I read through the transcript and these are my thoughts on the responsible parties.
FastAir: they have created a toxic environment of chartering out aircraft below cost. (i.e. Cheyenne at $4.00/mile) Cliff must do everything he can to counter this or be forced out of business. Saving money on maintenance and hiring low experienced pilots that will fly for low wages is necessary. Until operators are mandated by law to charge a minimum charter tariff, there will always be operators willing to fly below cost.
Lodge/contractors/government/natives: Most of them only care about cost and will submit bids and take the lowest quote, regardless of pilot experience, aircraft age, and so on. If they weren't so goddam cheap and forked out a little extra and didn't just think about their wallet, the operator would have a little bit more money for things like experienced pilots, autopilots, and so on. An operator is only an extension of his client base. If his clients are cheap and disloyal, then he has to be also to survive. That is why natives fly in Navajos and executives fly in Gulfstreams. I'm quite sure Cliff would rather be running Challengers than clapped out Hos but his customers are what they are.
Air Canada / Westjet: They swing this f**king carrot at the industry and cause more deaths and broken bones than anyone. Why do they refuse to ante up a training budget for low time pilots? They just skim off the top and let the small operators take zero timers and mold them into experienced, where they then quit to go fly a Boeing. Why can Westjet and Air Canada not be forced to take on some of this responsibility for the small operators? After all, who benefits the most from all the low time guys going through Keystone? The airlines pick them up for zero risk. Its the Keystones that put it all on the line when they take some new guy and send him into a night landing in the shit at Poplar river.
High paying, well equipped companies: Similar to AC/WJ; they force pilots to work at shit outfits because pilots are human and are drawn by money and new planes and will do anything for it. Why won't these companies hire zero experienced pilots? Because they want the Keystones to filter out the bad apples, take all the risk and then hire the tops away. This makes guys starting out willing to do absolutely anything to build hours and move on, short of f**king their own mother. They will always fly with VFR fuel on IFR days, IFR with no autopilot and so on because they want the next step. If the next step was taken away, well then, things would change a lot, wouldn't they?
I am just so pissed off at this whole thing. The pilot was low time and willing to do anything to get ahead. Had he stood his ground, he would have been replaced by another low timer. Cliff would love to have new airplanes and experienced pilots but then the Fast Airs and Mission Airs come out of the woodwork with their lowballing scumbag quotes and take away all the margins, forcing Cliff to cut costs everywhere. Therefore he flys 1973 Hos with 1000 hour pilots. If he changes any of this this, he will be forced out and another operator (i.e. Alta Fights, Dynamic etc. will step in). The public insists on paying bottom dollar for airfare yet they expect perfect safety. Why won't they responsible parties in this trial take responsibility? Or are they all just happy to continue their slime f**king bastard ways and reap the rewards of the 703 world?
Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
........aahhhh, now we know why Cliff was not charged..he is a victim of an unfair system.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
If Cliff can't operate in an industry and compete in it safely, then he shouldn't be in it. I can't believe you just defended his operation claiming the Lodge owners/ Airlines/ are the reason he flies STD ridden Nava-whores with 1000 hour pilots. The man sets a culture of fuel skimming in old airplanes. He has to pay more for experience, buy better hardware or GET the hell out of the industry to compete.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
You just don't get it, do you? If he is forced out, then next guy to replace him will be even worse or do you forget NavAir, Waglisla, Skyward, Western Express, North Vancouver Air, etc....???? The bottom dollar gets the work and he is not even close to the bottom like some other operators are.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Cliff is a victim of a system that does not allow him to improve his company, it is very unfair to say mean things about him.
If Cliff had done something wrong don't you think the authorities would have had him in court along side his pilot?
You now know how it goes down in aviation in Canada, pilots are the only ones that will be held accountable because that is the way it is in Canada.
So please don't keep suggesting that Cliff is doing anything wrong because it is now evident that he has different SOP's and it is because he has no choice....TC seems to agree with that.
If Cliff had done something wrong don't you think the authorities would have had him in court along side his pilot?
You now know how it goes down in aviation in Canada, pilots are the only ones that will be held accountable because that is the way it is in Canada.
