Bring Out Your Dead

“Is this turning into a dead blog?” writes the comment. (I'm reminded of the "Bring out your dead" Monty Pyhton Sketch from The Holy Grail - "I'm not dead" - "yes, you are!" - "No, I'm not, I'm getting better!")

The answer is complex. I would definitely not call it dead, but I will admit that it has been sitting silently on the backburner for quite some time. It hasn’t been out of laziness or lack of interest, but I will say there’s been a lack of inspiration on my part.

There are a number of pilot blogs on the internet that are of a very high quality. Some pilots have a great ability to write interesting, technical but personal blogs about their job and reflections on life that, because the spend much of their time perched thousands of feet above the earth by themselves with their thoughts, make for great blog entries. This solitude while experiencing the wonders of flight essentially cries out for a cathartic blog post to share the experience. It has been quite a while since I have been flying, and as a result, I haven’t had quite so many of these experiences.

It seems a little strange really: I have a book which outlines how to become a pilot and be successful in the industry, yet it’s now been quite a while since I’ve flown. So what’s the deal?

I think that on one hand, not flying and not working in the aviation industry makes for a challenge in trying to promote my book and add blog posts. I don’t have the ability to be inspired by an event that occurred while I was flying and I don’t get to meet as many people in the industry and talk flying (which would also spread the word about my book and give me ideas for a blog post or possible changes to the book in the future). On the other hand however, I think that it offers me a unique perspective on the industry and the career as a pilot – both pros and cons.

I’m currently articling to become a lawyer. I graduated law school in May, passed the Nova Scotia bar exam and now have to finish my 12 months of articling (like an apprenticeship) and then I’m a real lawyer (fancy robe and all!). It’s been interesting to compare the steps involved in becoming a pilot verses becoming a lawyer. There are standard norms in each profession and it’s interesting to see what one profession does as compared to the other. I’m also good friends with Anne Berndl, author of “So, You Want to be a Doctor, Eh?” so I get a pretty good idea of what’s required to become a doctor as well.

There are some things that are great about aviation:
-the fact that you have to work your way up;
-the fact that you need to take the initiative to get your own first job and those that are not able to do so will likely not stay in the industry (as opposed to getting a bunch of people who don’t like their job, but it was easier to just get a job then do something else);
-the fact that you use many different routes to train; and
-the fact that, while you don’t believe it at the time, the lower time jobs with their experiences and stories are things you will remember your whole life.

There are some things that I think should be improved:
-the fact that the entry level pay is so low;
-the fact that everyone excepts this because they want to get to bigger and ‘better’ aircraft, but that life isn’t as good as it used to be;
-the fact that there isn’t an official apprenticeship stage and that even after spend tens of thousands of dollars on a licence, you’re still just a dime a dozen 200 hour wonder.
-the fact that there’s a disconnect between the costs of the new super expensive University and College aviation programs and the actual skills and low pay of the first few years in the industry. It’s really hard to pay back $90,000 in student loans when you’re making less than $20,000 a year!

This blog isn’t dead. Keep checking from time to time and when I am feeling inspired, I will write.

Perimeter Aviation

I apologize for the lack of posts. I'm currently in the middle of exams so I have been a little pre-occupied.

I have a counter this blog which tells me how much traffic I get and also where it comes from and in some instances, the search terms that people use to find it. A large number of people find this blog when searching for 'sexy flight attendants!' I had one recent person find this blog while searching for 'perimeter aviation dangerous' which sent them to the previous post: Drinking And Flying.

While I felt it was important to post so that young pilots know how important it is to be very careful with their alcohol consumption, I did not want the post to be seen as being negative towards Perimeter Aviation. Perimeter is a good, safe airline. I have numerous friends that fly for them and I would fly on them no problem. It's a great spot for young pilots to get their start. You will work hard on the ramp for a fair amount of time, but once you get flying, you get lots of hours and lots of great experience. There is the opportunity to move up from a First Officer to Captain and even the opportunity to move up to a Dash 8. The multi-IFR flight school is very well known and they often offer the ability for instructors to eventually move over to the airline side of things.

