Criminal Charges Laid Against Pilot In Keystone Crash
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Ok so as you can get from the name i used to work at keystone. I dont post on this i dont even read this because as you have proved once again as you did years ago you are all a bunch of ot of work flight instructers who think you know everything! First the pilot was a friend of mine that aside he made a big mistake that affected us all who worked there at the time but it was a mistake, as for people like captn S&J you think your so good i would love to know who you are if your so confedent post your name so we can all strive to fly the 182 at the jump zone to.But anyway he has lost his job he cant get another one and now some of you think he should go to jail! come on you never mess up when its 200 and a half of course not because your all flight instructors looking for work. i did read DOCS post and i would like to say i agree with ya he messed up but we all could! and if any of you think thats cool that he is charged what hapens to us who fly real aircraft now with lots of seats and the anti skid fails or no reverse on one side and we go off the end and kill someone do we all need to go to jail.. ive said it before i sould have been a dentist. o ya one more thing for all you guys that think my buddy skrewed up im with ya and for all ya that think he sould have to pay a big fine im good with that for all of you that think he should have his life taken away by being put in jail give your head a shake. So just a thanks to the pilots who think the charge is bull and he slould not go to jail .And for the pilots who think he should you should all be kicked out of the indistry and if i had my way you wouldall have a wing come off. see ya
why dont you get a real flying job and get off your computer
Good post. (insert sarcasm here) Why is it that so many people can only think to use the "you must all be flight instructors or wannabes" line. Get the gerbil running and think of a better response than that. Please stop accusing me of flying a jump plane or being an instructor. You are really hurting my feelings.old key wrote:Ok so as you can get from the name i used to work at keystone. I dont post on this i dont even read this because as you have proved once again as you did years ago you are all a bunch of ot of work flight instructers who think you know everything! First the pilot was a friend of mine that aside he made a big mistake that affected us all who worked there at the time but it was a mistake, as for people like captn S&J you think your so good i would love to know who you are if your so confedent post your name so we can all strive to fly the 182 at the jump zone to.But anyway he has lost his job he cant get another one and now some of you think he should go to jail! come on you never mess up when its 200 and a half of course not because your all flight instructors looking for work. i did read DOCS post and i would like to say i agree with ya he messed up but we all could! and if any of you think thats cool that he is charged what hapens to us who fly real aircraft now with lots of seats and the anti skid fails or no reverse on one side and we go off the end and kill someone do we all need to go to jail.. ive said it before i sould have been a dentist. o ya one more thing for all you guys that think my buddy skrewed up im with ya and for all ya that think he sould have to pay a big fine im good with that for all of you that think he should have his life taken away by being put in jail give your head a shake. So just a thanks to the pilots who think the charge is bull and he slould not go to jail .And for the pilots who think he should you should all be kicked out of the indistry and if i had my way you wouldall have a wing come off. see ya
As someone else said earlier, those of you that fail to see the difference between pilot error and pilot negligence need to reread several of the posts, or go down to your local police station or court house and discuss it with a person in the legal system. The idea of pilots being charged for accidentally gearing up an airplane are completely absurd.
"The South will boogie again."
-
Bcn-In-Bnd
- Rank 3
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:29 pm
- Location: NWO
This is for those that are having a hard time grasping the concept...
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Negligence
: failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation; also : conduct that reflects this failure called also ordinary negligence simple negligence
NOTE: Negligence may render one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.
Collateral negligence
: negligence on the part of an independent contractor that is not connected with a manner of working or risk ordinarily associated with particular work and for which the employer of the contractor is not liable
Comparative negligence
1 a : negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury <the comparative negligence of the plaintiff> b : a doctrine, rule, or method of apportioning liability and damages in tort law: negligence and damages are determined by reference to the proportionate fault of the plaintiff and defendant with the negligence of the plaintiff not constituting an absolute bar to recovery from the defendant
NOTE: The great majority of states have replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence with that of comparative negligence.
