Also, 'subtle' pressure to fly - "if you won't go you'll be the only one who doesn't get in."
also "gee, darling, the interest rates have gone up this month and our variable-rate mortgage is costing us more"
also "those auto-pilot servos are back-ordered for two weeks" and "the weather looks pretty crappy this week but I'll guess we'll just have to keep 'er grounded 'til we can get the parts"
also "just as soon as this trip is done there is a really important new client who is poised to sign a huge contract with us."
Doc, I respect your opinions and determination because I live everything you say about safety and when to say no, but you have to admit that unless you've been lucky, worked for exemplary operators and have lived a charmed life, there are many who have not.
A fairy tale: Once upon a time, Bob worked for a company for many years, top in its field and well-respected, that tried to force him to fly an aircraft with a defect not in the MEL, a failed windshield (which you know grounds the aircraft) - he refused. Bob also had an Ops. manager ORDER him to bring home an aircraft with a defect that could not be deferred, according to the MEL; there were 35 people waiting and he refused.
The result was not admiration for Bob's professionalism and admiration for his correct responses to these problems but a subtle undercurrent that "Bob cannot be counted on to get the job done" and resulted in it being impossible for Bob to work there any more, after YEARS of working there with an exemplary record and a high seniority number and respect and confidence from his many clients.
Bob had to resign because he was now being passed over for promotion and was being marginalised.
Doc, its really easy to say "the buck stops here," and I agree that it does, but in reality there are many other factors in play and must be acknowledged as being important to the whole picture.
I should add that the Ops manager was fired some months after Bob quit.............
Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Doc could not be more right! Support systems are great but they assume a level of responsibility and competence not shown in this case by anybody involved.
Should Keystone be held accountable? Certainly. But that accountability should be a separate action in which Keystone management and ownership are held responsible for the lack of proper support systems.
The pilot should be held accountable separately for his lack of responsibility and I dare say competence. Doc is correct when he says that no amount of support would have put more fuel in the tanks. The pilot alone made the decision to take of with not enough gas. The pilot alone made the decision to continue past airports where he could get more gas. The pilot alone decided to to keep his predicament silent and not request priority. The pilot alone decided to fly high on the approach just he cases he had to glide in. Because of these facts the pilot alone will have to bear the consequences. There was no management in the cockpit with him telling to continue down this dubious path.
We should stop wringing our hands for this fellow and realize that just like Wilbur and Orville we have the ultimate responsibility. You want to be a pilot then grow a pair and learn to say NO.
Should Keystone be held accountable? Certainly. But that accountability should be a separate action in which Keystone management and ownership are held responsible for the lack of proper support systems.
The pilot should be held accountable separately for his lack of responsibility and I dare say competence. Doc is correct when he says that no amount of support would have put more fuel in the tanks. The pilot alone made the decision to take of with not enough gas. The pilot alone made the decision to continue past airports where he could get more gas. The pilot alone decided to to keep his predicament silent and not request priority. The pilot alone decided to fly high on the approach just he cases he had to glide in. Because of these facts the pilot alone will have to bear the consequences. There was no management in the cockpit with him telling to continue down this dubious path.
We should stop wringing our hands for this fellow and realize that just like Wilbur and Orville we have the ultimate responsibility. You want to be a pilot then grow a pair and learn to say NO.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
There is no doubt that the final decision rests with the pilot to fly or not to fly.
However we can not escape the fact that all licensed companies in Canada must have an operations manager and a chief pilot.
In the case of the pilot who is now awaiting his fate for making a decision that was criminal negligence why was his lack of conformity to the rules not noticed by his Ops manager and the chief pilot.?
If the buck starts and stops with the pilot why not get rid of the positions of ops manager and chief pilot and pay the money saved to the pilots?
However we can not escape the fact that all licensed companies in Canada must have an operations manager and a chief pilot.
In the case of the pilot who is now awaiting his fate for making a decision that was criminal negligence why was his lack of conformity to the rules not noticed by his Ops manager and the chief pilot.?
If the buck starts and stops with the pilot why not get rid of the positions of ops manager and chief pilot and pay the money saved to the pilots?
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.
Ah, my good Cat. I never said the buck starts with the pilot, only stops there. Unless the CP or OPS Mngr was somehow responsible for the lack of fuel, then, even though they do indeed run a slip shod, slime ball operation, they are, IMHO off the hook on this one. While they did, perhaps, create a less than ideal climate, unless they sucked the fuel from the tanks, and held a gun to the pilot's head, they are really not a factor. Once that Navajo launched, the responsibility for the safety of the passengers rested solely on the shoulders of the PIC.
Jesus man, he overflew several possible fuel stops. I am very quickly losing sympathy with his plight.
Jesus man, he overflew several possible fuel stops. I am very quickly losing sympathy with his plight.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Doc, you and I are in agreement on this issue.
