Voluntary Safety Shutdown of OP's

[linecrew]

Here's a question. I'm sure some of you will blast me for it but ...

Since it's a given that many instructors are low-time (new) pilots with little or no "real world" experience, how can they possibly judge if a student is "ready"?

In the "big picture" of flight training, a single solo circuit in a low performance aircraft is pretty simple stuff really. Also the student does several circuits with an intructor prior to being cut loose in relatively controlled conditions.

[Tim]

stl, I'm curious as to your opinion on how many cadors is acceptable since you seem to think that comparing what happens at MFC to what happens in the rest of the nation is not an accurate guage. What standard are you using? What are you comparing it to? Pointing out MFC cador rate is at par with other flight schools is completly reasonable - it demonstrates that the issues happening at MFC are happening nationwide, not isoloated. Making it sound like I have a cavilier attitude towards them is a bit silly, although too stupid to actually be offensive. Of course nobody thinks they are not a problem, but they are a problem all flight schools face. Doesn't it make sense that a school that is five times the size of another might have 5 times the cadors? especially in a controlled environment where nothing goes un-noticed? As for why airlines that have experienced pilots with thousands upon thousands of hours have less cadors than a flight school that has students with tens upon tens of hours...well I just can't help but wonder if the experience level of these pilots might be a factor, maybe we could ask the insurance companies what their take is. And as for the 'unaccaptable amount of cadors', just how much heat should the school take for all the flat tires that have happened (the majority of the cadors)? Diamond says the tires must be filled to a certain pressure, Michelin says another thing. The a/c is certified to what Diamond says and no other pressure can be authorized without additional testing from Diamond. As for the engine problems that occured throughout last year, another case of manufacturing problems. Continental designed a flawed fuel pump, Diamond buys the engines and everyone flying them (not just MFC) had the problems. Again the solution was a re-cert of a previous design by the manufacturer, something that is utterly out of any owner/operator's hands other than pressuring for a solution.

Again I will say, the school has some problems, but a lot of people here a placing the blame in the wrong places.

And as to your inquiry about where MFC fits into the fatalities that occur nationwide, nobody has died at MFC any time recently (were talking years and years and years), so I guess you might say they're below the national average.

[sky's the limit]

Again I will say, the school has some problems, but a lot of people here a placing the blame in the wrong places.

And as to your inquiry about where MFC fits into the fatalities that occur nationwide, nobody has died at MFC any time recently (were talking years and years and years), so I guess you might say they're below the national average.

Absolutely fantastic. That's the way it should be.

You bring up some very good points, and I'm happy to discuss them with you.

However,

Your response to the post where the CADORS were listed was flippant, and it certainly didn't leave the impression that "zero tollerance" for accidents and incidents was foremost in your mind. If there's a discrepancy between tire manufacturers and airplane manufacturers that may lead to an unsafe situation, get it sorted out, or stop flying. That said, you seem to have cleared up that point.

What is an acceptable target? ZERO. Is it attainable? Yes. All the time? Not necessarily.

Let me ask, what do you do at MFC in your annual training to help mitigate further accidents/incidents? Are staff and instructors taken through these senarios by senior people to see where the breakdown lies? It's a good method.

Let me be perfectly clear on this - I know almost nothing of your operation other than what I read, have heard from people second or third hand, or see in the news. That said, I have been around many different aspects of our industry, and I just wanted to know why this thread is so polarized in opinion.

I'm sure everyone at the school is dedicated and works hard, but in terms of Safety and Prevention, sometimes that's just not enough. Effective communication, teamwork, and ATTITUDE have everything to do with creating a safer environment - particularly as you point out, with the very inexperienced group you have flying your a/c. As I said above, I found one of you earlier responses dismissive to that. If it was unintended, no problem.

Anyway, I apologize if I overstepped my bounds, please educate me.


stl

[CD]

Flight college grounds planes for safety audit

February 28, 2008
ALAN COCHRANE
TIMES & TRANSCRIPT

The Moncton Flight College expects to have its planes back in the air tomorrow after a voluntary grounding of training flights to examine safety procedures.

"We won't turn a prop until I'm totally satisfied that we're good to go," flight college principal and CEO Mike Doiron said yesterday.

