Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence

[xsbank]

If TC was doing its job properly, it would have inspectors 'out there' who would be similar to beat cops - they would drop into offices and hang out on ramps and go to coffee shops (and the Flying Beav!), fly the odd jump-seat and they would know what's going on. Not only would that make sense in an enforcement sense, but if they hob-knobbed with the crews out there, we would stop treating them like adversaries and maybe pay attention to the good they could do for us.

Read most of the posts here, (even ignoring Cat's missives) and you will see a serious lack of credibility with TC and almost a fear of them when they do surface from their offices. This fear arises because the only time the average pilot meets TC is in a situation that can affect their livelihood.

TC would know the state of this industry if they participated in the operational side of it once in a while.

TC, like every other aspect of aviation, must be having retirements and attrition in their inspectors yet they are not hiring. That says to me loud and clear that TC thinks the day of the 'inspector' is over, the new face of TC is an auditor. Its a lot easier to read how someone else is doing the work (SMS) than to do it yourself.

[Doc]

In reality, they're sitting in their "Ivory Towers" sipping Tea, and waiting for their pension plans to kick in.

[CID]

And SMS will enable bad operators and allow them to keep on operating as they now do by generating paperwork to placate TCCA.

Can I borrow your crystal ball Cat? You lent it to widow and carholme already.

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

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... highlight=

[the_professor]

Likely the first verdict like this in North America.

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?src=loc&rem=78475

Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence
NOV 01 2007 07:50 PM


A pilot has been found guilty for a plane crash that killed a man and injured four others in Winnipeg five years ago..
A judge has found #### ##### guilty of one count of criminal negligence causing death and four causing bodily harm. He was also convicted on a charge of dangerous operation of an aircraft.

Mark Tayfel's name has been published in countless Winnipeg Free Press articles (available online to anyone on the face of the globe) over the past several years relating to this accident. His name appears in countless court records, TSB and TC files, etc.

Edit: Names never appear in publicly-available TSB reports, so I retract that piece.

Why is his name censored in this post?

[the_professor]

Well lets put aside the fact that the pilot is responsible for his/her own actions.

If as many here allege the owner of Keystone has been managing his company in contravention of the CAR's and seems to be getting away with it, we must ask where TC is in all this.

Are they unaware of this situation?

Are they for some reason being held to ransom by said owner because said owner has something on someone in TC?

Is someone in TC being payed off?

Are the people in charge of TC in that region incompetent?

TC should never be charged with the responsibility of making sure pilots don't make idiotic judgement calls, which is what you're suggesting here.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; in Cat's case, everything under the sun is TC's fault, and always will be. Well not this time, Cat.

Nobody forced Tayfel to take off and then make a string of shitty decisions and errors along the way.

I wouldn't have wanted this to come out any other way if it had been my grandpa or relative on board. Would anyone else on here?

[Widow]

Nobody forced Tayfel to take off and then make a string of shitty decisions and errors along the way.

Nobody protected Tayfel's right to say NO either.

From SATOPs:

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.

Aviation Occupational Health & Safety
Quite a bit of advisory and promotional material available here and distributed throughout the country. One place that it is potentially lacking, and that has been mentioned in previous discussions on this site, is that perhaps the puppy mills... um, I mean the flight schools and colleges should include courses on the CLC and AOHSRs for ab initio pilots. I know that Confederation College used to...

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=32236

[CD]

Pilots: Stay Safe, Know Your Rights

[Widow]

Well we're trying CD!!!

[xsbank]

This guy Tayfel did not operate in a vacuum. His employer, TC and the vaunted TC paper audits should all have picked on these bogus flights, the bogus paperwork and the filing of nonsensical alternates.

How you guys can't see that these others are culpable too completely blows my mind. Yes, ultimately, the PIC is responsible; but, if you live in Quebec, nobody stops for stop signs and signalling is seen as a sign of weakness. Can't you see that the 'culture' of the organization you are working in will influence how you do your job? In my village, there are very few bylaw officers (one?) or police and so people park in handicap zones, walk their dogs in no-dog areas, park in bus stops, stop in the main part of the road to "run in" to the library, you name it. Because there is no enforcement, people do what ever they think they are 'entitled' to and an attitude that people tend to 'cherry pick' the rules they will obey, follows.

Keystone is no different.

[the_professor]

Nobody forced Tayfel to take off and then make a string of shitty decisions and errors along the way.

Nobody protected Tayfel's right to say NO either.

