Widow in the news

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:34 am

Pilots are afraid to complain to TC about unethical employers who bully them into unsafe working conditions.

For just reason evident by how many complaints are investigated compared to how many pilots were canned and zero back up from the regulator.

When people get on about SMS, I wonder where the SMS/HF thinking is in TC when their own director is being questioned about allegations of pressuring elements of the industry, for daring to talk. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

May I suggest that in the case you are refering to the " allegations " were in the form of a sworn affidavit...

....what is wrong with this society is everyone so lacking in undrestanding of how the justice system is supposed to work that people can't differentiate between an allegation and a sworn affidavit?

Merlin Preuss has skated away from something that goes to the very core of the rule of law in this country, a member of Parliament has even commented that it is contempt of Parliament.

Doesen't anyone in aviation wonder what in hell is going on in Ottawa when the top bureaucrat in TCCA can smugly thumb his nose at the very system he is sworn to uphold?

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:41 am

Doesen't anyone in aviation wonder what in hell is going on in Ottawa when the top bureaucrat in TCCA can smugly thumb his nose at the very system he is sworn to uphold?

that seems to be the norm in Ottawa, not just an aviation thing. Blatant self interest is the flavour of the day.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:39 am

CID wrote:

your insistance that Canada does "not" have one of the safest aviation industries (or "systems" as you like) in the world is quite offensive to people like me who make our living in aviation.

Well CID. I make my living in aviation. Have for nearly 40 years now.
and I find it offensive that you have included me in your claim that people who make their living in aviation find the quote offensive.

Virtually every written and spoken utterance from the Minister and Mr. Pruess include this phrase at the start of their remarks. Why dont you find that continued use of the phrase offensive? Orders from above? Yet when Widow uses it you not only find it offensive but you have the audacity to include all of us who make our living in aviation as finding it offensive also.
Shame on you!

But what do I know as a simple dumb pilot, when after all, "Canada has one of the safest air transportation systems in the world"

And I know that to be true........because TC says it to be so! Not because it gives them a raison d'etre to seek bigger budgets, and excuse them for some of their less than forthright actions...its all about safety.

gli77 wrote:

There seem to be a great many ppl on here who are either in total denial, or have very limited experience flying in this country, and I don't think it's the latter.

I agree with you that it is probably not the latter. As to being in total denial however, I think we have some posters here who have , as their mission, to make sure the official mantra gets posted.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:37 am

and I find it offensive that you have included me in your claim that people who make their living in aviation find the quote offensive.

Trey Kule, I typed;

people like me who make our living in aviation.

It wasn't my intent to speak for you or anyone else and include you as "people like me". As a matter of fact you and I are very different and I think that's well known. If you feel that I have inadvertantly written on your behalf, then let me say it was not my intent and I apologize.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:08 pm

Big Pratt wrote: Research the FAA program in Alaska called Capstone.

So just by doing a quick little search and browse, I have discovered that:

The Capstone Safety Program, which uses ADS-B as well as other aids, is credited with increasing aviation safety by 47 percent in Alaska, according to a study by the University of Alaska and the MITRE Corp.

Indeed, it has been so successful that:

Alaska aviation industry leaders have signed an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration with hopes to equip aircraft and airports statewide with the next generation of avionics.

Also in the agreement are provisions to install communications, surveillance, navigation and weather reporting infrastructure to improve safety and efficiency in select locations in Alaska. The agreement proposes to do this by upgrading airports from Visual Flight Rule to Instrument Flight Rule capabilities, and to provide air traffic control surveillance services at select locations in Alaska.

The caveat to this agreement, signed Feb. 9, is that a draft detailing the coordination and planning, equipage assistance, financing options and evaluation of recommended sites be submitted to the FAA Surveillance Broadcast Office by April 27 by a committee made up from the Alaska signatories.

This from: Alaska Journal, Feb. 18, 2007

There was also a precursor to Capstone, called Flight 2000:

Question: In the Capstone Project paper it says Flight 2000 was aborted due to a "difference in priorities between government and industry" what specifically were the disagreements?