All training flights at the college were grounded late Tuesday after four safety-related incidents in three days. Flight operations at the college's campus in Fredericton were not affected by the shutdown. Doiron said the incidents were relatively minor, did not result in injuries and posed no risk to public safety; but they were enough to warrant a stop flight training for an in-house safety audit.

In one of the incidents, a training plane struck and damaged runway approach lights at the Fredericton airport. There were also a couple of bad landings that resulted in propellers striking the runway. In another incident, a student pilot forgot to remove a red engine cowling blanket from the plane before preparing for takeoff.

"It's just an exercise and part of our safety management protocols. We decided to shut everything down and take a complete analysis of what we are doing, and see if there are any real problems."

Doiron said the college has temporarily grounded its planes for safety audits several times in the past.

Doiron admitted the problem may stem from significant increase in training flights over the last year. The college has stepped up its schedule to accommodate hundreds of Chinese students who have come to Moncton for pilot training. This increased schedule means the college has planes in the air virtually 24 hours a day in all weather.

With its increased number of students, the Moncton Flight College has become one of the largest and busiest in the country.

The college has a fleet of about 30 planes, including older Pipers and new Diamond trainers. The Diamond planes can easily be identified from the ground by their long square wings and shape that resembles a glider. These two-seater planes are designed for pilot training as the instructor can sit next to the student pilot and both have access to flight controls.

These planes can be seen in the air over Metro Moncton at all hours of the day as student pilots continue their intensive one-year training program.

Several incidents involving planes from the flight college fleet have been reported to Transport Canada's Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) in recent weeks. Daily occurrence reports from all airports across the country can be accessed by the public through the Transport Canada website.

On Tuesday night, a Diamond training aircraft from the flight college was seen taxiing out to the runway when a pilot in another aircraft noticed the engine cowling blanket -- which is draped over the engine compartment to protect it from the cold -- was still attached. The plane's engine failed and the pilot pushed it off the runway before help arrived.

Dorion said he doesn't know how this happened, because removal of the blanket is the first item on the pre-flight checklist. The blankets are bright red and easy to see.

If it hadn't been removed, the blanket could have gotten wrapped up in the propeller or caused the engine to overheat and stall.

"It's very fortunate that he noticed it before takeoff."

On Monday, a Diamond aircraft from the flight college experienced a propeller strike and was disabled on the runway. The plane had to be towed in and maintenance workers sent out to sweep up the debris.

Doiron said the student apparently landed a bit too hard on the nose and the propeller struck the pavement of the runway.

In another incident, the student pilot applied the brakes too hard after landing. This resulted in a blown tire knocking the plane off balance and allowing the propeller to strike the ground.

On Sunday, a plane from the MFC's Fredericton branch reportedly smashed into some runway approach lights at the Fredericton airport.

Transport Canada spokesman Maurice Landry said yesterday four safety-related incident reports in three days raised some eyebrows, but Transport Canada did not request or suggest any action. He said the flight college's voluntary grounding of planes is indicative of an organization that is responsible for its own actions and promotes a culture of safety. He said Transport Canada performed its last safety audit on the college in November and found everything to be in order.

"The fact is that these aircraft are being piloted by students and when you have students with limited experience, these types of incidents do occur," Landry said. "But when you have four in three days, you have to look and see whether it is just a coincidence or part of a real problem. But the bottom line is that the MFC is a well-established institution and we are confident MFC is taking precautions to maintain safety."

Chris Farmer, operations manager for the Greater Moncton International Airport, said there have been no complaints or concerns about safety being compromised by the busy student training schedule.

"It's very diligent on their part to stop and take stock of their procedures, " Farmer said yesterday. He said the flight college has seen a significant increase in activity in recent years and that increases the chances of incidents. But none of the incidents so far have posed any risk to the public or other planes using the airport.

Doiron said it will likely take a couple of days to carry out the audit of safety procedures at the flight college and promised that any weaknesses or problems would be corrected before flight operations continue.

[CYQMer]

That is a good article and explains everything quite well.

Thanks for the read.

Lets hope that things improve from here.

I totally agree with sky's the limit in regards steps that need to be taken in regards to safety and prevention:

"Effective communication, teamwork, and ATTITUDE have everything to do with creating a safer environment"

This is something that needs to be worked on.

