Petition for Judicial Inquiry Presented in the HoC

[Widow]

EDIT: October 16th - A slightly altered petition is now being promoted by the NDP. PDF versions in English and French available on Peter Julian's website.

Link to English version.
Link to French version.

Note that various unions are also circulating this version of the petition.

EDIT: September 23rd - PETITION NOW AVAILABLE

Go to: http://safeskies.ca/content/petition



****************

Safeskies.ca is preparing a petition for a public inquiry into Transport Canada's oversight of air safety in Canada.

The government of Canada does not accept e-petitions, so in order for it to be valid, we will need people willing to help gain signatures. This could mean taking it to your local union, your kid's ballgame, setting up a booth at a local function, going door to door, and a host of other things like just asking your friends and family. Every signatures helps. We only need 25 for it to require a response from Parliament and that is not a problem, but obviously, the more the better.

If you think you would be willing to help get signatures, please contact me by PM or email. Advance copies will soon be available for commentary.

[ScudRunner]

Oh ya brilliant idea let's blow a ton of money on a royal commission too. Here's what will happen bunch of politicians will sit around a table yack and make some noise for a sound bite probably bashing Air Canada, Canadian won't give two craps and when its over you will get a 500 page report that cost 100 million dollars and won't do @$^# all and that's it .

We only need 25 for it to require a response from Parliament and that is not a problem, but obviously, the more the better.

Here's the response

Dear ___________

We have received your petition and thank you for submitting your petition on _________________ , Parliamentary officials will look into this matter.

Sincerly

___________________
Peon in an Office somewhere Near Ottawa

[Widow]

Fair enough.

Do you agree there's a serious problem?

What are your suggestions for improvement?

[ScudRunner]

I don't think their are serious problem with aviation Safety in Canada, no matter how much over-site one may have on any industry accidents and problems will arise from time to time.

If you want to do something about safety take a look at where the most accidents happen, start with the number one and work your way down to provide solutions to the problem not just some catchy name and blame TC for everything attitude.

I don't have the list in front of me but off the top of my head

1.) Night Circling approaches

Solution = get rid of them, No that doesn't mean ban them with some approach ban bull shiite.

Technology is the solution get rid of the dam NDB approaches that would cause a circling approach to be conducted. Start an effort and use your group to lobby Nav Canada and TC to implement RNAV with WAAS Capable approaches even if not WAAS where its cut and dry at minimums u see a runway or not go around. Simple straight forward and you don't even need to maintain the NDB for the kids to Vandalize on a Tuesday in Pukatawagon. include that with publishing these approaches for all instead of making them on the RCAP so all pilots can utilize them.

Start their and ill sign your petition


Next on the list

[Hot Fuel]

It’s a tough call, on one hand it’s commendable to see somebody work so hard attempting to bring change to an industry in the name of safety. On the other hand it sounds like the approach being called for on this board will involve or require more regulation and bigger government.

I tend to agree with . thoughts…use safety trend monitoring to pick the top five or ten safety issues or concerns and focus your effort on them. As time ticks by the list gets shorter and theoretically it becomes a safer operation.

The biggest problem I see…no matter how many rules, regs or equipment upgrades you toss into the mix it will always come down to the folks upfront and the decisions made during the performance of their duties.

[Widow]

IMHO the #1 safety issue is TC backing away from traditional oversight during SMS implementation, despite ICAO recommendations to the contrary. To expect anyone to self-report without effective whistleblower protections is perilous. TC is accountable to no one and until the body bags pile up they won't change their tune without Parliamentary intervention. I don't want the body bags to pile up, and I'm not alone in this thinking.

[Hot Fuel]

I don’t have any particular facts or figures to present but do think it’s a fair assumption that there are considerably more commercial operators in business today than there was say 20 or 30 years ago? I believe there is. That said the day to day audit system put in place many years ago was problematic, it was bubble waiting to burst.

In all reality the audits themselves are dependant on following a paperwork trail to find discrepancies or violations, it’s a laborious process that overtime as proved to yield mixed results.

