Police cars at Fast Air

[SKYPILOT1956]

[/quote]

Skypilot 1956, I am very familiar with the Aeronautics Act and also with the structure of TCCA and the rules under which they operate, the reason I put forth the questions I ask is to see if the readers of this forum can get any insight into what really happens in the background that would allow a situation to get to the place where the police would be used in an inspection of a air service.

You will note that when asking these questions I generally post in my own name, I that do that to make it clear that if I post something that could be seen to be libelous the party concerned can deal with me directly and not have to bother the owner of this forum.

For decades those in aviation have been kept in the dark with regard to what really happens in these situations, this has resulted in many cases of abuse of power by some within the regulator and just as important a lack of use of power by some within the regulator.

. . . . . .

As a last comment I would like to state unequivocally that there is a systemic problem within the regulator of unequal and in some cases unlawful enforcement of the rules and their policies that is gradually driving the industry into chaos.

[/quote]

Thank you clarifying your knowledge of the TCCA structure and their rules. Specificly, may I say;

I doubt the police were involved for an inspection.

Inspectors have the ministers authority to enter and demand production of documents, etc.

Inspectors do not have the authority to break and enter and seize documents, etc.

Multiple CADORS, multiple flight time violations, D o M terminations, multiple runway incidents, multiple prop strikes (Tadoule Lake and Norway House) raise questions of operational control.

SMS systems that do not, or cannot address each and every one of the above reported occurances is an ineffective SMS, and further an invitation (responsibility) for TC inspectors, and or TC investigators to get a search warrant to assure production of evidence including the SMS records will not be refused.

I assume this is the background you wished the avcanada readership to recieve.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Multiple CADORS, multiple flight time violations, D o M terminations, multiple runway incidents, multiple prop strikes (Tadoule Lake and Norway House) raise questions of operational control.

SMS systems that do not, or cannot address each and every one of the above reported occurances is an ineffective SMS, and further an invitation (responsibility) for TC inspectors, and or TC investigators to get a search warrant to assure production of evidence including the SMS records will not be refused.

I assume this is the background you wished the avcanada readership to recieve.

Yes, that would put a whole different slant on the issue as long as it is factual.

Thank you clarifying your knowledge of the TTCA structure and their rules.

You are welcome skypilot1956, the important part that you should be concerned with though is that you understand how they work, because they sure have not had a very good track record of fair oversight for quite a number of years

[Airtids]

I ask this question in a general sense, and not as it pertains to Fast Air specifically, but what is the benefit (legal or otherwise) of an operator voluntarily surrendering it's OC? Is it purely to save face?

Also, who are the other five operators providing medevac services in MB?

If you surrender your OC, you can get it back as soon as the difficiencies are addressed to the regulator's satisfaction. If it is revoked, you have to wait to get it back as well as pay to get it back.

[SKYPILOT1956]

You are welcome skypilot1956, the important part that you should be concerned with though is that you understand how they work, because they sure have not had a very good track record of fair oversight for quite a number of years

We still have interest in a manitoba 703 operation, and a manitoba AMO shop, and have to work diligently to keep up to the changing CARS etc.

For the sake of the readership may i say;

I believed all operational personnel listed in the COM, MCM, and MPM and approved by TC in those operational positions would understand how "they" TC work.

Issues of TC "fair oversight" probably comes from months or years of TC attempting to lead subject certificate holders into regulatory compliance,

The fallout of "fair oversight" occurs when the certificate holder shows contempt for regulatory compliance, or an accident like tombstone that bring this leading process to an unscheduled climax.

52 years of aviation and we still cross the line with TC on occasion, been to the CAT, and on occasion paid TC fines.

[SKYPILOT1956]

I ask this question in a general sense, and not as it pertains to Fast Air specifically, but what is the benefit (legal or otherwise) of an operator voluntarily surrendering it's OC? Is it purely to save face?

If you surrender your OC, you can get it back as soon as the difficiencies are addressed to the regulator's satisfaction. If it is revoked, you have to wait to get it back as well as pay to get it back.

