Jump to content

Atleo Air Services Being Sued.


Recommended Posts

I don't think this is really a case of the families suing Atleo, (and their insurance company).

I suspect there is a slimy lawyer involved (on the families' behalf) that smells his share of a settlement.

 

I'm sure other lawyers would like to represent the deceased pilot's family against the estates of the drunk passengers.....but you can imagine that would only raise a lot more he!! than money.

 

We now have to fly with one eye on the passengers and one on their lawyers.

Something is seriously wrong with the system.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

WTF? The passengers caused the accident and essentially murdered the pilot but their families are the ones suing? Should it not be the other way around?   This makes me sick.

I don't think this is really a case of the families suing Atleo, (and their insurance company). I suspect there is a slimy lawyer involved (on the families' behalf) that smells his share of a settlem

I'll buy a hundred of that bumper sticker!!

After reading that TSB report it sounds like Atleo and/or the pilot's family should be filing suit against the passenger's estate for causing the crash in the first place.

 

There's a thread about this over on AV Canada. Apparently, the suit was filled 2 years to the day after the accident, which may have statute of limitation implications for a counter-suit. If true, and as per Over-Talk's suggestion, I'd say that I definitely smell a slimy lawyer pulling the strings...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure many readers of this thread may have noted the relevance of having a functioning SMS to this tragedy. Companies so organized, in the interests of safety, have restrictions requiring the Pilot-in-Command to deny passengers, in the pilot's judgement, being under the influence of alcohol or other substances affecting behavior. Of course the passenger's properly fastened seatbelt would have constrained him from interfering with the pilot, but how is the pilot supposed to control the actions of a passenger seated behind him? The passenger simply should not have been allowed to board.

 

I know there may be lots of groaning from the anti-SMS crowd, but an effective SMS can only function as intended if operators and all their employees buy into it and arrive at a safety climate in which every potential human-initiated accident cause is either eliminated or, to the maximum degree possible, mitigated.

 

P.S. I'm in no position to know if the company in question did, or did not, have a functioning SMS. However, if it did, the system either did not curtail the transport of passengers under the influence of impairing substances, or the employees were not buying into the system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure many readers of this thread may have noted the relevance of having a functioning SMS to this tragedy. Companies so organized, in the interests of safety, have restrictions requiring the Pilot-in-Command to deny passengers, in the pilot's judgement, being under the influence of alcohol or other substances affecting behavior. Of course the passenger's properly fastened seatbelt would have constrained him from interfering with the pilot, but how is the pilot supposed to control the actions of a passenger seated behind him? The passenger simply should not have been allowed to board.

 

I know there may be lots of groaning from the anti-SMS crowd, but an effective SMS can only function as intended if operators and all their employees buy into it and arrive at a safety climate in which every potential human-initiated accident cause is either eliminated or, to the maximum degree possible, mitigated.

 

P.S. I'm in no position to know if the company in question did, or did not, have a functioning SMS. However, if it did, the system either did not curtail the transport of passengers under the influence of impairing substances, or the employees were not buying into the system.

 

You are not wrong Grasshopper, the flight shouldn't have left. The pilot payed for that lapse in judgement with his life. I would hope that everyone in the industry hears of this lawsuit. Quite often during my career I have been expected to carry passengers under the influence of something. Seismic especially comes to mind. There is no doubt in my mind that if I refused to fly them, that I would have promplty been replaced by a willing participant.

 

The biggest issue I have with the lawsuit is the passenger that ultimately killed everyone, it's his family that is suing the pilots estate and the company. That would conclude that the passengers were completely innocent. Thats BS!

 

The lesson for every operator and pilot is clear! If you fly someone under the influence you will liklely be liable........

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

First I'd like to say that I to think that it's BS that the families are sueing but for some time now I have been putting it across to my pilots that whatever decision they make they should ask themselves that if they were in a courtroom and a lawyer asked them "Why they did what they did? You better have an answer that is backed by rules, regs and policies because if it isn't it's your azz on the line.

How many pilots here had a passenger(s) show up for a flight in -30C weather with dress shoes, dress pants and a light winter coat to go flying? Did you allow them to get on your aircraft like that? Over the years I can't count on two hands how many times that happened and I refused to fly them and off they went to the local store to buy winter gear!!! As the PIC you are responsible for your passengers safety!

So although it seems down right ignorant that some pilot lost his life and now the company is being sued by the families of the people that most likely caused all their deaths it unfortunetly is the way our world is going.....so do things right and by the book and hopefully you don't find yourself in the same or similar situation. If the company you fly for has a good safety/SMS program they should back your decisions 100%.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully, this tragedy has nothing to do with a SMS being in place, or not.

We already had Air Reg 602.04, that says,

 

(4)...... no operator of an aircraft shall allow a person to board the aircraft, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person's faculties are impaired by alcohol or a drug to an extent that may present a hazard to the aircraft or to persons on board the aircraft.

 

Some Operators (and their pilots) have to fly in industry sectors and communities that feature many impaired passengers. Very few of those passengers will be a threat to the safety of the flight. Therefore, to stay in business, many operators and their pilots ignore this Regulation.

 

Too often, the operator and/or pilot is stuck-in-the-middle of this mess, either receiving a Violation for breaking an Air Reg, or as in the Atleo crash, paying the ultimate price.

 

But having a SMS will not change this. (Please don't misunderstand me....I like the concept of SMS. It will help prevent accidents if used properly by operators, and enforced by the MoT).

 

However, I have not seen any magical part of the SMS that will change operators' (or pilots') practices when faced with impaired passengers in these areas, compared to the pre-SMS era.

 

Obviously, in light of this tragedy, this is not an acceptable practice, and something has to change.

The change must come from the MoT to educate community and industry leaders that such behavior is dangerous and unacceptable. (I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen, though).

 

I agree, as operators and pilots, we must do our part to enforce the Regulations (after all, it is us that gets the MoT Violation, not the passenger), but how has that changed since SMS arrived?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How times change. I remember a stand up argument with some idiot manager in Northern Mountain because I refused to take off when a passenger wanted not to wear his shoulder strap. Back then, by carefully reading various paragraphs in CARS you could argue that there was no legal requirement to use a shoulder strap, and the company's attitude was that their lawyers were smarter than any that the customers could drag up. I have no doubt that I, and any other pilot in the same position, would have been hung up and left out to dry had anything happened.

 

Phil

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few weeks ago the crew got on board for another loaded patrol. After releasing the starter and switching on the generator I smelt the tell tale aroma of someone that had very recently smoked a joint. I went through my "checks" but was just giving the battery a chance to charge a little then looked at the crew leader and said we were shutting down. I kept him in the cockpit after the crew left and asked if he smelled the weed? He acknowledged it. I told him to get a different crew and that I would be ready to go in 10 minutes. I explained the shutdown to my concerned engineer to alleviate his concern. Ten minutes later the crew came back minus two guys that were sent packing and we went on our patrol.

 

Last thing I need is some stoned fire fighter throwing a shovel into my blades or worse.....

 

It ain't SMS....it is common sense.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...