So please don't keep suggesting that Cliff is doing anything wrong because it is now evident that he has different SOP's and it is because he has no choice....TC seems to agree with that.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
-
tired of the ground
- Rank 5
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:38 pm
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
There is one big reason why this BS will continue for years.
Transport Canada doesn't have the resources or the balls to nail these operators to the wall.
Is there a single person here who believes that the CP and the OPS Manager were unaware that, that Navajo was flying around with no autopilot and VFR fuel.... NO. On the other side of the coin, if they were unaware then they have lost total operational control. So essentially they either condoned the flying that was done (most likely) or they lost operational control (extremely unlikely). Either way transport could nail them to the wall, but won't.
Transport will not got after a company because it is way easier to look like you're doing your job by going after a pilot. Pilots have no money to defend themselves so a conviction is almost guaranteed. If you go after a company, you have to prove that they knew the autopilot was U/S. It really isn't that difficult but is slightly more difficult that nailing the pilot.
I think the CARS also need to change. The buck shouldn't stop with the PIC. If a pilot knows that the company is happy for him to have legal fuel PLUS whatever he feels he needs for safety, the pilot will always carry it. It's no big deal to tell the fueler to put on a couple hundred pounds a side extra. The company should be equally or more responsible for ensuring pilots follow the rules. It would be easy for the company to track how much fuel is in the aircraft at any time using fuel receipts. If a pilot isn't carrying legal fuel then the company would be required to deal with him. If they didn't deal with it, then they condone it so they face the repercussions from transport (Real Ones). If everyone is tracking it and responsible for it then payload will not be an issue because you carry legal fuel or the company gets F***ed.
Will it happen? NO, because it's easier to keep the status quo and look like you're doing something (cause it's all pensionable time) than stick you neck out and try and make the industry better.
If you want to make it really interesting, make competing companies audit each other. If you can find them breaking a rule, you get to shut down the competition.
Transport Canada doesn't have the resources or the balls to nail these operators to the wall.
Is there a single person here who believes that the CP and the OPS Manager were unaware that, that Navajo was flying around with no autopilot and VFR fuel.... NO. On the other side of the coin, if they were unaware then they have lost total operational control. So essentially they either condoned the flying that was done (most likely) or they lost operational control (extremely unlikely). Either way transport could nail them to the wall, but won't.
Transport will not got after a company because it is way easier to look like you're doing your job by going after a pilot. Pilots have no money to defend themselves so a conviction is almost guaranteed. If you go after a company, you have to prove that they knew the autopilot was U/S. It really isn't that difficult but is slightly more difficult that nailing the pilot.
I think the CARS also need to change. The buck shouldn't stop with the PIC. If a pilot knows that the company is happy for him to have legal fuel PLUS whatever he feels he needs for safety, the pilot will always carry it. It's no big deal to tell the fueler to put on a couple hundred pounds a side extra. The company should be equally or more responsible for ensuring pilots follow the rules. It would be easy for the company to track how much fuel is in the aircraft at any time using fuel receipts. If a pilot isn't carrying legal fuel then the company would be required to deal with him. If they didn't deal with it, then they condone it so they face the repercussions from transport (Real Ones). If everyone is tracking it and responsible for it then payload will not be an issue because you carry legal fuel or the company gets F***ed.
Will it happen? NO, because it's easier to keep the status quo and look like you're doing something (cause it's all pensionable time) than stick you neck out and try and make the industry better.
If you want to make it really interesting, make competing companies audit each other. If you can find them breaking a rule, you get to shut down the competition.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
We still have to answer the question of why have a regulator that forces companies to spend enormous amounts of money to get the operating certificate to operate and keep operating on paper?
If the regulator is unable to regulate why have one?
I still think someone in TCCA is on the take...
If the regulator is unable to regulate why have one?
I still think someone in TCCA is on the take...
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Nobody seems to keep in mind, the simple fact that the pilot can always say, what was the word again? Oh yes,......"no"
And that really IS the bottom line. For those of you who can't see this simple fact, there will be some bleak days indeed, ahead for you.