2 : an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by the plaintiff
Contributory negligence
1 : negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue
2 : a now largely abolished doctrine in tort law: negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue will bar recovery from the defendant; also : an affirmative defense based on this doctrine
Criminal negligence
: a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence
Gross negligence
: negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights —see also RECKLESSNESS —compare CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in this entry
Passive negligence
Failure to do something (as to discover a dangerous condition on one's property) that is not a breach of an affirmative duty and that in combination with another's act is a cause of injury
Slight negligence
: failure to exercise the great degree of care typical of an extraordinarily prudent person
NOTE: The category of slight negligence is used much less frequently than ordinary negligence and gross negligence, the other members of a three-level classification that was formerly prevalent.
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Negligence
: failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation; also : conduct that reflects this failure called also ordinary negligence simple negligence
NOTE: Negligence may render one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.
Collateral negligence
: negligence on the part of an independent contractor that is not connected with a manner of working or risk ordinarily associated with particular work and for which the employer of the contractor is not liable
Comparative negligence
1 a : negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury <the comparative negligence of the plaintiff> b : a doctrine, rule, or method of apportioning liability and damages in tort law: negligence and damages are determined by reference to the proportionate fault of the plaintiff and defendant with the negligence of the plaintiff not constituting an absolute bar to recovery from the defendant
NOTE: The great majority of states have replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence with that of comparative negligence.
2 : an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by the plaintiff
Contributory negligence
1 : negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue
2 : a now largely abolished doctrine in tort law: negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue will bar recovery from the defendant; also : an affirmative defense based on this doctrine
Criminal negligence
: a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence
Gross negligence
: negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights —see also RECKLESSNESS —compare CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in this entry
Passive negligence
Failure to do something (as to discover a dangerous condition on one's property) that is not a breach of an affirmative duty and that in combination with another's act is a cause of injury
Slight negligence
: failure to exercise the great degree of care typical of an extraordinarily prudent person
NOTE: The category of slight negligence is used much less frequently than ordinary negligence and gross negligence, the other members of a three-level classification that was formerly prevalent.
This is the penalty in Canda should the Crown prove its case and the pilot be found guilty.
Canadian Criminal Code
PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Criminal Negligence Causing Death
220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220; 1995, c. 39, s. 141.
Canadian Criminal Code
PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Criminal Negligence Causing Death
220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220; 1995, c. 39, s. 141.
I would think that a conscious decision to break the law is required in order to be considered criminal. In the example of the kid being charged for street racing, he made a decision to speed. I cannot believe that this pilot got up that morning and decided to fly a plane with no fuel on board. I also cannot believe that if the plane had had a functioning autopilot that this accident would have been prevented. The TSB report doesn't even list the autopilot as a contributing factor.
In regards to the company, hasn't Keystone been shut down a number of times since the incident? Aren't they still in operation? Do some of you think that TC would still be allowing them to operate if they were that unsafe? I think I heard somewhere that their new Ops Mgr is former TC, whats in it for him to let them break the law? I don't know what the culture used to be like but it sounds like they've had to jump through some major hurdles to survive, and the lawsuits are yet to come. Not to mention the insurance premiums they must be paying.
I think that the TSB and TC are fully capable of punishing and policing the aviation industry. Most of the time they do their jobs with a little too much enthusiasm. Unless the flight crew makes some kind of decision to put lives at risk, like pounding back a 12 pack before a flight or trying to fly their a/c underneath the overpass then the police should be left out.
How many of you realise that if this accident had happend on the way into Gunisao, that we wouldn't be having this conversation right now? The Winnipeg police have a vendetta given to them by the media to make an example of this poor fellow, and its going to have repercussions for us all.
In regards to the company, hasn't Keystone been shut down a number of times since the incident? Aren't they still in operation? Do some of you think that TC would still be allowing them to operate if they were that unsafe? I think I heard somewhere that their new Ops Mgr is former TC, whats in it for him to let them break the law? I don't know what the culture used to be like but it sounds like they've had to jump through some major hurdles to survive, and the lawsuits are yet to come. Not to mention the insurance premiums they must be paying.
I think that the TSB and TC are fully capable of punishing and policing the aviation industry. Most of the time they do their jobs with a little too much enthusiasm. Unless the flight crew makes some kind of decision to put lives at risk, like pounding back a 12 pack before a flight or trying to fly their a/c underneath the overpass then the police should be left out.