Most pilots don't make a career of flying for Perimieter or airlines like it, however, Perimeter does offer very competitive salaries for their Medevac Captains.
Overall, it's a good company - even if the Metro's look like lawn darts :)

Drinking and Flying

Although pilots are stereo-typical heavy drinkers, pilot alcohol consumption is strictly regulated. Transport Canada's Rule is that you are not to have had a drink within 8 hours of acting as a crew member or still be under the influence of any alcohol. "8 hours bottle to throttle". Some airlines have even stricter policies. There can be serious reprecusions for breaking that rule. In the US, two airline pilots who had been drinking prior to their flight were sentenced to 2 1/2 and 5 years in jail!

These were not them - this is Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla from the Man show - take this skit with a grain of salt:



Drinking before flying is no laughing matter. This is one of the most important rules that you must follow in your flying career. There is NO reason why you should be in a position where you have had a drink less than 8 hours before your flight.

The pilots in the article below were lucky to only be suspended for 3 weeks. There has been quite an uproar on AvCanada about this incident. While some people may argue that "it was only 1 beer and it was only 7.5 hours before the flight" I would argue that this is unacceptable. You know when you are on-call and when you're scheduled to depart. As a pilot you're required to know how to tell time and know how long 8 hours is. If you have had a drink within those 8 hours it is your responsibility to be a professional and not fly until you are within the rule. While sure, it's nice to have a beer with dinner, but is it worth your career? I don't think any beer tastes that good. I do not know the exact situation that these pilots were in so I'm not going to pass judgement, but for new pilots, it's something you have to be very careful about - it could have serious reprecusions.

Post-flight beers prove costly for three pilots

By: Aldo Santin

Updated: April 3 at 02:00 AM CDT

Having a beer with their dinner has cost three young pilots a suspension without pay.

Mark Wehrle, general manager of Perimeter Aviation, confirmed Wednesday night that Transport Canada had suspended the licences of three pilots for a three-week period stemming from an incident in September.

Wehrle said the three pilots -- one has since moved on to a larger airline -- had flown a cargo run to Fargo. While having dinner down there after they arrived, they each had a beer. Wehrle said the three young men brought their planes home the next morning. However, Wehrle said that pilots are prohibited from consuming alcohol for eight hours before they take-off.

"It turns out that this was at the 7.5-hour mark," Wehrle said. "Someone on the flight crew reported it to us and they confirmed that it happened."

Wehrle said he didn't think the actions of the three young pilots, all believed to be in their mid-20s, had put their aircraft or the public at risk but added it was a violation of the rules nonetheless and Perimeter suspended them for three weeks without pay at the time, adding the company also reported it to Transport Canada.

Wehrle said Transport Canada investigated the incident and informed Perimeter this week that the three men would be formally sanctioned with a further three-week suspension of their licences.

"We didn't consider what they had done to be reckless," Wehrle said. "They admitted what they had done wrong and realized it was a mistake. It's part of growing up."

Wehrle said the third pilot left Perimeter for an opportunity to fly larger aircraft, adding he told the other airline about the incident when they made a background check.

"They weren't too concerned about it because they hired him on," Wehrle said. "His current employer was informed of the Transport Canada sanction and he won't be flying either."

Perimeter Aviation is a locally owned firm with more than 100 pilots, and operates a flight training school, charter and contract flying and a full-service maintenance bureau for other small airlines. Its website boasts that its clients include Great-West Life, Canwest Global, Reimer Express, James Richardson Sons, United Parcel Service, Air Canada, Purolator Courier and Brinks Canada.

Wehrle said that two of the pilots were first officers at the time and the other was a recently promoted captain. He said that all three are now captains.

