Pilot found guilty of criminal negligence

matrix · Post by **matrix** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:44 am

Just knowing that we could end up with serious criminal records, and become unable to travel abroad, or gain good employment, due to our "mistakes" should send a message loud and clear?

I don't think most need to worry if it's an honest mistake. Mistakes happen. This was not a mistake IMO. Departing with just enough fuel to get back to YWG at 300-1 let alone the fuel to get to the alternate plus reserve? This is not a mistake, if anything is, this should be the definition of negligence.

And like another poster said, these slimy operators could not operate without slimy staff. I think it's time pilots banded together to end this kind of stuff. Until you are all on the same page, backing each other up, operators will continue to take advantage of you and shit like this will keep happening.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:46 am

Matrix, you are correct, but, I don't think jail time will serve any positive purpose.

desksgo · Post by **desksgo** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 am

Alex YCV wrote: Otherwise, it all boils down to the pilot, what he did (and didn't do) and the end results of his actions. More fuel, better planning, or a combination of both could have averted this disaster, and I suspect that is why the verdict came as it did.

I agree with your statements to that point. I definitely appreciate the good insight you've given.

Regarding the buck stopping at the pilot...
An organization should demonstrate some sort of accountability when it comes to its employees. I gurantee that even if this pilot acted on his own volition (not the case, but for sake of argument), the company still should have the responsibility of overseeing his conduct. I promise you this was not the first time he carried minimal fuel, so who looked at the paperwork on previous flights? Where's the oversight? Where's the accountability from the regulator and the operator? I have a tough time with this guy being hung out to dry all by himself.

We have a system that fails itself and its pilots daily. On the human side, Regulator, Operator and Crew (maintenance, pilots, atc..etc), on any given day in Canada, TWO of those fail, and one of them picks up the slack so we never even hear a word about it. On this day, the regulator failed, the operator fell flat on its face, and the pilot made a bad call. People got hurt.

Yes, the buck stops at the pilot, and most times it does quite nicely. "No I won't fly over-gross, No I won't fly on zero rest, No I won't fly on minimum fuel, No I won't take an extra 200lbs instead of an F/O because the autopilot is acting up"...But on this day, there were 2 failures before the decision to fly was even made.
James Reason would say there are too many holes in his swiss cheese, and the plane hasn't even left the ground yet.

My next question is who, if anyone, from industry is actually supporting this person right now. Is anyone there protecting his interests or our entire interests other than the lawyer? Where's ATAC or COPA or some sort of industry interest represented. EVERYONE IS SILENT! This makes me sick. I get right pissed off the more I think of it.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:10 am

http://mikeoncrime.com/article/1719/may ... rial-hears

Earlier, under questioning, Joe Gaudry, of Transport Canada, agreed the same Keystone plane made several other round trip flights from Winnipeg to Budd’s Gunisao Lake Lodge in northern Manitoba with less than the 850 pounds of fuel onboard during its final flight.

Gaudry agreed several other planes left with less fuel than the flight that crashed — one with as little as 688 pounds of fuel — and they landed without incident at Winnipeg International Airport.

But Gaudry said the documents he was shown didn’t show weather conditions during the flights
Joseph Gaudry, a civil aviation safety inspector with Transport Canada, testified Wednesday about the investigation he conducted in the aftermath of the crash.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story ... pilot.html
In a telephone call after the crash, Gaudry said, Tayfel admitted knowingly breaking Canadian aeronautic rules by flying without an autopilot instrument, and said it was accepted practice at Keystone Air at the time.
Tayfel also admitted to flying the plane without necessary fuel on board to make the flight from the fishing lodge to Winnipeg and have sufficient reserve, Gaudry said.

Tayfel told Gaudry in a subsequent letter, which was entered into evidence at the trial, "I know I broke those two regulations."

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:29 am

He wrote a letter to Transport and admitted to breaking two regs?? NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER admit ANYTHING to ANYBODY about ANYTHING!!!! EVER!!!!! Christ, is it in the water??? I AM sorry, but that is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard!!
As for the fuel...I call BULLSHIT!!...how would Joe Gaudry, or anyone else KNOW how much fuel was on previous flights for sure, unless he drained the fuel and measured it? With the gages on a Navajo? NO way! Paperwork? 850 pounds, or whatever to make the gross weight figure work out to a legal total? Like, nobody ever does that. I can put in 200 pounds of fuel on paper, and carry 1100 pounds in the airplane...to make the total legal..on paper. DUH! Gee, there's a new trick. Bottom line? It's all a total crock. Nobody will ever know how much fuel was on the airplane! We do know, there wasn't quite enough.
Pilots still work for Keystone. Dumb passengers still climb aboard their flights. Boggles the mind.

matrix · Post by **matrix** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:29 am

Doc wrote:Matrix, you are correct, but, I don't think jail time will serve any positive purpose.