How many of you realise that if this accident had happend on the way into Gunisao, that we wouldn't be having this conversation right now? The Winnipeg police have a vendetta given to them by the media to make an example of this poor fellow, and its going to have repercussions for us all.
-
golden hawk
- Rank 7
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:43 am
Let's remember that the pilot has been "charged" with criminal negligence causing death. He has NOT been "convicted" yet. That's what a trial is for.
I'd recommend we all lay off this particular pilot until he has had his trial - that is how the legal process works. The trial will have all the facts needed to determine guilt or innocence - we on this forum DO NOT, and therefore we shouldn't be entering a verdict OR a sentence on this particular pilot.
HOWEVER, as for pilots facing this kind of legal situation, we are all bound by the laws of our country, whether we are operating an aircraft or walking down the street. If a pilot commits a criminal act in the course of their duties, he/she should face the same criminal process as anyone else.
I'd recommend we all lay off this particular pilot until he has had his trial - that is how the legal process works. The trial will have all the facts needed to determine guilt or innocence - we on this forum DO NOT, and therefore we shouldn't be entering a verdict OR a sentence on this particular pilot.
HOWEVER, as for pilots facing this kind of legal situation, we are all bound by the laws of our country, whether we are operating an aircraft or walking down the street. If a pilot commits a criminal act in the course of their duties, he/she should face the same criminal process as anyone else.
I agree with Golden Hawk, none of what is being discussed here has been proven in court. It's speculation on how it will play out, my point is that on the surface the charges are justified based on what has been reported in the press and the TSB.
Spitfire the only way the PIC can get out of this jackpot is to prove that he did not know that he did not have sufficient fuel to safely complete the flight. That is going to be a tall order, the crown is going to use his training records, the checklist, his ride reports anything and everything to prove he was trained and competent. Unless the PIC's lawyer can come up with some plausable explaination as to why the PIC did not know or recognize that he did not have engough fuel my bet is the crown will prove thier case and we will see a guilty verdict.
Spitfire the only way the PIC can get out of this jackpot is to prove that he did not know that he did not have sufficient fuel to safely complete the flight. That is going to be a tall order, the crown is going to use his training records, the checklist, his ride reports anything and everything to prove he was trained and competent. Unless the PIC's lawyer can come up with some plausable explaination as to why the PIC did not know or recognize that he did not have engough fuel my bet is the crown will prove thier case and we will see a guilty verdict.
Oldncold, whatever you have been smoking I don't want any of. The budgets crown counsels work under compared to the number of crimes they could prosecute leave them well short. The financial resources of crown counsel increase the liklihood that you won't be charged unless they think you are clearly guilty. So yes, they charge in cases they believe they can win because they believe they have the evidence to prove guilt Notwithstanding the occasional wrong conviction, when they successfully get a conviction it is because the person is guilty of the crime. Would you want them doing something else? And your right, it's not about their morality, it's about doing a job in accordance with the law.
Again, you are somebody who doesn't know the law when you cite your drunk friend sleeping in his care. The charge of impaired is for "being in care and control of motor vehicle while impaired." If you are a sleeping drunk in your car and have the keys you are committing a crime because you are in "care and control." If you want to sleep it off in your car you have to get rid of the keys so that you can not wake up later, still drunk, and drive off. If you think the law is wrong, lobby your MP to change it.
How did this pilot manage to run out of gas? Did something happen during his trip to substantially increase his fuel consumption? Did he make a math mistake in calculating his fuel requirements? Without knowing the evidence against him, on the surface I would say neither of these scenarios apply because if they did he wouldn't be charged.
Again, you are somebody who doesn't know the law when you cite your drunk friend sleeping in his care. The charge of impaired is for "being in care and control of motor vehicle while impaired." If you are a sleeping drunk in your car and have the keys you are committing a crime because you are in "care and control." If you want to sleep it off in your car you have to get rid of the keys so that you can not wake up later, still drunk, and drive off. If you think the law is wrong, lobby your MP to change it.
How did this pilot manage to run out of gas? Did something happen during his trip to substantially increase his fuel consumption? Did he make a math mistake in calculating his fuel requirements? Without knowing the evidence against him, on the surface I would say neither of these scenarios apply because if they did he wouldn't be charged.
