Former Keystone Pilot Mark Tayfel Sentence

[The Old Fogducker]

This just in from CJOB News in WG... More soon no doubt


A former pilot responsible for a deadly airplane crash in Winnipeg almost six years ago is not going to jail.

Justice Holly Beard has sentenced Mark Tayfel to two years of house arrest. The former pilot was convicted of criminal negligence causing death after a 79-year-old-passenger died from injuries sustained in the crash in June 2002.

Tayfel was forced to land the aircraft at McPhillips Street and Logan Avenue because he miscalculated the amount of fuel he needed to get to Winnipeg.

[drifter]

Will this change the after math of all accidents in Canada from here on in?

I always thought house arrest was for someone that wasn't a viloent criminal and needed a time out to think about what they have done. I don't see how this will help Mark or anyone else involved move on.

[2milefinal]

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 54&t=40985

[FOwithBO]

So. No convictions for the owners!!!? Personally, I see more blame on those s0ns of $itches!!

[the_professor]

Tayfel was forced to land the aircraft at McPhillips Street and Logan Avenue because he miscalculated the amount of fuel he needed to get to Winnipeg.

Gotta love the media. "Miscalculated"?? Are you kidding me?

[180]

Yes, he made a bad call. A couple actually. Was he the first? No. Will he be the last? No. Should the company that created the BS fuel and half-ass radio panel culture be held partially responsible? You bet they should.

But 2 years house arrest is the least of his worries. He has to live with his decision for the rest of his life. Mark's probably very messed up, living with the blame of being held solely responsible for the death of a passenger. I feel for the guy. And all you armchair quarterbacks better pray to whoever you pray to that you never make a mistake that kills someone and end up walking a mile in his shoes.

Crucify the guy if you want, it's probably nothing compared to what he's putting himself through everyday. I feel for you Mark. I hope you can get through this...

[stratcat]

Well put 180. Hes put up with 6 years of bullshit and humiliation. In the media, and worse on here by all these so called aviators. i think hes already payed his price. I watched the news today and the former ops manager of Keystone said that he was dispatched a safe aircraft that day. How is an aircraft with no autopilot thats single pilot IFR safe?

[Doc]

An awful lot of you are still beating the "no auto pilot" drum. I think the lack of fuel in the tank was the real problem. No doubt, the auto pilot was a legally required. But c'mon, it wasn't the cause. Many of us have flown many hours with the auto pilot turned off. We're still here.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see Keystone hung out to dry. But as long as pilots accept non airworthy aircraft, and fly off into the "wild blue" with them, the onus will always rest with the pilot.......are you guys listening?

[CLguy]

And as a pilot group have we learned anything from this??? From some of the threads I read I would have to say no, as it seems we still have folks lining up for the shit jobs with the two bit operators and TC still burying their heads instead of jumping all over these companies. Then we argue on here justifying why we did what we did in order to get the job done rather than just saying NO in the first place!!! And so it goes!!!

[Widow]

Just my opinion of course, but I think pilots, as a group, are waking up. Slowly maybe, but I do think it is happening. Having Mr. Tayfel "do presentations that warns aspiring pilots about the dangers of bending the rules" as has been required by his sentence, will hopefully have an even greater, and lasting, effect.

But the problems that existed in the industry at the time, continue to exist today because neither the operator nor the regulator have been held accountable for their part ... they can get away with it, so they continue to do it. Again I say "This is why aviation needs REAL whistleblower protection. Not the "confidential reporting" (protect the operator, not the whistleblower) that will be instituted with Bill C-7. And you need someone who will DO something about the reported safety issues, to manage the reports from the whistleblowers."

[Doc]

Widow, I'd like to think you are correct, but instead I feel you're listening to too many Donovan Leach songs.....First there was a mountain, then there was no mountain, then there was..
Nobody has learned a bloody thing. Read the posts. Everyone is still trying to justify their own stupidity. Still pointing fingers at other factors. Still denying their responsibility. "The CP made me do it." "The company requires us to overfly fuel stops." And, they're all STILL DOING IT!!

[Widow]

I don't see it as pointing fingers. I see it as recognizing that everyone has a part to play. Safety has to be a co-operative effort. As many have stated, even if one pilot says "no", it seems there will always be one to step forward and say "yes" if the operator is one who will push for that unsafe "yes". There will always be the "know-it-all" or the "desperate for hours" types, and there will always be people who care more about money than safety. The regulator seems not to act effectively when complaints are received, and/or does not protect the worker from repercussions.