The school seems to keep everything hush-hush, brush it under the mat, very need to know basis of sharing information, do as I say not as I do, etc.

Micromanagement from the highest levels of management does not help in regards to effective communication and leads to animosity at all levels. This can lead to safety issues and causes huge communication breakdowns as people may feel what they say has no significance.

These are issues which cannot be discovered via a safety audit but require a positive proactive initiative from all levels of management & staff, hence the term teamwork.

effective communication + effective teamwork + the right attitude = postive situational awareness.

positive situational awareness = highned safety awareness and prevention.

Situational awareness is as significant in regards to ground operations as it is flight operations.

Over & Out.

[Troubleshot]

these are simply growing pains that every organization faces during rapid expansion and growth, the key is they identified that was a need for a serious assessment and put flying on hold for everyones safety. Hey even WestJet shut her down for a while in the beginning. The guys and girls at MFC will fix this because they want to not because they have to.

[CYQMer]

"Troubleshot" I do agree with you but I do have to say that growing pains in regards to organizational growth are far from "simple".

I have worked for organizations at upper & mid management levels who experienced this same type of growth. The steps & decisions made during this critical time will define who you are as a company, were you go and how you are perceived in your industry.

One cannot forget your number one asset. It is not your aircraft, your facilities or how much money you have in the bank, it is your employees. I have witnessed companies go from places where one feels valued, a team member, a part of the family to being "just a number" who if need be can be easily replaced. If this happens people start to stop caring, the job becomes just a job where one looks forward to fridays and dreads mondays.

Believe it or not, in our industry these changes can & will lead to safety issues.

If one thing during this growth transition take care of your employees. Listen to them, genuinely care about them, provide them with incentives, value their opinions & ideas, allow them to become involved in the growth, give credit where due & foster a culture of excitement inside (more so then outside) the organization. Don't take all the credit for the success by constantly patting yourself on the back but share it at all levels.

But then I am just a pawn.

Back to my coffee..

[Hedley]

Big words are nice, but ...

If you look at the accidents, an a large percentage
of them look like they were caused by substandard
stick and rudder skills on the part of the students.

The interesting question is why so many students
have such substandard stick & rudder skills.

These days, old fashioned stick and rudder skills
are looked down upon. And I suspect a big problem
is that they are flying nosewheel aircraft, which
will tolerate truly awful stick & rudder skills - most
of the time.

I'm sure the insurance companies are happy that
there are virtually no more tailwheel airplanes at
FTU's in Canada any more - they're really just
museum pieces these days. Today's pilots don't
like tailwheel aircraft, because they force you
to develop fundamental stick & rudder skills,
which the "more modern" nosewheel trainers
do not.

Don't get me wrong, it is possible to learn
fundamental stick & rudders skills on a nosewheel
trainer, but it requires an instructor who has
them himself, and demands more from his student.

[Troubleshot]

"Troubleshot" I do agree with you but I do have to say that growing pains in regards to organizational growth are far from "simple".

I have worked for organizations at upper & mid management levels who experienced this same type of growth. The steps & decisions made during this critical time will define who you are as a company, were you go and how you are perceived in your industry.

One cannot forget your number one asset. It is not your aircraft, your facilities or how much money you have in the bank, it is your employees. I have witnessed companies go from places where one feels valued, a team member, a part of the family to being "just a number" who if need be can be easily replaced. If this happens people start to stop caring, the job becomes just a job where one looks forward to fridays and dreads mondays.

Believe it or not, in our industry these changes can & will lead to safety issues.

If one thing during this growth transition take care of your employees. Listen to them, genuinely care about them, provide them with incentives, value their opinions & ideas, allow them to become involved in the growth, give credit where due & foster a culture of excitement inside (more so then outside) the organization. Don't take all the credit for the success by constantly patting yourself on the back but share it at all levels.

But then I am just a pawn.

Back to my coffee..

Ok so is the story there that they treat their employees bad? If not I am not following you.

[C-GGGQ]

Big words are nice, but ...

If you look at the accidents, an a large percentage
of them look like they were caused by substandard
stick and rudder skills on the part of the students.

The interesting question is why so many students
have such substandard stick & rudder skills.

These days, old fashioned stick and rudder skills
are looked down upon. And I suspect a big problem
is that they are flying nosewheel aircraft, which
will tolerate truly awful stick & rudder skills - most
of the time.