Answer: The Flight 2000 Program did not receive enough support from the large, nationwide air carriers to survive the congressional budget process. These air carriers primarily operate large turbojet aircraft in an IFR environment while the Flight 2000 Program focused primarily on small aircraft flying in a VFR setting. The large air carriers are intensely concerned about issues of airport capacity, closely spaced parallel approaches, in-trail separation distances, station keeping, etc. Minutes of flight delay avoided for them translates into thousands of dollars in savings. These carriers are usually operating in a radar environment where separation is assured via air traffic control surveillance and where navigation is provided via a mature system of ground electronics stations. The Flight 2000 Program, like the Capstone Program, was focused largely on improving flight safety for small aircraft flying at low altitudes in a non-radar environment where navigation aids are less common. There was an obvious and understandable difference in priorities.

Capstone FAQ

You have given me a very interesting new project BP!

CD · Post by CD » Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:13 pm

trey kule wrote:Virtually every written and spoken utterance from the Minister and Mr. Pruess include this phrase at the start of their remarks. Why dont you find that continued use of the phrase offensive? Orders from above?

Although you possibly meant something else entirely by this, I wonder if the use of certain phraseology isn't indeed Orders from above. After all, almost every press release or announcement from the government includes the phrase CANADA'S NEW GOVERNMENT...

For example:

Protection the top priority with tank acquisition - April 12, 2007
Canada's New Government invests in safety improvements at Grande Prairie Airport - April 12, 2007
British Columbia Joins with Canada's New Government to Announce Patient Wait Times Guarantee - April 12, 2007
Canada And U.S. Move Forward to Reducing Air Pollutants - April 13, 2007
Prime Minister's Office - CANADA'S NEW GOVERNMENT

I wouldn't actually find it surprising if the PMO has selected certain phrases that must be used by various government deparments in correspondence with the public.

gli77 · Post by **gli77** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:14 pm

Trey Kule I did not write what you quoted. Not sure who it was.

There seems to be two positions on this site. There are those that say that in comparison with the world, Canada does have a safe aviation industry, but there are room for improvements. Then there is the other side, which upon reading that, accuses those people of being in denial, spokesmen for TC or inexperienced. To me it seems one is rational and one irrational.

I am in the group stating the former and it is not denial, I do not have anything to do with TC, it is from working in other systems and seeing positives we should have in Canada and many negatives I am glad do not exist in Canada. I think it is a good balance to be able to support improvments and not denigrate the system in place now.

ADS-B is a good advancement of avionics. But it will take time to test, certify and implement. Same as ILS, TCAS, GPS and EGPWS. They all increased saftey but implementation did not happen quickly.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:29 pm

" it is from working in other systems and seeing positives we should have in Canada and many negatives I am glad do not exist in Canada "

gli77, I work as a pilot/mechanic in many countries and hold authorizations under South African CAA, Australian CASA and JAR,JAA in Europe.

Working with these regulators gives me the opportunity to compare the plusses and minuses between different regulators.

The difference between the British CAA and Canada's Transport Canada in the way complaints regarding unsafe conditions in any aircraft operations is like night and day. The British CAA listen to the complaint and act upon same to a conclusion.

Conversely complaining to TC is in many cases like shooting yourself in the head as you run the risk of unemployment with zero support from TC.

I am interested in what negatives you find in other regulators that you would not wish to see in Canada.

By the way, I do not consider myself irrational, nor do the regulators who approve me to work under their rules.

