Keystone blames Transport Canada.

[CID]

YYZ_Instructor,

I hear you. If the attitude indicator is busted and its required by the type certificate or an operating rule, the airplane shouldn't go until its fixed.

The AME should make the assessment and refuse to sign off the snag if its required by the type design.

If the thing is required for the particular flight by and operating rule, the pilot should refuse to go.

One of the biggest problems we have in the 703 sector is the lack of respsonsible people who will put their foot down and refuse to push the limits and the proliferation of owners who continue to try to push people beyond the limits.

Cat Driver's tag line is true;

The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

It should be the easiest thing and training is the key. Regulation without training is only half a solution.

[LH]

We all know why the TSB goes looking for the PIC FIRST after any "Accident" or "Incident".........'cause the PIC is where the mother-fuckin' buck stops.......AND that's the way it should be. This is not "rocket science" here folks and why try to blame the engineer, the owner, the secretary, the janitor, MoT, the insurance company, the other pilots or the aircraft? Remember.......the trial is about the accident and not about why he didn't say "NO!" to the flight. At this point in time, nobody of note really gives a shit anymore why he didn't say "NO"......it's a sidenote at best.

CID called it exactly correct and oh yeah......... welcome to the world of commercial aviation to any "newbies" out there.

[stratcat]

it isnt easy for a newbie to refuse to go,especially at companies where the owners really push pilots and make things hard if you dont go. Everyone says just dont go but unless you have worked at the certain outfits no one can judge. When you refuse to go there is always a yes man that will and sets the new standard at the company. Then your compared to the next pilot and your a bad pilot for not going when someone else does.Its a vicious cycle. keystone has the biggest reputation for pushing pilots, "yes" men go. The cycle continues.

[Widow]

Lest we forget:

Pilots can be pressured by management to take a flight in poor weather conditions or with an overloaded aircraft or with an unserviceable aircraft fearing dismissal if they don't take the trip. Many pilots are unaware of the Canada Labour Code, Part II or the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Regulations and the methods of recourse that are open to them if they feel they have been unfairly treated by an air operator or if they refuse to work because of dangerous work conditions. Air operators should also be aware of their rights and the rights of their employees as outlined in the Canada Labour Code, Part II and the OSH Regulations.

SR 36 - Recommend Transport Canada promote awareness of the Canada Labour Code, Part II and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) regulations to the aviation industry.
IA 36 - Recommend air operators and pilots educate themselves on the Canada Labour Code, Part II and the OSH regulations.

When a pilot is being paid by the mile or the hour flown, or is being paid only for completed flights, it puts pressure on the pilot to fly as many hours as possible and to complete the flights. These methods of remuneration have a direct and negative effect on the pilot's decision making, especially in seasonal operations where there are only a few weeks or months to work. Some operators offset this pressure by paying their pilots a fixed salary. Others require the client to pay for the flight time if the client wants to just "take a look" at the weather and the pilot doesn't complete the flight.

SR 37 - Recommend Transport Canada investigate a means to require air operators to remunerate pilots in a way that eliminates the operating pressures associated with the method of payment.

IA 37 - Recommend air operators and pilots acknowledge the negative effect that the "pay-by-the-mile" method of payment can have on safe operational decision making. Recommend air operators and pilots make decisions based on safety, not remuneration and that air operators consider other methods of remunerating pilots.

or this

When an accident occurs, often the pilot is the only one held accountable. While the pilot may be at fault for having made a poor decision or series of decisions that led to the accident, other questions have to be asked... Were there any systemic problems in the company? What was management’s role in the accident? What did management do to prevent the accident? What is management doing to prevent a recurrence? Management must be accountable for the safety of the day-to-day operations. When management is held responsible for an accident, they will become more proactive in promoting safe operating practices.

SR 30 - Recommend the Transportation Safety Board evaluate the management factors that contributed to the accident during the accident investigation.