I'm sure the insurance companies are happy that
there are virtually no more tailwheel airplanes at
FTU's in Canada any more - they're really just
museum pieces these days. Today's pilots don't
like tailwheel aircraft, because they force you
to develop fundamental stick & rudder skills,
which the "more modern" nosewheel trainers
do not.

Don't get me wrong, it is possible to learn
fundamental stick & rudders skills on a nosewheel
trainer, but it requires an instructor who has
them himself, and demands more from his student.

Diamonds are a nice little airplane but in my opinion WAY too easy to fly. You can basically fly with your feet on the floor and recover from a stall, or spiral by letting go of the stick. Safety is one thing and training should always be safe, but and please don't take this the wrong way. I think trainers should be a bit difficult to fly, they should force you to learn PROPERLY and develop necessary skills. I remember going out to teach stalls one day and the student said "So to recover from a stall i just let go of the stick and the plane will recover itself?" I was horrified I told him no, you lower the nose to break the stall, it just so happens that yeah in a diamond I can let go of the stick and the plane recovers. But a student thinking this will work in any aircraft is dangerous. That said a diamond is a great plane to fly and makes a nice little commuter but i'd like to see it have some more "bad" characteristics for training.

[Cat Driver]

I think trainers should be a bit difficult to fly, they should force you to learn PROPERLY and develop necessary skills.

The above is bang on.....dumbing down the training is why we have so many incompetent pilots.

[5x5]

but i'd like to see it have some more "bad" characteristics for training.

and

The above is bang on.....dumbing down the training is why we have so many incompetent pilots.

I guess a really cool trainer would be a tailwheel Tomahawk then.

[CCnCoke]

Well that didn't take long - apparently they're back up and running after their audit:

Occurrence date/time
Date/heure de l'événement: 2008-03-03 16:54 z

Runway Incursion - CGMFI DV20 CYQM-CYQM landed on runway 24. He was instructed to taxi DELTA and hold short of runway 29. GGN7471 was cleared to land on runway 29. GMFI was observed crossing the hold short line with GGN7471 one mile final. GMFI was instructed to "stop" several timesa and stopped 100 feet from the runway edge. GGN7471 landed safely

[Hedley]

I don't understand - as an FTU OC holder, they have a
mountain of paper ... and stuff still goes wrong. Obviously,
the only reasonable conclusion here is that MORE PAPER
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HOLD AN FTU OC.

[hairdo]

but i'd like to see it have some more "bad" characteristics for training.

and

The above is bang on.....dumbing down the training is why we have so many incompetent pilots.

I guess a really cool trainer would be a tailwheel Tomahawk then.

True, the Diamond is an easy aircraft to fly, but I'm not sure there are many training aircraft that are hard to fly. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, although I never had the opportunity to fly the Tomahawk (phased out before I started training) I like the idea of a tailwheel Tomahawk.

[hairdo]

With regards to those saying that safety is partly and attitude, I agree completely. Unfortunately, (I'll probably catch some flak for this) I don't believe that an attitude can be taught. It, to me, is something that is acquired and the person must want to act safely. It doesn't matter how much people tell you that you must be safe, if you don't listen, nothing changed. Granted, if the company culture is safety, then most people will follow suit... MOST people.

[Gravy]

"theboard" if you and your son feel so negativly about MFC why the hell would he want to work for them? Why dont you and your "son" just take it elsewhere? I know that the program managers have done their best for all the students at MFC and if he cant keep up with all the help he's gotten well then maybe he should take a second look at career choices. MFC's maintenance guys are tops, I dont know where you get your information but next time make sure its valid before going and soiling peoples reputation over your kids tempertanturm.

Its always easy to pick on the guy at the top eh.

cheers

[vrrotate]

With regards to those saying that safety is partly and attitude, I agree completely. Unfortunately, (I'll probably catch some flak for this) I don't believe that an attitude can be taught. It, to me, is something that is acquired and the person must want to act safely. It doesn't matter how much people tell you that you must be safe, if you don't listen, nothing changed. Granted, if the company culture is safety, then most people will follow suit... MOST people.