"They've worked hard to get where they are but they made a mistake," Wehrle said. "It was poor judgment on their part but it wasn't a heinous crime."


aldo.santin@freepress.mb.ca

Guns and Planes

After September 11th, US airline pilots pushed for allowing pilots to carry guns on an aircraft to guard against terrorist threats under the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. While I understand the reasoning behind this, I can't say I agree with it. To me, firearms in a pressurized metal tube just seem like a bad idea. I haven't examined this issue much further as Canada doesn't allow pilots to carry firearms. The debate surrounding firearm use and the differences between Canada and the US's attitude on guns is an explosive one (pardon the pun) and isn't really the topic of this post.

On a recent US Airways flight, a pilot had his firearm accidentally discharge. Check out the pictures that have been posted on many news sites. I think that this could have had far worse results.

Pilot's gun fired during flight

An investigation is under way into how a gun carried by a US Airways pilot was discharged during a flight.
No-one was hurt when the gun went off as the plane was preparing to land at Charlotte, North Carolina, on Saturday.

A hole in a cockpit wall apparently caused by the shot is visible in photos obtained by AP news agency.

Under a programme implemented after the 9/11 attacks, US airline pilots are allowed to carry guns on domestic flights following a training course.

Passengers 'unaware'

The gun discharged just before noon on Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte, as the Airbus A319 plane was at about 8,000 feet (2,440m) and was approaching to land.

The plane was sequestered and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is looking into the incident, spokesman Dwayne Baird said.

He said the airline was co-operating and that the FBI would also probably be involved.

The pilot has been put on leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Mr Baird said he believed the 124 passengers on board at the time were not aware of the incident.

Aeronautical experts disagree on how much risk there is that such a stray bullet could bring down an aircraft.

Psychological tests

Under the TSA's Federal Flight Deck Officer programme, pilots may apply for a licence to carry a gun on board for domestic flights.

They must undergo a week-long training course and psychological tests.

Since April 2003, about 5,000 flight deck officers - captains or first officers - have been authorised to carry weapons, Capt Bob Hesselbein, chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association's National Security Committee, told the Associated Press.

All pilots who qualify from the programme are said to carry the same weapon - a .40-calibre semiautomatic H&K USP - which experts say is extremely unlikely to go off on its own.

Pilot to Serve His Sentence in the Community

As a follow up to yesterday's post.

Pilot avoids jail term
By: Mike McIntyre

Updated: March 20 at 03:42 PM CDT

Print Article E-mail Article Mark Tayfel crashed an airplane in a busy Winnipeg intersection and lived to tell about it. Now the former pilot has escaped a jail sentence for negligent actions that killed an elderly passenger.

Queen's Bench Justice Holly Beard ruled this afternoon Tayfel could remain in the community under a two year conditional sentence for the June 2002 tragedy. His conditions include a daily curfew and 240 hours of community service work which Beard hopes will involve speaking to young pilots about the errors he made during that fateful flight.

"The accused is a fine person who's made some terrible mistakes in an otherwise good life. The events are truly tragic and have affected many lives. It's a no win situation for all involved," Beard told court.

"Nothing in this case suggests a need to separate this offender from the community."

Beard lashed out at the airline industry for a "culture" of negligence which allows -- or perhaps even forces -- pilots to often cut corners.

"It's clear the failure to follow aeronautics regulations is very prevalent. The culture shouldn't be one that pressures young pilots to break the law," said Beard.

"Despite that culture, it doesn't excuse pilots who break the law and engage in risky behaviour. Society will not sit by and allow our safety and security to be put at risk."

Tayfel and six American fishers were injured when both of the plane's engines cut out shortly after Tayfel missed his first attempt at landing at Winnipeg International Airport. The plane came to rest on Logan Avenue just west of McPhillips Street.

Tayfel had taken off earlier that morning from a northern fishing lodge without enough fuel on board to get to his destination.

Everyone survived the crash, but Kansas resident Chester Jones, 79, died a few weeks later from his injuries.