Agreed. Jail time wont change anything. Mr Tayfels' career is likely over, but if not, I'm sure he'd make wiser decisions next time. I just hope this fellow did not die in vain. I hope something positive comes out of this.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:46 am

desksgo, I agree with you entirely on this. The buck shouldn't entirely stop with the pilot, as it is clear that the company didn't have a problem with the pilot flying an aircraft without required equipment (autopilot) and allowed a self-dispatch system that apparently had no checks and balances in place.

Like any of these sorts of things, institutional tolerance of poor operations procedures and such shows that the buck shouldn't stop with the pilot. However, the pilot had the final choice, and took it anyway.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:46 am

He wrote a letter to Transport and admitted to breaking two regs?? NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER admit ANYTHING to ANYBODY about ANYTHING!!!! EVER!!!!! Christ, is it in the water??? I AM sorry, but that is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard!!

You must never ever answer any questions put to you by anyone regarding anything that can be used against you in court unless you have a lawyer to answer the questions for you.

This poor soul just hopped onto the alter and sacrificed himself.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:54 am

Just sit there, with a dumb look on your face and say nothing. I've tossed a couple of letters in the trash in my day. Never heard another word on the subjects. Don't even call the pricks. They record phone calls. They are NOT your friends. They ARE the enemy!

swordfish · Post by **swordfish** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:04 am

EXACTLY, deskgo.

The more you "get away" with things (errors, poor judgement, violations), the more you reinforce your God complex.

If this pilot had successfully completed the trip, it would have sent him the message that "I can do this, no sweat". It self-perpetuates transgressions.

Some of learn from our own experiences, and others learn - fortunately - from the mistakes of others. There's not one of us who hasn't looked back on some trip, breathed a sigh of relief, and said to ourselves: "Well, I sure ain't gonna try THAT again."

Getting caught with low fuel for one reason or another is one thing; departing with the cards stacked against you is entirely another.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:28 am

To restate what Doc said... Read through any ten posts on any subject on this site, particularly a thread where there is some emotional component, then ask yourself if any of the ten writers you chose are capable or competent to write a letter to avoid them losing their career or, in this case, going to jail for a long time?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Never, ever, EVER write a letter to any authority without the advice of a lawyer. I know they are expensive and we make fun of them, but a lawyer knows how to write letters and we don't! We fly planes and we mess about on the internet but even if you know perfect grammar and spelling your letter will hang you with self-incrimination.

This is also true if you are ever asked to write a letter to your CP after an 'incident;' spend $50 or $100 on a lawyer to check over or write your letter for you. No point in giving away your job and reputation because you are trying to practise a skill you have not been trained for.

Writing a letter to an authority without help is like asking your lawyer to shoot an ILS - he's not trained for it!

I'm saying you should do this to avoid persecution/prosecution/culpability/loss of your job/jail time; your unedited letter will be sure to get you one of these.

This Keystone guy did everything wrong, including everything he did after the accident.

I'll bet the criminal negligence/court trial is a direct result of this guy writing a letter....

tripleittt · Post by **tripleittt** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:36 am

Neither the owner nor his son the chief pilot visited or even called the pilot while he was in the hospital and later recovering at home. As soon as this happend, Keystone was quick to point the finger and place the FULL blame on Mark leaving him on his own to deal with it.

Keystone, from what I have heard from people who still work there, including the owner, is pretty much over the bulk of their legal battles. They can keep lining their pockets with money made through the sweat and now the blood of all who fly with and for them, until their OC is pulled for good and for the good of us all. It is idiotic that Mark will have to pay with his life figurtively and Keystone only paid with their wallets and can continue with their lives normally as if nothing happend.