-
golden hawk
- Rank 7
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:43 am
Nice, never thought a PPC could save someone's arse..Hot Fuel wrote:That is going to be a tall order, the crown is going to use his training records, the checklist, his ride reports anything and everything to prove he was trained and competent. Unless the PIC's lawyer can come up with some plausable explaination as to why the PIC did not know or recognize that he did not have engough fuel my bet is the crown will prove thier case and we will see a guilty verdict.
"Gentle folks of the jury, I did my PPC, a TC examiner was there, the flight was identical to the one I did that frightful night. "
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Old Key : You are pathetic. How could you honestly write that " those who think He should be kicked out...I hope you have a wing fall off"? Firstly, having a wing fall off would be considered an accident. Your friend was resposible for KILLING another human being when he decided, using logic like your own, he did not need fuel to fly to CYWG. This was no "accident" , but rather an easily avoided catastrophe...Secondly, It scares me that you have managed to progress this far in life. You obviously know how to turn a computer on ...so that says you have at least a minimal IQ, however your logic, language, and apparent grade 5 use of words is troubleing. Please do all of us a favor and turn yourself back in to your " babysitter" or whoever else wipes the drool off of your dirty chin. Please wear your government issued helmet.( we would not want to upset that tiny little brain in there that is working so hard trying to keep you from falling down.)And finally, please stay at home in your trailer park, with all of your close cousins by your side, watching reruns of Mr. Dress Up and the Friendly Giant. OUT.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Wilbur and G.H.
As far as I can recall no pilot that has had a similar accident has been charged with criminal neglence causing death before in Canada.
Clearly the law does allow for such charges, do either of you have any thoughts on why this pilot in this accident?
Cat
As far as I can recall no pilot that has had a similar accident has been charged with criminal neglence causing death before in Canada.
Clearly the law does allow for such charges, do either of you have any thoughts on why this pilot in this accident?
Cat
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.
-
Circuit-Jockey
- Rank 1
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:43 am
Old Key...that was an embarassing post for you I'm sure. That's what the preview button is for at the bottom of this dialogue box. Grade 2 writing skills and flight planning go hand in hand at your old company. I wouldn't even defend my own brother if he pulled this bull$hit. I understand were many of you guys on the other side of the fence think this whole thing could go....but give your head a shake! The court will never convict a poor bastard for gearing up, or a CFIT accident...as long as you didn't knowingly put your passengers at risk! If I weren't a pilot, and only a pax, I'd be terrified to fly after reading some of these BS posts on here. You want the responsibility when times are good and luck is on your side, but when $hit hits the fan you expect to turn in your duty as PIC. Nobody in their right mind would even want to convict a pilot after an honest mistake or accident. This pilot, and the $hitty company he worked for have a history of this negligent behaviour. Hell, I heard 3 weeks after the accident that another one of their pathetic pilots nearly ran out of gas in Beren's River...only to make it back to Winnipeg with a jerry can and a red face. OLD KEY, if anyone needs to be booted out of this industry it's you and your old company, and all you other goons out there who can't accept the responsibility you trained for!!
Cat I'll take a bash at your question...
I find myself wondering if this and a few other forums didn't have a little bit to do with it. I have it from a very reliable source that this site and a number of other similair sites are bookmarked on a couple of Transport computers in a least one city...I have also overheard conversations in the local airport coffee shop between inspectors referencing threads from this forum. Shortly after this occurance many on this forum were very vocal and were screaming for Transport action, along with criminal action. This site is not operating in an aviation vacum, its not a stretch to think that the idea to pursue something like this was in part spawned from the reaction being posted and read by a non aviation type. (insert lawyer)
The crash was also very high profile...the aircraft planted itself smack in the middle of a major intersection right in the middle of the day. The story, complete with color close-ups ran front page for days in the Winnipeg Sun. The Sun realizes its circulation from sensationalizing storys like this one and they got alot of mileage with that story.