And that really IS the bottom line. For those of you who can't see this simple fact, there will be some bleak days indeed, ahead for you.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Geee, I think I started a thread on that very subject! WHY IS IT SO HARD TO GET THAT ONE SIMPLE FACT????????????????
NONONONONONONONONONONONONO
NONONONONONONONONONONONONO
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
The operator in this case should take equal blame in my opinion however, if this is the way it's gonna be, let it be a lesson to all pilots out there. Nobody's ass but yours (and your pax) is on the line so always ask yourself this question before you go do something risky or illegal, "what will the accident report read?". If it contains something that you could have done different and knew about it, think twice before firing up and doing the trip. If not for your own life but for those of your passengers and the lives of your family that will be ruined if you do not make it home.
I've made my share of mistakes and stupid decisions and thank God I'm hear to tell the stories, just be careful out there everyone. Flying as we all know is not in itself dangerous, just very unforgiving.
Judge in crash case takes aim at small airlines
Updated Thu. Mar. 20 2008 7:43 PM ET
The Canadian Press
WINNIPEG -- The pilot of a twin-engine plane that crashed at a busy Winnipeg intersection because it ran out of fuel was handed two years' house arrest Thursday.
It's a punishment the judge hopes will signal the need to clean up the corporate culture at smaller airlines.
The case of former Keystone Air pilot Mark Tayfel unearthed disturbing details about practices at some companies that fly bush planes and air taxis, with industry witnesses testifying pilots are frequently pressured by superiors to cut corners -- even at the expense of safety.
"The culture within small air commuter operations is that safety often takes a back seat to making money,'' Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice Holly Beard said at Tayfel's sentencing.
From the experts' evidence, Beard said there is an expectation that pilots will set their own standards to get the job done, and in the process, safety rules are regularly bent.
But Beard served pilots fair warning that punishments could be far more severe if the industry doesn't shape up.
"One can only hope this will deter pilots from cutting corners,'' she said. "Failure to change the culture is likely to be met with more serious consequences in the future.''
Tayfel was convicted last November of six criminal charges, including criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, for the June 2002 crash in the intersection after his Piper Navajo ran out of fuel.
At Thursday's sentencing, Beard called the event "truly tragic,'' adding that "legal principles seem hard and cold.''
Sentencing was made difficult because Tayfel is "not a bad person,'' Beard said, noting she was moved by victim impact statements submitted by the family of 79-year-old Chester Jones, a Kansas resident.
Jones was described as a "vibrant grandfather'' who helped care for his special needs grandchildren on a daily basis.
"The loss to his family... will never be replaced,'' said Beard.
"He was... the centre of the family and the rock that supported them.''
During his sentencing hearing earlier this week, Tayfel offered a tearful apology to Jones's loved ones and to his five passengers, who were all Americans visiting Manitoba on a fishing trip.
Beard gave Tayfel strict conditions for the first nine months of his two-years-less-a-day sentence, including a 24-hour curfew that allows him to leave the house only for work. Tayfel hasn't flown since the accident, and earlier told court there is only a remote chance he will ever again work as a pilot. He currently works scheduling flights in Calgary.
As part of his sentence, Tayfel must also do presentations that warns aspiring pilots about the dangers of bending the rules.
Tayfel's lawyer, Balfour Der, said his client would not speak to reporters.
"This whole process has been really tough on him, but he's relieved that he's going home tonight and not to some jail cell,'' Der said outside court.
The past six years have taken an emotional toll on Tayfel, who's in his early 40s. He has not been able to find work as a pilot -- the career of his dreams, said Der.
Tayfel and his wife of two years delayed having children because of the prospect that Tayfel might have received a jail sentence.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada
I've made my share of mistakes and stupid decisions and thank God I'm hear to tell the stories, just be careful out there everyone. Flying as we all know is not in itself dangerous, just very unforgiving.
Judge in crash case takes aim at small airlines
Updated Thu. Mar. 20 2008 7:43 PM ET
The Canadian Press
WINNIPEG -- The pilot of a twin-engine plane that crashed at a busy Winnipeg intersection because it ran out of fuel was handed two years' house arrest Thursday.