Bottom-line, the audit system wasn’t or perhaps I should say isn’t very effective. As I see it there are two alternatives, bolster the TC forces to enable regular and timely audits to be performed on all operators (I’ll bet my life saving that there are operators that have been in business for many years that have never experienced an audit.) or change the system. I think adding troops is useless because the audit system is hit or miss, meaning you either find something in the paperwork to set off alarms or you don’t.

[ScudRunner]

Well Gods Lake Narrows just got a fresh Shipment of Body Bags, Gods River with an RNAV did not though.

Back on topic though, I think SMS is a step in the right direction holding executives legally/criminally accountable for their companies operations will be a powerful incentive to do all one can to insure a safe operation. Just ask Mr Fast in YWG.

Right now the system I liken to getting a speeding ticket you only get fined or charged if Caught in the act. Now if your teenage kid takes the car for a joyride due to your piss poor over site of the keys your both in trouble.

You do Realize of course that every SMS system has a reporting function usually in an online format that an employee or member of the Public can submit concerns anonymously which are posted and sent to the Accountable executive and require a response or corrective action. Of course the public ones are sometimes pretty dam funny

Eg.(Paraphrasing) " The Pilots where doing loops for 15 min because there was another plane trying to land at the same time we where landing I dont think planes should be that close".

This of course was an "incident" some nervous flyer in Northern Ontario who experience a hold while a medivac was landing in front of the companies aircraft in a small community. The CP in this case was very impressed his pilots could loop a PC-12 for 15 minutes and only foster one complaint.

On the other hand employees noted that on a certain sched run different crews all noted that they always seemed to have to extend their duty day for "unforeseen" circumstances. As a result the pilot sched was modified to address this as it was no longer unforeseen to the company to comply with duty day regulations.

One incident I submitted was when my tire hub separated on roll out after landing. I figured that the through bolts had not been properly torqued which caused the separation, the resulting investigation found that other spares like the one installed on my aircraft 2 days previous had not been torqued the result was a change in maintenance procedures.

[Rubberbiscuit]

Well Gods Lake Narrows just got a fresh Shipment of Body Bags, Gods River with an RNAV did not though.

Back on topic though, I think SMS is a step in the right direction holding executives legally/criminally accountable for their companies operations will be a powerful incentive to do all one can to insure a safe operation. Just ask Mr Fast in YWG.

Right now the system I liken to getting a speeding ticket you only get fined or charged if Caught in the act. Now if your teenage kid takes the car for a joyride due to your piss poor over site of the keys your both in trouble.

You do Realize of course that every SMS system has a reporting function usually in an online format that an employee or member of the Public can submit concerns anonymously which are posted and sent to the Accountable executive and require a response or corrective action. Of course the public ones are sometimes pretty dam funny

Eg.(Paraphrasing) " The Pilots where doing loops for 15 min because there was another plane trying to land at the same time we where landing I dont think planes should be that close".

This of course was an "incident" some nervous flyer in Northern Ontario who experience a hold while a medivac was landing in front of the companies aircraft in a small community. The CP in this case was very impressed his pilots could loop a PC-12 for 15 minutes and only foster one complaint.

On the other hand employees noted that on a certain sched run different crews all noted that they always seemed to have to extend their duty day for "unforeseen" circumstances. As a result the pilot sched was modified to address this as it was no longer unforeseen to the company to comply with duty day regulations.

One incident I submitted was when my tire hub separated on roll out after landing. I figured that the through bolts had not been properly torqued which caused the separation, the resulting investigation found that other spares like the one installed on my aircraft 2 days previous had not been torqued the result was a change in maintenance procedures.

Very well said!

