Investigated by TC

[trey kule]

Shiny side.

I dont like the word "accuse" because it has some connotations. But as you used it, let me answer. I am not suggesting anything about you at all, though I think "accuse" is a very strong word for you to suggest. I was referring to your post which apparently contained sarcasm or something and compared it to something I would expect TC to do...I guess you were not trying to demonstrate their tactics by example.

And I, for the most part have nothing against TC except for the enforcement part. Prior to TC's venture into this whole area, the FAA in the US went on the same type of program with similarily motivated and ethically challanged staff..The difference there was that there was a different legal process. None of this behind doors stuff...the result was their program was modified. Bad apples for the most part got canned (rather than promoted), and it eventually got around to working well. Canada TC management on the other hand, looked around for ways to get around regulations, rules, and even laws they felt got in their way. They covered up and protected the bad apples. And even promoted them. The result is we are seeing even more extremes. Pilots scared to death of TC as they figure if they stand up and demand their rights they will be earmarked and their careers will suffer.
Am I right.Maybe someone should do a poll here and see how many would not be willing to stand up to TC when they are in the right for fear of reprisals.

Again, as far as your occupation goes, I could care less. My point was that no one who is with TC should be offering advice to someone being investigated without advising them they are with TC. Nothing more.

Gotta love your tone though.

[Hedley]

It has been my unfortunate experience that 99% of pilots
are terrified to testify at the Tribunal on behalf of another
pilot, because they are certain that there will be retribution
from Transport.

Pretty sad.

If you read many of the above posts, which could be
construed as positive towards Transport, you will see
an underlying theme that you had better co-operate
with Transport, otherwise you will piss them off, and
they can and will make your life a living hell. These are the
*positive* postings, remember.

It's really sad when someone simply protesting their innocence
is considered absolute, damning evidence of their guilt
and "bad attitude".

I can say, as someone on the receiving end of an
eight-year "campaign" of dubious legality, that it
isn't much fun.

I remember, I had the regional director of enforcement
on the stand at the Tribunal, and I asked him why he
went 90 days for an offence that was listed as 30 days
in the enforcement policy manual, especially considering
there was no loss of life, no damage whatsoever, and
in fact precious little evidence of any contravention of
any Canadian Aviation Regulation.

His answer? "I don't like you".

This stagerring lack of professionalism simply blew me
away. Check the transcript yourself.

Amazing, the Tribunal Member had no problem with
this response. Weirdly enough, during the Tribunal
Review, he was found to be "lacking impartiality"
which doesn't sound like much to us, but is an amazing
weakness for the Tribunal to declare in it's own members.

But, remember who the chairperson of the Tribunal is.

[Wilbur]

Highlander,

The fist thing you need to do is familiarize yourself with the rules of the game. Review the Act and TC's Enforcement manual and policies. The fact they have sent you a letter tells you they probably don't see this as a minor issue to be resolved by oral counselling; It might still be possible, but probably not.

Until they charge you, they are not required to and won't disclose their evidence to you. The letter they sent you only needs to give you enough info so that you know what they are accusing you of. Do not assume their only evidence is the report filed by your co-pilot; It might be, but you have no way of knowing.

During an investigation, they have few limits on what they can do. They can lie to you, make you promises, etc, etc, etc. These are all investigative tactics to get you talking and sinking yourself if you are guilty. Everything they say or agree to is "without predjudice," which means they can't be held to it. They could, for example, promise to resolve the issue with only oral counselling if you cooperate, and they turn around and fry your ass when you spill your guts.

When it comes to disclosure, they aren't required to give you their internal correspondance and notes relating to their decision making and investigative process; only evidence. Their policies forbid them from giving you this info even if you ask. However, you probably can obtain all that stuff through a freedom of information application and should do so.

Lastly, get a lawyer and exercise your right to say nothing until that lawyer tells you what to tell them.

[Croissant Wrench]

same old crap from the same OLD people, anything this sandlot gang has to say-ignore and do the opposite. ie: the professional thing

[Hedley]

Listen to Wilbur:

During an investigation, they have few limits on what they can do. They can lie to you, make you promises, etc, etc, etc. These are all investigative tactics to get you talking and sinking yourself if you are guilty. Everything they say or agree to is "without predjudice," which means they can't be held to it. They could, for example, promise to resolve the issue with only oral counselling if you cooperate, and they turn around and fry your ass when you spill your guts.

[trey kule]

I gotta second that.

My feeling is Wilbur pretty much got it right.

As to Croissant Wrench.. I hope the original poster gives your articulate and well thought out argument all the attention it deserves.

[Prairie Chicken]

Highlander99, you indicated that you are operating in an SMS environment.