"I was very moved by the description of Chester Jones. The loss to his family and community is immense and can never be replaced," Beard said today/

Crown attorney Brian Wilford told court yesterday that Tayfel should spend time behind bars for the reckless risk-taking of not carrying enough fuel and then attempting to land the plane without telling anyone on the ground about his problem until it was too late.

"The moral culpability of Mr. Tayfel is extreme. He had so many opportunities to rectify the situation. And yet he did nothing," Wilford said.

"He endangered so many people... because his concern was his reputation. It is an absolute miracle no one on the ground was seriously injured or killed. I'd say a landing like that couldn't be done again in a million years."

Defence lawyer Balfour Der said putting a good man like Tayfel behind bars wouldn't accomplish anything.

"This man did not set out to crash that airplane, to run out of fuel, to put anyone, including himself, in danger," Der said.

He told court Tayfel could be utilized as a mentor to young pilots in training, speaking to them about his deadly mistake and preaching the value in following aviation regulations.

Tayfel, 42, gave a tearful apology to his victims yesterday, including family members of the man who died.

"I was in charge of that aircraft. It was my responsibility to get the passengers safely back to Winnipeg. I failed to do that," he told a packed courtroom.

Tayfel declined to speak with reporters following court today. Der said his client is "still in a state of shock" over what happened but thankful he's going home to Calgary.

Der said they are considering an appeal of Beard's decision to convict Tayfel of criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of an aircraft in one of the first cases of its kind in Canada.

He suggested Tayfel's employer at the time of the crash, Keystone Air, should have also been held liable and that his client has been made the "whipping boy" for an industry fraught with problems.

"They're not here in court supporting Mr. Tayfel. They headed for the hills," Der said outside court. He was encouraged by Beard's critical comments about the airline industry and hopes this case sends a strong message.

"These young pilots are really being forced into a tough situation," he said.

An aviation expert called by the defence claimed at trial that the real blame for the disaster should rest with Keystone Air. Robert Lemieux said the company "pressured" Tayfel into doing his flight, despite the fact he'd raised concerns with the chief pilot that his Piper Navajo wasn't equipped with a mandatory auto-pilot.

The device likely would have helped Tayfel make a safe landing in Winnipeg. Instead, he came out of the clouds too high and too fast -- with both engines on the verge of cutting out -- and missed the runway completely. Tayfel then crashed as he tried to swing around to make another landing attempt.

A retired Air Canada pilot took the witness stand yesterday on behalf of the defence and said too many shortcuts are being taken by employers focused on making money, at the expense of young pilots who feel there is no choice but to quietly obey orders.

"These kids get out there and they're expected to do things they know aren't by the book. There's a culture in that sector of the industry where it's get the job done, and if somebody bends the rules a little bit, nobody says anything about it," Dale Andersen said.

He now works as a mentor and counselor to pilots through the airline union and recently spent time with Tayfel, calling him a "mild-mannered, compliant" person who lacks the ego many pilots often possess.

Andersen told court allowing Tayfel to speak about his experience to others would be making "something positive" out of a tragic situation.

Tayfel has no prior criminal record, strong family and community support and is unlikely to find work again as a pilot because nobody wants to hire him, court was told.

Wilford said that's not enough.

"Mr. Tayfel got caught doing what other pilots seem to do quite regularly. Other pilots didn't get caught because they didn't crash. But other pilots must be deterred from even thinking about it," he said.

Update: Pilot to Face Sentencing

In November, I wrote a post entitled The Captain's Decision about how pilots have to be vary of the consequences of being pressured to fly.

Just a quick update on the pilot who was found guilty last November of four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, one count of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of an aircraft.

From CBC.ca

Sentence expected Thursday for pilot in fatal Winnipeg crash

Last Updated: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | 1:52 PM CT


A Winnipeg judge will hand down her sentence Thursday in the case of a pilot convicted of criminal negligence after he crash-landed his plane on a high-traffic Winnipeg intersection in 2002, killing one man and hurting several others.