I agree, and May I add that Voluntary Surrender keeps

(A) aircraft C of A s intact waiting specific maintenance work,

(B) the public record of the reasons quiet for a potential NOS "notice of suspension" if issued by TC ,

(C) TC and the operator communicating in a colaborative dialog to resolve the "mutually" defined issues

(D) each operator rationale discreet,

[Hedley]

Inspectors do not have the authority to break and enter and seize documents, etc.

Sure they do, by Tribunal precedent, and it remains the
definitive case law on the subject until it is overturned
at great taxpayer's expense in Federal Court.

By precedent, any Transport Inspector, with an invalid
(or no) warrant, may break into any premises at any
time, seize any documents they wish, retain them as
long as they want, and enter them as valid evidence.

I'm pretty sure that meets most people's definition of
"Police State".

Thanks, Tribunal!

[Cat Driver]

Skypilot, please allow me to expand on your comments, for the sake of the readership.

I am doing so for the express purpose of pointing out that when dealing with the regulator you are playing a game of regulatory Russian roulette in that the level of fair and " just " handling of your issues be it a company or an individual will depend on the individual/s that you are assigned by T.C.

And therein lies the fly in the ointment so to speak.

Issues of TC "fair oversight" probably comes from months or years of TC attempting to lead subject certificate holders into regulatory compliance,

The fallout of "fair oversight" occurs when the certificate holder shows contempt for regulatory compliance, or an accident like tombstone that bring this leading process to an unscheduled climax.

I am sorry but I am unable to grasp your line of thinking, the regulator is by definition empowered by Parliament to enforce the law and in doing so, to enforce said laws in a fair and just manner.

There is nothing in CAR's or the Aeronautics Act that I have read that empowers the regulator to ignore their duty of " fair and just " oversight just because they allowed any operator to be in non compliance of the rules for months or years.......sounds like slack over sight rather than proper oversight to my way of thinking.

52 years of aviation and we still cross the line with TC on occasion, been to the CAT, and on occasion paid TC fines.

Like you I have been in this business for over fifty years and during that time I was in management up to airlines and owned several aviation OC's both fixed wing and rotary, and as well worked directly for the regulator......fortunately I was never charged with any offenses so I never had to face the CAT or pay any fines.

I have however been in court on the other side of the equation when TC was being charged with failure to enforce the regulations and also when TC was charged with willfully operating outside of the rules.

In both cases I was successful in getting a conviction of TC which would to any reasonable minded individual support my contention that TCCA can and do operate outside of their mandate to regulate.

Therefore it is reasonable and prudent to question any actions by TCCA that result in a sudden and complete shut down of any commercial aviation business.

(B) the public record of the reasons quiet for a potential NOS "notice of suspension" if issued by TC ,

(C) TC and the operator communicating in a colaborative dialog to resolve the "mutually" defined issues

(D) each operator rationale discreet,

Would one not be concerned that when such investigations and the rectification of said investigations are kept secret we are maybe encouraging a Kangaroo court mentality?

[just a mechanic]

As a former employee of Fast Air and still having many friends there I will state my thoughts

While working there I found it to be a great place to work. I've seen it grow to a highly successful company that, like most others has had it highs and lows. Overall they are fairly successful and I believe it is the great relationship between Pilots, Mechanics, Medevac Personel, and Management. Many mechanics and pilots were given oppurtunities to start there and make their way up the ranks when most outfits did not want the "green" mechanic or the " newbie" pilot I myself started there in the trenches and made my way up. I then decided to broaden my maintenance experience to larger aircraft. I know most of the previous pilots and maintenance personel (including the "unhappy" ones) It seems that lots are forgetting that if it was not for Fast Air there start in Aviation would have been more difficult. I am not saying that Fast Air is perfect but there is ALOT worse places to be. If anyone on here be it pilot or mechanic has not been involved in or worked for a company that has had an inncident or accident then you are a liar or never been in the industry (just my thought) My only wish is that Transport concludes this investigation promptly so that a good reliable company can get back in the air and continue to provide a great product with excellent service.

And to those that continue to trash others, aviation in Manitoba is a close knit small industry and things do get out. In saying so choose your words carefully cause next time you get upset at your present job the words you say may determine it you get a next one in Aviation

[AuxBatOn]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48042
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48041

1- I guess they'll be back soon
2- Some people got in trouble!

[Samson]

Good luck to those that take over.