SATOPs

[tumbleweed]

That OHS stuff is all fine and good. How does a pilot prove he was pushed. Certain managers are very good at hinting or implying that "If a guy just..." some of you will know who I am quoting. What is needed at the flight school level is a little education on the act, and have them springloaded and thinking. If the flight is unsafe get documents to back it up. Keep a copy of the weather for the time of diparture and pruposed flight plan and load manifest for the flight at the pruposed time. Without that it is all he said she and the managers are the experinced proffesionals.

That is the biggest trouble with young low timers they are not thinking that far ahead. Most just go out and do it and best case senario they just scare the shit out of themselves. Then vow to never do it again. Then they have gained some experience and are looking for a better job somewhere else.

[xsbank]

YYZ-I, I always took the position that if it was installed in the a/c it had to work, otherwise remove it (I don't mean coffee pots, although that is critical equipment!). That seemed to solve the issue.

Another way to solve the problem is to follow the CARS, as copied above, write the defect in the journey log. Then it becomes maintenance's problem. If you don't like the answer you get from maintenance, you just don't go. Your decision. If you are getting pressured to fly the thing anyway, make sure it is documented (written in the log) and you would have a good case for wrongful dismissal (go for damages, not reinstatement!).

After all is said and done, its your butt up there, along with all those unsuspecting people who paid to ride with you and get to their destination safely and pay your salary!

[CD]

That OHS stuff is all fine and good. How does a pilot prove he was pushed. Certain managers are very good at hinting or implying that "If a guy just..." some of you will know who I am quoting. What is needed at the flight school level is a little education on the act, and have them springloaded and thinking. If the flight is unsafe get documents to back it up. Keep a copy of the weather for the time of diparture and pruposed flight plan and load manifest for the flight at the pruposed time. Without that it is all he said she and the managers are the experinced proffesionals.

That is the biggest trouble with young low timers they are not thinking that far ahead. Most just go out and do it and best case senario they just scare the shit out of themselves. Then vow to never do it again. Then they have gained some experience and are looking for a better job somewhere else.

We've talked about this here before and it's a good idea to bring it up again every once in a while so that more people read about it:

Right to Refuse Dangerous Work on Board Aircraft While in Operation

Aviation Occupational Health & Safety

CD: how come no one seems to know about this TP 13537 - Right to Refuse Dangerous Work on Board Aircraft While in Operation ? Or use it?

Both good questions. I believe that there are refusals that occur, just not likely pilots that are doing the refusing. As far as employees knowledge of their rights, it could be a lack of understanding or a lack of communication. It's likely not a topic of discussion during initial flight training. Employers do have a duty to provide a safe work environment for their employees and should be communicating this.

Individuals should also take responsibility for seeking out information as well, which is something that can be seen on websites such as this every day where questions are being asked.

Here are a few more links to the AOH&S website information...

AC 0140 - The Aviation Occupational Safety and Health (A-OSH) Program
AC 0202R - Employer and Employee Rights and Responsibilities, with respect to Employees Refusing to Work in Dangerous Situations
As an employer ... Are you ensuring the health and safety of your employees?
Pilots Can Refuse to Work

[2R]

Any Court dates yet ???
Should be better than any Springer episode

[Widow]

'Gimli glider' recalled at trial of pilot in crash
Last Updated: Thursday, April 26, 2007 | 7:06 PM CT
CBC News

The lawyer for a pilot facing charges in connection with a plane crash in 2002 brought up the famous "Gimli glider" air incident at the trial Thursday.

Mark Tayfel has pleaded not guilty to criminal negligence causing death. Tayfel was flying a Piper Navajo operated by Keystone Air that ran out of fuel on a flight from a fishing lodge in northern Manitoba in June 2002.

The plane, with six American fishermen on board, crashed in north Winnipeg, near the intersection of McPhillips Street and Logan Avenue. One passenger died months later of the injuries he sustained.

Defence lawyer Balfour Der cross-examined Joseph Gaudry, an official from Transport Canada, on Thursday morning, asking him if he recalled the case of the "Gimli glider."

In the famous 1983 flight, an Air Canada Boeing 767 ran out of fuel and glided to an abandoned airbase in Gimli, Man. The plane ran out of fuel due to a mistake that was made when calculating the fuel load.