Calgary-based commercial pilot Mark Tayfel was found guilty last November of four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, one count of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of an aircraft.

The Crown and defence in his case made sentencing arguments in Court of Queen's Bench on Tuesday morning.

Tayfel also spoke, making an emotional apology to the passengers of the Keystone Air flight six years ago. With a trembling voice, he said he was responsible for getting them back to Winnipeg safely, and he failed to do that.

He said he was deeply saddened when he heard of the death of one of the men several months later, describing it as the "worst news ever."

Tayfel described how difficult the last six years have been for him and his family, including his new wife, although he acknowledged the pain of the passengers' families have been surely worse.

He said he doubted he would fly again.

Crown attorney Brian Wilford asked for a sentence of "real jail time" for what he described as Tayfel's "utter disregard for his passengers' safety."

But defence lawyer Balfour Derr argued that Tayfel does not deserve jail time, saying he has already been punished enough. A suspended sentence with probation or house arrest would be more appropriate, he said.

Tayfel could use his experiences to teach student pilots about the risks and pressures associated with flying for small companies, Derr said.

Tayfel, 42, had been flying six American fishermen from a remote Manitoba fishing lodge on June 11, 2002, when his twin-engine plane ran out of fuel.

Both engines cut out shortly after he missed the runway on his first attempt to land at Winnipeg's airport, and the plane eventually came to a rest in the middle of McPhillips Street and Logan Avenue, a busy downtown Winnipeg intersection.

Passenger Chester Jones, 79, died from his injuries in hospital several weeks after the crash.

Counter to Tayfel's claims that he should not have been held responsible for what happened, Justice Holly Beard concluded in November that he made too many misjudgments and showed a reckless disregard for the lives of others.

He miscalculated the amount of fuel needed given the weather conditions and also decided to press on with the flight despite being aware of the possibility that the Piper Navajo aircraft was not equipped with a mandatory auto-pilot system, she ruled.

Any thoughts on what the judge should do?

The Captain's Decision

Note: This post is updated here: Pilot to Serve his Sentence in the Community

There have been a number of interesting Court Decisions in the past few weeks regarding pilots. Here are two which, although on the surface don't seem to be related - one happened in Winnipeg and the other in Salt Lake City - I think that together they have a very interesting connection. They are from different jurisdictions, so as a result, neither are directly binding, but they both go to show that as a pilot, specifically the Pilot in Command (P.I.C. or Captain), you're required to make some tough decisions.

In the first case, the pilot of a Piper Navajo, under pressure from his airline, took off in a bad weather day without autopilot (required for that flight) and without enough gas to make the whole trip. The pilot missed the landing and while over-shooting the runway, both engines failed. The plane crashed on a Winnipeg Street. One of the passengers later died of his injuries.

In the next case, an airline pilot who felt his crew was to tired to fly refused to do a flight. Eventually he was fired. In this case however, the Court found that he was wrongfully dismissed and ordered him re-instated.

Case 1: Pilot in Crash Landing Found Guilty

Pilot in crash-landing found guilty
Busy city street was turned into emergency runway

Fri Nov 2 2007

By Mike McIntyre

A Calgary-based pilot was found guilty Thursday of criminal charges laid after he crash-landed his twin-engine plane into a busy Winnipeg intersection, killing an elderly passenger and injuring several others.

Mark Tayfel, 42, had pleaded not guilty to criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of an aircraft in one of the first cases of its kind ever held in Canada.

He had been waiting on a verdict since his Queen's Bench trial ended in April. Justice Holly Beard finally released her written reasons late in the day. Tayfel will be sentenced at a later date.

Tayfel, who was employed by Keystone Air at the time, had argued he made an honest mistake and should not be held responsible for the June 2002 tragedy.

Tayfel and six American fishers were injured when both of his engines cut out when he ran out of fuel at 9:18 a.m., shortly after he missed his first attempt at landing at Winnipeg International Airport.

The plane came to rest on Logan Avenue just west of McPhillips Street.

