SMS Req'd for Foreign Ops in Canada?

[Widow]

Interesting what you can learn through google alerts.

From http://proairman.com/is-an-sms-required ... operators/

I read a copy of an email today from Civil Aviation Communications Centre, Transport Canada, which follows.

Dear [Name witheld]:

Thank you for once again writing to Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation Communications Centre.

The Canadian Aviation Regulations pertaining to safety management systems are not applicable to foreign operators.

Please do not hesitate to forward this to other persons with the same questions.

Sean
Civil Aviation Communications Centre, Transport Canada /
Centre de communications de l’Aviation civile, Transports Canada


1 800 305-2059
Facsimile / Télécopieur 613-949-4204
services@tc.gc.ca / http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation


330 Sparks Street (AARCB), Ottawa ON K1A 0N5
330 rue Sparks (AARCB), Ottawa ON K1A 0N5
Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

I sent an email to Transport Canada asking for additional clarification. My email is as follows:

Dear Sir,

I would like to confirm your statement that “The Canadian Aviation Regulations pertaining to safety management systems are not applicable to foreign operators” (see email from Transport Canada below).

From the Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO Doc 7300/9):

Article 11 – Applicability of Air Regulations Application – states:

Subject to the provisions of this Convention, the laws and regulations of a contracting State relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of aircraft engaged in international air navigation, or to the operation and navigation of aircraft while within its territory, shall be applied to the of all contracting States without distinction as to nationality, and shall be complied with by such aircraft upon entering or departing from or while within the territory of that State.

Article 12 – Rules of the Air – states:

Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or maneuvering within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.

I have looked in the Annex Addendums and do not see a difference filed by Canada, with regard to regulatory oversight of foreign State aircraft, pertaining to the SMS requirement. If your statement is correct I would appreciate an explanation of how I can interpret which Canadian regulations apply or don’t apply, as the case may be, to foreign operators.

Thank you for your consideration. I anxious await your response.

I’ll publish Transport Canada’s response to my email when receive it.

[ahramin]

Simple answer really. They didn't bother to file the difference.

Stellar find Widow.

[Widow]

Simple answer really. They didn't bother to file the difference.

Just like with the ICAO fatigue directive.

[CD]

Well... If one were to look at the question that was apparently asked, it appears to have dealt with whether a Canadian SMS was required for 14 CFR 91 "operators" while in Canada. Since SMS in Canada is not applicable to 703 or 704 operators in Canada, why would it be applicable to a 14 CFR 91 operator, which is generally a lower level of regulation than even 703/704?

The Regulatory requirements for foreign operators are outlined in Subpart 701. Additional regulatory requirements applicable to all foreign aircraft are found in Part VI (such as 605.01(2)). For more information on the requirements for foreign commercial operations, have a peek a this site: Foreign Inspection Division: Foreign Commercial Air Transport Operators.

Whether or not a difference is required (or was filed and subsequently "misplaced" by ICAO -- again) is another question. However, there are many authorities that have extensive State regulatory requirements that are not applicable to foreign operators -- including within the US CFRs. Differences are not required to be filed in most cases provided the regulatory requirements meet the ICAO minimum standard (I believe only the standard, not any associated recommended practice). If ICAO has mandated that all States have regulatory requirements relating to SMS by a specified date, then only those States in non-compliance with the requirement would theoretically need to file a difference.

So, unless there is a bunch of information missing from the email message, I'm not sure that I see where the problem is yet. (Of course, I am overdue for a visit to my optometrist and have been accused once or twice of missing the blindingly obvious... )

[ahramin]

Whoops, didn't follow the link. Thanks for the information CD.

As far as I know no US operators are required to have SMS, including part 121.

[george sugar]

Canadian SMS requirements do not apply to foreign operators, nor does Canada need to file an exception with ICAO. Along with other items in the CARs such as the content of the operations manual or qualifications of personnel, SMS is a requirement for the issuance and maintenance of a Canadian AOC. The ICAO requirements in question refer to "...the laws and regulations of a contracting State relating to the admission to or departure from its territory...", and having entered Canadian airspace, "...the operation and navigation of aircraft while within its territory,...", and they require that the foreign carrier "...shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force....".

Further, for these purposes the carrier must comply with either the regulations of its home state, or with the regulations of the foreign state, whichever is more restrictive. For example, a US carrier coming to Canada cannot use the CARs approach ban provisions if the actual weather is below published landing visibility minimums. Conversely, a Canadian carrier cannot conduct an approach in the US when the actual weather is below published landing visibility minimums, regardless of any Canadian Ops Spec they may hold.

As for SMS, it is ICAO that would require it of member contracting states, not one contracting state requiring it from another. If an exception is to be filed, it would be by the state not requiring SMS to ICAO, not by a state which does require SMS.

[Dust Devil]

So what's the deal here? Are we mad that Canadian operators are going to implement SMS so we work hard to delay it yet at the same time we are pissed that foreign operators don't have SMS.

[Widow]

^ ^ Huh?

Well... If one were to look at the question that was apparently asked, it appears to have dealt with whether a Canadian SMS was required for 14 CFR 91 "operators" while in Canada. Since SMS in Canada is not applicable to 703 or 704 operators in Canada, why would it be applicable to a 14 CFR 91 operator, which is generally a lower level of regulation than even 703/704?

Perhaps the question was asked before the implementation page was changed, or the delay announced? As you and George Sugar have explained so well, SMS isn't applicable to foreign ops at all, so TC's reply is accurate, if lacking in detail - provoking this person's questions (as, apparently, an SMS consultant).

Anyway, I did learn something, and now I've learned more. Thanks!

P.S. What was this about CD?

a difference is required (or was filed and subsequently "misplaced" by ICAO -- again)

[CD]

Like any large bureaucracy, ICAO has struggled over the years to track differences filed by States. This is possibly due to the volume and complexity of the submissions, not to mention the issue of managing these in all of the official languages of the Organization. States have also been identified as making errors in submitting their differences, which can compound the problem of accurate tracking and reporting.

Here are a few ICAO working papers that discuss some of the issues involved in the process:

C-WP/11246 - PUBLICATION OF DIFFERENCES TO ICAO STANDARDS
C-WP/11302 - DIFFERENCES INCORPORATED BY ICAO IN SUPPLEMENTS TO ANNEXES FURTHER TO A SAFETY OVERSIGHT AUDIT
AN-WP/7572 - A PROPOSED APPROACH TO A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF DIFFERENCES TO SARPS
AN-WP/7976 - ACTION PROPOSED FOLLOWING A REVIEW OF DIFFERENCES FROM ANNEX 6 NOTIFIED BY STATES
C-WP/12412 - NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION OF DIFFERENCES

I'm sure that I have read submissions from individual States regarding some of the tracking and publication issues but the ICAO website can be challenging to navigate and locate documentation...