As with everything, it starts with education. Commercial pilots should be educated on their rights to say "no", and the regulator should enforce those rights.

[Doc]

Widow, you're still being warm and fuzzy on me. Regardless of all the other factors, pilots continue to do what they do.....and they always will....because the buck stops in the left seat. If you have to be "educated" to say "no" then you are a total moron and you have NO right to endanger the lives of those on your aircraft! This guy strapped on his seatbelt and departed KNOWING he did NOT have the fuel required to complete the flight. He KNEW his auto pilot was a LEGAL requirement.....he chose to go flying that day. Nobody else MADE him. There was NO gun held to his head. He did it. On his own. And nobody seems to get this! And we are still looking for other factors....hey....I'll make the decisions on MY airplane...ME...and ya know what? Nobody ever "educated" me to say...."no"!!!

I say..."Widow, go jump off that bridge..." You say...."NO" Did ya need an education to say "no"? Well, did ya?

[Widow]

Doc, I am warm and a little fuzzy. Better than being cold and crusty like you.

I am not denying that Mr. Tayfel was rightly held criminally negligent. Yet the culture exists where one person was able to make this costly mistake, when several things could have, even should have, happened that would have prevented his having to make that decision. If all the defenses that were in place had worked, he would never have been faced with the decision at all. That is my point. And that is what I feel needs to be addressed.

[CID]

Doc, I don't think widow realizes just how phenomally stupid Tayfel's mistake was. It's akin to having your employer telling you to jump off a tall building.

Pilot's shouldn't need babysitters to prevent them from making such fundamental errors.

[Widow]

Could anyone else have stopped him? Was anyone else responsible to ensure regulations were being followed?

If the answer to those question is "no", then Mr. Tayfel would be solely responsible. He IS ultimately responsible, but not solely so. Because someone else could have stopped him, and someone else should have stopped him.

In any other industry, if my boss told me to "jump off a bridge" holding hands with some customers, and I did so ... would I be the only one held responsible when we smashed to the ground, or would my boss be charged too?

[Doc]

BINGO, CID. You are SO right. I'm not the brightest light in the tanning bed....but I can keep track of my fuel requirements!

Widow.....I'm sorry. You just don't get it. He DID jump off that tall building. He KNEW how much fuel he had. He KNEW how much fuel he needed. Stop it with the "culture" crap. Sure, his company has some "issues"...but c'mon....if you think all the warm fuzzy TC buz words and terms would make a real difference, you're in "la la" land!

When you (knowingly) depart on an hour flight with fifty-eight minutes of fuel on board....you are a moron! I don't give a rat's ass how nice a guy you are...you shouldn't be flying!

[CLguy]

CID and Doc, sorry but I have to agree with Widow on the point she is trying to make. No doubt the ultimate authority to do what he did rests with the PIC but there is an entire company management structure in place that is approved by TC that is supposed to ensure bad decisions like this don't take place. It is all about the links in the chain and the OPS Manager or Chief Pilot could have broken the links at any time just by providing the proper direction and support that the PIC needed to make the right decision. Again like I stated in another post, had the culture been established by the management team that if you break the rules you may be looking for a job instead of if you don't break the rules you may be looking for a job!!

Like I have stated before, they should be locked up next door for allowing the pilot to be put in a situation where such a major blunder could have been made!

[Doc]

CLguy, I'll buy that argument as far as the auto pilot goes. But the fuel? I'm sorry, but no amount of positive management would have prevented a pilot from not taking enough fuel. Unless of course, he has a death wish? If you're dumb enough to knowingly run out of gas...well...what can I say? The guy had "bingo" fuel. Maybe. If everything went absolutely by the book. But, he didn't have VFR reserves, let alone IFR reserves! And he knew it. He jumped off that "cliff" by himself. Nobody pushed him. Everybody keeps pointing at company "culture" and it pisses me off that we, as a pilot group can't even take the responsibility of ensuring we have enough frikken gas! Gee, I sure hope the company provides me with the education to wipe may ass! Because, if I screw it up, I'm blaming the "culture"!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Doc, listen real close to what we are saying.

We agree that the pilot made the choice to fly without ensuring he had enough fuel....

B U T....

widow, ClGuy, myself and many others are only trying to point out the pilot is not the only one who is culpable in these accidents.

The whole 703 sector of aviation in Canada is in need of a complete house cleaning and made to conform to the regulations.

Otherwise we have a wild west mentality with no sheriffs.

