Keystone blames Transport Canada.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:26 am

Doc wrote:An inop auto pilot has as much to do with running out of gas, as the pilot needing a haircut. I know, it is a legal requirement, but it wouldn't have made a difference.

Are you kidding me?

I know you like to say dumb things most of the time to stir the pot, so I hope this statement is just for that.

They send out a single pilot IFR with no functioning auto-pilot.

Once again, it's the pilot's fault for taking it, but the company is also at fault.

This pilot is in court while keystone is still flying and owner still looking for his new victim.

tumbleweed · Post by **tumbleweed** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:33 am

Exactly. If that company was so safe dispatch would have been instructed to keep that airplane on the ground unless it was vfr. That is a break down from the DOM to the Ops manager to the Chief Pilot. Which would lead me to believe they quietly condoned ingnoring the inconvenient CARs. That is what needs to be stopped.

I am not defending this pilot. He should be make an example of to scare anyone currently in simular situations straight and maybe prevent it from happening again.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:41 am

Oh, I hears ya bob.....it goes towards "attitude", no doubt about it. The pilot's, and the company's. For sure. But, just between us girls, if he'd had enough gas on board, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would never have known about the missing auto-pilot. And, if we're really honest, the auto-pilot, or lack thereof did not cause the aircraft to run out of gas. Most of us, at one time or another, have departed with something not quite up to "par". Some won't admit it, but they're full of poop. I'm sure if we REALLY look, we find something wrong with a large number of single pilot flown aircraft. Most, I admit will be of a very minor nature, but we could find something.......but not carrying enough fuel to actually do the trip, with no intentions of fueling somewhere in route, I must put to you, would be pretty frikken rare!
And, i DO NOT BUY the fact that ANY company, including Keystone, would "force" the pilots "out the door" without fuel.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:52 am

tumbleweed, you're correct in that statement. No doubt about it. But, again it sounds like "finger pointing". We always blame somebody else. And they are to blame. But we, the pilots are the ones who are getting ourselves killed here. We ARE the last line of defense! It's our "bacon" in the fry pan! If we don't say "NO", this will never change! I offer up as proof to this statement, the very fact that Keystone is still allowed to operate! TC isn't on our side. They have their own agenda! People still climb aboard Keystone's Navajos. People just like you and me. The flying public has a very short memory. And, Keystone is cheap!

tofo · Post by **tofo** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:59 am

Edited as a personal attack.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:08 am

The HA's are a legally registered organization just like any company, they are just an extreme example of an organization that knowingly violates laws. How different is an employer who consistenly decides that certain laws and regulations don't apply to them, and then coerces employees into also committing violations and criminal acts? I suggest they have a lot in common, the latter employer simply being a much less extreme example.

As for backing this pilot through his trial, good luck. People who repeatedly disregard regulations and laws tend to be people with low morals, ethics, and integrity. Like rats, they run from the sinking ship. Wait until the civil suit hits court and you will really see the true nature of those involved. If that pilot feels alone now, he hasn't seen anything yet.

Why have other company managers and owners not also been charged? They typically will go with charging the person against whom they have the best chance of obtaining a conviction, and that is usually the person who actually committed the act. There is no safety in numbers when it comes to the criminal justice system. You could be one in a group of ten all doing the same thing, but be the only person who gets charged. "They were doing it too," or "they made me do it" does not change what you did or excuse it.

pushyboss · Post by **pushyboss** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:17 am

Tofo,

I believe Doc's premise was that the BA crew should have been fired for putting themselves in a position where they became unfit for duty. As an aviation manager I expect that my crews will cancel a flight when unfit. However, I also expect that they will understand the ramifications if their unfitness for duty was as a reslut of their irresponsibility.

There is a difference between self induced (i.e. 26 ounce flu) and real illness.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Tue May 01, 2007 10:18 am

Doc wrote:if he'd had enough gas on board, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would never have known about the missing auto-pilot. And, if we're really honest, the auto-pilot, or lack thereof did not cause the aircraft to run out of gas.

If the airplane was not dispatched that day, maybe the pilot would not have done that flight, and maybe we wouldn't be here discussing this, and maybe he would be flying for a/c or westjet now.

If keystone did not break the cars by dispatching a single pilot ifr flight without a functioning auto-pilot, maybe the pilot would have done the flight the next day,and maybe the winds would have been a bit stronger, and maybe he would have made it back home, just by pure chance, even if he was still wrong by taking too little fuel. Maybe the next day the weather would have been vfr, and he would've landed safely and not been too high and fast on the approach.

When an accident happens, there is a chain of events, and keystone breaking the cars is part of that chain. Why are they not in this court? It sure isn't cos the owner doesn't like courts, he's got his own room there.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 10:25 am

Keep pointing that finger there, bob. Maybe, maybe, maybe? Christ man, take responsibility for your own actions! I'm not in anybody's "court"! He could have had several HUNDRED auto-pilots....HE RAN OUT OF GAS!! Why is this so hard for you to grasp? There comes a point where you have to stand on your own two feet and look after your own ass!

