College of Pilots?

[george sugar]

Hello Clive,

I am pleased to make your acquaintance, thank you for joining us. It is valuable to have a person who is in a position to know details answering concerns.

My questions may be seen by some as loaded and tendentious, but they are asked in the spirit of receiving information rather than conveying criticism.

On funding - If union funds were used as seed money, then how is it permitted to use such funds for a cause that will not benefit the respective members of the funding organizations? If the respective memberships will not benefit, then why would the funds be used in this way? If these funds will in fact benefit the memberships, then what benefit will they derive and at whose expense? If there is an expectation of a derived benefit now or in the future, then is it truly possible to say that the payment of these funds will in no way influence the policy or procedures of the enterprise?

On process – Will there be an undertaking that, until such time as the board is dissolved and the membership has an opportunity to vote on the executive, no delegated or legislated authority will be taken on? Will the membership then have the opportunity to decide the scope and mandate for the organization with respect to this authority? What will be a threshold minimum number or percentage of licenced pilots that must join the organization before such delegated or legislated authority is taken on? Will there be a provision that all segments of aviation must be substantially represented in the membership and on the board? Will there be an assurance that those not choosing to join the organization will not be bounded by the provisions of the organization?

On scope – What precisely is meant by “Become the bridge and/or liaison between regulator and operator”? How is this relationship to be enabled, and why is it needed? Will an operator be compelled to go through the organization to deal with their regulator? Will the opinions of the organization be binding in this regard?

Thank you for your participation in the discussion.

Regards,

George

[florch]

George, we're going to have to agree to disagree on some points.

I didn't mean to start a discussion on the nature of democracy. That seems beyond the scope of this thread, but maybe it's quintessential. The embryonic stage of this initiative seems at least as democratic to me as any political party, government or organization that I am familiar with. Try to get a membership to the 100 plus year old Liberal Party of Canada as an individual so you can vote on the next leadership candidate, who has a chance to become Prime Minister of this great country, which is only a REPRESENTATIVE (vs. true and actual) democracy, if we were to be technical.

This organization has been initiated by some senior members of our profession. They are identifying some needs and finding ways to serve the greater good for all pilots as they see it. I'm not a part of this initiative, but Clive has pointed out far more eloquently than I could have, how the mechanism will actually work, and how it will be democratic. I feel as though they could do no right in your mind - if they went public with their plans prematurely, they'd be half baked, if they take time to organize, they're undemocratic.

This College appeals to me as a line pilot. I can see why it doesn't appeal to you in the same way, as a senior VP that answers to a majority ownership - represented pilots cost more and are better treated on the average than those that lack representation. Imagine if that were industry wide and we could somehow cut out the backstabbing that makes us so cheap as a profession. And some form of pilot representation has been at the core of most every safety improvement through lobbying (although it usually did cost airlines money in the short run.)

[george sugar]

I am simply asking questions. Try to take these questions on their merits alone, and decide for yourself whether the answers satisfy you. Try to forget for a minute who is asking the questions, since that only becomes relevant if one is trying to avoid giving direct answers. If the questions themselves make you uncomfortable, then ask yourself why. As I said, one should not assume that I have one opinion or another in this matter, and my questions are no less valid than anyone else's since I too am a licenced pilot employed in Canadian aviation. If I am to be shouted down because of my questions, then that might indicate something in itself. Let's keep the discussion focused on issues, not positions.

[Doc]

Will there be an assurance that those not choosing to join the organization will not be bounded by the provisions of the organization?

If all do not participate are we not right back to square one with the non-particpants cutting private deals (i.e buying a PPC just to name one issue), the list could go on. This thought alone undermines the very reason for a collective voice within the industry.

George had a very valid question there, MapleFlag. I don't really get your reply. You're never going to get all in this business to agree 100% on ANYTHING. If pilots want to follow the college line, that's up to them. I know, for me at least, if I hear anything that sounds like jackboots goosestepping on the cobblestones, I'm out of here. Not everything is "my way or the highway"...you need to learn that, apparently?
What segment of aviation do you hail from. This may help me understand your take on this.