Widow, PDM (Pilot Decision Making) is something that is taught from day one at any flight school or flying club. The pressures facing pilots are made abundantly clear; whether it is an enthusiastic friend who just wants to go for a ride without any understanding of weather and other circumstances, or whether it is an asshole employer. Tayfel was no rookie, it was his own judgement that allowed him to, among other things:

- take off with a ludicrous amount of fuel for the planned trip,
- take off, AGAINST regulations, without a functioning autopilot (which might otherwise have salvaged his first approach into YWG, thus turning this into a non-event),
- NOT inform ATC of his dire predicament, either inbound to YWG, or immediately upon commencing a missed approach. Had he declared a fuel emergency at that point, the controller would have brought him in for rwy 36, as opposed to vectoring him around the city.

Please don't blame the system this time.

[the_professor]

This guy rolled the dice and came up with snake eyes. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say 75% of us/you could have gotten tagged with the same thing at some point in our careers. What does that say of our industry?
[/b]

It says that too many pilots are drones, which probably explains the pay level.

If you know it is wrong, and you were taught that it was wrong, then why the hell are you doing it? For those of you who think of Tayfel's situation and say "Gee, I feel sorry for the guy because I've done stupid shit like that and managed to get away with it", then you'd better have a pretty goddamned hard look at your integrity as a person.

Because anyone who pulls idiotic stunts like Tayfel and gets away with it is lucky, and nothing more. Not more skilled, and not more deserving of holding a licence, and certainly not qualified to have me or any of my family members on board.

If you make stupid decisions when you should know better, and you put your passengers' lives at risk, then you bloody well deserve the same consequences as Tayfel if Murphy's Law catches up with you during the flight. And rightly so, because you should know better.

Maybe after this case people will actually wake up and realize that PIC responsibility is not something that exists in a flying textbook. It is real, and you can destroy many, many lives beyond those on board if you flaunt that responsibility.

I don't feel sorry for Tayfel; I am disgusted by him.

[Widow]

I didn't say I feel sorry for him, he f'd up, and it seems he knows it. Feeling remorse is a step in the right direction, but nor does it excuse his actions.

But it seems clear that Keystone propogated this kind of behaviour, even encouraged it, and that TC has condoned it.

That does not sit well with me. IMO, Tayfel, Keystone and TC are equally responsible.

[CID]

Nobody protected Tayfel's right to say NO either.

But it seems clear that Keystone propogated this kind of behaviour, even encouraged it, and that TC has condoned it.

That does not sit well with me. IMO, Tayfel, Keystone and TC are equally responsible.

widow, I'm convinced that you've completely lost it now. Where is your evidence?

[the_professor]

I didn't say I feel sorry for him, he f'd up, and it seems he knows it. Feeling remorse is a step in the right direction, but nor does it excuse his actions.

"I'm sorry that I departed with 65% of the required fuel on board."

If someone who killed a family member told me that as an offer of remorse I'd rip their head off right then and there.

Some of you people are not understanding this: He didn't "make a mistake". He didn't "F' up". You make a mistake when you forget to set an alarm clock, or accidentally throw your girlfriend's cotton sweater in the dryer.

What Tayfel did does not even enter the realm of "mistake". He was convicted of criminal negligance because what he did was light years beyond a "mistake".

[Rudderless]

You know, TC makes the rules, but the philosophy is that the majority of the public will follow society's rules. How do you predict if, when or who won't follow the rules.

So, let's blame the taxman when someone files a false return, let's blame the OPP when someone drives drunk and kills someone, let's blame the bylaw people when your neighbour's dog barks all night, let's blame the police when someone steals your bicycle. Hello, people, we are all responsible for our own conduct and behaviour. Are pilots not supposedly mature men and women in a responsible decision making position? How offensive is it to give them excuses for unsafe practices as if they are children that don't know any better. Any pilot that makes unsafe choices to keep a probably shitty paying job, should find another line of work. His potential fare-paying passengers will thank him.

[BugSmasher]

Mark is one of the most sincere, harmless people I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Yes, he made a mistake, and it has been handled by TC, but convicting him of criminal charges, is like charging Mother Theresa of Extortion. Mark is the furthest thing I've ever known from the definition of a criminal. He is hard-working, modest, professional, and truly one of the good-guys in the world. It sickened me when I heard the news that he had been convicted. My heart, and my prayers are with him, and his wife, for an expeditious conclusion to this horrible chapter in his life.

Think about this. Captain Al Haynes cart-wheels a DC10 and kills 110 out of 285 people (39%). He's credited with getting the plane to an airfield where CFR can assist, and he's called a hero. Mark Tayfel, in an emergency situation, puts his plane on to a city street and nobody dies until the family of the victim pulled the plug on dear old Dad, (17%) and Mark's labeled a criminal. So I guess if he had nosed it into the ground outside of the city limits, and been the only survivor, it would have been a tragic accident and Mark would be a free man now. This judgment sickens me, and we should all be sad for the plague that this judge could have just unleashed on our industry.