What I am trying to address is we must get back to accountability across the board.
The justice system has now dealt with the pilot.
Now we must deal with the rest of the structure and demand accountability within the support system that is also mandated by law such as the management who hire and monitor the pilots.
My signature pretty well sums up my thoughts on flying:
What I am trying to address is we must get back to accountability across the board.
The justice system has now dealt with the pilot.
Now we must deal with the rest of the structure and demand accountability within the support system that is also mandated by law such as the management who hire and monitor the pilots.
My signature pretty well sums up my thoughts on flying:
Does it not make sense that the pilots decision making task would be far better with proper support from those who are also by law mandated to assure the culture is in place to support the pilot?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
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.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
goldeneagle
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
I think one of the big underlying issues here, sadly, running out of gas isn't actually that all uncommon in this industry, and, this particular decision flies against all prior precedent in this area. Pilots have not historically been held legally responsible for it, mostly because the high profile cases ended in glide to runway situations.
There are 2 ways to run out of gas with an airplane. The first, is to blast off with sufficient fuel for the flight, and due to mechanical problems, lose a bunch of it. The most common reason, lose a gas cap, the high profile one is to have a pump break, and end up with an azores glider. The second way to run out of gas, is to blast off with insufficient fuel to reach destination, then hear everything go quiet enroute. The most high profile occourance of that in canadian aviation history was the gimli glider.
The real difference in this case, somebody died. But, that doesn't change the fact, this incident has a LOT in common with the gimli glider. Flight crew jumped into an airplane, and blasted off, with insufficient fuel on board to reach destination. In reality, this one had (barely) enough to reach destination, but, not enough for subsequent missed approach etc. The gimli case there wasn't even close to enough for destination. The other big difference, the AC pilots hid behind hundreds of pages of excuses as to why they f***ed up so bad, this guy seems to have fessed up. That set the precedent that passing the buck works, and, it's been rife in this industry ever since.
If justice was indeed metered out evenly in this country, then, the only differences between this and gimli, are the 'causing death' parts. So, if the charge here is criminal negligence causing death, where were the criminal negligence (without the causing death rider) in the gimli incident? After all the touchy feely crap is swept out of the way, both have the same root cause, flight crew took an airplane, and blasted off without enough gas on board, resulting in very quiet engines at the final point of touchdown.
I think the tide has turned. Pilots are licensed professionals, just like doctors and engineers. They make decisions that can affect the lives of others. Ever since the gimli glider, I've been under the firm impression that this industry has been trying to pass the buck, and wiggle out of the legal libailities that come with the title 'professional'. It seems now, the courts may be disagreeing with that attitude. 25 years of touch feely excuses have not made folks stop doing stupid things that cause airplanes to fall down in a highly preventable fashion. Maybe a heaping tablespoon of legal liability is the ingredient that's been missing from the recipie. If it had been dished into the mix 25 years ago like it should have been, then maybe we wouldn't have had to suffer thru all the touchy feely making of excuses for all these years, because I'm absolutely sick about hear of 'resource management' yadda yadda yadda from all the 'experts'.
Sometimes, you just gotta put all the touch feely crap aside, and call a spade a spade. Blasting off without enough fuel for detination is negligent, no matter how you try butter it up and sugar coat it, it's negligence. When a licensed professional commits a negligent act, there are liability consequences. If you dont want to live with the consequences of negligent decisions, then get out of the 'professions', get into a blue collar union job, and hide behind your collective agreement and union reps.
Oh wait.......
There are 2 ways to run out of gas with an airplane. The first, is to blast off with sufficient fuel for the flight, and due to mechanical problems, lose a bunch of it. The most common reason, lose a gas cap, the high profile one is to have a pump break, and end up with an azores glider. The second way to run out of gas, is to blast off with insufficient fuel to reach destination, then hear everything go quiet enroute. The most high profile occourance of that in canadian aviation history was the gimli glider.
The real difference in this case, somebody died. But, that doesn't change the fact, this incident has a LOT in common with the gimli glider. Flight crew jumped into an airplane, and blasted off, with insufficient fuel on board to reach destination. In reality, this one had (barely) enough to reach destination, but, not enough for subsequent missed approach etc. The gimli case there wasn't even close to enough for destination. The other big difference, the AC pilots hid behind hundreds of pages of excuses as to why they f***ed up so bad, this guy seems to have fessed up. That set the precedent that passing the buck works, and, it's been rife in this industry ever since.
If justice was indeed metered out evenly in this country, then, the only differences between this and gimli, are the 'causing death' parts. So, if the charge here is criminal negligence causing death, where were the criminal negligence (without the causing death rider) in the gimli incident? After all the touchy feely crap is swept out of the way, both have the same root cause, flight crew took an airplane, and blasted off without enough gas on board, resulting in very quiet engines at the final point of touchdown.
