police arrest him with impaired. For trying to do the right thing.

The supreme court states that presumed guilt in these types of cases
does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms . the accused must
prove his innocence it is called reverse mea culpa.

so this chap makes a error in judgement(granted a large one.)
the crown lays the charge.because it can win -it is not about morality or
justice it is about one thing ONLY- WINNING. pilots and engineers are
so naive about the law. most assume that it is fair /NOT/ lawyers are taught from day one to argue whether right or wrong but to argue to win.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:14 am

So, you're saying it's this particular pilot's fault that Keystone never required weighing baggage?

Burn the witch, burn the witch. Who says that Salem had it wrong back in 1692?

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:25 am

hz2p wrote:So, you're saying it's this particular pilot's fault that Keystone never required weighing baggage?

Burn the witch, burn the witch. Who says that Salem had it wrong back in 1692?

Yes, the pilot is at fault along with the company... my example was to point out company culture at the time which has a direct influence on the pilots.

Whether Keystone required baggage weighing or not, as the PIC, if it were you, would you want the bags weighed? I sure as hell would! If it was going to cost me my job to have the bags weighed, I'd be telling someone about it.

3Green · Post by **3Green** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:53 am

I'm still struggling with the fact that the aircraft was legally dispatched for this flight. I would have expected the previous pilot/crew to have snagged the U/S autopilot. There is no way this defect could have been deferred, thereby making one of the PIC's decisions a little easier for this SPIFR trip.
I know this wasn't the cause of the accident. I don't know that it wasn't one of the links in the chain of events. That's not the point. I too am trying to draw a link to company culture. If the previous pilot had had enough brains to snag/ground the plane, his co-worker wouldn't have been burdened with deciding "stay or go". To me, this is an act of negligence on the previous pilot's part. Or the previous PREVIOUS pilots' part, or...
This company sure sounds like a cancer to the Canadian aviation industry.

somepilot · Post by **somepilot** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:08 am

message removed.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:17 am

Good post schlem. My point exactly...negligence vs pilot error. Some guys on this site just don't differentiate the two....Bcn-In-Bnd, doc, rebel?? Several people have spelled it out in black and white for you guys...you know, the difference between negligence and an accident? Maybe someone could post this fact in Braille!

Bcn-In-Bnd · Post by **Bcn-In-Bnd** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:32 am

No matter what happens with this case, from now-on after every accident the powers-to-be will have to consider if criminal charges should be brought against ALL those involved. The reporters will also be all over this, as well. CYA is the name of this game.