I refer you to the TC web site which pertains to SMS & Enforcement when an SMS company is involved. See http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SMS/Enforcement/EnforcementPolicy.htm & http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SMS/Enforcement/EnforcementProcedures.htm

[Cat Driver]

Prairie Chicken I see you are still giving the usual TC regurgitated advice by referring people to their regs. etc.

When are you going to answer some of my questions, such as this one?

You said:

Quote:
There is an old saying about “in the end you will reap what you sow”.

I answered:

I have no other choice than to believe that by my following the CAR's I am reaping my just reward from TCCA.

I would like a straight answer.

[Prairie Chicken]

Wilbur, although you’ve been right on the mark with most of your posts on this threat, I’ll disagree with some from your last. You wrote:

The fist thing you need to do is familiarize yourself with the rules of the game. Review the Act and TC's Enforcement manual and policies. The fact they have sent you a letter tells you they probably don't see this as a minor issue to be resolved by oral counselling; It might still be possible, but probably not.

By all means you should do your homework. The Act may be heavy slogging if you’re not legally trained though. I disagree that you should interpret receipt of the letter as either serious or minor. It would be the first contact with you, advising of their investigation, and inviting you to participate in the investigation.

Until they charge you, they are not required to and won't disclose their evidence to you. The letter they sent you only needs to give you enough info so that you know what they are accusing you of. Do not assume their only evidence is the report filed by your co-pilot; It might be, but you have no way of knowing.

I suspect when you use the term ‘charge’, you mean a Notice of Suspension or of Monetary Penalty. At any rate, the Policy Manual states that their policy is one of full disclosure to the CAD holder. “The Transport Canada Civil Aviation policy is one of full disclosure to the CAD holder or his or her representative. The responsible manager shall disclose all evidence that may assist the CAD holder, even if Transport Canada does not propose to adduce it.” Evidence, ATC audio for example, should be available for the asking at any time in the investigation.

During an investigation, they have few limits on what they can do. They can lie to you, make you promises, etc, etc, etc. These are all investigative tactics to get you talking and sinking yourself if you are guilty. Everything they say or agree to is "without predjudice," which means they can't be held to it. They could, for example, promise to resolve the issue with only oral counselling if you cooperate, and they turn around and fry your ass when you spill your guts.

I disagree. Inspectors may not legally lie to you, make promises, etc. TC's charter warning includes “It is my duty to inform you that you need not say anything, you have nothing to hope from any promise of favour and nothing to fear from any threat whether or not you say anything; however, anything you do say may be used as evidence.” Of course, I can already hear the howls of “not legally”. As Wilbur also correctly pointed out earlier, there is a difference between the people and the system. If an inspector was caught doing something like this, his as would be grass!

The question I have is why an individual flying for an SMS enterprise received such a letter in the first place. I didn’t think that was supposed to happen. I do see the fact that you are operating under an SMS as very positive for you. By the way, the SMS policy specifically prohibits using self-disclosure as evidence so I doubt the pilot report may be used against you. “No information derived from an internal reporting process or a flight data monitoring process established under a Safety Management System will be used as evidence for enforcement action.”

[Cat Driver]

I have copied this from another thread I just posted it in Prairie Chicken and it is to counter what you are saying.

Good post flyinthebug.

From my perspective it is quite simple.

I do not need sympathy from the industry because I did what I did knowing going in that I would be destroyed as far as my company and my career was concerned. I have a letter to the former DGCA Art LaFlamme wherein I clearly stated that in my first appeal to him.

His answer was that would not happen because he would see to it that my complaints would be dealt with fairly.

The exact opposite happened, I can not in all honesty say what would have transpired had LaFlamme not left TCCA.

However the new DGCA didn't even make an attempt to rectify the problems that were within his own organization he instead chose to protect his own knowing they were acting against the policies of TCCA and against the regulations...not to mention the rule of law.

They now owe me $250,000.00 the agreed amount should my complaints be proven true.

They were, the only action taken by TCCA from that point on is I was driven out of Canada and my career in Canada was ruined. To this day I have not received one cent of compensation.

For me it is real simple.

TCCA is corrupt at the top.

If any TCCA employee ever approaches me from now on I will know I am in far greater danger than if I were being confronted by a member of Vancouver's drug gangs.

One word of advice to you TCCA types, unlike most in aviation I do not fear you.

[Wilbur]

PC, if they intend to resolve a minor issue with oral counselling, they don't need to send you a letter. The letter informs you that you are under investigation, and they don't investigate unless they think the issue probably isn't minor. If they eventuall decide it's a minor issue, they could still only go with oral counselling but I wouldn't bet on that after they spend a bunch of time, energy, and money on an investigation.