. E.

blachang · Post by **blachang** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:32 pm

I don't agree with all of your posts, ., in fact I get tired of some of the mud slinging that you do towards transport Canada and understand that you have had some frustrations in dealing with them and that is probably legitimate in dealing with any other government buerocracy (I know wrong spelling).
I will give you alot of credit for this though: you are trying to make a difference and extract some results before the tragedy occurs, be it you"re friend's, loved one, or your own. It is hard to understand the rationalle when one buys a cup of coffee at Mc Donalds- spills it on his nuts- and then goes after McDonalds for damages!
I will offer again that the majority of people that are governing our industry are genuinely interested in Safety and and maintence of an Effecient framework to work within. That being said, I expect that there are a commensurate number of incompetants hiding in the maze of cubicles wherever their head office is that are in paycheque collecting mode, bolstering their pension, that don't give a shit about making things better.
This does'nt give anyone the right to make blanket statements about how lousy our industry is and how pilots are afraid to speak up when asked to do something illegal or immoral........that makes us all look bad, including yourself for suggesting that we are doing it.
No system is perfect, and in fact, every FAR in the book is said to be written in blood. Flying airplanes is inherently dangerous, just like driving a car or operating a boat. Nobody wants, plans, or expects and accident, but they do happen.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:03 pm

blachang wrote:Nobody wants, plans, or expects and accident, but they do happen.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. What many(read I) am concerned about is the intentional skirting of rules, regulations, and Mtc that goes on under our Regulator's nose. This is what can, and should be eradicated in Canada.

STL

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:27 am

ADS-B is a good advancement of avionics. But it will take time to test, certify and implement. Same as ILS, TCAS, GPS and EGPWS. They all increased saftey but implementation did not happen quickly.

True statments but it should be stated that none of the systems you mentioned will help someone flying VFR.

Flying airplanes is inherently dangerous, just like driving a car or operating a boat.

I strongly disagree. None of those are "inherently" dangerous if risks are properly managed. Inherent means it is a permanent characteristic or even neccessary. If flying were inherently dangerous you wouldn't have millions of people all over the globe doing it.

The regulations are a framework for risk management. Therefore what IS inherently dangerous is to fly with an operator that flaunts the rules. That includes things like pushing the weather or flying with inoperative required or essential equipment.

It even applies to how an employer treats his employees. If a company operates within a culture that promotes illegal activity or fear of reprisal.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:31 am

Well blachang I note you have taken the time to post twice to inform widow and I that you take offence to our concerns regarding the lack of proper oversite by TC on the industry.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and should express same which is how we arrive at a general consensus and when needed bring about changes.

I'm going to be away for a few days so before I leave I would like to respond to your dissatisfaction with our concerns regarding TCCA.

I don't agree with all of your posts, ., in fact I get tired of some of the mud slinging that you do towards transport Canada and understand that you have had some frustrations in dealing with them and that is probably legitimate in dealing with any other government buerocracy (I know wrong spelling).

Well that is a good start, you come on Avcanada and start off by saying I have had some frustrations with TC and sluff it off as just part of dealing with any Government bureaucracy.

Well that is just fine, hopefully you will find yourself bankrupted and denied the right to work in aviation fifty years from now because you had some frustration with one of TCCA's bureaucrats....after all it is to be expected as you so eloquently state. By the way learn from me and once all your assets in your business has been spent on legal avenues to protect your business don't make the mistake I did of cashing in your RRPS's to get your losses back.

I will give you alot of credit for this though: you are trying to make a difference and extract some results before the tragedy occurs, be it you"re friend's, loved one, or your own. It is hard to understand the rationalle when one buys a cup of coffee at Mc Donalds- spills it on his nuts- and then goes after McDonalds for damages!

Great analogy there blachang, makes me want to spill some hot coffee on your nuts for being so ignorant as to compare widows loss as no more important than spilling a cup of hot coffee. I could maybe cut you some slack for refering to my losses so casually but to have the audacity to so casually compare what widow and many of us are striving to change in TCCA to spilling hot coffee puts you in the idiot catagory.

