If there were laws and regs you wanted changed or created, what would you tell Transport Canada?
Anyone know of any aviation lobbyists in Ottawa?
TC - laws, regs, PPCs and Changes
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
Cod Father
- Rank 4
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:29 pm
Requests for Regulatory Action (Invoking CARAC)The Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) was established to increase public access and participation in the rule-making process; to discuss and debate issues from various viewpoints; to bring the various rule-making proposals to the notice of senior management at an earlier stage; and to facilitate harmonization with other national aviation jurisdictions.
CARAC is composed of representatives from the aviation community, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and other interested parties thus providing a consultation forum for the Civil Aviation regulatory program.
Anyone may request the CARAC to consider issuing, amending or revoking a regulation, standard or advisory material. Accordingly, the following details the procedures for "Invoking CARAC". These procedures are found in the following link:
Have at 'er...
Yup. I submitted a very small, simple change request, to "harmonize" an obscure reg with the USA, and I got blown off with the most moronic rationalization.CARAC ... won't listen
It wasn't being blown off that bothered me, it was their nonsensical rhetoric that I found surprising and downright bizarre.
Obviously, CARAC is a complete waste of time.
Re: TC - laws, regs, PPCs and Changes
Back to the question at hand, I would pick on an itsy, bitsy little one, 605.26(1)(b), that states,Cod Father wrote:If there were laws and regs you wanted changed or created, what would you tell Transport Canada?
Where the pilot-in-command or the in-charge flight attendant directs that safety belts be fastened, every passenger who is not an infant shall ... if responsible for an infant for which no child restraint system is provided, hold the infant securely in the passenger's arms...
605.26 - Use of Passenger Safety Belts and Restraint Systems
I believe that there is more than enough study and evidence available to demonstrate that an unrestrained infant is at risk (quite a number of injuries have resulted during turbulence or just being dropped, as well as the dynamic testing that has been conducted by the UK CAA, Cranfield University, CAMI and CASA).
However, a little bit like Hedley, I'm sure that the response would be that Canada will simply harmonize with the US, which decided last year that, "...it will not mandate the use of child safety seats on airplanes because of the increased safety risk to families..."
FAA Announces Decision on Child Safety Seats - August 25, 2005
Hedley... which rule were you looking to change?
Re: TC - laws, regs, PPCs and Changes
Even the wording of that quote you made above is vague, in my opinion.CD wrote:Back to the question at hand, I would pick on an itsy, bitsy little one, 605.26(1)(b), that states,Cod Father wrote:If there were laws and regs you wanted changed or created, what would you tell Transport Canada?
Where the pilot-in-command or the in-charge flight attendant directs that safety belts be fastened, every passenger who is not an infant shall ... if responsible for an infant for which no child restraint system is provided, hold the infant securely in the passenger's arms...
605.26 - Use of Passenger Safety Belts and Restraint Systems
I believe that there is more than enough study and evidence available to demonstrate that an unrestrained infant is at risk (quite a number of injuries have resulted during turbulence or just being dropped, as well as the dynamic testing that has been conducted by the UK CAA, Cranfield University, CAMI and CASA).
However, a little bit like Hedley, I'm sure that the response would be that Canada will simply harmonize with the US, which decided last year that, "...it will not mandate the use of child safety seats on airplanes because of the increased safety risk to families..."
FAA Announces Decision on Child Safety Seats - August 25, 2005
Hedley... which rule were you looking to change?
The PIC should still retain the authority in all situations. That may be delegated to the FO, RP, augment pilot, I/C, F/A, and so on - no problem. The wording should reflect the I/C as a delegate, rather than as the authority as the quote appears to infer, and would probably be misinterpreted by many I/C's without the full context of other enabled documents and contents of the command hierarchy.
The way it is worded is that the I/C can be making the decision to have everyone sit down and fasten their belts even when the seat belt sign may not be on, then commanding the Commander to turn on the belts.
I have no problem with a mutual agreement that the belts be on, but no one should be usurping authority from the commander - there is enough of that already.
All you have to do to create a new reg/law is to find a new way to roll an airplane intoa ball. That's how we got all the de-ice exams, CFIT etc. These brought us CRM, and PDM courses. If airplanes never went down, we'd still have captains acting like Gods! Co-pilots would be "right seat meat" forever. Thes things only changed, because that didn't work. And it seems, to me, at least, that the less understood an accident cause is, the longe the course/exams become. Look at all the exams we have to write for deicing! It could just state..."Thy wing must be clean." It could be that simple?
Re: TC - laws, regs, PPCs and Changes
Well, there ya go balls, here is the other regulatory requirement you were looking for:balls wrote:Even the wording of that quote you made above is vague, in my opinion.