I can only hope that the sentencing will be light ie no jail time, but I think that is very unlikely, unfortunately. Mark's life is forever changed because of his f$&% up. He is the one who will look at himself in the mirror and have those horrible images flash before his eyes every waking and sleeping moment for the rest of his life. I think justice has already been served. Jail will do nothing and Chesters' family will agree with me. Keystone, the company and the owners are the ones the courts and justice seekers should be going after.

Why is keystone still operating?

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:54 am

Didn't Keystone sue TC for not 'policing' Keystone well enough? Why isn't the company culture taken into account with the authorities?

WHY does Keystone still have an OC? Didn't they have their OC pulled? HOW did they get it back? The owner is a well-known cowboy, with stories abound about how he's an accomplished .. . and minimum's breaker. HOW is HE still operating? How can he get away with this crap without being caught? WHY hasn't the book been thrown at this asshole???

WHY, as always, does someone have to die before there's changes to the system??

Skyward never killed anyone, yet they've(and rightly so) have gone the way of the Dodo bird, yet there's rumors abound that the ex-owner is quietly operating a medevac outfit in northern ontario now. WTF?

How is the Ex-owner of Royal Airlines and Jetsgo still walking the streets a free man, and a far richer man than when he first started these jokes of an operation?

And, I'm not even going to bother mentioning the outfits in BC that have made the news lately.

Yes, the pilot fucked up, no one can argue that. But the culture of 'flying by the seat of your pants' has to end. It's not the 1930's anymore. Wake up, grow up boys. There's no need for 'pushing it' anymore. I'm not sure there ever was. Is it really worth your career, or your life, pretending to be a hero so the people in 'Up Here Mucktuck' can get their daily dose of sugar?

I guess in a way, it's good they are convicting the pilot. Maybe this is enough of a wakeup call for the 703 boys that they truly are on their own when they accept an unairworthy airplane, when they accept VFR fuel on an IFR day, or when they let the boss push them out the door for fear of ridicule or worse, unemployment.

I feel sick, as i watch CTV Newsnet report on this case. But you know what? This action is overdue, and maybe the wake up call has rang for everyone, including the authorities, because you know they're the next target, and we all know THAT's way overdue too.

Rant over.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:34 pm

I think a conviction of criminal negligence carries a mandatory jail sentence? Its been years since I did any law courses. Anyone? I know there's at least one pilot on here with a law degree.

Sasquash · Post by **Sasquash** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:05 pm

Causing death by criminal negligence

220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220; 1995, c. 39, s. 141.

Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence
221. Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Bill C-45 - Criminal Negligence
Due Diligence has been taken to a new level in Canada with the introduction of Bill C-45 which was first introduced in June of 2003. Bill C-45 received Royal Assent on November 7, 2003. Yes, that's right, all organizations, companies, directors, owners, partners and representatives are fully liable for the safety of the worker, but it doesn't stop there.
Bill C-45 also places strict liability on EVERYONE! This includes supervisors, lead hands, union representatives, health and safety committee members, team leaders, project leaders, contractors, and yes, even workers and co-workers.
Each province has had their own set of liabilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Canada Labour Code, but now, not only is safety a Provincial matter, it has become Federal.

The new bill places an emphasis on the personal responsibilities and liabilities of each individual to take any and all reasonable precautions for the protection of the health and safety of a worker.

Bill C-45 will treat workplace accidents as criminal negligence. Those charged and convicted will now receive a much harsher sentence which can now lead to much greater fines.

Instead of a maximum of $25,000.00 fine for an individual, Bill C-45 calls for the maximum to be raised to $100,000.00. For organizations such as companies, the maximum fine limit as effectively been removed, and therefore, instead of the maximum of $500,000 or $1,000,000 that has been the ceiling in many Provinces, there is no longer the 1 or 2 year limitation on prison sentences. That's right, now an individual can face a life sentence in prison for failing to take reasonable precautions to protect the health and safety of a worker.
the fines no longer have an upper limit.
In addition, since Bill C-45 is part of the Criminal Code,
Scary?

Just this past week in London England the Metropoliton Police Service was fined L 175,000 for endangering Londoners under health and safety legislation. They allowed a suspected terrorist on a civic transport system. (city bus and subway) when it was proved they could of stopped him from ever gaining access.
They held some poor guy down on a tube carrage and pumped 7 dumdum bullets into his noodle at close range, then planted false stories in the press about him .
The money will be paid to the courts who will no doubt funnel the money back to police. No cops were convicted no one held accountable but the organization. So in the End what does accountability and responsibility mean. Well, in London England not much.