I will offer again that the majority of people that are governing our industry are genuinely interested in Safety and and maintence of an Effecient framework to work within. That being said, I expect that there are a commensurate number of incompetants hiding in the maze of cubicles wherever their head office is that are in paycheque collecting mode, bolstering their pension, that don't give a shit about making things better.
This does'nt give anyone the right to make blanket statements about how lousy our industry is

You should take the time to either learn to read or if you can read get some help with comprehension because we do not make blanket statements, we are very clear in what we find to be lacking within the upper management of TCCA.

and how pilots are afraid to speak up when asked to do something illegal or immoral........

How many pilots do you know who spoke up and actually received backing from TCCA?

that makes us all look bad, including yourself for suggesting that we are doing it.

Once again you are making a statement that shows your ignorance on how the system works, but if you ever find something that concerns you about safety in aviation why don't you just go straight to TCCA and express your concerns and then watch how dilligent they will work toward correcting the problem..watch from the unemployment line when your employer finds out.

No system is perfect, and in fact, every FAR in the book is said to be written in blood. Flying airplanes is inherently dangerous, just like driving a car or operating a boat. Nobody wants, plans, or expects and accident, but they do happen.

And finally don't be condensending with me because I don't have time for condensending people who dont know what the hell they are talking about.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:36 am

edited do to much caffiene on a Saturday afternoon.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:37 am

gli77: sorry about attributing to you a quote you did not make. It actually should have been attributed to skys the limit.
As to your claim that there is only two positions. I believe I hold a third one. I presently work and fly under the UK CAA regulations and their system. And I have flown under both the French and Dutch systems. There are positives and negatives to all the systems.

My issue with TC is twofold. Firstly the regulations are confusing, complicated, and often conflicting. They are also open, it seems, to a great deal of latitude and intrepretaion by the regulator( and by each region). I believe that while the objective is valid and important, the ability of TC to fulfil that objective is lacking at this time. To do that, I believe they will have to revamp, simplify, clarify, and reduce the number of regulations, rather than increasing them.
They will also have to get rid of the management and those that are in agreement with the management that promotes a culture of bullying and fear with those in the industry.

TC's official line is to the effect that, yes there are some bad apples in the organization, but we all must agree that there are also bad apples in the industry. The difference, which they never mention, is that they are there to ferret out the bad apples in the industry, but there is no one to ferret out the bad apples within their ranks.

I do not believe that people who think TC is just fine are in denial or have their heads in the sand. But I also do not believe that they really recognize just how rooted in TC the rot is, and the culture. Perhaps if Mr. P is charged with contempt of Parliament, people here will start to recognize the arrogance of those running TC, and we will see change.

If we dont you can expect more regulations, more enfocement, continued and increased bullying and unprofessional conduct by TC employees.

But then again, we all have our opinion, and as Mr. Pruess has so often stated, Canada has one of the safest air transportation systems in the world......and my toilet paper is one of the softest in the world....my dog one of the smartest, and my sceptism one of the biggest....Its all about spin with words.

weasello · Post by **weasello** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:39 am

I think a lot of you are falling prey to Marketing.

Corn Pops is one of the best cereals on the planet.
Geico is one of the best insurance companies to go through.
I am one of the most handsome men.

By saying "Canada has one of the safest aviation systems" that's marketing talking.

It IS NOT a universal truth to be read as "Canada has the safest aviation systems."

If we could say we were SECOND best, or #1 after New Zealand, or even "top five!", it could arguably be more affective, and would definitely be more telling. But the simple truth is that "one of the best" simply means that if you take every country on the planet - yes, even the 2nd and third world countries - we are in the top 50%.

"Better than Average" could be a more truthful way of phrasing it.

Let's not get caught up and start arguing over this "canada is great" issue when we're not even dealing with facts, and we are all obviously interpreting the sentence differently. Does anyone know the global figures for per-capita aviation accidents?

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:45 am

weasello

You said what I was trying to, only much better. Thank you.

And like a true marketer, we see TC repeating, repeating, repeating, until everyone believes it is a fact.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:52 am

Keep up the good work, Widow.