The PIC should still retain the authority in all situations. That may be delegated to the FO, RP, augment pilot, I/C, F/A, and so on - no problem. The wording should reflect the I/C as a delegate, rather than as the authority as the quote appears to infer, and would probably be misinterpreted by many I/C's without the full context of other enabled documents and contents of the command hierarchy.
The way it is worded is that the I/C can be making the decision to have everyone sit down and fasten their belts even when the seat belt sign may not be on, then commanding the Commander to turn on the belts.
602.05 Compliance with Instructions
(1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.
(2) Every crew member on board an aircraft shall, during flight time, comply with the instructions of the pilot-in-command or of any person whom the pilot-in-command has authorized to act on behalf of the pilot-in-command.
605.02 - Compliance With Instructions
Wheew! Obviously I can not express myself very well, or the last couple of posts have entirely missed the point!
GUYS/GALS (whatever) it is not about being a god. It is about SOMEONE having to have the ultimate authority legally, and practically.
Get used to the fact that, yes, someone IS the boss of you. If you don't like that, stay out of the biz. Even as a Captain, there is a window within which you have to operate. You might not like the SOPs of the company, and they could be very different that your previous employer, using the same equipment. The SOPs described in your AOM and FOM are enabled, too. You shall operate the equipment in the manner that the company/person writing the cheques dictates through those manuals (as approved by TC). Making up your own, as mentioned in another thread on this forum, is not on.
If you are an FO, and an insufferable FO, then likely you will be an insufferable Captain, too, and like the grandparents' curse, as a Captain, you SHALL be cursed with insufferable FO's as you were! Karma, man.
On an aircraft, ship, military, workplace, ultimately that someone with the ultimate authority to make the final decision, must be the case. The whole crew has to do their job and understand their role, BUT, the final decision can only be with one person. The input and advice is great, and necessary, but it's not a democracy on an aircraft!
I said nothing, or referred to nothing that said anything about how someone uses or abuses that authority. I was referring to the vague wording of the quote!! This has nothing to do with right seat/left seat either, but the fact remains that the captain is the commander legally.
Now, re-quoting parts of the CARs about command authority, back to me does nothing. If you read the post, or unless I was that unclear, I referred to that in the post there are other enabling parts of the regulations that detail the command authority.
Geez, again!! I referred to the concept that vague portions, such as saying that a pilot or in charge can command as certain action will be taken by some flight attendants in a less than overall view of CARs as their licence to usurp the authority. I have seen this happen over the past few decades as an airline pilot!
In general I have very few conflicts with FO's, RP's or I/C's, or F/A's. The CRM concept works well. Manners help, too. There is a segment of the pilot population, and flight attendant population that need some remedial courses in basic manners, and probably some that really need a quick spin through the CRM course again, too. There comes a point every once in while that you do have to put your foot down though, and be directive. The person that has the last word IS the captain, so no area of the CARs should leave that open to interpretation.
The last post in the previouis three said, exercise good judgement. That is an absolute requirement for a pilot. Comon sense is airmanship. That can be lacking in some cases too, even to pilots that have reached the airline, absolutely. But, to some degree, developing "airmanship", and applying good judgement to situational awareness of potential upcoming problems is probably what "experience" is about - to some degree. ie, You've embarassed yourself, or not lived up to your own expectations once, and you should have learned what not to do, what to do better, and not to repeat that situation again, whether that is planning, flying, or dealing with crew or passengers.
GUYS/GALS (whatever) it is not about being a god. It is about SOMEONE having to have the ultimate authority legally, and practically.
Get used to the fact that, yes, someone IS the boss of you. If you don't like that, stay out of the biz. Even as a Captain, there is a window within which you have to operate. You might not like the SOPs of the company, and they could be very different that your previous employer, using the same equipment. The SOPs described in your AOM and FOM are enabled, too. You shall operate the equipment in the manner that the company/person writing the cheques dictates through those manuals (as approved by TC). Making up your own, as mentioned in another thread on this forum, is not on.
If you are an FO, and an insufferable FO, then likely you will be an insufferable Captain, too, and like the grandparents' curse, as a Captain, you SHALL be cursed with insufferable FO's as you were! Karma, man.
On an aircraft, ship, military, workplace, ultimately that someone with the ultimate authority to make the final decision, must be the case. The whole crew has to do their job and understand their role, BUT, the final decision can only be with one person. The input and advice is great, and necessary, but it's not a democracy on an aircraft!
I said nothing, or referred to nothing that said anything about how someone uses or abuses that authority. I was referring to the vague wording of the quote!! This has nothing to do with right seat/left seat either, but the fact remains that the captain is the commander legally.