[Cat Driver]

Why wait for the college to fix the PPC issue?

Lobby TC to change their PPC rules and problem solved.

The industry got along just fine before the need for a PPC the way TC structured it.

[Cat Driver]

For sure the industry is over regulated to the point it is almost a full time job just reading the regulations.

A good example is all the new rules for IFR especially all the figuring needed to land and now even taxi....it is mindboggling.

[Dust Devil]

My name is Clive Scott and I am a board member and Western Regional Director for the College of Professional Pilots of Canada. I have been in the business for 28 years, spending the last 10 years at Westjet and have experience in charter, training, and ag operations.
First. let me apologize for taking so long to answer your questions. Like most of the other members, I fly full time and do not spend a great deal of time on the forums. I will try and answer as many concerns and questions as I can.

1) The College was founded with the intent of providing a unified voice to government, industry, and the public for all professional pilots in Canada. Concerns leading to the founding of the College included the precedent set by the Mark Tayfel case, the general erosion of authority of the PIC, the increasing liability borne solely by flight crew, the lack of benefits, assistance, and support available to those pilots in the industry with no formal support or representation.

2) The College currently exists as a corporate entity with an appointed board and executive. As membership grows the College by-laws dictate that the current appointed board will be dissolved and an elected board from the membership will take its place. We are under no illusion that the College will be a success without the majority of Canadian pilots buying in to the vision. All the work to date has been to simply get us to the point where we can go to the pilots of this country with something concrete to offer.

3) Hidden agendas - all the members of the board have made a formal commitment that no corporate, union, or association agenda will play any part in the business of College. The college in NOT a union. We have no mandate to negotiate pay or working conditions, or to dictate to any operator how they conduct their business. At this stage the College has no legislated or delegated authority and will be primarily a unified voice for the pilots of Canada should they so choose. The mission and goals of the College are available for all to view at collegeofpilots.ca

4) Funding - ACPA, ALPA , WJPA and other associations have provided one time seed capital for the College. It has been made clear to these associations that they have absolutely no say in the conduct of College business.

5) "Elitist airline pilots" it is somewhat ironic that many of the benefits and services proposed by the College will benefit those in the non airline aviation world more so than those already represented by unions or pilot associations. All of the current college board are non-paid volunteers, and many of us will be retired before the full benefits of the College come into play. We believe that such things as affordable health benefits and legal representation, loss of income and/or medical insurance, pilot and family assistance programs, and technical and safety support can only benefit the entire industry not just those in the airlines. Another example is the RAIC pass - we believe that any holder of a red pass should be eligable for jump seat travel as a professional courtesy.

6) Educational Standards - in discussions regarding minimum educational standards it has never been proposed that a college or university degree would be mandatory to become a pilot.

In closing let me thank you for your patience - we wil try to get as much information out to the general pilot population as soon as possible (including the Aviation Safety Newsletter).
There is a contact page on the College website. If any wish me to come and speak to a pilot group, company, or association please call me direct at 780-983-0888 or pm on this site.
I will be flying for the next few days but will try and return any messages as soon as possible.

Clive Scott
College of Professional Pilots of Canada

Hey Clive

First I'd like to say thanks for posting here. Your post did answer a number of questions I had. My largest objection has been the lack of transparency and lack of information on the college. A lack of information allows our minds to run wild with what the motives of this could be. This has the potential of greatly impacting all of our careers so some of us are going to be quite concerned with any changes that are made. My advise is not to be a stranger around here. No matter how under the microscope you may feel. If the college is going to work it is going to need to earn the trust of it's member pilots.

You did mention that the subject of minimal educational standards has been discussed. Can you elaborate on what has been kicked around for ideas regarding that?

[Dust Devil]

For sure the industry is over regulated to the point it is almost a full time job just reading the regulations.

A good example is all the new rules for IFR especially all the figuring needed to land and now even taxi....it is mindboggling.