They key to safety is not this attitude that everyone talks about although it is important for a company to have a safe attitude (safety culture). But the thing that is important to the indvidual is safety awareness. Why do we teach Human Factors and PDM in privatre ground schools? To increase a students awareness of unsafe situations. Instructors should incorporate Human Factors and PDM into every lesson taught so that students are made aware of unsafe situations all through their training. It is important to remember that students must be given the resources to make themselves aware. Safety newletters, safety bulletins, videos, case studies, accident inivestigations, CADOR reports, etc. Remember the old addage, learn from the mistakes of others because you will not liive long enough to make them all yourself.

Hairdo you are exactly right when you say an attitude cannot be taught but awareness, knowledge and vigilance can... after a student applies those three things correctly the attitude takes care of itself.

[Longtimer]

Regarding the age & type of aircraft at MFC, those who are interested could always goto:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/activepage ... search.asp

and enter the Moncton Flying Club under the owners name and then review the aircraft and note the purchase dates. A quick look seems to indicate that the fleet consists of very new Diamonds along with older Cessna's (the Cessna's being purchased some time ago).

[just curious]

An influx of both new instructors, and a large intake of new students, particularly with language and cultural barriers, will lead to an increase in incidents.

The age of the aircraft aside from the new generation trainers isn't really germane.

In the late 70's MFC had a substantial number of Libyan students. A number of incidents, due to language and cultural conditioning occured. Importantlly, a substantial number of potential incidents were aveeted due to the experience and diligence of the staff who for the most part were class II instructors, and class III's with a substantial number of hours.

At the time, class I ratings were more of a reward for long service as an instructor, with maybe 50 class I's across Canada, most of whom had spent their adult lives instructing. Class II's could train instructor candidates.

At the time, there was a subgroup of instructor grads who were going to leave, because they weren't from the maritimes. They were very well monitored. A substantial number were from the maritimes, and their growth and progression was very carefully planned.

Overview from TC was near contant, because they were over all the time for rides, and a substantial number of inspectors were ex-MFC.

That MFC shutdown for a look-see isn't surprising. That other organizations havven't done the same is.

Look at the companies that have virtually a standing ad in the employment section. How much has their safety culture been eroded? I see the potential for a lot of problems across the country.

[Hedley]

Lack of experienced, competent staff can cause all sorts
of problems.

But this isn't supposed to happen, because we are told
that if an organization has pushed enough paper (AMO or
70x OC or FTU OC) then it MUST be safe, because safety
comes from mountains of paperwork, right?

Or, does it come from experienced, competent staff?

I think situations like this show us the value of all that
paper that gets pushed for an OC. Maybe this place
just needs more paper, like an SMS? Is there any
problem that supposedly can't be solved by throwing
more paperwork burden at it?

From a very basic cost/benefit analysis standpoint,
all that cherished paper fails to create much value
(at least in this (and other recent) situations) but it
surely incurs an enormous overhead.

Does anyone observe that the emperor is bare-assed
naked? Or are we not supposed to mention it?

[buss]

As an ex(thank God) instructor I can appreciate what is happening. You can only do so much to prepare a student. Some people surprise you. I'm sure every instructor out there has had a student at one time or another do something out of character. It's the ones who don't surprise you that you need to talk to. I had two. One a sad alcoholic woman and two a totally incompetent older gentleman. Trust me no one enjoyed either conversation. I ceased training and slept better for it.
Sometimes students are given an unairworthy aircraft to walk around to see if they can catch all the snags. Sometimes new instructors should be given PTRs to review. They too have to be taught what is and what is not airworthy. Not everyone should fly not even those with unlimited money.

[yeelut]

Quality vs Quantity

[hairdo]

Maybe this place
just needs more paper, like an SMS?

Hedley, there is an SMS in place at MFC, which is precisely why there was the Safety Stand down. It was noticed that there was a rash of accidents with MFC aircraft, someone said, "That ain't right," and ops stopped for a few days while staff examined our ops, training and everything else. A few changes were found to be necessary and they were made. Now we have to see if the changes that were made do fix the problem entirely. That is precisely the purpose of an SMS and what it does.

[carholme]

If the great SMS review has taken place and the company is back in the air, why the two CADORs yesterday, One a take off on the wrong runway and one in the circuit for failing to follow downwind instructions.

If the language barrier is the problem with these students being unable to comprehend given instructions, is this not becoming a serious libility?

carholme