I think the tide has turned. Pilots are licensed professionals, just like doctors and engineers. They make decisions that can affect the lives of others. Ever since the gimli glider, I've been under the firm impression that this industry has been trying to pass the buck, and wiggle out of the legal libailities that come with the title 'professional'. It seems now, the courts may be disagreeing with that attitude. 25 years of touch feely excuses have not made folks stop doing stupid things that cause airplanes to fall down in a highly preventable fashion. Maybe a heaping tablespoon of legal liability is the ingredient that's been missing from the recipie. If it had been dished into the mix 25 years ago like it should have been, then maybe we wouldn't have had to suffer thru all the touchy feely making of excuses for all these years, because I'm absolutely sick about hear of 'resource management' yadda yadda yadda from all the 'experts'.
Sometimes, you just gotta put all the touch feely crap aside, and call a spade a spade. Blasting off without enough fuel for detination is negligent, no matter how you try butter it up and sugar coat it, it's negligence. When a licensed professional commits a negligent act, there are liability consequences. If you dont want to live with the consequences of negligent decisions, then get out of the 'professions', get into a blue collar union job, and hide behind your collective agreement and union reps.
Oh wait.......
Some of you think that I am sticking up for this pilot and I am categorically NOT.
I just don't think he could have been operating in a vacuum for all these years - I also don't think this trip was an isolated event. I would even go out on a limb and say that there are probably thousands (well, hundreds) or passengers that have flown with this outfit that have had narrow escapes and had no idea how close they were to thundering in to various parts of Manitoba.
I just don't think he could have been operating in a vacuum for all these years - I also don't think this trip was an isolated event. I would even go out on a limb and say that there are probably thousands (well, hundreds) or passengers that have flown with this outfit that have had narrow escapes and had no idea how close they were to thundering in to various parts of Manitoba.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
Come on it's not that hard. I give you the initials......... TRANSPORT CANADAxsbank wrote:Well, Driving, who?
Report findings.
While on a VFR flight, the pilot continued flight into adverse weather and lost all reference to the horizon.
The pilot deviated from the company practice of either staying on an over-water route or landing and waiting out the weather.
The temperature and dew point at the time of the accident were conducive to serious carburettor icing at any power setting.
The pilot's technique in attempting to eliminate carburettor ice was not as recommended by the company.
There was insufficient time to recover from the partial power loss effects of carburettor icing.
The aircraft travelled approximately 500 feet through the trees; the left wing was torn off and a fuel-fed fire broke out almost immediately. All occupants survived the crash with minor injuries and exited the aircraft. The passenger occupying the co-pilot seat received burns to his upper body.
Sounds like a slick prosecutor could find criminal neglegence if they scratched hard enough.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Driving Rain:
You will note that I brought the issue of statute of limitations into this discussion.
One of the reasons for the question is there have been many crashes where the pilot should have been forced to defend him/her self in court for criminal negligence for having been in blatant contravention of the regulations and killed someone when they crashed.
In fact I believe one of TC's top management did exactly that.
You will note that I brought the issue of statute of limitations into this discussion.
One of the reasons for the question is there have been many crashes where the pilot should have been forced to defend him/her self in court for criminal negligence for having been in blatant contravention of the regulations and killed someone when they crashed.
In fact I believe one of TC's top management did exactly that.
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.
Not so my friend. The 767 crew didn't know they were short on gas until the engines quit. The Navajo pilot was well aware of his fuel emergency yet he failed to do the right thing. He didn't even bother declaring minimum fuel or an emergency or ask for alternate routing (not over the city) on the return after his missed approach.If justice was indeed metered out evenly in this country, then, the only differences between this and gimli, are the 'causing death' parts.
Sorry to be so thick, Driving, I have now reread your post and I originally thought it was the person you were concerned with not where they ended up.
Another reason why I think the courts are the wrong tool for this event, if for no other reason than they seem to be applying their sanctions capriciously.
Another reason why I think the courts are the wrong tool for this event, if for no other reason than they seem to be applying their sanctions capriciously.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
I hear ya Cat. I think the criminal justice system is a farce in Canada.
In this case Mark Tayful is probably going to prison. For how long I can only guess. He's repeat offender that got caught this time. Will he ever do it again? I'll bet not. He's not a violent offender or a drug dealer or a drunk driver. By all accounts he's remorseful and will carry this with him till his dieing days. Will any good come from his incarceration. Personally, I doubt it. Will any good come from pursuing past wrongs done by countless pilots or better yet would the money spent pursuing them be better spent elsewhere? I think we all know the answer to that.
In this case Mark Tayful is probably going to prison. For how long I can only guess. He's repeat offender that got caught this time. Will he ever do it again? I'll bet not. He's not a violent offender or a drug dealer or a drunk driver. By all accounts he's remorseful and will carry this with him till his dieing days. Will any good come from his incarceration. Personally, I doubt it. Will any good come from pursuing past wrongs done by countless pilots or better yet would the money spent pursuing them be better spent elsewhere? I think we all know the answer to that.