Der wanted to know if the pilot in that case had been charged.

Gaudry acknowledged the case was well known in his department, but said he didn't know if the pilot of the plane had been found responsible. The case had been handled out of Ottawa and not locally, he said.

Tayfel could have landed the Keystone Air plane at several alternate airfields on the way to Winnipeg, even if it meant breaking certain restrictions on those fields, Gaudry told the court.

In the Gimli case, none of the 61 passengers were injured during the landing, although some sustained minor injuries while using the plane's rear emergency slide.

After the landing, the pilot and co-pilot were praised for their quick thinking, but months later, Air Canada disciplined them for allowing the near-tragedy to happen. The pilot was demoted for six months, the co-pilot was suspended for two weeks and three ground workers were also suspended.

A 1985 Transport Canada report blamed the incident on errors and insufficient training and safety procedures.

In the Winnipeg crash landing, the Transportation Safety Board determined the pilot was flying too high and too fast to make a successful landing at the Winnipeg airport. The pilot also miscalculated how much fuel was needed for the flight, officials said.

The TSB's 2003 report on the incident said the pilot didn't tell air traffic controllers about his critical situation soon enough, and the aircraft did not meet regulations for the flight because it did not have an autopilot system.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story ... lider.html

[bob sacamano]

I'm not seeing the name of the owner of keystoned in this lawsuit.

I know you read this forum big shot, come on and tell us more about the above industry average that you provide for your pilots. I heard flight safety's gonna contract you to do the training for navajos in Canada.

By the way, what's the fail rate for your new pilots? something to think about.

I guess you're opting to stay out of this, you know you'll get your mug bitten off over here.

[paralyzer]

Do you mean Dan ?

Maybe they can't do that. Sometimes carriers borrow planes from other carriers, do you think that changes things?

[tumbleweed]

Bob you are getting too personal. This case should be well documented and used as a case study in ground schools for commercial students. This situation is almost a perfect worst case senario. This company and guy should be a poster for how things are not done.

This is the perfect cheese model. Pushy boss (perhaps) inexperienced pilot, heavy load, reletively long leg and perhaps lower that forcast weather.

The fact that he was flying IFR shows poor company culture the ops manager should be named in this suite too, because low time pilots don't do anything with out permision or guidance(and that includes not snagging something)

I hope flight schools are taking very detailed notes on this one

[bob sacamano]

Bob you are getting too personal.

Personal?

Not sure if you've had any experience in dealing with similar companies and personnel. These companies exist all over the world, not just saying this is keystone, however this thread is about them and a very important court that is taking place. Guess what, many guys and girls are pure lucky that they are not in this pilot's shoes.

So many make it home at night cos luck was on their side. Wether it was because of their own lack of experience or maybe the lack of maintenance on the equipement they are flying.

Why do we have to sit back and be easy on those operators? They push new pilots on a daily basis. Guess what, this industry is small, and word gets around. The culture that they promote and operate under is one that is like a cancer! it's gonna kill you. They think that pilots owe them something. They wanna push the young ones, well guess what, they need to be pushed themselves.

The owner of this said company has come on here and tried to defend his stance, which he has full right to do so. Forum is a place to discuss things. I never mentioned any names for this to get personal. He said some statements and I am holding him to the statements that he made. Nothing personal about that.

If you are easily offended, grab a box of tissue, you will need it, not from crying, but we occasionaly post pictures of hot girls.

[tumbleweed]

I sand corrected. I have been in simular situations in the past. I really believe this topic and the out come of the trial should be posted as a sticky so it doesn't move down once people quit writing in here.

[2R]

An interesting defense.But the diffeences in companies is immense.
The mistake of the Gimli glider was an honest one and everyone fessed up .Those honest confessions made aviation safer by preventing a similar incident at all air carriers.

Keystone had how many fuel related accidents???
The only defence that will work for these guys would be to fess up and throw themselves at the mercy of the court.

To compare these deliberate acts of willful negligence that this company and it's employees were engaged in to an honest one is a stretch of credability .Both in terms of science law and morality.

