Is the Keystone verdict known yet?

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:51 pm

Widow wrote:Was Keystone's insurance trying to get out of paying?

If they settled, then they paid, didn't they? Plaintiffs lawyers should have advised their clients not to settle if they felt the settlement was inadequate.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:11 pm

Yes, but why would the families have to take them to court unless the insurability was in question?

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:23 pm

Widow wrote:Yes, but why would the families have to take them to court unless the insurability was in question?

The families took them to court because that's the only way to get a judgement against the operator which the insurance company is then stuck paying. In answer to your other question about the insurance company trying to get out of paying; while I have no actual knowledge, I can assure you that they would if they could. I'm somewhat surprised the insurance company didn't pull the old; "the aircraft wasn't being operated in accordance with maintenance standards and regulations therefore the policy is void." I wonder why that is, it's certainly unusual.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:28 pm

You need to drink less Hedley if you're having trouble understanding the difference between an accident and negligence. You can make mistakes that cause accidents, even ones that kill someone, and not be negligent. But when you do things you know are wrong and place others in jeopardy, or do what even a pretty stupid person (equivilent in Canadian law to the "reasonable" person) would recognize ahead of time as foolhardy, you have crossed into the realm of criminal negligence if someone gets hurt or killed. This pilot did a number of things that he knew were wrong, unreasonably placed his passengers at needless risk, and then compounded those decisions with further acts that even a grossly stupid person could recognize as foolhardy.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:50 pm

do what even a pretty stupid person would recognize ahead of time as foolhardy

Does that include trying to hand-prop with no one in the aircraft? Because I know a Transport Canada Inspector that did just that. Of course, the aircraft was not secured in any fashion, the throttle was naturally open, and the Transport Canada Inspector ended up hanging off the wing strut as the pilotless aircraft went around in circles, engine bellowing until it struck a fixed object and was destroyed.

Needless to say, no charges were ever laid in that incident. Stupid? Sure. Foolhardy? You betcha.

Does that include doing a gear-up bounce off the runway at Gatineau in a King Air, and instead of doing an immediate landing, flying CROSS COUNTRY OVER POPULATED OTTAWA IN A SEVERELY DAMAGED AIRCRAFT to land at CYOW? Two Transport Inspectors did that.

Needless to say, no charges were ever laid in that incident, either. Stupid? Sure. Foolhardy? You betcha.

Can you say, "Double Standard"? I knew you could ... if we're going to put in jail every pilot that screws up and does something dumb, not many aircraft are going to fly any more. Certainly none of Transport's fleet. Anyone read in the latest ASL about Transport's latest attempt to file IFR in a King Air?

There are a lot of monday morning quarterbacks here that I'm pretty sure have little or no experience as PIC. You know nothing of what you blather about.

Please remember the definition of an accident investigation board, all you anonymous armchair experts here: Six guys are given six months to decide what two guys should have done in 20 seconds

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:10 pm

If you get caught drinking and driving, you might get your license suspended, pay a fine, etc. If you get caught drinking and driving and hurt someone as a result ...

If you make a dumb (negligent) mistake and no-one gets hurt, well, hopefully you learn your lesson and don't do it again. If someone does get hurt ...

The RCMP/police department and in turn the prosecutor must have felt they have enough evidence to make criminal negligence stick, or you can bet the charges wouldn't have been brought in the first place. Leave it to the judge to decide the pilot's fate.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:12 pm

Hedley wrote:Or, how about the recent BA 747 captain who took off from LAX, had an engine failure, and was directed by ground ops to CONTINUE THE FLIGHT TO HEATHROW.

I'm sorry... I tried to comment earlier, but I got carried away and then soon afterward deleted it.... but I can't let this go, even if it doesn't really have anything to do with this topic...

Hedley, that's just nuts! The crew made that decision. They most certainly were not "directed" to continue!

stratcat · Post by **stratcat** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:44 pm

wernt they directed in the form of a threat or fine for ontime performance or duty day violation,kind of what KLM had and what was a factor at tennerife. being pushed is being pushed. The keystone pilot was pushed.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Tue May 22, 2007 7:52 pm

In order for there to be negligence, there has to be a duty owed and breached, and there has to be damages.