So damn true. If I wanted to spoil your mellow retirement I'd say you should grab a seat on the board. However TC would probably throw a poop fit

[Cat Driver]

So damn true. If I wanted to spoil your mellow retirement I'd say you should grab a seat on the board.

Dust Devil I spent over half a century in aviation and am quite content with the efforts I put forward to try and improve the industry. For sure some of it helped make it better namely forcing TC to back me up in performing my duties as chief pilot of an airline.

My struggle with TCCA that resulted in the bankrupting of my company and my eventually having to leave Canada to earn a living was even more important in my mind because I proved beyond doubt that you can stand up to TCCA and in the end prevail as long as you have the law on your side.

I would not accept a position on their board even if they offered me a high salary because I am now retired and have something far more important to do such as enjoy my family and try and catch up on all the things other people do.....and of course I must finish building the Cub as if I don't I won't have a home anymore. because she will kick me out for wasting so much money again.

However TC would probably throw a poop fit

Only those who feel threatened because they abuse their office.

I still have many close friends who were and are still TC employees.

And I am hoping that the new DGCA is different from the last two as I am far from finished with what I started almost ten years ago and I plan on seeing if he is all talk or if he is genuine.

Some of them are hoping I will soon be gone I am sure...but I am far from being gone.

[College West]

To quickly answer a few questions before I head out the door to do a red-eye:

1) Funding - I can only speak specifically about the WJPA, although I believe ACPA and ALPA have the same motivations - there will be benefits to these organizations membership by having a unified College of Pilots. These include the College being a powerful voice in the regulatory process - consider that as professional pilots we had no voice in the implementation of SMS, in the changes to low-vis taxi operations, changes to approach ban etc. etc. The ability to maintain and/or elevate overall standards of our profession is a benefit. The most powerful motivator though is the issue of licensing and standards - I truly believe the associations and unions do not want to see any facet of licensing handled by an outside organization disconnected from the direct influence of the licensees themselves. In other words - no industry control over licensing and standards. Keep in mind that the issue of legislated authority for the College is in its infancy - the political climate can change quickly - and we have a lot of hurdles to jump before officially approaching the government for legislated authority to set standards and maintain licensing.


2) - Process - The College corporate bylaws state very specifically the the appointed board MUST be dissolved and a new board elected when legislated authority is granted by the minister. The membership, through their elected board, will have the opportunity to shape the scope and mandate of the College. It is possible, should the College be granted full authority to grant licenses and set licensing standards, that one's membership in the College would be integral to the licensing process - ie to work in Canada as a professional pilot you would be a member of the College.
At present, there is no mechanism to determine the level of board representation from each facet of the industry. I wil bring this up at the next meeting. We are admittedly under represented by the rotary, flight training, ag, and bush pilots.

3) Scope - as a College representing the pilots of Canada we would be viewed as having a strong vested interest in safety, unbiased by corporate,union,or government interests. It is, after all, our asses that are on the line on a day to day basis. This allows us to become a trusted advisor to anyone needing the neutral and considered opinion and expertise of Canada's pilots. The idea is to form working partnerships with all the stakeholders in Canadian aviation based on mutual respect and due process, while we as pilots hold the high ground of safety first,last and always. There is no intent to become a hurdle or barrier between the operator and regulator - we will never have a mandate to govern or regulate the operators themselves.

Hope these quick answers will help - back in five days.

Cheers

Clive Scott

[Doc]

I remember bobbin on the lake one day wondering where the dock was, glad the RVR was u/s that day !!!! I finally gave up, dropped an anchor and ate my lunch. But I'm getting off topic Doc should be along soon the beat me up a bit more. Cheers

Not at all. I spent a couple of hours "bobbing" around in what I THOUGHT was the proper lake......till the seal surfaced! White wine goes best with crow...

[Doc]

Hey Doc, I can only afford beer and an Ontario crow is a thin meal but can teach you alot very quickly !!!

This particular crow hailed from Quebec.