Any system, as 'happily.retired' said, should be ready to accept challenges as to how good it is.
The worst failing in aviation is the ostrich principle which says "well, we have not had an accident for three years" , a statement which excludes self-examination. Complacency can kill too, in insidious ways.

We live in a changing world, let's all hope that where safety is concerned, it is a change for the better.

blachang......... you stated " Canadian Aviation as a regulatory body has no greater interest than Aviation Safety."

Well, let me tell you, my friend, that if you mean TCCA, then they do indeed have a greater agenda and that is to preserve their asses at any cost, including suppression of truth, and rank dishonesty at the top.

As a new poster on Avcanada, dare I guess that you have some interest here in making that statement?

CID ............ What is wrong with challenging our system? Status quo is not the way to go.

Fact is, we DO have a (reasonably) safe aviation industry in Canada. However, 703 704 and 705 operations are frequently conducted at something less than safe levels. I don't care how many people flame me on that, it is just a basic truth. SMS will not fix it because it is economics-driven.

We live in an imperfect world, which becomes less perfect when we pilots become pragmatic about maintenance and other issues. But, it is a slippery slope.

In the end, I believe that anyone who speaks out against Widow has vested interests. Please focus on the Quest for Justice theme. We need an Industry voice that will be heard, not actively ignored such as is currently happening. Her concerns would have been adequately addressed if such a procedure was open to her. At least she would have received a straight answer.

Keep givin' 'er, Widow.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Well, here we have a comparison of Canada, USA and Mexico's Civil Aviation Accident Statistics from 2000-2004 presented by our own TCCA.

Statistics

If you scroll down to Slide 8, you will see the comparison of Air Taxi Accident Rates - and if you average those rates, you will find that Canada's accident rate is about 7.72, Mexico's 7.53 and the USA 2.38.

Scroll down a little farther to Slide 11, and you will find that Canada's General Aviation Accident Rates were consistently about twice that of both the USA and Mexico.

Not looking so good folks.

Now, if you go here:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/200 ... 060002.pdf

you will find a study that Australia did in 2006 comparing their safety record with that of the world. They have done better than us.

In 2001, this:

Communication from the Commission

was issued by the European Community.

It states:

2. Another significant feature of the global accident picture is that accident rates vary considerably across different regions of the world. A summary of data for the 5-year period to the end of 1997 for world regions is shown in Annex 1.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these statistics:

* Airlines from Africa, Asia and South/Central America have accident rates at least twice as high as the world average, (in 1998 four times higher in the case of Africa and six times higher in China).

* North America has a rate much better than the world average.

* Western European countries, together with Australia, have the lowest accident rates.

* Eastern European countries including the CIS states, have a very high accident rate, nearly 50 times higher than in western Europe, and higher than in any other world region.

So, now that we know that Western European countries, Australia and the US, all have better accident rates than Canada's ... do we really have the right to keep proclaiming that "we have one of the safest aviation systems in the world"? Being better than third world countries does not impress me.

weasello · Post by **weasello** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:30 pm

Well.. Perhaps the advertising campaign should be "one of the best in the world if you are impressed by comparing us with third world countries," but I'll bet their marketeers won't go for something song long winded. Equally unlikely is the new slogan "Last place of the developed world but don't worry we're better than uganda!"

Throwing in personal preferences and what your impressed with or not doesn't change what they're trying to say. I can say "Plain yogurt is now officially the best ever, if you don't like flavour." It doesn't mean much.

Again, it's marketing. Take something bad - such as our safety record - and make it sound good through clever wording. If you want to launch a formal campaign against the gov't using clever wording, go for it - but you're going to have a veeeery veeery long and hard mountain ahead of you. It's basically you vs. all advertisors.

I dislike misleading sentences, but I think in this instance Canada isn't really at fault. They didn't lie and their statement is technically true no matter how you interpret it (ie: without using YOUR preferences on THEIR words). The key to fixing this is to educate consumers and Mister Joe Public about what advertising is and how to read it.