It's a punishment the judge hopes will signal the need to clean up the corporate culture at smaller airlines.
The case of former Keystone Air pilot Mark Tayfel unearthed disturbing details about practices at some companies that fly bush planes and air taxis, with industry witnesses testifying pilots are frequently pressured by superiors to cut corners -- even at the expense of safety.
"The culture within small air commuter operations is that safety often takes a back seat to making money,'' Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice Holly Beard said at Tayfel's sentencing.
From the experts' evidence, Beard said there is an expectation that pilots will set their own standards to get the job done, and in the process, safety rules are regularly bent.
But Beard served pilots fair warning that punishments could be far more severe if the industry doesn't shape up.
"One can only hope this will deter pilots from cutting corners,'' she said. "Failure to change the culture is likely to be met with more serious consequences in the future.''
Tayfel was convicted last November of six criminal charges, including criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, for the June 2002 crash in the intersection after his Piper Navajo ran out of fuel.
At Thursday's sentencing, Beard called the event "truly tragic,'' adding that "legal principles seem hard and cold.''
Sentencing was made difficult because Tayfel is "not a bad person,'' Beard said, noting she was moved by victim impact statements submitted by the family of 79-year-old Chester Jones, a Kansas resident.
Jones was described as a "vibrant grandfather'' who helped care for his special needs grandchildren on a daily basis.
"The loss to his family... will never be replaced,'' said Beard.
"He was... the centre of the family and the rock that supported them.''
During his sentencing hearing earlier this week, Tayfel offered a tearful apology to Jones's loved ones and to his five passengers, who were all Americans visiting Manitoba on a fishing trip.
Beard gave Tayfel strict conditions for the first nine months of his two-years-less-a-day sentence, including a 24-hour curfew that allows him to leave the house only for work. Tayfel hasn't flown since the accident, and earlier told court there is only a remote chance he will ever again work as a pilot. He currently works scheduling flights in Calgary.
As part of his sentence, Tayfel must also do presentations that warns aspiring pilots about the dangers of bending the rules.
Tayfel's lawyer, Balfour Der, said his client would not speak to reporters.
"This whole process has been really tough on him, but he's relieved that he's going home tonight and not to some jail cell,'' Der said outside court.
The past six years have taken an emotional toll on Tayfel, who's in his early 40s. He has not been able to find work as a pilot -- the career of his dreams, said Der.
Tayfel and his wife of two years delayed having children because of the prospect that Tayfel might have received a jail sentence.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
The problem isn't the system. The system would work fine if TC actually ENFORCED the rules, and not letting Criminals like C***f, and countless other scumbags of the 703 world get away with the shit they get away with. Once again, I say that with this conviction, maybe this is finally the wake-up call the 1000 hour boys and girls need to see that they have to refuse to fly illegally just to keep the boss happy, AND TC needs to start kicking ass and chewing bubblegum with 703'ers. You can't blame the competition, unless they too are operating illegally.WGpilot wrote:I read through the transcript and these are my thoughts on the responsible parties.
FastAir: they have created a toxic environment of chartering out aircraft below cost. (i.e. Cheyenne at $4.00/mile) Cliff must do everything he can to counter this or be forced out of business. Saving money on maintenance and hiring low experienced pilots that will fly for low wages is necessary. Until operators are mandated by law to charge a minimum charter tariff, there will always be operators willing to fly below cost.
If a company wants to charge below cost, then let them go under. They won't last long.
Lodge/contractors/government/natives: Most of them only care about cost and will submit bids and take the lowest quote, regardless of pilot experience, aircraft age, and so on. If they weren't so goddam cheap and forked out a little extra and didn't just think about their wallet, the operator would have a little bit more money for things like experienced pilots, autopilots, and so on. An operator is only an extension of his client base. If his clients are cheap and disloyal, then he has to be also to survive. That is why natives fly in Navajos and executives fly in Gulfstreams. I'm quite sure Cliff would rather be running Challengers than clapped out Hos but his customers are what they are.