Their requirement to disclose only comes into play after they have completed their investigation and levied a penalty (ie; charged, wrote the ticket, layed information, or whatever other justice system equivilent you want to call it). During the investigation they will disclose only what they think will aid their investigation, usually bait to get a suspect or witness talking. You can ask for their evidence during the investigation, but you will get only what they want to give and they don't even have to disclose that they have evidence. If you don't know the rules, they don't have to explain them to you and can let you carry on completely misinformed. Their policy of full disclosure really isn't a "policy" at all. Rather, it's a requirement of fundemental justice so that an accused person "knows the case to be met," but it doesn't apply until you receive notice of their decision.

On lying and misleading, you are again wrong. It is perfectly legal for investigators, cops, etc to lie to and mislead you in the course of an investigation. You have to be given your charter warning, but after that all bets are off. If you don't heed that warning, you do so at your own peril. When they charter you, they are telling you their threats and promises are all hollow, meaningless, without influence, and to be ignored. And more importantly, that you should seriously consider shutting the hell up. It doesn't mean they can't lie and make threats during the investigation in order to get you talking if you're stupid enough to believe their lies over your official charter warning, but there are limits. For example, they can threaten to go for a criminal charge rather than an administrative proceeding, or a more severe penalty, if you don't cooperate. They can not threaten to harrass or "come after you" in other areas if you don't cooperate. Once they conclude their investigation and sanction you, the rules change and they can't engage in that kind of stuff at all. For example, threatening you to not take a matter to the tribunal is not legal, and most likely criminal obstruction on their part.

You also aren't entitled to a charter warning until you are suspected of committing an offence, and that point isn't reached until well into an investigation. A mere complaint about you doesn't automatically make you a suspect.

[Rudderless]

??? huh??

[Hedley]

For example, threatening you to not take a matter to the tribunal is not legal, and most likely criminal obstruction on their part.

Good luck trying to make that one stick. Years ago, I had
a charge laid against me, with a ridiculous penalty: 90
day licence suspension, where the enforcement policy
manual specified a maximum of 5 days. Better yet,
I knew they had no evidence.

So, I sent the usual Requests into the Tribunal. Transport
was enraged. They knew the charge wouldn't stick, so in
a rage, the day after I sent the Requests into the Tribunal,
Transport revoked my "individual" SFOC.

Transport later maintained that this timing was purely
a co-incidence. Federal Court did not believe them,
and ruled that the SFOC revocation was punitive.

Back to the charge. Transport knew the charge wouldn't
stick, so after they revoked my SFOC, they dropped the
charge, and laid new charges, based on the "one size
fits all" CAR 602.01.

Back to the SFOC revocation. To get another SFOC,
Transport said I needed to get 5 hours of remedial
training from a pilot in British Columbia - he was
the only pilot in Canada qualified to give the remedial
training. They would not accept a foreign pilot, so
I guess he was the only pilot in the world whom
Transport would accept as qualified. So, I did
the training, and meanwhile my appeal of the
SFOC revocation chugged through the court
system.

Years later, when the courts agreed with me
that the SFOC revocation was capricious and
punitive, and it was "referred" back to Transport
for re-instation, they refused to do so, and left
me with the SFOC that I have today, which
has more restrictions than my original one.

Transport doesn't care much about what the
courts say, or what the law is, for that matter.

I have a Federal Court order, "enjoining the
Minister" from their illegal campaign of harrassment
of the last eight years, and Transport just ignores it,
They don't seem to really care what Federal Court says.

I really don't recommend that anyone else
go down the road that I've travelled. The
harassment simply isn't worth it. You especially
do not want to anger Transport by winning in
court - it will poison your relationship with
them forever.

[Cat Driver]

You especially
do not want to anger Transport by winning in
court - it will poison your relationship with
them forever.

Which is better Hedley, to be subservient to Nazi like thugs or live your life knowing you need not fear them?

For me I have no regrets for having poisoned my relationship with them.

My reward is having the documentation that they are the law breakers, not me.

[kzcvtm]

Hedley/Cat,

If in fact TC did ignore a lawful order from a Federal Court, can we as a group have them charged with a crime such as obstruction of justice as concerned Canadian citizens? I'm just throwing this out there because you know damn well if you're given an order from a judge and ignore it, your ass will be hauled in faster than you could say, "what the hell..."

[Cat Driver]

kzcvtm the short answer is it would be very difficult to prevail against any TCCA employee in the court system because they are wrapped in layer after layer of barriers that give them virtual freedom form accountability for their actions, or lack thereof.

The only way to make a change is by getting the news media to expose just how corrupted their top layer of management has become and getting the public to demand that the whole rats nest be exterminated.

And that is unlikely to happen because the system is so entrenched even the politicians are afraid of them.