Good post, Wilbur, and ignore Hedley - he doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept.

stratcat · Post by **stratcat** » Tue May 22, 2007 7:57 pm

The gimli glider keeps popping up. I dont see how its different.If they had crashed would AC flight planning department be charged,would the pilots for not knowing how to read fuel guages. What were they doing there if they didnt understand metric. Come on folks,there are mistakes everywhere everyday

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:00 pm

stratcat wrote:The gimli glider keeps popping up. I dont see how its different.If they had crashed would AC flight planning department be charged,would the pilots for not knowing how to read fuel guages. What were they doing there if they didnt understand metric. Come on folks,there are mistakes everywhere everyday

Sued for negligence? In all liklihood.

Charged with criminal negligence? Very unlikely.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Tue May 22, 2007 10:48 pm

Hedley, did TC kill or injure anyone? Nope, hence, no criminal offence.

The Gimili glider also has little in common with this accident. The various people involved with that made some mistakes and got the fuel load wrong, and if I recall correctly, the fuel gauges in the airplane itself were U/S and not on the MEL. But, they had intended to properly calculate and load the correct amount of fuel. The Keystone pilot, by contrast, intended to go flying with less than the required fuel. The AC people did not become aware of their error until the engines quit. The Keystone pilot knew well ahead of time that he was running out of fuel and intentionally chose to press on in secrect disregard for the danger. When the Gimili glider's engines quit, they declared an emergency. When the Keystone pilot's engine first quit, he chose to switch tanks and press on in secrect disregard for the danger.

There are lots of examples out there for cases of civil liability due to negligence; a failure to meet your duty to someone. A company and/or it's employees fail to do their jobs to a reasonable standard and someone gets killed, hurt, or suffers some other loss as a result. A lawsuit follows.

It only becomes criminal negligence when a person, in this case the pilot, acts with wanton disregard for the lives and safety of others and ends up killing or injuring someone. In other words, he knowingly and irresponsibly gambled with the lives of his passengers for no legitimate reason. His intentional behaviour caused a result he did not hope for, but that any reasonable person would foresee as a very likely outcome.

Sometimes you gamble and win. A few more minutes fuel and nobody would know what happened. Nobody gets hurt and life goes on. But, gamble and lose causing someone to be killed or injured and your life suddenly becomes entirely controlled by the criminal justice system. As the saying goes, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Don't gamble want you aren't prepared to lose.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:30 am

In order for there to be negligence ... there has to be damages.

Wrong. Pilots get charged with negligence under CAR 602.01 all the time, with no damages involved.

Back on topic ... I just don't see this inexperienced kid as a criminal. Sure, he screwed up, he took off with less than the required IFR reserves, but is that a criminal act? I don't think so. Not according the the Transport Canada Enforcement Manual, either.

Let's say some jerk, who took some flight training but never got his licence got drunk in a bar and told everyone he hated nuns, and wants to kills some. He stumbles out to the airport, steals an airplane, and flies it into a busload of nuns.

Is that a criminal act? Sure. But the Keystone kid didn't wake up in the morning and say "Hey, I think I'll crash today". Yes, he made mistakes, but believe me when I tell you that this isn't the way he wanted this to turn out.

I can't believe you armchair quarterbacks who think that everyone who makes a mistake is a criminal. Why not lock up the Brazil midair bizjet pilots, too?

rfcPilot · Post by **rfcPilot** » Wed May 23, 2007 7:57 am

Somehow I think the reason he'd have kept his mouth shut was because he was too proud, or too afraid to admit the mistake, declare an emergency, and seek assistance.