I find myself wondering if this and a few other forums didn't have a little bit to do with it. I have it from a very reliable source that this site and a number of other similair sites are bookmarked on a couple of Transport computers in a least one city...I have also overheard conversations in the local airport coffee shop between inspectors referencing threads from this forum. Shortly after this occurance many on this forum were very vocal and were screaming for Transport action, along with criminal action. This site is not operating in an aviation vacum, its not a stretch to think that the idea to pursue something like this was in part spawned from the reaction being posted and read by a non aviation type. (insert lawyer)
The crash was also very high profile...the aircraft planted itself smack in the middle of a major intersection right in the middle of the day. The story, complete with color close-ups ran front page for days in the Winnipeg Sun. The Sun realizes its circulation from sensationalizing storys like this one and they got alot of mileage with that story.
-
southbound
- Rank 2
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:40 pm
Old Key......
Having a couple of thousand hours on the type of a/c that was involved in the accident. How is it that the organization figured that there was 5 hrs worth of gas on a Chieftain without nacelle tanks. It is widely supported in the industry that the a/c has 4.5 hrs if that. To get 5 hrs you need to lean the absolute shit out of the engines. There is no way the trip could have been done without refueling if there was 4.5 hrs worth of gas on board .
Sounds like gross negligence to me. What is an AFM for anyway........what do I know anyway :?: :wink:
Having a couple of thousand hours on the type of a/c that was involved in the accident. How is it that the organization figured that there was 5 hrs worth of gas on a Chieftain without nacelle tanks. It is widely supported in the industry that the a/c has 4.5 hrs if that. To get 5 hrs you need to lean the absolute shit out of the engines. There is no way the trip could have been done without refueling if there was 4.5 hrs worth of gas on board .
Sounds like gross negligence to me. What is an AFM for anyway........what do I know anyway :?: :wink:
LT…I think you missed my point. The crown attorney is going to use his PPC against him; the crown attorney is going to demonstrate that he was well trained, current and competent on type. ie a professional pilot and more importantly a specialist, his PPC will prove him to be a specialist on that aircraft type. His lawyer will not be able to argue he made a mistake or that he didn't know or recognize he was going to come up grossly short on the fuel...the omission of the care usual under the circumstances. In common law a specialist is bound to a higher skill and diligence in his specialty than someone who is not. The brass ring or should I say the PPC is going to handcuff him.
It's amazing to me just how many lawyer members are on Avcourt er... Avcanada. It's great to discover that many of the pilots on this board are experts in so many fields. With the right threads, we should be able to determine how many doctors, dentists, professors, politicians...ahh forget it.
To sum up the thread:
For the charge - the younger "sounding" posters, ie wilber, goldenhawk, cpt s&j.
Against the charge - the sagey viejos, ie doc, cd, rebel.
Look forward to the page 7 summary tomorow. Out
To sum up the thread:
For the charge - the younger "sounding" posters, ie wilber, goldenhawk, cpt s&j.
Against the charge - the sagey viejos, ie doc, cd, rebel.
Look forward to the page 7 summary tomorow. Out
No. I know what you meant, the Crown will show, "yes he was trained"Hot Fuel wrote:LT…I think you missed my point.
His lawyer will not be able to argue he made a mistake.
But his lawyer doesn't need to prove a mistake(which show negligence).
His lawyer is proving that when the TC examiner was onboard he didn't see a problem with his fuel management.
As such, since TC approved him for this job, TC should have done a better job on the PPC.
Or atleast that's how I hope his lawyer spins it.
In which case, hopefully the lawyer will make PPCs useless.
If you're gonna fry the guy, you better take many many more people with him!
Don't we have accessory to the fact in Canada? In which case sure you could get pilot on Man 1, but I want to see, everyone else join him that can be blamed.
Cat, I would say the likely reason this incident has lead to criminal charges when other similar incidents have not, is because of where it happened. In this case the airplane was planted in the middle of major city with a large and competant police force rather than on airport property or somewhere in the bush. While TC accident investigators focus on finding the causes of accidents, the police would be investigating with a view to assertaining the presence of criminal conduct. As well, the police will have far greater experience and skill in conducting investigations in general, and will do a much better job of determing what the pilot was thinking and doing during the lead up to the crash.
It will be interesting to see what evidence the crown proffers in this case. I would also point out that at this point this pilot is only accused of a crime. The crown has not yet proved its case, and may yet withdraw or stay the charges as they and the police continue to investigate and way all the circumstances involved. The crown is still a long way from even deciding to actually proceed with the matter.