IF the auto-pilot HAD been working, he STILL would have run out of gas!!!

pushyboss · Post by **pushyboss** » Tue May 01, 2007 10:26 am

Why are pilots so insistent on not taking the final responsibility for their actions. Doc is 100% correct on this. The pilot did not take enoough gas. Period. End of story. Rationalize it away all you want. Throw all the red herrings at it you want. No gas. Crash. Period. If the auto pilot.....blahblah..If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops.

Sure Keystone is probably a crappy operation. But those factors are all sideline issues to the PILOT TAKING OFF WITH NOT ENOUGH GAS!!.

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Tue May 01, 2007 10:31 am

If I understand correctly, the pilot's first approach was above the glidepath by a fair amount. If the autopilot had been functioning, and had the pilot chosen to use it for the approach, he might not have had to go missed and therefore would not have run out of fuel while doing the second approach.

It seems that not having a functioning autopilot would therefore be just as relevant to the accident as the low fuel situation.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 10:39 am

Wow! Do you actually fly? What is with you people? Is it just me? I can't see it! IF HE HAD PHONED IN SICK THAT MORNING.....
IF HE HAD WON THE LOTTERY.......
IF HE HAD, IF HE HAD, IF HE HAD........HOW ABOUT...IF HE HAD PUT ENOUGH FUEL ON THE STINKING AIRPLANE??????

It's not MY fault! My boss MADE me fly into that mountain. My boss MADE me run out of gas.......you sound like Adolph Eichmann!

Do not loose touch with the FACT that he accepted the aircraft, as is, where is. ie. low on fuel, and with no auto-pilot. He did it. Him. By himself. Period.

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Tue May 01, 2007 10:50 am

Doc wrote:IF HE HAD, IF HE HAD, IF HE HAD........HOW ABOUT...IF HE HAD PUT ENOUGH FUEL ON THE STINKING AIRPLANE??????

I am not saying the pilot is not at fault. With the fuel requirements we need to fly IFR he obviously did not have enough. No debate. I don't understand it either because I know there is fuel out there to get.

The subject of the autopilot, however is also a valid issue.

If he had the autopilot, he would have landed safely on the first approach. No one ever gets killed when the plane lands safely on the runway, and an autopilot that functioned (as required, just as fuel is) would have had a good chance of ensuring that result.

If he had taken the required fuel and gone to his alternate and ran out of fuel on his second try in Brandon it would be Keystone in court, not the pilot.

That is all anyone is trying to say. At least that is all I'm trying to say.

LH · Post by LH » Tue May 01, 2007 11:16 am

Again------this ain't rocket science and why try to make it so.

Something wrong with a/c and pilot doesn't want to make trip because of it. Pilot is really "leaned-on" and perhaps even threatened in a "veiled" manner. Pilot declares aircraft "U/S" and states reason for doing so in Aircraft Journey Log Book.

Aircraft is now completely "screwed" in ALL categories.

Any DOM would think long and hard about crossing-out that entry with ink or worst yet.....using "White Out" to do the same thing. Let's see any smart talking owner, Ops Manager or CP explain away all that to an MoT Inspector or the TSB. Sorry folks, but they call you and designate you "Captain" of the a/c for more than one reason.......so act like it. If you consider yourself to have no more power than a taxicab driver, then that's all the power you deserve.

tripleittt · Post by **tripleittt** » Tue May 01, 2007 11:29 am

sakism...I believe you have it incorrect. TC requires the auto pilot to be a 2 axis autopilot only, for that catagory. POW's autopilot, when it was installed, only had the minimum requirment. It could not couple to the approach. We only had 2 Navajos, at the time, at Keystone, which could. It doesn't matter anyway because the autopilot was never reinstalled before the plane was cleared to be put back online prior to the accident. I don't think the lack of autopilot had any role in the accident as it would have been clicked off for the ILS.

That doesn't mean I am defending Keystone at all. Damn them for putting the pilots who worked there in a position where they had to decide to either fly the thing without the autopilot or go home and take an unpaid vacation for a week or so.

The pilot in question came in above glide slope and fast because he felt it was required, with one engine starting to sputter on the approach, to make the runway. He knew he was in trouble throughout the entire approach and decided to come in high and fast because he thought both engines would quit.

Why then was there no low fuel emergency declared? Who knows. What I do know though is that he has to wake up every morning knowing that he killed someone, not on purpose, but because of neglect and poor planning. I am sure that pressure from the boss has a small, small part to play in this scenario, but ultimately the PIC is at fault for not refuelling along the way prior to CYWG. The operator didn't make matters any better by declaring an aircraft with no autopilot airworthy for an IFR flight.

ply-wood · Post by **ply-wood** » Tue May 01, 2007 11:37 am

"fly to destination, approach, missed approach, then to alternate, then 45 mins!!!, what is so difficult about this? HE RAN OUT OF GAS!! doesn't matter that he was high and fast on his first attempt, he should have had enough gas!! what would he have done if he couldn't make into the peg?? where would he go? I was always taught, from day one to have an out!