[Brint]

Looks like the website has been updated again, with a little more information:

http://www.collegeofpilots.ca

Based on the small bit of information provided on the website and the 2 board members who have posted, I am interested in learning more.

It's easy to be skeptical, but I'm hoping for the best.

[Ogee]

I had a look at the site and then I had a look at the Partners thing they claim to have going with TC. There are some huge questions about that and the way this organization if formed now would be able to present this radical plan as a fait accompli to Canada's pilots, what a "majority" means at this point when membership is essentially closed, and how this Safety Partnerships Program is to work. I had a look at http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/manag ... 07-005.pdf, which is a PDF of the Document CAD 10-7-005.

Here's a couple of key points from that document and from the College website...

1.1 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Civil Aviation Directive is to outline Civil Aviation’s policy on safety
partnership frameworks and to provide a standardized approach for considering the
establishment of a safety partnership between Transport Canada Civil Aviation and an aviation
organization for the purpose of delegating to that organization, in accordance with subsection
4.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act, certain aviation safety oversight activities.
-From Document

From 2.3 Abbreviations and Definitions

(c) Safety partnership means, for the purpose of this framework, an agreement with terms
and conditions between the government and an aviation organization that will allow that
organization to participate in activities relating to aviation safety oversight activities to
further government policy or program delivery.

(d) Aviation safety oversight activities means those activities identified by the Transport
Canada’s Program Activity Architecture (PAA) and the Civil Aviation Service Line Model
that support compliance by the aviation industry with the regulatory framework. Within the
PAA, aviation safety oversight is broken down into two main categories:

b](i) Service to the aviation industry which includes personnel licensing, provision of
operating certificates to organizations; and certification of aeronautical products;
and
(ii) Surveillance of the aviation system, which includes assessments, validations,
inspections and audits.[/b]

(g) Majority means more than 50 per cent.

The Requirements for TC to Enter Into A Safety Partnership

(3) The organization has conducted and documented the results of initial consultations with its
membership and affected stakeholders on the notion of a safety partnership and delegated
activities, and there is a majority of members and affected stakeholders in agreement to pursue
the proposed safety partnership.

And this from the College Website Membership section...

Membership is presently limited to the founding executive and board members who have been drawn from every level of the industry and who represent each Canadian province and territory. As soon as the College is able to represent, process and administer all eligible pilots, information about this process will be provided to pilots and their employers across the country.

We thank you for your patience.

As we exercise that patience, an organization which denies us membership, but which seeks to push through a massive change in our rights and abilities to earn a living, supposedly with majority consent, choodles along trying to sneak into this "partnership" under cover of darkness until its too late to say WTF to the government.

Gettin' near to that time when the pikes have to come out of the thatch.

[Dust Devil]

I had a look at the site and then I had a look at the Partners thing they claim to have going with TC. There are some huge questions about that and the way this organization if formed now would be able to present this radical plan as a fait accompli to Canada's pilots, what a "majority" means at this point when membership is essentially closed, and how this Safety Partnerships Program is to work. I had a look at http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/manag ... 07-005.pdf, which is a PDF of the Document CAD 10-7-005.

Here's a couple of key points from that document and from the College website...

1.1 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Civil Aviation Directive is to outline Civil Aviation’s policy on safety
partnership frameworks and to provide a standardized approach for considering the
establishment of a safety partnership between Transport Canada Civil Aviation and an aviation
organization for the purpose of delegating to that organization, in accordance with subsection
4.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act, certain aviation safety oversight activities.
-From Document

From 2.3 Abbreviations and Definitions

(c) Safety partnership means, for the purpose of this framework, an agreement with terms
and conditions between the government and an aviation organization that will allow that
organization to participate in activities relating to aviation safety oversight activities to
further government policy or program delivery.