Never, you're dead wrong about me. I wish I were young, but alas I am not. Started flying in the 70's, but have only worked at it part-time since the 80's. Have been working in the justice system full-time for a little over 20 years. Will go back flying full-time when I retire in a couple years.
It will be interesting to see what evidence the crown proffers in this case. I would also point out that at this point this pilot is only accused of a crime. The crown has not yet proved its case, and may yet withdraw or stay the charges as they and the police continue to investigate and way all the circumstances involved. The crown is still a long way from even deciding to actually proceed with the matter.
Never, you're dead wrong about me. I wish I were young, but alas I am not. Started flying in the 70's, but have only worked at it part-time since the 80's. Have been working in the justice system full-time for a little over 20 years. Will go back flying full-time when I retire in a couple years.
LT…I agree that if all the allegations of “company culture” are true then there are others that should sit in front of a judge and jury. Perhaps this trail will expose them and their negligence as well, eventually making them account for their actions as well.
For those that think this is bad news for pilots and aviation think about the message it will send to other operators of similar size and scope, especially if it reaches deeper into the company and higher up the ladder due in part to testimony that comes out in the trail.
For those that think this is bad news for pilots and aviation think about the message it will send to other operators of similar size and scope, especially if it reaches deeper into the company and higher up the ladder due in part to testimony that comes out in the trail.
[quote="Wilbur"]" As well, the police will have far greater experience and skill in conducting investigations in general, and will do a much better job of determing what the pilot was thinking and doing during the lead up to the crash."
Hmm I wonder what the TSB would make of this statement...
Hmm I wonder what the TSB would make of this statement...
-
Guest_From_Mars
- Rank 0
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:00 pm
None of us in YWG knew anything more about this then any of you in the court of public opinion. Some things still remain here. The autopilot did not work; therefore he should not have gone. However the a/c still flew fine. He did not have the transport Canada required amount of fuel, but he did have enough fuel to make it. And don't forget he thought he had more based on the block fuel numbers they used.
He made a huge mistake, but it's not like he willfully knew he did not have enough fuel for the flight and was going to run out of gas. He willfully thought it was tighter then it should have been. Should landing on the ramp with less then legal reserves put you in court? That's all it would have been had he made the landing instead of overshooting. It would have been an everyday thing that happens all the time in Canada. He pushed it to far, but
Every one of us who has dipped a hundred feet on approach has put our passengers in the same situation; we all justified it to ourselves some how. Everyone one of us who has taken off overweight knowing if one of the engines went we would be in the ground or unable to meet climb gradients has put are passengers in the situation, and we all justified it to ourselves some how. This industry is just far too guilt to pass this much judgment on one guys life. And everyone who says you can't blame management for everything fair enough, but how about for their fair share. Does anyone really think management didn't have a part to play in this, there just no way. No one would push that far unless someone was pushing them.
He made a huge mistake, but it's not like he willfully knew he did not have enough fuel for the flight and was going to run out of gas. He willfully thought it was tighter then it should have been. Should landing on the ramp with less then legal reserves put you in court? That's all it would have been had he made the landing instead of overshooting. It would have been an everyday thing that happens all the time in Canada. He pushed it to far, but
Every one of us who has dipped a hundred feet on approach has put our passengers in the same situation; we all justified it to ourselves some how. Everyone one of us who has taken off overweight knowing if one of the engines went we would be in the ground or unable to meet climb gradients has put are passengers in the situation, and we all justified it to ourselves some how. This industry is just far too guilt to pass this much judgment on one guys life. And everyone who says you can't blame management for everything fair enough, but how about for their fair share. Does anyone really think management didn't have a part to play in this, there just no way. No one would push that far unless someone was pushing them.
-
shitdisturber
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
Snj; why don't you get off your high horse and stop being such a hypocrite! By your own admission, you've been busted three times for, i'll be nice, questionable judgement. How close did you come to killing someone and were just lucky? How many more times should you have been caught and just got away with it? To quote the bible; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Under those precepts you should be standing with your hands in your pockets hoping nobody looks your way. It must be nice to be so perfect; no wait, we already know you're a thrice convicted f@#kup don't we.