[Hedley]

I think OJ demonstrated, when he got off on his
murder charge, that you get the justice you can
afford.

I remember a prison warden, who was oddly
against capital punishment - not what you expect
from someone in his line of work - because he
said that you would never see a rich white man
on death row.

Not many of us have the unlimited time and
resources of Transport, to try to hold them
accountable. So, they aren't.

As I have said before, no one cares that Brian
Mulroney took bribes of hundreds of thousands
of dollars - that he will admit to, I'll be there's
plenty more we don't know about - while he
was PM. See the Airbus $0.5M per aircraft
kickback.

And, no one cares that Jean Cretin phoned up
the development bank of canada - part of the
government - and ordered them to buy his
hotel in Shawinagin for an exhorbitant price.
Heck, Canadians citizens re-elected him with
a bigger majority after that!

That looney tune, William Lyon Mackenzie King,
who used to govern the country based upon
what his psychic told him he dead mother and
dog said, in addition to being a nutcase, was
as crooked as the day is long - see the customs
scandal, which brought his government down.
But of course, he was re-elected later, because
criminal behaviour isn't a problem, if you want
to be in the government.

So, who cares about some corrupt bureaucrats?
Pretty small beer, for a population as apathetic
as Canadians are.

[xsbank]

Two other problems, of course, are money and time - you need sacks of cash to go before a federal court and lots of free time to attend. That is why it is impossible for the average person to seek justice. Most of the stories you hear are from communities or ad hoc committees getting donations, and lawyers working pro bono (snort). There are some who are well-heeled and they tend to get their day in court.

Rest of us?

But that's all right, many of you on this site have pointed out how, if I don't like the Canadian system, I can just leave.

Sorry, Hedley, we overlapped a bit.

[Cat Driver]

But that's all right, many of you on this site have pointed out how, if I don't like the Canadian system, I can just leave.

Xsbank these types have are needed in a segment of society.

If they ever for some reason get put in jail the inmates just love the trait of subservience in their cell mates.

[Hedley]

you need sacks of cash to go before a federal court and lots of free time to attend

Indeed. First time I went to Federal Court, I was told by a
lawyer that he would charge me $40,000 to $50,000. So,
I represented myself, and won.

My experience is that most lawyers don't know anything
about the CARs, the Act, the Tribunal, Transport, etc.

If you are going to fly an airplane in Canada, you had best
learn how to check your own oil, pump your own gas, clean
your own windshield, and represent yourself at the Tribunal
and Federal Court. It's all part of being a pilot in Canada.

I know cleaning bugs off the leading edge, and grease off
the belly, isn't a lot of fun. Neither is preparing your case
for the Tribunal and Federal Court. I will spend days and
days preparing for each time I go to the Tribunal and
Federal Court. As they say, if it doesn't kill you, it will
probably make you stronger, and as Cat says, as a
citizen it is your duty to try to hold the government
accountable, though I suspect we are fighting as losing
battle.

[Cat Driver]

Hedley, I don't know how you found the experience of going one on one with them but the task is not all that difficult seeing as their collective IQ is rather low.

Hell if someone like me can beat them at their own game that should encourage everyone else to stand up to the pricks.

[foxmoth]

prairie chicken

"If an inspector was caught doing something like this, his as would be grass!"

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG,WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!

If you believe this, your goose is cooked, chicken.

The comment makes you sound mor like TC.

If the above is true, Cat Driver and Hedley, and others are all big liars.

From a source, I have a box of documents the show certain sociopaths in TC are still there creating problems for the Minister as welll as the industry. It is a NAtional disgrase and the managers of these people should be fired.
The person who gave me the docs is willing to throw $100 as a starting fund to launch a legal chalenge.

[Cat Driver]

If the above is true, Cat Driver and Hedley, and others are all big liars.

Either that or TCCA do not care about their reputation so they just ignore us.

Foxmoth just hang on a bit and lets see if Prairie Chicken addresses my questions .....that may tell us more about who Prairie Chicken is.

[mag check]

From T.C....... An inspector who discharges his or her duties fraudulently or negligently or in some manner that is contrary to the employer's instruction will still be considered to be acting "in the course of employment" because the person is doing his or her job, albeit improperly. In such case, the crown will defend and indemnify the individual respecting claims made by a person suffering injury or damages.

So they even put it in writing that they will defend negligent inspectors, that commit fraud.

Yup, sure sounds like a class act.

[Cat Driver]

Mag check:

Print this and hang it somewhere where you can read it every once in a while.

From my experience with Transport Canada Civil Aviation I have learned this.

If I am being approached by any TC employee I know that I am in more danger than if I were being confronted by a common street criminal.

This is the best advice I can give anyone in aviation.

. .