That is a defence that may have worked if this company had no history of fuel problems.Pilot is probably wishing he checked the fuel before the flight or stopped and topped up rather than fly on with fumes and guages reading low towards an airport that was close to minimums.If i was him i would forget the fancy legal dancing and fess up .

Where is he flying now ???Did they give him his old job back yet ???

[Doc]

I wasn't going to get into this, but with all the "He said. she said..." going on, the bottom line remains......The pilot is the one that ran the tanks dry. Not the company. Not maintenance. The pilot. And just how easy would it have been to prevent this from happening in the first place. Regardless of the corporate climate that existed at Keystone at the time (and I'm in agreement here, it sucked!) it was the pilot who ran out of gas. The auto-pilot had nothing to do with the outcome. And really, neither did Keystone. Taking enough fuel to do the trip, or topping up somewhere in route is really pretty basic airmanship?
Having it end up in court with criminal charges however, is a really scary thought. I think the guy is guilty as hell. But it should be a law suit thing. And he should pay for his mistake. Because while we all make them...his was inexcusable. It resulted in death. But Jail? We'd just all better watch our butts!

[Widow]

The pilot cannot be civilly sued. He was/is protected by the workers compensation act.

[tripleittt]

Sued...maybe not but he may go to prison for Criminal Negligence causing death.

[Widow]

The operator and Transport Canada on the other hand ...

Pilot gambled and lost: Crown
Criminal negligence charged in crash

Tue Apr 24 2007

By Mike McIntyre



A Keystone Air pilot gambled with his passenger's safety -- and lost -- when he attempted a 400-kilometre flight with only half a tank of gas and ended up crash landing into a busy Winnipeg intersection, a judge heard Monday at the opening of a unique criminal trial.
Mark Tayfel, 41, has pleaded not guilty to criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of an aircraft stemming from the June 11, 2002 crash.

Tayfel and five American passengers survived the impact, which included bouncing off a transit bus, shearing off a light standard, cutting through the box of a three-tonne truck and coming to rest near a gas station and line of houses on Logan Avenue just west of McPhillips Street.

But Chester Jones, 79, of Kansas, suffered extensive injuries that would ultimately claim his life three months later.

Several of the survivors are expected to begin testifying today via closed-circuit television.

Crown attorney Brian Wilford quickly outlined the case against Tayfel on Monday, saying he failed in his duty to ensure the small plane was safe to fly. The case is believed to be one of the first of its kind ever held in Canada.
Tayfel's lawyers admit he ran out of fuel but told court the only legal question to answer is whether the pilot's conduct fell below the appropriate standard. They claim it was not and Tayfel took "reasonable" steps to ensure a safe flight. No further details were given during a brief opening statement.

Queen's Bench Justice Holly Beard was shown dramatic pictures and video of the crash site this morning from Winnipeg police officers who rushed to the chaotic scene. No serious injuries were sustained by anyone on the ground.

Tayfel had been flying the passengers back to Winnipeg after they had completed a week-long fishing trip at Budd's Gunisao Lake Lodge in northern Manitoba, court was told.

The Piper Navajo Chieftain's twin engines suddenly quit when it ran out of fuel on its second approach to Winnipeg International Airport.

Terry Adams had been a co-pilot of Tayfel's earlier that morning when they flew a different set of passengers to the lodge from Winnipeg. He said there was half a tank of gas left when they touched down and Adams got off with the guests.

Tayfel then immediately picked up the waiting passengers and headed back to Winnipeg -- this time into a headwind that would likely require even greater fuel consumption and more time than the 90-minute flight north required, said Adams.

Adam -- testifying on closed-circuit television Monday from Milwaukee -- told court he never would have attempted the return flight without refueling. He noted there was fuel available at the northern lodge.

"At best, you maybe have two hours of fuel left. Ultimately, I would want more fuel for that trip," he said. Adams had never previously flown with Tayfel but described him as a capable pilot who clearly was in control during their flight up together.

"There was nothing in his demeanour or anything else to give me reason for concern," said Adams, who has 45 years of flying experience.