Until we cook up airplanes that are 100% mechanically reliable, do away with bad weather and manage to create genetically perferct humans there will continue to be accidents. The majority of accidents in canada involve air taxi and lighter aircraft. Why, and what can be done about it? I don't think a witch hunt at TC will fix it. Narrow it down to the direct or underlying causes of these recurring themes found in so many of the incidents or accidents and lobby for changes. Circling approaches is a good example and there are no need to be doing them the way they are approved. Increase minimums for circeling approaches to 3sm 1000' for example. Fight to have duty days reduced. Set higher IFR limits especially in mountainous terrain for new pilots with little or no IFR experience etc etc.

[Widow]

Interesting that a few more have voted "yes" than "no", but only the "nays" are speaking up in the thread.

How can you verify that someone is doing what they are told if you don't check to make sure? I'm reminded of kids being required to show their work on math problems to show they know what they are doing and haven't cheated. As much as you may want to believe they'll always do the right thing, some won't. Unless you check, you won't catch them and they'll learn nothing.

Banks, food inspection agencies, pharmaceuticals, nuclear energy ... all these have shown what happens if you simply trust everyone to be ethical.

I don't have a problem with SMS. Of course companies should be responsible for ensuring they are working safely and within the regulations and standards. Of course their should be "an accountable executive" in line with the Canada Labour Code and Bill C-45 that amended the Criminal Code to hold employers responsible for the safety of their workers.

But that shouldn't let the government overseers off the hook.

.. ., it sounds like you work for a company that has embraced SMS and the "culture of safety" - and companies such as that deserve recognition.

But not ALL companies will embrace that culture, and how will TC know which companies are not embracing it if they aren't inspecting ... physical inspections, not just paperwork audits and SMS validations? What are the employees who work for the companies that don't embrace "the culture" supposed to do when their jobs are threatened because they refuse to fly due to a safety issue? A company with no union or association - you know, the kind of company where half the CPLs get their start ... ? Is TC suddenly going to start listening to them?? Are they going to set up a real hotline, the way the US FAA did?

SMS depends on self-reporting. Self-reporting depends on "whistleblowers". But there is no incentive to self-report. There is no guaranteed protection to whistleblowers. There is too much secrecy!

[george sugar]

I don’t want to presume what you intended with your response, Widow, but it would seem that your line of reasoning is not much different from that offered by someone else on a previous thread on SMS. That is, people are too dumb or willfully negligent to know what is in their best interest, and they cannot be trusted to follow clear direction, comply with regulations, and respond to training. I am not as pessimistic as all that.

To lay all of this at TC’s doorstep is to effectively demand that they have an Inspector on every flight, but then who inspects the Inspector? The infinite regression implied by this is simply unworkable.

.. has got the right idea; if there is something that is demonstrably hazardous, proscribe it. A good example that he cited was the approach ban. Rather than having an algorithm that requires a degree in calculus to decide at the FAF if it is okay to continue, go to charted minimums as the approach ban and be done with it. And circling approaches are something that we do not allow at our firm below VMC, with no commercial disadvantage.

SMS does not depend solely on self-reporting; there are many sources of information independent of the flight or maintenance crew to supply the system. And there is in fact a great incentive to self-report, if one believes that a person holds the best interests of themselves and their colleagues at heart. Who would remain silent on a hazard if they are given an opportunity to perhaps keep others out of peril?

A cornerstone of SMS is non-punitive reporting, but if one is skeptical about everything then one might say that it does not work that way. I can attest that it does. Transport has asked me to explain my actions to their satisfaction in certain cases, and there is a considerable body of legislation in place with respect to employment standards. Non-punitive reporting and a safety reporting culture comprise the greatest focus in SMS validations.

Another of ..’s suggestions would go a long way to increasing safety; improve the facilities used for approaches and take advantage of available technology. Why we are doing NDB and VOR approaches when GPS equipment is prevalent and widely available is beyond me. If we want to increase safety quickly and verifiably, let’s bring our petitions and lobbying to bear on that.

It is all not as bleak as it is made out to be. Further, if one could wave a magic wand and make TC an instantly responsive and pervasive force in the industry, what then would we say when the next inevitable accident occurs? This is an industry of risk management, and one cannot assume that if the risk is made however small, that from time to time a tragedy cannot occur. The only way to ensure absolute aviation safety is to ground every airplane, but even then many people will still be hit by cars on the way to the train station.