For example, anytime I see an ad saying "Best restaurant in town!" I know that it can:

a) be true
b) be a quote from any respected critic
c) be a quote from the owner made in all honesty (as far as he knows)
d) be a lie from the current owner
e) be an opinion formed from a scientific survey taking into account all factors that may influence the decision
f) be an opinion formed from a scientific survey heavily biased towards the restaurant
g) be an act of vandalism (Hey, who put that sign there?!)

anyone who takes marketing at it's word, at plain apparent face value would have a very confusing time when selecting a restaurant because nearly every one has a "we're #1!" motto.

If your retort is "the government shouldn't be marketing and just dispensing facts," ... Well, if I could donate money to that cause I would, but I think the only way we could get this is if we could introduce the dealth penalty anytime a politician lies.

weasello · Post by **weasello** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:37 pm

That said:

I think Canada (in those previously cited statistics) would have a bit of a worse track record by nature as we have a heck of a lot of "danger" in our flying (as compared to, say, England which is fairly developed or Australia which is fairly flat).

I'd like to see figures for forced-landing ratios of multi-engine air taxi services to and from metropolitan international airports, measured in ratio to number of such flights flown, corrected for distance travelled.

Imagine you took the worst plot of land on the planet - constant thunderstorms, whiteouts, no lighting, steep unmarked mountains, and heck.. let's throw in a geographic anomaly that miraculously screws up GPS signals... Slap an airport in there with the BEST safety equipment, training, and govermnet policies... That region would still look dangerous, ¿no?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:43 pm

Maybe a good reason to be paying more attention to what is happening in the more "difficult" regions of our country?

weasello · Post by **weasello** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:56 pm

Widow wrote:Maybe a good reason to be paying more attention to what is happening in the more "difficult" regions of our country?

I'm all up for that too! I'm a pilot, I won't be flying aforementioned metropolitan runs anytime soon and I want the best safety available.

At the same time, I'm not particularly keen on my taxes being raised, and I don't want money taken from other branches of government (Education, Health Care, etc.) and I really want Canada to reduce it's deficit...

It's easy for us to wave the "aviation safety" flag and demand more money, better policies, more attention... and as much as I want it too, I can't name a single thing I'd like to sacrifice to get it done. Maybe the truck driver's union? They get too much safety.

I'm playing a bit Devil's Advocate here, and assuming that there is no easy & quick (and cheap/free) solution to our problems I should be campaigning for. Please let me know if there is =)

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:33 pm

CID ............ What is wrong with challenging our system? Status quo is not the way to go.

The simple answer is "nothing" is wrong with challenging our system. I have stated several times that I support challenging the system. I have some issues with widow's statements occasionally however. She appears to be on a mission to understand and possibly make changes that may preven the fate of her husband and that's commendable. I feel however that she often loses focus and appears to be condemning the entire aviation industry when in fact overall our system is pretty good.

Air Taxi has problems in this country. Too many crooks are involved in that sector.

As far as your "PR" statement goes, TC (and most people in the industry) know exactly why they use a vague statement like "one of the safest" verses "the safest" or "the second safest". It is very difficult to do analysis on data provided by the various regulators.

Statistics are often complied using very different methodolgy making and final prognosis somewhat subjective.

Furthermore, different countries have very different challenges. For example its tough to fly out of range of a VOR in much of the US but Canada has vast tracts of airspace with little or no navigation. Of course GPS has mitigated that challenge a great deal. Radar coverage is sparse in Canada too.

Presenting statistics on air safety doesn't mean much unless you also state the comparitive methodology in collecting data. The Australian study you cited is pretty good in that regard but it ignores some fundamental differences between our industries. It also tends to lump alot of statistics together.

So, now that we know that Western European countries, Australia and the US, all have better accident rates than Canada's

The studies you cited widow show that Canada is quite comparable with the US and Australia overall for safety. We have quite different industries however. Arguable, operation conditions for Australian air taxi are less demanding than here in Canada.

Again, overall we are close. Certainly still one of the best in the world.