If I ever @#$! up, I want the lawyer that stopped any fallout from this accident landing on Keystone.

He must be real good.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:18 pm

Again, Bill C-45 didn't come into force until AFTER the commission of the offence.

I am, however, relatively certain (actually, I AM certain) that there has been more than one workplace death where the company SHOULD have been held up on charges of criminal negligence since the time the amendment was enacted. But I haven't seen it happen.

According to our local police, Bill C-45 did not make it any easier.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:27 pm

Ya your right Widow good catch. The accident took place on June 11th 2002.
Wow over 5 years to get to court. Swift justice it ain't.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:45 pm

After reading C-45's wide cast net I think I'll resign from the aviation health and safety committee at work. Why take a chance when you can be held accountable for something you aren't even part of. I not paid extra for being on it.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:50 pm

Driving, that sort of attitude is a very reasonable response to a difficult situation - you joined to help improve things but the downside of not getting it right is a conviction? Don't blame you a bit.

I would urge everyone to find out what sort of help your company will provide if there is a charge laid - will you get help with your legal bills? A lot of charges are thrown out, but you need a lawyer to help make the toss.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:01 pm

Do your job properly, behave like a reasonable person, and you don't have to worry about criminal negligence charges or C45. Put on your big girl panties and say "NO" when you're being pressured to violate regulations and break laws. This isn't complicated folks. Yes, sometimes there will be employment consequences for you; that's life. Why would you want to keep working for someone who expects you to break rules and be a criminal? If you're willing to tolerate it until you get the experience to move up, you really aren't any different than the owner. You're willing to operate outside the law and rules, and to risk peoples lives in order to make more money.

Liquid Charlie · Post by **Liquid Charlie** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:16 am

Criminal charges are not new to aviation accidents -- only in Canada - been going of for years in other countries - Mexico - captain charged because someone died after a hard landing -- ya I know -- but that is how it was described - Korea - Canadian pilot thrown in jail - that guy was saved by his Canadian Union getting him out of the country -- the list goes on -

I have to ask the question -- if a guy got behind the wheel drunk and was thrown in jail most would say "hang him high" -- running out of fuel due to poor planning seems to be right up there too - the only good to come out of this is that now guys are sitting up and taking notice -- we will be held responsible for our actions and loosing one's job is only a minor issue -- most of the time our issues stem from the guy selling the airplane. Cabin class twins are the worst - maybe should be barred from commercial aviation - the smaller the airplane the more likely to overload - how come aviation has not gone to drive over scales -- think about the impact of that one. Since TC is getting out of the aviation safety business maybe they could man the scales -- lol

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:51 am

Why would you want to keep working for someone who expects you to break rules and be a criminal? If you're willing to tolerate it until you get the experience to move up, you really aren't any different than the owner. You're willing to operate outside the law and rules, and to risk peoples lives in order to make more money.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:07 am

My good Cat, not ONLY are pilots still willing to work for these maggots, many are throwing money at them for the chance to break all the laws in the Beech 200! To the tune of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!! How STUPID....yes..I said, STUPID are these pilots???????? Anybody THAT STUPID should have been aborted before birth!!! SMELL THE BLOODY ROSES!!!

This is for "in house training" by someone who probably knows even less than ME!!!!!

ski_bum · Post by **ski_bum** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:47 am

I really hope Keystone's current pilots are keeping a close tab on this tread and realise what they are in for if anything goes wrong. You can clearly see that your employer will not help you out in any way, shape, or form. So why help him out in flying for him, filling his wallet? QUIT! This guy is a clown with no respect for anyone.

There is a sortage of experienced pilots out there, you are going to get a paid and treated better anywhere else, LEAVE. Keystone continues to operate because pilots will fly for him, I'd rather flip burgers than fly if keystone was my only option. TC won't shut them down and they must know whats going on, they cannot be that blind.

It is pretty bad that you hear from keystone pilots that nothing has changed there, and in terminals around the north you see keystone posters and someone has written "Empty" under the wing of their 200. Or when you fly over the Assinaboine forest, coming in for 36 in YWG, and your captain says, "hey made it farther than keystone today".

This is another interesting one too, I have seen court parties get off keystone aircraft up north, so the governement knows they are unsafe but still sends their employees out on their aircraft... hmmm.