JOE BRYKSA / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS ARCHIVES
Emergency crews examine airplane that crash-landed on Logan Avenue at McPhillips Street in June 2002.

Everyone survived the crash, but 79-year-old Kansas resident Chester Jones died a few weeks later from his injuries.

"The actions Mr. Tayfel took were not unreasonable and therefore not a departure of any type from the standard a reasonable person or pilot would take in this case," defence lawyer Belfour Der had argued at trial.

Crown attorney Brian Wilford said it didn't matter whether the crash was accidental or not -- Tayfel was guilty because he took off for Winnipeg from a northern fishing lodge without enough fuel to get to his destination.

"It was he and he alone who had the duty to ensure there was enough fuel," Wilford said.

"His passengers absolutely depended on him. Mr. Tayfel was the author of what befell that plane and those passengers."

An aviation expert called by the defence claimed Tayfel should be commended -- not criminalized -- for the deadly crash landing.

"Most people walked away from that accident. He did his job until the bitter end," said Robert Lemieux, who runs a small airline company in Alberta and works as a trainer and examiner with Transport Canada.

Lemieux told court the real blame for the disaster should rest with Tayfel's employer, Keystone Air.

He said they "pressured" Tayfel into doing his flight despite the fact he'd raised concerns with the chief pilot that his Piper Navajo wasn't equipped with a mandatory auto pilot, said Lemieux.

The device likely would have helped Tayfel make a safe landing in Winnipeg. Instead, he came out of the clouds too high and too fast -- with both engines on the verge of cutting out -- and missed the runway completely.

Tayfel then crashed as he tried to swing around to make another landing attempt.

Lemieux said Keystone's chief pilot failed to take Tayfel's concerns about the missing auto pilot seriously.

Tayfel also testified in his own defence, saying his boss simply said "Oh, I thought it was there" and then told him to take another passenger on his flight out of Winnipeg.

Lemieux said experience in the airline industry has taught him employers are often focused on making money at the expense of young pilots like Tayfel who feel there is no choice but to quietly obey orders.

During cross-examination, Tayfel admitted he didn't push the issue any further with the chief pilot and decided to do the flight as scheduled.

Officials at Transport Canada said they will take some time to review the ruling before offering comment.

-- with files from Lindsey Wiebe

mikeoncrime.com

Case 2: Judge Backs Pilot Who Grounded Self

Judge backs pilot who grounded self
By Paul Beebe
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 10/11/2007 11:52:02 PM MDT


An administrative law judge has ordered SkyWest Airlines to rehire a veteran pilot who said the company fired him illegally for declaring himself and his crew unfit to fly after a perilous trip to Jackson, Wyo., where a landing was aborted because of bad weather.

The airline said it fired Don Douglas five months after the 2005 incident because he wrote profane graffiti on company property on two occasions and then refused to take responsibility after being confronted. SkyWest said Douglas's declaration that he and two crew members were unable to fly had nothing to do with his termination.

"I'm ecstatic. I hope I've done something about safety. It was always about safety," said Douglas, who lives in Sandy.

A company spokesman said the St. George-based regional airline hasn't decided whether to appeal the judge's ruling.

"SkyWest maintains fair disciplinary procedures with our employees, and in the case of Mr. Douglas, a thorough investigation process was utilized before he was terminated," spokeswoman Marissa Snow said in an email.

"After two review boards in which his peers reviewed and upheld the decision, an investigation was conducted by the Department of Labor, which also found no merit in the case," Snow said Thursday.

The Oct. 3 ruling by Judge Russell Pulver overturns an earlier ruling by the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA ruled last year that the evidence supported SkyWest.

Douglas, a 16-year SkyWest veteran, reported to work at Salt Lake City International Airport on March 21, 2005, three days after a vasectomy. Cleared to work by his surgeon, Douglas was scheduled to fly a 30-seat Embraer Brasilia turboprop airplane from Salt Lake to Jackson that night and return the next morning. Douglas felt fit to fly, even though he and his crew were warned that they would be flying through rain and snow.