(d) Aviation safety oversight activities means those activities identified by the Transport
Canada’s Program Activity Architecture (PAA) and the Civil Aviation Service Line Model
that support compliance by the aviation industry with the regulatory framework. Within the
PAA, aviation safety oversight is broken down into two main categories:

b](i) Service to the aviation industry which includes personnel licensing, provision of
operating certificates to organizations; and certification of aeronautical products;
and
(ii) Surveillance of the aviation system, which includes assessments, validations,
inspections and audits.[/b]

(g) Majority means more than 50 per cent.

The Requirements for TC to Enter Into A Safety Partnership

(3) The organization has conducted and documented the results of initial consultations with its
membership and affected stakeholders on the notion of a safety partnership and delegated
activities, and there is a majority of members and affected stakeholders in agreement to pursue
the proposed safety partnership.

And this from the College Website Membership section...

Membership is presently limited to the founding executive and board members who have been drawn from every level of the industry and who represent each Canadian province and territory. As soon as the College is able to represent, process and administer all eligible pilots, information about this process will be provided to pilots and their employers across the country.

We thank you for your patience.

As we exercise that patience, an organization which denies us membership, but which seeks to push through a massive change in our rights and abilities to earn a living, supposedly with majority consent, choodles along trying to sneak into this "partnership" under cover of darkness until its too late to say WTF to the government.

Gettin' near to that time when the pikes have to come out of the thatch.

It's interesting that Colin posted that they don't need a mandate from industry yet by TC including the term "stakeholders" I would say they do need a mandate from all pilots and not just those who have elected to join their group.

It's clear based on Colin's post that they do not intend to get a mandate from all pilots but only from those who decide to mail the organization their cheque.

[Cat Driver]

Could anyone explain why a current and delegated TC Enforcement Inspector (Holbrook) is the VP and co-founding executive member of the College, and how this does NOT constitute a conflict of interest?

You must be trolling?

Or have not been in aviation long enough to understand how the " good old boy club " works.

[CD]

Just a guess, but I would suspect that at the time the College was being formed he was the National Chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association. In that role, he would have been representing the members of the CFPA the same as those individuals from the other associations that may be involved with the College (ACPA, ALPA, PACT, etc.) would be representing their members.

[Ogee]

I think that this is a done deal between Transport and the "College" and that right now the parties are making a show of procedure but with the outcome certain.

It may even be that the genesis of this originates with TC or with a clique within it.

Those who oppose this, and I admit until I put this last 2+2 together I was ambivalent, have to organize a counter effort. And I think its time to bring this to the attention of the media. It is certainly a newsworthy story and I'll have a talk with my CBC connections to see if the Fifth Estate might be interested. It is that kind of story.

You'll note that it seems to be that the College seeks authority to issue operating certificates as well. Or at least that TC will entertain that idea in the context of the Safety Partnership framework.

At its core, this is a proposal which is counter to free enterprise and individualism. Its transparent agenda is to restrict entry to the flying profession, create an artificial shortage of pilots, and thus increase the wage levels of pilots. That has a knock on effect in terms of operating costs to carriers, both good and bad, and in a real market will result in less flying to be done as customers on the margin of choice between air and ground will swing to ground. So you have two forces working against our profession...an artificial barrier to entry affecting supply, and a market driven reduction in demand because of higher costs that will result.

[Cat Driver]

I think that this is a done deal between Transport and the "College" and that right now the parties are making a show of procedure but with the outcome certain.

It may even be that the genesis of this originates with TC or with a clique within it.

If it swims like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a ?????

[GTFA]

At its core, this is a proposal which is counter to free enterprise and individualism. Its transparent agenda is to restrict entry to the flying profession, create an artificial shortage of pilots, and thus increase the wage levels of pilots. That has a knock on effect in terms of operating costs to carriers, both good and bad, and in a real market will result in less flying to be done as customers on the margin of choice between air and ground will swing to ground. So you have two forces working against our profession...an artificial barrier to entry affecting supply, and a market driven reduction in demand because of higher costs that will result.

Oh Ogee!

Sounds like you are already scripting the 5th Estate episode! It might be a little early to make this kind of accusation. Why is it a bad idea for a professional group of practitioners to regulate their own standards of training and performance?