[Apache64_]

Here's my tidbit,

Mark was wrong in taking off in a plane that had no working autopilot, did not have required fuel to get to destination plus alternate plus. There is something to be said though for the way the company culture is. Doc says there was no gun being held to his head, but other things were there that hold almost as much weight. Putting food on the table, keeping a job, peer pressure, boss pressure, perceived pressure, career progression, and probably a little ego and get r done attitude. We have all been there, we have all dealt with it in our own way. Doc is right, he should have said no. He didn't and we know the results. More than likely the fuel on board was enough to scrap by based on winds, leaning, being able to fly a straight line on any other day. So past performance would probably have played a role in the decision. Weather all over the south of mb that day sucked as I recall. I know YAV was out for a fuel stop because I was there, Pine dock may have been an option, I do not recall what Berens River was reporting but it may be an option shoot the approach there and run across the lake and pick up some gas. Regardless, the decision was made to press on.

The company culture after six years has changed very little. I know of a pilot who was demoted and then quit because they carried too much fuel. Pilots are taught to lean the jo to red line on the EGTs to get min fuel consumption. (second hand info so don't quote me)

The above is what I was told by someone who worked there recently. So, if that is the current attitude after having a plane placed on Logan and Mcphillips, I don't imagine it being any better at the time of the accident.

So yes I agree, he should have said no. But sometimes it is easier said than done. Hindsight is 20/20 and looking back, I bet Mark wishes he did a thousand things different. I hope all the best comes from this, we learn and all the future pilots learn. Just say no! No matter how hard it is. When your deciding whether or not to go flying, and you start thinking about reasons that do not apply to the aircraft, the weather, the destination, the passengers, the fuel, weight and balance etc, you are no longer making your decision solely as a pilot, you have allowed it to become personal and other than your fitness, fatigue and mental acuity, few other personal factors should enter into whether or not you fly.


Does anyone know if he could have taken more fuel and still be within gross take off? Not that matters, just bump baggage or bums till it works, but I was just wondering.

Thanks for reading, sorry for the rambling, punctuation and spelling errors.


Cheers

Apache

[CID]

Could anyone else have stopped him? Was anyone else responsible to ensure regulations were being followed?

If the answer to those question is "no", then Mr. Tayfel would be solely responsible. He IS ultimately responsible, but not solely so. Because someone else could have stopped him, and someone else should have stopped him

.

Wow. That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've read on this issue. I guess airlines like this only need two pilots. That's because the CF needs to fly in the right seat holding hands with the pilot in command to prevent him from flying the airplane upside-down or landing with his eyes closed or taking off while asleep.

Widow, the operations people are responsible for alot of things. However, once the airplane is released, the pilot is responsible to determine if the airplane is equipped and fueled appropriately for the trip. These are not subtle or difficult decisions. They are fundamental knowledge that every pilot needs to know. If they don't they have no business in the cockpit.

The pilot in question not only failed to have enough fuel on the airplane, he failed to declare an emergency or even minimum fuel which would have invoked ATC to give him landing priority and prevented them from directing the flight out over the city. This guy had plenty of chances to come clean and do the right thing but he failed to follow fundamental principals.

I am totally on board with the theory of promoting a safe company culture and I'm aware of the dangers of negative company cultures that fail to promote safety. In my opinion, the fundamental mistakes the pilot made are not the result of the company culture.

[Doc]

Sorry guys, I still stick to my original point. It is up to the pilot to ensure he has enough fuel to complete the odyssey! I really don't care what the "culture" of the company is. I'll agree, in this case, it sucks. But it's still up to the PIC to conduct the flight in a safe manner. I know the system needs a "house cleaning", but really guys, to depart without enough fuel? That's pretty basic airmanship.....at least, it is in my book.
I'm with CID on this one.

[Apache64_]

For my part Doc, I never disagreed with that point either. Fuel makes my world turn.


Cheers

Apache

[Intentional Left Bank]

Sorry about the threadjack.

From the judgment by Judge Holly Beard:

The risks of death or serious injury arising from the activity under consideration, being that of flying an aircraft, are very high when compared to other similar activities such as driving a vehicle. If, for any reason, the aircraft cannot remain aloft, it falls to the ground and, almost with fail, all on board are killed or seriously injured. It is almost unheard of for there to be any survivors of a plane crash. [my italics]

I read the judgment in its entirety, and thought it was complete and correct based on the evidence presented. That Keystone might have a culture "issue" is a difficult (or perhaps expensive) argument to present, and thus was not given a full hearing.

I am troubled by the above quote. If a judge can believe that, a significant percentage of the general populace is likely in agreement. Luckily the insurance industry is not similarly ignorant.