Before departing, the crew's first officer and flight attendant told Douglas they were not feeling well. Troy Brewer, the first officer, said he was tired from a lack of sleep. Flight attendant Brandee Black said her arthritis was bothering her.

The flight was difficult, according to the judge, who wrote that Douglas and Brewer "were under more stress than usual because they had to fly on instruments and the conditions were icy."

Because wind and runway conditions were unsafe in Jackson, aircraft controllers put the flight into a holding pattern that lasted about an hour, then ordered Douglas to fly back to Salt Lake through the poor weather.

After returning, Douglas learned that he and the crew were scheduled to attempt another flight to Jackson - about five hours later - at 4:40 a.m. the next day. According to the judge's 49-page ruling, Douglas found himself unexpectedly feeling too poorly to fly so soon because he was physically and mentally drained from the experience. Douglas also said a mild discomfort from his surgery had become intense during the flight.

After considering how he felt and determining that Brewer and Black were too fatigued to fly again so soon, Douglas told a SkyWest supervisor that he and his crew would not be able to safely fly to Jackson.

"As a pilot, [Douglas] was trained to declare himself unfit should he become unfit during the course of a shift. He believed that it would be a violation of federal air safety regulations if he were to fly unfit, or were to allow a crew member to fly that he had determined was unfit," Pulver wrote.

"He also believed that he as the captain had the final authority to make fitness determinations concerning himself and his crew," the judge wrote.

SkyWest disagreed. After an investigation, Tony Fizer, the airline's western region chief pilot, suspended Douglas for a week without pay and put a letter of reprimand in Douglas's personnel file. Fizer said Douglas was already unfit to fly when he arrived for work. Douglas also did not have the authority to keep his crew from flying, Fizer said.

Two months later, a review board reversed the suspension and downgraded the severity of the letter. Fizer was told to inform Douglas that in the future he should consult with a flight surgeon before declaring himself unfit and each crew member must tell the company if they believe they are unable to work. Only if a crew member was incapacitated could Douglas declare that person unfit for duty.

In July 2005, the words "f--- Fizer" appeared on a cork board in a SkyWest crew lounge. After the board was removed, "You can still f--- Fizer" was written on the wall.

Two handwriting experts hired by Fizer later concluded that Douglas had written the epithets. Douglas was told he could keep his job if he accepted responsibility. He refused and was fired on Aug. 31, 2005.

"I couldn't admit to something I didn't do," Douglas said.

Lawyers for Douglas argued that the graffiti was written in generic block letters, not in cursive script. A handwriting expert hired by Douglas said the writing wasn't his. And the SkyWest experts never looked at handwriting samples from other people before determining Douglas was responsible.

At a hearing in September, Fizer claimed the epithets didn't bother him, though he said they created a sexually hostile work environment and required an extensive investigation because senior SkyWest managers were alarmed.

In Pulver's ruling, the judge said Fizer showed "retaliatory animus" at one meeting with Douglas. The judge also said Fizer lacked credibility because of "baseless accusations" and other steps he took toward Douglas.

"I . . . find Fizer's antagonistic statements concerning the protected activity [when Douglas declared himself and his crew unfit to fly] provide circumstantial evidence of a retaliatory motive for terminating [Douglas's] employment," the judge wrote.

Pulver said Douglas is entitled to back pay and attorney fees.

Being a pilot carries with it a lot of responsibility. Sometimes it's up to you to make the tough decisions even if that means risking your job. It has often been said that the factors you should take into consideration when making a decision are:

1- Your life
2- Your Licence
3- Your Job

In this first case, unfortunately the pilot put #3 first. Ironically, he ended up losing his job and will likely face jail time. More importantly however, this pilot almost lost his life and one of his passengers died. In the second case, although the pilot temporarily lost his job, he got it back. Airlines will often pressure you to fly when you don't think it's safe. It's up to you to make those tough decisions.