I used to fly judges and cops around in Navajos, are you kidding me? Let me see you land a challenger in Pukatawagan, smartass! BTW it's the LAW to have a working autopilot single-pilot IFR.
Air Canada / Westjet: They swing this f**king carrot at the industry and cause more deaths and broken bones than anyone. Why do they refuse to ante up a training budget for low time pilots? They just skim off the top and let the small operators take zero timers and mold them into experienced, where they then quit to go fly a Boeing. Why can Westjet and Air Canada not be forced to take on some of this responsibility for the small operators? After all, who benefits the most from all the low time guys going through Keystone? The airlines pick them up for zero risk. Its the Keystones that put it all on the line when they take some new guy and send him into a night landing in the @#$! at Poplar river.
you really shouldn't buy Saskatchewan grown weed. Get the stuff from BC, I hear it's world class. Are you stupid or just an NDP commie sympathizer?? This paragraph is by far the stupidest thing I've read since Blastor graced us with his presence. So, let me get this straight, C***f is a crook and should be in jail because the airline sector didn't hire low time pilots?
High paying, well equipped companies: Similar to AC/WJ; they force pilots to work at @#$! outfits because pilots are human and are drawn by money and new planes and will do anything for it. Why won't these companies hire zero experienced pilots? Because they want the Keystones to filter out the bad apples, take all the risk and then hire the tops away. This makes guys starting out willing to do absolutely anything to build hours and move on, short of f**king their own mother. They will always fly with VFR fuel on IFR days, IFR with no autopilot and so on because they want the next step. If the next step was taken away, well then, things would change a lot, wouldn't they?
I'm starting to think you really aren't this stupid, and are trying to troll. Maybe this conviction is finally the right step to show the relatively inexperienced drivers that you will be in deep trouble if you allow your criminal boss to push you to do criminal acts. Maybe this is a good thing. Some of us older, experienced guys have seen too many useless deaths in our time, and won't risk our own ass for a criminal. Call it wisdom, brains, whatever, but once again, you're way off base here.
I am just so pissed off at this whole thing. The pilot was low time and willing to do anything to get ahead. Had he stood his ground, he would have been replaced by another low timer. Cliff would love to have new airplanes and experienced pilots but then the Fast Airs and Mission Airs come out of the woodwork with their lowballing scumbag quotes and take away all the margins, forcing Cliff to cut costs everywhere. Therefore he flys 1973 Hos with 1000 hour pilots. If he changes any of this this, he will be forced out and another operator (i.e. Alta Fights, Dynamic etc. will step in). The public insists on paying bottom dollar for airfare yet they expect perfect safety. Why won't they responsible parties in this trial take responsibility? Or are they all just happy to continue their slime f**king bastard ways and reap the rewards of the 703 world?
ps, China is a communist country, and russia will most likely go communist again soon, so I suggest that you go work for a company out there and spare us the socialist whining when it comes to doing business in a capitalist society.
Last edited by Four1oh on Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Drinking outside the box.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Mark Tayfel. I do not know you, but if you ever read this, you are my brother of the sky and I wish you all the best. I KNOW that I speak on behalf of many other brothers and sisters of the sky, that we support you, and hope you perserver. I really hope to see you on the line some day.
FOwithBO
FOwithBO
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Four1oh:
Excellent response to whoever wrote all that tripe covering for someone operating in an air service in a criminal manner.
This is breathtaking in its stupidity:
Everytime I read those statements by Merlin Preuss claiming that Canada is a world leader in safety it is all I can do to force myself to not go to Ottawa and piss on his feet.
......how is it possible that anyone can defend any company cutting costs by saving money on maintenance??? Paying peanuts to pilots stupid enough to fly for peanuts is one thing, but saving money on maintenance on such things as autopilots for example is in my opinion reason to put these owners in jail.
Where are the regulators??? .......aaahhhh at Tower C in Ottawa.....so lets picket the building and not quit until the general public understands that Preuss and his minions are the reason that operators like Keystone kill people.
Excellent response to whoever wrote all that tripe covering for someone operating in an air service in a criminal manner.