One last comment. It's tough to do a comparitive analysis between countries like the US and Canada and even Canada and the European Union. Europe and the US have much more activity than we do. Major air disasters show up like a blip in the graphs. Having an extra 100 people die a year in the US contributes little to the final numbers.

In Canada, if we have an airplane accident with 10 fatalities it is represented as a huge spike in the graphs. It makes it that much tougher to do comparitive analysis between Canada and countries with more activity.

Its common to see lines in graphs representing the US appear relatively constant while Canada's lines swing wildly. Useful comparisons can only be made over longer periods.

gli77 · Post by **gli77** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:29 pm

Some good points all around. I agree with CID's last post and I completely agree with weasello's posts. So no need to repeat them but to say that yes the stats quoted are somewhat erroneous as they do not take into account several factors that have already been stated.

One factor that I do not think has been stated is the amount of low time pilots flying commercially in Canada. There really is no place for them to fly other than instructing or, if they get lucky, a GA operator. In comparison to the USA they have a huge military that offers a great opportunity to start off.

Catdriver asked what negatives I have seen elsewhere so here are a few.

I have seen an authority that is GOD, and unquestionable. They impose numerous checks, tasks and requirements on the aircraft/units, and crews that I have never seen before. It is in some cases rediculous and often appears as someones fancy at the time. A ruling or requirement is always done while waving the flag of safety. The same regulator is involved in every aspect of an operation including where the company vehicles are parked in front of the office. Each vehicle has a spot and if it is not in it there is a fine.

I have worked in some parts of the globe where it is common for the regulator to avoid any blame being given to a Captain. If the Captain is at fault then nothing is said. We call it saving face.

I have worked with flight crews who said that if they refused to fly for safety, bad weather, maintenance, etc., then they face being fired, black listed and will never be hired in their countries airline industry again. Hence the famous stories of 747 engines being tethered with seat belts, and conduting revenue flights with primary hydraulic systems failed. Known by the authority. You might say well the same can happen in Canada. The difference is in Canada a guy getting fired from one operator is not the end of the world. In the above country there is no GA aviation, there are no private pilots. Once you are fired from one company there is almsot zero chance of ever flying again.

I have worked with maintenance techs who were fined if a flight was delayed due to maintenance. Similarly the same applied for pilots/cabin crew if they were delayed due to an operational issue. If the flight was cancelled then the lost revenue would be deducted from the applicable pay cheques. I knew a storeman who ordered the wrong size tyres and the airline ran short. He did not receive any pay for 4 months. The decision to take these measures were up to the company. Approved by the authority.

I have heard from colleagues, but never experienced, flight crews who were imprisoned for mistakes, not negligence, that caused damage to an aircraft. Approved by the authority.

The above negatives are legal and enforced by the authorities. The same does not exists with TC. There are examples of conflicts and many areas of improvements but the above things are neither legal nor enforced by TC.

Some positives. I have worked in a system where the ultimate responsibilty and accountability was laid solely on the regulator. The result though was a tremendous amount of restrictions and very deep involvement in operations as stated above.

The FAA recognizes experience and qualifications of maintenance personnel from other countries, and more easily issues the A&P and IA tickets. Not so in Canada, EASA, and Australia. I found it quite frustrating when looking to get a JAR 66 licence and finding out that I had to start from scratch. Even more so when I found out the text books where the exact same as I had from college.

Those are a few from both sides. Some may seem extreme and they are, but it helps me keep things in perspective.

For me I see the positives in Canada and acknowledge the negatives. I am quite comfortable to get on an Air Canada or Westjet flight, but would be a little hesitant with Korean Air.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:32 am

The Trinational Safety Group (Canada, US, Mexico) use common methodology to track safety statistics.

The graphs I pointed out, slides 8 and 11 - refer to the accident rates, not the fatal accident rates, nor the fatality rates, for air taxi and general aviation.

Canada has a long way to go to be comparable to the US on these fronts.