Now, re-quoting parts of the CARs about command authority, back to me does nothing. If you read the post, or unless I was that unclear, I referred to that in the post there are other enabling parts of the regulations that detail the command authority.
Geez, again!! I referred to the concept that vague portions, such as saying that a pilot or in charge can command as certain action will be taken by some flight attendants in a less than overall view of CARs as their licence to usurp the authority. I have seen this happen over the past few decades as an airline pilot!
In general I have very few conflicts with FO's, RP's or I/C's, or F/A's. The CRM concept works well. Manners help, too. There is a segment of the pilot population, and flight attendant population that need some remedial courses in basic manners, and probably some that really need a quick spin through the CRM course again, too. There comes a point every once in while that you do have to put your foot down though, and be directive. The person that has the last word IS the captain, so no area of the CARs should leave that open to interpretation.
The last post in the previouis three said, exercise good judgement. That is an absolute requirement for a pilot. Comon sense is airmanship. That can be lacking in some cases too, even to pilots that have reached the airline, absolutely. But, to some degree, developing "airmanship", and applying good judgement to situational awareness of potential upcoming problems is probably what "experience" is about - to some degree. ie, You've embarassed yourself, or not lived up to your own expectations once, and you should have learned what not to do, what to do better, and not to repeat that situation again, whether that is planning, flying, or dealing with crew or passengers.
I suppose everything is open to interpretation but I don't get the same impression from that regulation. When I read that, it doesn't say to me that the incharge can override the captain, only that either the captain or the incharge can make people put on their seatbelts. Of if you want to look at it another way, the captain is not the only crew member who can give orders on the aircraft. If the captain wants to he/she can override the incharge.
Policy is that everyone will have their seatbelt fastened in flight. No problem, that is the policy. The seatbelt sign policy is another matter. According to this the I/C would make the announcement, then tell the captain to put on the seatbelt sign, if you take a loose interpretation. The better route would be for the I/C to use CRM, and confer with the Captain, if he/she felt that it was necessary, rather than making unilateral decisions.Aviatard wrote:I suppose everything is open to interpretation but I don't get the same impression from that regulation. When I read that, it doesn't say to me that the incharge can override the captain, only that either the captain or the incharge can make people put on their seatbelts. Of if you want to look at it another way, the captain is not the only crew member who can give orders on the aircraft. If the captain wants to he/she can override the incharge.
That isn't really the point though. This is merely an example. The point is about vagueness in areas of CARs or any regulation.
If vagueness is intentional, maybe it was designed that way.
If not, then the CARs need to constantly edited to reflect the real intent and provide unambigous, clear regs, where vagueness is perceived.
Balls
I understand your point about chain of command and agree with it fully as I'm sure most people here who deal with that sort of thing do. But the apparent co-authority given to the I/C by the CAR's regarding seat belt usage by the passengers is, I think, appropriate. It gives authority to the I/C to order passengers to do up their seatbelt when they feel it necessary when the Captain may be unaware of a situation in the back that requires it, or is unable to turn on the seatbelt sign himself.
Consider a rapid decompression as an example. Procedures provide for the cockpit crew to turn on the seatbelt sign, but what if that step gets missed or a fault precludes the signs from coming on? The Captain in this case is not able to directly command the seatbelt use, but since the authority for their use also resides with the I/C he or she could direct their use without the Captain's involvement. I think that is appropriate since the I/C is also responsible for the passenger's safety and is the person actually controlling the cabin. I don't think the regulation usurps the Captain's authority, nor is it intended to.
I understand your point about chain of command and agree with it fully as I'm sure most people here who deal with that sort of thing do. But the apparent co-authority given to the I/C by the CAR's regarding seat belt usage by the passengers is, I think, appropriate. It gives authority to the I/C to order passengers to do up their seatbelt when they feel it necessary when the Captain may be unaware of a situation in the back that requires it, or is unable to turn on the seatbelt sign himself.
Consider a rapid decompression as an example. Procedures provide for the cockpit crew to turn on the seatbelt sign, but what if that step gets missed or a fault precludes the signs from coming on? The Captain in this case is not able to directly command the seatbelt use, but since the authority for their use also resides with the I/C he or she could direct their use without the Captain's involvement. I think that is appropriate since the I/C is also responsible for the passenger's safety and is the person actually controlling the cabin. I don't think the regulation usurps the Captain's authority, nor is it intended to.