This is breathtaking in its stupidity:
Pilots and engineers should volunteer time to maintain a picket line around Tower C in Ottawa demanding those idiots in charge of TCCA enforce the law......FastAir: they have created a toxic environment of chartering out aircraft below cost. (i.e. Cheyenne at $4.00/mile) Cliff must do everything he can to counter this or be forced out of business. Saving money on maintenance and hiring low experienced pilots that will fly for low wages is necessary.
Everytime I read those statements by Merlin Preuss claiming that Canada is a world leader in safety it is all I can do to force myself to not go to Ottawa and piss on his feet.
......how is it possible that anyone can defend any company cutting costs by saving money on maintenance??? Paying peanuts to pilots stupid enough to fly for peanuts is one thing, but saving money on maintenance on such things as autopilots for example is in my opinion reason to put these owners in jail.
Where are the regulators??? .......aaahhhh at Tower C in Ottawa.....so lets picket the building and not quit until the general public understands that Preuss and his minions are the reason that operators like Keystone kill people.
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth on Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Morning Doc...
I'm sitting in my motor home in a high end RV park in Tucson Arizona just venting here on Avcanada while my dear wife prepares my breakfast then we are going walking in the desert before it gets to hot here.
Don't work to hard.
I'm sitting in my motor home in a high end RV park in Tucson Arizona just venting here on Avcanada while my dear wife prepares my breakfast then we are going walking in the desert before it gets to hot here.
Don't work to hard.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Why can you not understand? Keystone has only killed 1 person so far (more to come though). NavAir killed over half a dozen pilots and were still not shut down but voluntarily suspended their own OC. You don't think Bernie is looking everywhere for another crack at the 703 world? What is better? A Keystone that breeds a culture of cost savings or the NavAirs of the world that actually kill pilots? And the most ironic thing??? I can verify that Bernie had over 1000 applications on file for new guys looking for their chance. Even after their Ho exploded on final, the resumes just kept pouring in. The reason you all get so upset over my posts is that reality is a difficult thing for most people to accept. The reality is that low time, zero experience will do anything, and I mean anything to build time. It is only once they have a PPC and some experience that they learn to say no, because they have options. Doc, its time you wake up and realize that low time pilots will not say no or they are going to be replaced by those who say yes. I know its wrong and you don't like it and its not the way it should be and so on...but the fact of the matter is.....they will not say no.
How long do you think the Keystones of the 703 world would stay in business if they did not have access to this pool of new pilots? A 3000 hour ATP pilot is not going to take VFR gas on an IFR day. He is not going to take a broken plane or miss on a straightforward ILS. He is going to be proficient, experienced, follow the CARS and not work for $2500 a month when the neighbors across the ramp are paying $5000 a month. So the real question is...why won't Calm Air hire these low time pilots? Why does Calm Air wait for the pilot to not bend a plane at Keystone before they are given an interview? Is this not a sort of ultimate hypocrisy? Look at us, we are so safe because we only hire experienced pilots that overcame all their f**kups while working at Keystone?
To the poster that said if a carrier continues to charter out aircraft below cost, they will go bankrupt... BULLSH*T!!! Fast Air has not only prospered with this strategy but has expanded with new hangars. The trick is to use the power of Christ, much like the Skyward days of past. Get everyone on board through the low wage "plan" and then find rich people who want to brag at parties about their turbines then offer to "manage" their aircraft. No overhead costs and just pay when you need the plane.
How long do you think the Keystones of the 703 world would stay in business if they did not have access to this pool of new pilots? A 3000 hour ATP pilot is not going to take VFR gas on an IFR day. He is not going to take a broken plane or miss on a straightforward ILS. He is going to be proficient, experienced, follow the CARS and not work for $2500 a month when the neighbors across the ramp are paying $5000 a month. So the real question is...why won't Calm Air hire these low time pilots? Why does Calm Air wait for the pilot to not bend a plane at Keystone before they are given an interview? Is this not a sort of ultimate hypocrisy? Look at us, we are so safe because we only hire experienced pilots that overcame all their f**kups while working at Keystone?