Chuck U Farley · Post by **Chuck U Farley** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm

I have been reading this post (skim reading actually) so excuse me if it has already been mentioned.

It make me sick that this guy is in court because of the president it sets, but lets face this guy screwed up big time. He killed someone because he did not know what he was doing! He has done this trip before and was successful at getting away with it. He should have known that he was skinny on gas when he landed those time before, realized he played Russian roulette and won, but no he kept pushing it. To say that it was company pressure ... sure, but that is not a defence. The company did know that this was going on and they to should be held accountable. They to should be charged. This company should not be operating and the owners should be behind bars because they did nothing to prevent this from happening. I am aware that accidents happen but this was no accident but pure negligence.

We as a group should support each other, but in this instance, I am sorry to say, both the pilot and the company do not deserve our support.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:33 pm

Maybe it's time this industry had a "wake up" call?

paralyzer · Post by **paralyzer** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:13 pm

Maybe the Operators should be shaken up. These carriers think they can get away with flying old planes to the northern communities because another one does it. Also, they think it's a short flight so maybe auto pilot is not a big deal if there is not one, for the job. The company dispatched this plane to the pilot. The disaster occured because he was careless or too dumb and inexperienced but it's not totally his fault.
But let's also note that looks are pretty deceiving and that the best looking pilot are not the better pilots.

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.

winger · Post by **winger** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:33 pm

If you guys want to talk about the culture at Keystone here it is.
No one asks you to fly without fuel. They do ask you to do some other things however. If you get a snag, you are asked to do the trip and report it when the plane gets back to base. This includes autopilots and anything else (including gear problems). When you get called on your days off, you are expected to drop everything and show up at work. If you protest at all, you are given unpaid time off. The boss is extremely friendly to you as long as you work nonstop and never question anything he says. If you snag too many things you will get fired. (this is not an exaggeration, it has happened in the past pilots who stood up for sticking to the regs). If you quit, you can expect to have your name smeared up and down to every company you would ever want to work for. From what I have heard, his latest thing is threatening to sue former employees with "loss of revenue" lawsuits. They take great pride in doing everything they can to make your life miserable if you stick up to them at all. But they don't ask they employees to fly without gas dangit.

YYZ_Instructor · Post by **YYZ_Instructor** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:04 pm

Doc, trust me I know what you are saying....I resigned from my last job because the autopilot was removed, but the face and buttons were left in to act as if it was installed. After they called me for a flight in IFR weather conditions I refused the flight. I got an e-mail from the chief pilot that I should drive a bus if i could not fly and I decided to resign. I was lucky to find a new job that didn't call my last employer, but there are a lot of people who would not do what I did because of that fact.
I did not have much experience at that point, but now I wouldn't put up with anything like that for sure. Anyone who is pushed into a position to take a plane not fit for flight should walk away....I did it successfully.
Remember, its your licence! The company always has a way out..."we told him to take the other plane!"

Good luck to everyone in those positions, i know how it feels!

YYZ

Zapp Brannigan · Post by **Zapp Brannigan** » Tue May 01, 2007 3:26 pm

This thread is eye-opening, disturbing and a little scary. As a new commercial pilot looking for work, I can say that I don't look forward to working for some of the crapy companies out there. I know the hardest part of flying is knowing when to refuse a flight and to say no, but the pressure on pilots is something that is not found in other industries.

If companies are looking at the bottom line asking pilots to do things borderline legal, what do you think their clients would think. So much for their bottom line if they get a bad rep for safety.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:16 pm

I remember being "forced" to do a trip in really shitty weather. I told the "boss" that I would miss, and end up in YWG, stay at the Radisson Suites, and eat at the KEG. He kept "throwing sticks" at me, until, against my better judgment, off I went! Missed the approach, went to YWG, stayed at the Raddison Suites, ate a really big steak at the KEG, and brought his airplane back around 1400 hours the next day. He got the message! And so should Keystone. Do the trip, miss, and have fun....but take lots of fuel!

There are jobs everywhere right now. Perhaps Keystone would be better served if they could find no pilots to fly for them...at all. Just toss in the towel, and get a job with a company not run by a bunch of morons?

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:54 pm

and this steaming tank of fresh shit is the fertile ground TCCA intends to slide SMS into.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue May 01, 2007 5:10 pm

And nobody will be faster to keep the paper work up to date than Keystone. The reason I feel SMS is a tank of dog shit! As long as the paper work is up to par, the aircraft can be complete shit! And you can count on that being just the case.