Tayfel was initially hailed for his role in getting the plane down with no immediate loss of life, but 10 months later the Transportation Safety Board of Canada ruled Tayfel and Keystone were responsible for numerous mistakes that led to the crash.

The TSB found the pilot didn't properly calculate how much fuel he needed to fly from the lodge to Winnipeg, he didn't make sure the plane was equipped with a mandatory autopilot, and he didn't tell air traffic controllers of his critical fuel situation in a timely manner.

Keystone was cited for not giving enough supervision, not stopping the flight because there was no autopilot, and not having a safety system in place to prevent incidents like this from happening.

Jones' estate and the five survivors have launched a lawsuit against the airline, the northern fishing lodge which booked the flight as part of a package trip, and Transport Canada.

[short bus]

Something stuck me as odd there. Adams, the copilot, has 45 years of flying experience yet he's a navajo f/o?

[stratcat]

i seen that too,must have been a pilot going fishing. keystone doesnt run anything 2 crew,its all single pilot with no autopilots working,hmm,wonder how that has worked for so many years. When a customer wants 2 crew they just get someone from a flight school to sit right seat.But when almost all rules are broken whats another one right

[snaproll20]

Fellas, I think Adams was just a passenger in the right seat.

And what may I ask is wrong with a 45 year veteran being a copilot???

[short bus]

ummm.....didn't say there was anything wrong with being an f/o. Just thought that after 45 years of flying, one might progress beyond navajo copilot, but that's just me. anyway, stratcat allready cleared that one up for me.

[Doc]

I think the guy in the right seat was a passenger? He just happened to be a pilot. One would think he would have a bloody kitten looking at the fuel situation though. I'd have killed the pilot and landed for fuel!

[bob sacamano]

I wasn't going to get into this, but with all the "He said. she said..." going on, the bottom line remains......The pilot is the one that ran the tanks dry. Not the company. Not maintenance. The pilot. And just how easy would it have been to prevent this from happening in the first place. Regardless of the corporate climate that existed at Keystone at the time (and I'm in agreement here, it sucked!) it was the pilot who ran out of gas. The auto-pilot had nothing to do with the outcome. And really, neither did Keystone. Taking enough fuel to do the trip, or topping up somewhere in route is really pretty basic airmanship?
Having it end up in court with criminal charges however, is a really scary thought. I think the guy is guilty as hell. But it should be a law suit thing. And he should pay for his mistake. Because while we all make them...his was inexcusable. It resulted in death. But Jail? We'd just all better watch our butts!

I see you jump on anything and everything else that you don't agree with, and then I see you going easy on keystone here. Does your company have the same cultue? I'm not accusing, I'm asking to see how you came up with what you said.

Everyone agrees with the part that the pilot was at fault. However, I strongly disagree with you when you say that keystoned is not at fault. The owner STILL pushes guys/girls to go on without getting fuel!

I don't know what the reason was for this pilot not to get fuel, I really don't. The pilot is in court, this is done and we're not here to discuss his punishment, right now that's up to the judge. What we are trying to discuss is the culture that keystone promotes. Everyone who's worked for small charter companies know this.

Keystone does not have a healthy culture, rather one that is like a disease. If one pilot turns down a trip, he is called into the office and told that they will cut their wages. They will then send someone else to do the trip and make sure that everyone knows. Seniority? not at keystone, it's whowever gets her done that moves up.

This pilot fucked up, no doubt about it, we've been hearing it since day one of groundschool for our PPL's, PIC at fault no matter what.

How do we teach the young ones so they can prevent this from happening to themselves? It's definetly NOT by comments like yours doc where you tell them it's not keystone's fault. Who at keystone has operational control? Why did they not follow up with the PIC's ops flight plan?

They are they type who tell their pilots to use the destination airport as an alternate and use an en-route airport as destination and then change it in the air, even when it's down to mins at the destination, because after all, you're a moron (according to them), if you're coming to winnipeg and don't get in if it's down to mins. Well, if the mins do get lower, now you're fucked, who's gonna get the blame? you guessed it, the PIC is.