To the poster that said if a carrier continues to charter out aircraft below cost, they will go bankrupt... BULLSH*T!!! Fast Air has not only prospered with this strategy but has expanded with new hangars. The trick is to use the power of Christ, much like the Skyward days of past. Get everyone on board through the low wage "plan" and then find rich people who want to brag at parties about their turbines then offer to "manage" their aircraft. No overhead costs and just pay when you need the plane.
-
Rotten Apple #1
- Rank 8
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 am
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Wow. Where would one begin to respond?Air Canada / Westjet: They swing this f**king carrot at the industry and cause more deaths and broken bones than anyone. Why do they refuse to ante up a training budget for low time pilots? They just skim off the top and let the small operators take zero timers and mold them into experienced, where they then quit to go fly a Boeing. Why can Westjet and Air Canada not be forced to take on some of this responsibility for the small operators? After all, who benefits the most from all the low time guys going through Keystone? The airlines pick them up for zero risk.
I've got the rest of the day at home and will sort out the differing thoughts I have running around in my head before posting. Wow.
I might also try to figure out who I should have blamed for the various lower end jobs or periods of unemployment I had on the way to my current employer. One thing's for certain, it had to be somebody, and it wasn't me...
-
Rotten Apple #1
- Rank 8
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 am
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Oh and then I had to go and read the next paragraph. I'm putting on another pot of coffee. To whit:
High paying, well equipped companies: Similar to AC/WJ; they force pilots to work at @#$! outfits because pilots are human and are drawn by money and new planes and will do anything for it. Why won't these companies hire zero experienced pilots? Because they want the Keystones to filter out the bad apples, take all the risk and then hire the tops away. This makes guys starting out willing to do absolutely anything to build hours and move on, short of f**king their own mother. They will always fly with VFR fuel on IFR days, IFR with no autopilot and so on because they want the next step. If the next step was taken away, well then, things would change a lot, wouldn't they?
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Wow, take it easy on Fast Air there buddy...When it's time to rag on YWG companies, there are a few places to stop before you get to Fast. Comparing Missionair to Fast Air almost made me pee.
I don't care if the operator next door charters out their planes for NOTHING. If you don't fix your planes properly, train your crew properly, or maintain a professional atmosphere (the most important in my opinion), then you suck. Get the f**k out. Period.
P.S. Ask Cliff if a B200 can carry 13 pax, with 40lbs of bags each, from YWG-YEE-YWG IFR without a fuel stop. That will tell you what you need to know. Kudos to MB Hydro for paying more for a professional operator.
I don't care if the operator next door charters out their planes for NOTHING. If you don't fix your planes properly, train your crew properly, or maintain a professional atmosphere (the most important in my opinion), then you suck. Get the f**k out. Period.
P.S. Ask Cliff if a B200 can carry 13 pax, with 40lbs of bags each, from YWG-YEE-YWG IFR without a fuel stop. That will tell you what you need to know. Kudos to MB Hydro for paying more for a professional operator.
-
170 to xray
- Rank 3
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:48 am
- Location: cyyz
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
"The reality is that low time, zero experience will do anything, and I mean anything to build time. It is only once they have a PPC and some experience that they learn to say no, because they have options. Doc, its time you wake up and realize that low time pilots will not say no or they are going to be replaced by those who say yes. I know its wrong and you don't like it and its not the way it should be and so on...but the fact of the matter is.....they will not say no."
I say there's your problem right there, not the operator. Only one pilot-in-COMMAND.
If you say no to something illegal or unsafe and lose your job. You may feel devastated at first, but believe me. That's a place you don't want to be. You always have options.
Nothing angers me more than people who tell me how bad an operator is and they know it because they've worked there for x number of years. That, to me, says more about you, than the operator.
my 2 cents.
I say there's your problem right there, not the operator. Only one pilot-in-COMMAND.
If you say no to something illegal or unsafe and lose your job. You may feel devastated at first, but believe me. That's a place you don't want to be. You always have options.
Nothing angers me more than people who tell me how bad an operator is and they know it because they've worked there for x number of years. That, to me, says more about you, than the operator.
my 2 cents.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
I'm going walking in the desert for a few hours with my wife....and will be wondering what will happen between Bernie and WGpilot.