[ALF]

SMS does have a few flaws. All in all though I think that putting the onus on the AE's will result in more fines and more oversight. Thee will also be more certificates pulled when the 703 operators get whacked with it in the near future. Comply or go away. "Resistance is futile." Let's not forget where the TC inspectors came from...industry right. They have been slinging wrenches, flying airplanes and running airports before going to TC. Aviation is a small communitee. Do you not think they already know who is cheating the reg's?

While I think there are adjustments to be made in the current SMS. I see it as a good system for those of us who are small pee ons in a large company. If i see something dangerous i can write it up and the company must do something about it. The system is all about improvement. If TC comes in and doesn't agree with how they have handled it there will be hell to pay. From an OSH perspective I welcome SMS with open arms.
I am with .. on this one. What was said above is very acurate.

[Widow]

I don’t want to presume what you intended with your response, Widow, but it would seem that your line of reasoning is not much different from that offered by someone else on a previous thread on SMS. That is, people are too dumb or willfully negligent to know what is in their best interest, and they cannot be trusted to follow clear direction, comply with regulations, and respond to training. I am not as pessimistic as all that.

The perception I have is shared by many, george sugar. And it isn't a perception that ALL or even MANY operators cannot be trusted ... but the FEW who cannot may use SMS to cover their tracks. This is far more likely in the smaller operations, but can and does also happen in the larger ops.

In light of the problems that existed in TC oversight PRIOR to SMS implementation, it is hardly a good idea to put in place a new system of (less) oversight in order to fix the system. If TC was using SMS as the "additional layer" it was intended to be, I, and many others, would feel differently.

I stand by what I've said. Unless there is some form of Ombudsman, some way for whistleblowers - both private AND public sector - to be heard and assured they are not risking their careers in speaking out, I do not believe SMS will make things safer. And if that isn't the purpose, then what the heck is it? Oh yeah ... reduction of government cost and liability.

[Liquid Charlie]

Looks like to me votes are running pretty close -- I'm with .. on this one -- public inquires are a waist of time and money and are only usually commissioned to feed someone's political agenda. Change always come better when it's embraced rather than the feeling someone is cocking a gun at the back of your head.

[Widow]

Australia is trying to learn from our mistakes.

2.47 The committee notes that Transport Canada’s implementation of SMS has also
been the subject of some criticism within the Canadian aviation industry and has
recently been examined by the Canadian Office of the Auditor General (OAG). 47 The
audit report identified a number of shortcomings in Transport Canada’s
implementation of SMS, including a lack of planning; poor risk management, limited
mechanisms for monitoring consistency in oversight activities and weaknesses in
human resource planning and training. The report also expressed concern that
Transport Canada has moved resources from traditional oversight activities to SMS
activities but has not measured the impact of this on the frequency of traditional
oversight activities during the transition period.48
2.48 The committee also notes that the recent review of the United States Federal
Aviation Administration’s risk-based oversight system (Air Transportation Oversight
System) identified a number of system-wide problems and has recommended that the
FAA strengthen its national oversight and accountability.49
2.49 Given that there are some similarities between CASA’s regulatory approach
and that of its North American counterparts, the committee was interested to
understand what lessons CASA has drawn from each of these reviews.
2.50 CASA officers told the committee that they had been monitoring each of the
reviews and had been in contact with both Transport Canada and the FAA. Mr Quinn
told the committee:

I am familiar with the Auditor-General’s report. CASA has had dialogue
with Transport Canada about the report. One of the key points that I would
like to make about that particular report is that I do not think it is that
critical of the system, or regime, or the manner in which it may work. It is
more critical about the way in which it was implemented in that particular
case. There were issues of planning, training, transitioning the regulations
and how it was done—largely, the regulator walked away for a while.50
…
In terms of the United States approach to this, with the Federal Aviation
Administration, in recent discussions that I have had with the FAA, I
believe that they are planning on filing a difference and deferring this until
they can get their heads around it. There are some examples out there, and
from a CASA perspective—as I said, I use the term ‘free safety lesson’—
we are going to make the most of that to ensure that we do not make the
same mistakes.51

http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/ ... report.pdf

What evidence do we have that things have changed since the OAG's report? The cancellation of the Frequency of Inspection Policy?