I personally still dont feel it is criminal negligence, unless of course that was his intent to put people in harms' way.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:09 am

If he had intended to kill someone by crashing his airplane, the charge would be murder or manslaughter. When you unintentionally kill or injure by acts or omissions that any reasonable person would foresee as stupid and likely to kill or injure, that is criminal negligence. Most accidents are not acts of criminal negligence because most are the result of honest mistakes, not intentional acts of deliberate risk taking with little or no regard for the consequences to others.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:13 am

Maybe someday we can all fly as well as you do, Wilbur

rfcPilot · Post by **rfcPilot** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:16 am

well, I dont think any of us know the full gist of it, and I agree with what you say Wilbur - completely. But at the same time, AFAIK, no one died during the accident. Everyone was alive and (most likely) banged up a bit. Just that (IMO) some frail old man died (as I recall) 3 months later due to injuries sustained from the accident.

Im sure some people on the forums have lost someone to cancer. What happens if that loss is due to second hand smoke? Is the deceased' friend who was a smoker to be charged with criminal negligence in the death of their friend? Not the best of example, but I think it still gets the point across.

Of course, I could be wrong, but thats how I see it. There hasnt been much official fact tossed around so for the most part, we just give our own views of this.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:20 am

You're right, rfcpilot - according to the "hang 'em high!" crowd
here, everyone who smokes is a criminal because they have
killed everyone around them with 2nd hand smoke

When I see what my tax dollars are spent on (cube dwelling
armchair quarterbacks) it's enough to make a grown man cry.

rfcPilot · Post by **rfcPilot** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

I cant complain too much. Tax dollars got me my glider and private licences... Then again MY tax dollars are paying my dad's pension lol.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Wed May 23, 2007 8:37 am

I'm quite sure Hedley that 99% of pilots do fly as well or better than I. But the times I've made mistakes, I've corrected them as soon as I became aware just like 99% of other pilots do. I've even landed on route to top up the fuel when it was apparent I might not have enough. This guy isn't on trial because he is not the best pilot. He's on trial because, in the view of the crown, he chose to deliberately and unreasonably risk the lives of his passengers. It actually has little to do with flying and much more to do with his attitude toward other people. An airplane is simply the medium he used to risk other peoples lives.

In terms of the victim dying 3 months later, I believe the law holds you responsible for the death up to the one year point after your act that caused the injury. Whether it be criminal negligence, manslaughter, or murder.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Maybe some people would like to read or re-read the TSB report before contributing to this thread....

Inexperienced kid?

The pilot held a valid airline transport pilot licence and medical certificate, and records indicate that his pilot proficiency check and required training were current. He had been flying for 12 years and had about 3000 hours of flight time. Prior to his joining the company, he had been a flying instructor. The pilot had flown with the company for about 16 months, flying both scheduled and charter flights. The pilot had flown many similar flights into Gunisao Lake and was familiar with the routing and flight planning requirements of the trip. He was aware that 100 LL aviation gasoline was not available at Gunisao Lake.

How much time and experience do we need to fly a chieftain without running out of gas?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:12 pm

Prior to his joining the company, he had been a flying instructor

Right, so this was his first "real" job.

How much time and experience do we need to fly a chieftain without running out of gas?

I suppose you could ask Air Canada the same question about the Gimli Boeing Glider, and Air Transat about the Airbus Azores Glider.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:17 pm

C'mon Hedley. If your loved one had been on that plane and injured, you wouldn't be pissed as all get out at the negligent pilot?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:20 pm

So if I'm angry, I should toss logic and reason out the window?

pushyboss · Post by **pushyboss** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:26 pm

The Air Transat aircraft departed with enough fuel to complete the trip and then some. It developed a fuel leak.

I don't recall the Keystone accident report mentioning anything about a fuel leak.

Bottom line. You take off knowing you don't have enough gas, you live with the consequences. It's not just a mistake. it's not just an error, it's not just an oversight, it's criminal.

We are not talking about a misuse of the checklist (see AirTransat Azores glider) or a series of unintentional screwups (see Gimli glider), we are talking about departing KNOWING that you may not make it. We are not even talking about departing without legal gas, we ar talking about departing without ENOUGH GAS TO LAND at the intended destination.

Stop wringing your hands over this guy. When you crash on Portage and Main because you ran out of gas, bad stuff is gonna happen to you.