I've been in this industry for ever and know a lot of the people, I wonder where those comments about Nav Air and Bernie will lead to?
I've been in this industry for ever and know a lot of the people, I wonder where those comments about Nav Air and Bernie will lead to?
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Someone needs to ask what happened to a former RCMP officer who was flying for Cliff and had the audacity to say "no" or put snags in the logbook. We say "no" and we lose our job. We say "yes" and we are held criminally responsible for the result when our luck runs out.
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
FastAir: they have created a toxic environment of chartering out aircraft below cost. (i.e. Cheyenne at $4.00/mile) Cliff must do everything he can to counter this or be forced out of business. Saving money on maintenance and hiring low experienced pilots that will fly for low wages is necessary. Until operators are mandated by law to charge a minimum charter tariff, there will always be operators willing to fly below cost.
If FastAir is indeed operating below cost, they keep their machines in beautiful repair. I had an interview with them a few years ago, but was not impressed with their wage offer for the Otter in Baker Lake. It is an expensive place to live and fairly risky work (They'd just replaced the Garrett after a nose-over on an esker) When they asked me if I was into drinking, fornicating,
or if I was a churchgoer 
, I considered the interview over. I thanked them, and told them I'd call them back (I lied). I walked away from a low paying job, but the machine was pristine.But I don't believe that they are unsafe. And they have excellent coffee in the passenger lounge. So naming them here just because you disagree with their tariff schedule is unfair. Maybe de-regulation is responsible for the decrease in safety? Some operators are hangin' on for dear life with all the competition.
Drinking lots of coffee lately, at a nice safe jungle desk, wishing I were flying......
Re: Keystone verdict - who is really at fault?
Quote: “The reality is that low time, zero experience will do anything, and I mean anything to build time. It is only once they have a PPC and some experience that they learn to say no, because they have options. Doc, its time you wake up and realize that low time pilots will not say no or they are going to be replaced by those who say yes. I know its wrong and you don't like it and its not the way it should be and so on...but the fact of the matter is.....they will not say no.”
Well said, WGpilot! The key part of your post is in the second sentence.
It’s easy for some apparently independently wealthy individuals who do not need to earn a living to tell someone else to say “No!” Presumably these posters are from old wealthy families and are given an allowance from the family fortune so that they never need to work. They need to have a reality check and recognize that circumstances are different for others (the majority!).
When a low time pilot does refuse to fly on the grounds of safety and loses his job as a consequence it will be very interesting to see how many of the SAY NO posters above are prepared to step forward and pay the out-of-work pilot’s rent/mortgage, food bills, utility bills, job search costs, etc. until he is able to find another job. How many of them will even offer him another job, assuming some of them are in a position to do so?
Like all socialists it is easy to tell somebody else to do some idealistic thing at their own cost! As the old saying goes: Put your money where your mouth is!
I agree with those posters who consider that the main emphasis of enforcement action should be against operators who condone unsafe operations. I also agree with those who believe there are serious ethical and performance issues at TCCA.
As always, the solution is to address the problem, not the symptoms!
Well said, WGpilot! The key part of your post is in the second sentence.
It’s easy for some apparently independently wealthy individuals who do not need to earn a living to tell someone else to say “No!” Presumably these posters are from old wealthy families and are given an allowance from the family fortune so that they never need to work. They need to have a reality check and recognize that circumstances are different for others (the majority!).
When a low time pilot does refuse to fly on the grounds of safety and loses his job as a consequence it will be very interesting to see how many of the SAY NO posters above are prepared to step forward and pay the out-of-work pilot’s rent/mortgage, food bills, utility bills, job search costs, etc. until he is able to find another job. How many of them will even offer him another job, assuming some of them are in a position to do so?
Like all socialists it is easy to tell somebody else to do some idealistic thing at their own cost! As the old saying goes: Put your money where your mouth is!
I agree with those posters who consider that the main emphasis of enforcement action should be against operators who condone unsafe operations. I also agree with those who believe there are serious ethical and performance issues at TCCA.
As always, the solution is to address the problem, not the symptoms!