In an emergency, at least at AC, there are set drills for situations like a rapid decompression. The p/a is redundant, unnecessary, and not required in the case of an explosive decompression (at least on the 340), the drill will happen for f/a's and for pilots. The seat belt sign is part of the drill. The passenger seat belts at AC are required to be fastened in flight if you are in your seat in any case.Rockie wrote:Balls
I understand your point about chain of command and agree with it fully as I'm sure most people here who deal with that sort of thing do. But the apparent co-authority given to the I/C by the CAR's regarding seat belt usage by the passengers is, I think, appropriate. It gives authority to the I/C to order passengers to do up their seatbelt when they feel it necessary when the Captain may be unaware of a situation in the back that requires it, or is unable to turn on the seatbelt sign himself.
Consider a rapid decompression as an example. Procedures provide for the cockpit crew to turn on the seatbelt sign, but what if that step gets missed or a fault precludes the signs from coming on? The Captain in this case is not able to directly command the seatbelt use, but since the authority for their use also resides with the I/C he or she could direct their use without the Captain's involvement. I think that is appropriate since the I/C is also responsible for the passenger's safety and is the person actually controlling the cabin. I don't think the regulation usurps the Captain's authority, nor is it intended to.
We are back to dealing with specifics, when my original point was to be dealing with the overall idea of ambiguity in clauses of regulations. I am encouraged that you started out down that track, at least.
Balls
That's all understood and I am very familiar with the drills on the 340 at AC and elsewhere. I guess I was just using that example as a means of saying that even though the regs might seem ambiguous at times, usually on the 100th time reading them an aspect of what they are trying to say, or not say, becomes clear. As I'm sure you know TC goes through a process of "consultation" before developing a regulation (another topic of robust discussion) and once the intent of the reg has been determined it goes off to a battery of lawyers to write the actual language. Since the regulations are empowered by parliament through the Aeronautics Act and then the minister, the language has to be as accurate as any law.
I understand your point about ambiguity, but what on the face of it might not make too much sense in actual fact says exactly what the authorities mean it to say. A case in point is the I/C seatbelt thing. I think giving I/C's the authority in this case is very deliberate and expanding on it further is not necessary and might even muddy the waters further.
Over the years I've learned to read things dispassionately, and at least in the case of CAR's, SOP's, FOM's, AFM's and such, read them carefully many times paying as close attention to what they don't say as what they do say. Plenty of the times when I've questioned whoever is responsible about something I end up seeing something afterward that for some reason I didn't see before. Probably due to my limited intellegence.
That's all understood and I am very familiar with the drills on the 340 at AC and elsewhere. I guess I was just using that example as a means of saying that even though the regs might seem ambiguous at times, usually on the 100th time reading them an aspect of what they are trying to say, or not say, becomes clear. As I'm sure you know TC goes through a process of "consultation" before developing a regulation (another topic of robust discussion) and once the intent of the reg has been determined it goes off to a battery of lawyers to write the actual language. Since the regulations are empowered by parliament through the Aeronautics Act and then the minister, the language has to be as accurate as any law.
I understand your point about ambiguity, but what on the face of it might not make too much sense in actual fact says exactly what the authorities mean it to say. A case in point is the I/C seatbelt thing. I think giving I/C's the authority in this case is very deliberate and expanding on it further is not necessary and might even muddy the waters further.
Over the years I've learned to read things dispassionately, and at least in the case of CAR's, SOP's, FOM's, AFM's and such, read them carefully many times paying as close attention to what they don't say as what they do say. Plenty of the times when I've questioned whoever is responsible about something I end up seeing something afterward that for some reason I didn't see before. Probably due to my limited intellegence.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
We seem to have gotten off the original thread, which asked the question about changing some of the CARS.
It does not matter what we think because the CARAC system is totally averse to even listening, let alone recommend changes.
Everything I have heard is negative about them and it is shameful. I don't believe anyone of us would approach them without having a rational reason for change. Certainly, none of us would recommend abolishing the CARS.
As for the CARS format, it is hopeless trying to navigate around it and because it is legal-ese, one word in the middle of the paragraph can change the whole meaning. I have debated for hours with others about the specific meaning of a reg, when it should have been written clearly enough in the first place to avoid ambiguity.
Thank G I don't have to bother with them any more.
It does not matter what we think because the CARAC system is totally averse to even listening, let alone recommend changes.
Everything I have heard is negative about them and it is shameful. I don't believe anyone of us would approach them without having a rational reason for change. Certainly, none of us would recommend abolishing the CARS.
As for the CARS format, it is hopeless trying to navigate around it and because it is legal-ese, one word in the middle of the paragraph can change the whole meaning. I have debated for hours with others about the specific meaning of a reg, when it should have been written clearly enough in the first place to avoid ambiguity.
Thank G I don't have to bother with them any more.