[Clearwater]

.

[sprucemonkey]

oooh oooh, check out the job section

[CAL]

In regard to pilot350's post:
'IF' that was going on then they get what they deserve...this type of stuff needs to be eliminated once and for all....are you on call or are you released?...unreal...

[willing to fly]

The crews involved were released. They were told to expect a call back in a few months when a replacement aircraft was brought online. I'm not sure how loosing the OC will affect all of this but I would guess they have to find a new CP and Ops Manager before getting back to work. I think this may push that schedule back by a month or so. Once they are back, there is the very big question of whether they will loose any contracts and business over this. Therefore there may not be enough work out there to justify bringing the crew back.
I'm honestly just speculating though.

[beenthairdunthat]

Why am I not surprised at this? Thanks to TC's long desire to shed itself of being the "regulator" and wishes to pass that "little" responsibility on to the operators, there has been a virtual plague of similar illness within the industry. Face it, if you were given a choice of dealing with your own regulatory faux pas or having "big brother" keep your company on the straight and narrow, which would you chose? When will the aviation community get it's act together and collectively ask the MOT to do what needs to be done before the Canadian Press headlines are awash with red ink describing how the next big disaster could have been avoided. On a single item, every ACP out there knows the responsibility resting on their shoulders when they sign off a crew member. Yet, with the pervasive undertones of "git er done" at the least cost to the company thinking, leaking into every aspect of managements desire for a "black bottom line", what else could one expect. In this example, I spoke of one single aspect. However, when you multiply this item by the total areas of responsibility now shouldered by AE's, DOM's CP's, and COM's, its no wonder company's are seeing their pathways to success being bombed out by "bottom line first", "safety second", mentality. In my view, only when TC is ordered to take the bull by the horns again, will this problem ever get resolved and Canadians may once again have confidence in their air carriers.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

What was the reason they need a new operations manager and a new chief pilot?

[willing to fly]

I am hearing that TC put the squeeze on them to change out the management as a condition for getting the OC back. I believe they did the same thing to Keystone after their big accident. Please note - I am not in any way comparing Keystone to Fast. They people that I know at Fast thought very highly of the management team so I'm surprised to hear this. No one but TC and the management team at Fast have all the answers so the rest of us are just left speculating.

[AuxBatOn]

deleted by user

[RFN]

Both of the managers in question were top notch pilots, and top notch people.

Fast Air is a good company, but it won't be the same without them.

[AuxBatOn]

deleted by user

[overshoot]

AuxBatOn,

Reading your coments regarding satellite tracking, on the the Skynorth Accident page, I thought you were rather intelligent and well spoken. Then I read your comments on this last post and I am going to tell you that I can smell the shit in your mouth from here. I have been around many companies and I have seen some pretty shady operations. I happen to know the outgoing CP at Fast, and as a matter of fact he ran a very tight ship and so did the ops manager. It seems that these two are going to take the brunt of it for the company's sake as a consequence of their positions and I salute them for their hard work. Fast Air doesn't have a good reputation from out of the blue. I only hope that guys like you could base your coments on real solid bona fide knowledge and not just from ''a very good source''. And if you are going to make these coments again in the future then come out and say it with your actual source and your actual name so that these guys can defend the only thing left... their integrity. **Edited**

[AuxBatOn]

deleted by user

[overshoot]

Usually there is a reason someone doesn't stick up for someone else. You are viewing it from ''someone elses point''. Your ''very good source'' probably wasn't in a position to be stuck up for. Did you ever think to why the CP didn't stick up for those pilots. There is always more to it than people know. Does any buddy else get it or am I the only one? Why are pilots so hard on each other. I have never seen another industry quite like this one.

** Edited due to AuxBatOn's grace in retracting his coments **

THANK YOU

[ScudRunner]

TheRedPages,

FYI the runway at Tadoule Lake has a 1.59 degree slope.

Some days they seem a lot steeper, but with a few remarkable exceptions I don't think there is a runway in Canada with a 5 degree slope. (Think ILS at 3 degrees and imagine how steep a 5 degree runway would be.)


JP

Exception #1

[Conquest Driver]

When I saw that pic the first thing I thought of was the old Tadoule Lake strip.