Last edited by Driving Rain on Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
THIS WAS NOT AN "ERROR". It was criminal negligence that caused death and injury.Widow wrote:I will continue to believe, as will others, that more can be
learned by asking why a pilot made an error (or in this case, was negligent), and looking for ways to rectify those whys and wherefores.
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
Amen Doc. Amen.Doc wrote:Nobody with even half a brain will run out of gas because "somebody told them to". Nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore. Why? Because we have so MANY others we can blame. Why? Because we now have a "chain" of events we can blame. We have "company culture" we can blame. I say again. When you're upside down in cloud, with nothing on the gauges but the maker's name....YOU put yourself there.
Widow, this guy wasn't "harmed by the errors of others". He was harmed by his own errors. And somebody died. Because of HIS errors. HIS actions.
The company and owners will have their day in civil court, and if the comments about Keystone being offered here are true and can be reasonably established in court, they will be on the hook.
Criminally, I don't really think there is anything any of the managers/owners could be charged with under the laws in force at the time. I don't think it's possible to make a charge of conspiracy, or counselling, to commit criminal negligence. This is because crim neg flows largely from the frame of mind of the accused. How do you conspire or counsel someone to have "wanton disregard" (no care). The company may have helped create a climate where it was easy to have a "wanton disregard" for the lives and safety of their passengers, but they can't cause it.
Criminally, I don't really think there is anything any of the managers/owners could be charged with under the laws in force at the time. I don't think it's possible to make a charge of conspiracy, or counselling, to commit criminal negligence. This is because crim neg flows largely from the frame of mind of the accused. How do you conspire or counsel someone to have "wanton disregard" (no care). The company may have helped create a climate where it was easy to have a "wanton disregard" for the lives and safety of their passengers, but they can't cause it.
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
There are two types of negligence, civil and criminal. A civil negligence lawsuit involves private individuals suing someone for a negligent act that violates their private rights. Civil negligence generally involves careless or ignorant behavior but not intent, e.g., carelessly ramming a car stopped at an intersection. Criminal negligence is more serious and involves committing a crime against society and intending to commit it. Criminal cases arise in which the (thelocal legal authorities Crown with the help of the police) charge a person with an offense under the criminal code, e.g., manslaughter. Criminal negligence involves wanton disregard for the safety or lives of others. Both civil and criminal cases may result from a single act of negligence.
Negligence is often defined as
(1) not doing something which a reasonable person would do, or
(2) doing something which a reasonable person would not do.
Did Mark Tayful intend ? ... ......no. ..... No matter what _professor says.
Did he have wanton disregard of others? ... as well as himself .. Does that make sence?
Negligence is often defined as
(1) not doing something which a reasonable person would do, or
(2) doing something which a reasonable person would not do.
Did Mark Tayful intend ? ... ......no. ..... No matter what _professor says.
Did he have wanton disregard of others? ... as well as himself .. Does that make sence?
-
justplanecrazy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:57 pm
Driving Rain, they don't have to prove that he intended to kill the passengers. They only have to prove that he knowingly put the passengers at risk and the result was death. From the sounds of it he admitted this in his letter to transport.
He intentionally departed knowing the fuel situation. He's admitted to having a disregard to his passengers and himself in his letter to TC. Any reasonable person would have refused the flight until there was adequate fuel to reach an alternate and a serviceable auto pilot as outlined in the air regs. Sounds like a clear cut case.
Cat sorry for the missunderstanding... thought you were going another direction with your last question. Yes past aviation accidents, where crim neg causing death were present, can still be opened up and charges laid.
He intentionally departed knowing the fuel situation. He's admitted to having a disregard to his passengers and himself in his letter to TC. Any reasonable person would have refused the flight until there was adequate fuel to reach an alternate and a serviceable auto pilot as outlined in the air regs. Sounds like a clear cut case.
Cat sorry for the missunderstanding... thought you were going another direction with your last question. Yes past aviation accidents, where crim neg causing death were present, can still be opened up and charges laid.
We have no effective screening methods to make sure pilots are sane.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
— Dr. Herbert Haynes, Federal Aviation Authority.
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
I did not conclude he was criminally negligent, a court of law did.Driving Rain wrote:Negligence is often defined as
(1) not doing something which a reasonable person would do, or
(2) doing something which a reasonable person would not do.
Did Mark Tayful intend ? ... ......no. ..... No matter what _professor says.
Did he have wanton disregard of others? ... as well as himself .. Does that make sence?
Obviously their definition of negligence is different from yours. I think I'll stand by a court of law's definition as opposed to something described as "often defined" by an anonymous internet poster.
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