Again, it isn't a matter of SMS being bad. It is a matter of TC's implementation being bad. Many inspectors do not "embrace" the way TC is implementing, many operators - especially small ones - do not embrace the methods and do feel that someone is "cocking a gun to their head".

[the_professor]

Safeskies.ca is preparing a petition for a public inquiry into Transport Canada's oversight of air safety in Canada.

The government of Canada does not accept e-petitions, so in order for it to be valid, we will need people willing to help gain signatures. This could mean taking it to your local union, your kid's ballgame, setting up a booth at a local function, going door to door, and a host of other things like just asking your friends and family. Every signatures helps. We only need 25 for it to require a response from Parliament and that is not a problem, but obviously, the more the better.

If you think you would be willing to help get signatures, please contact me by PM or email. Advance copies will soon be available for commentary.

I would hope Nav Canada would be included in this inquiry.

There are many reasons why they should be, not the least of which is their handling and classification of OIs, especially when it comes to those related to CAATS.

[snaproll20]

Many of you are missing the main point here.

Yes, it is true for example that doing away with NDBs and their associated approaches, a GPS approach would be much safer. It is also true that we do not need more dumb rules like the Approach Ban.

BUT, BUT, BUT.................WHOis supposed to be supplying the overall leadership in all of aviation in Canada?

Would that be those sons of sinful self preservation, the MANAGERS OF TCCA IN OTTAWA?

If they LISTENED, COMMUNICATED, ACTED, we would have a much better industry today which would be truly safe.
But they don't because unlike what ALF said, (Are you listening ALF?) most of them do NOT, repeat NOT have experience hands-on in aviation. The late unlamented Merlin Preuss reportedly drove tanks before he became the objectionable, dishonest clown running TCCA.

TCCA needs to LEAD. The fact that they do not is the root cause of why people like Cat Driver, myself and others are critical. If they acted responsibly, doubtless we would applaud them.

As it is, as someone said earlier, fire them all. Find some people with some dedication and understanding to run aviation in Canada.

[snaproll20]

Sorry, ALF, I forgot to enlarge on my comment.

Unfortunately, many TC Inspectors came from the CAF. That means they never did a money-earning flight in their lives.
Many of them are good people but they all learned to do what they were told, when they were told and how they were told. The 'promotables' do not exemplify good experience or character, they merely belong to an old boys club.

As stated, there are notable expections, which are treasured. However, history books and my own personal experiences of the military does not bear out your confidence.

Protection of the benefits and pension plan comes first. TCCA really needs a crusty and experienced old bastard like . . running it, but he is likely too embittered by the politics to be interested.

[ALF]

Let's face it Snaproll...the inspectors are powerless against the big machine in Ottawa. That is where change is required. The inspectors in the local TCCA are forced to comply with the Minister's wishes. Bad mouthing inspectors because they are from the CAF is pointless. Plus, in 5-10 years most of them will be retired anyway.

Man...you are really on my #ss today

[ajet32]

I agree with ., pick a serious problem or several and use that as the basis for the petition. I would gladly sign one that includes a ban on night circling approaches. My current employer(large jet 705) does not allow them. During the daylight hours we can only circle if it is VFR. I would agree with George Sugar, there is no commercial disadvantage.
In my previous lives I have circled in the shite at night and scared the death out of my self more than once on some NDA "A" approach north of "60".

Just attempting to lay all the blame on TC is not going to accomplish much. There are some good folks there along with some terribly inept clowns who couldn't get a job anywhere else.