Your friends and colleagues are with you Mark. You can always count on that.

[the_professor]

Think about this. Captain Al Haynes cart-wheels a DC10 and kills 110 out of 285 people (39%). He's credited with getting the plane to an airfield where CFR can assist, and he's called a hero. Mark Tayfel, in an emergency situation, puts his plane on to a city street and nobody dies until the family of the victim pulled the plug on dear old Dad, (17%) and Mark's labeled a criminal.

That's one of the stupidest analogies I've ever seen.

Haynes found himself in a situation that he had no personal involvement in creating and did a great job handling it.

Tayfel made a concious decision to take off with multiple deficiencies. He never should have turned a prop that day, and probably realized that while he was bouncing off the top of the bus he hit on the way down to street level.

Haynes is a hero. Tayfel is nothing of the sort, and if his "friends and collegues are with him", then they all need a shitload of retraining and a reality check.

[the_professor]

He is hard-working, modest, professional, and truly one of the good-guys in the world.

The fact that you call him a professional is exactly what is wrong with too many pilots today.

No professional takes off knowing what Tayfel knew. And if he didn't know it, then it's even more evidence of how unprofessional he was.

[Widow]

Do the police know people drive drunk and therefore advertise the consequences and set up roadblocks to try to "mitigate" the risk, or do they just sit back and wait for someone to get killed before attempting to stop it from happening? When it does happen, do they say - well, just write up your plan of what you'll do to make sure it doesn't happen again, and we'll give you back your drivers license - or are there serious repercussions?

I doubt there is anyone who "excuses" this pilots actions. But if what many of the posters here are saying is true, this pilot was not the only one breaking the regs at Keystone - he's just the only one whose luck ran out.

[the_professor]

But if what many of the posters here are saying is true, this pilot was not the only one breaking the regs at Keystone - he's just the only one whose luck ran out.

Widow, your credibility as a rational & intelligent person dwindles with each post you make on this topic. Wake up.

[Widow]

I didn't know I had any credibility in your eyes to start with professor.

[Cat Driver]

I wouldn't lose to much sleep over it widow if I were you......

[the_professor]

I didn't know I had any credibility in your eyes to start with professor.

I think you have a lot of credibility with most everyone who frequents this board, myself included, because of what your personal efforts have been able to accomplish with the investigation into the accident that killed your husband.

However, you have a tendency to paint all aviation problems with the same brush -- that a "systemic problem" is always to blame. I'm not the only one to make that observation either. "If only company management had acted differently"... "If only TC had more inspectors"...

I am not saying, and have never said, that Keystone is blameless in this crash. Culture had a role.

But I am tired of the frequent response from the pilot community in cases like this (and/or in society at large, across a host of areas), where the finger is pointed elsewhere.

The safety of an aircraft rests with the pilot in command. The CARs could not possibly be more explicit on this. Every pilot knows this. It is tested and reinforced at every level from private to ATPL. Civilian pilots-in-command are not following orders. They are not operating with a gun to their head.

The courts appear to agree: The responsibility for the safety of the flight ultimately rests with the pilot, period.

No passenger can be guaranteed of arriving at their destination in one piece, whether it is on a bus or a plane. But are passengers entitled to the basic and reasonable expectation that the flight will depart with serviceable equipment and sufficient fuel? Obviously. And when that doesn't happen, barring any other evidence, the responsibility for the failure will rest with the pilot.

[Cat Driver]

Is there a statute of limitations for charging someone with criminal negligence causing death in an airplane accident?

Because I'm thinking there should be a lot more pilots charged and lets let a court decide on their guilt.

[justplanecrazy]

Cat there's no statute of limitations on indictable offences and crim neg causing death is an idictable offence.

I'm a little confused on your stance, do you feel the pilot shouldn't be charged or at least lose his licence for the rest of his life?

Like most from my generation I was exposed to the culture of risk taking such as no seats in bush planes and horrendous over loads.

I was more fortunate than most because a lot of experienced high time pilots took the time to explain to me that the rules were put there for a reason and very early in my career I refused to compromise and cut corners for any employer.

Shouldn't this be the attitude that you should have towards this case? You're now the experienced high time guy preaching when to say no... This pilot should have said no and now he's paying a minor penalty in comparison to what his passenger paid. Yes I know you feel TC is corrupt and partly responsible but are you defending the pilot for not saying no?