Fress Press story - Thursday Sept 3 2009

[jstrummer]

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Air service fined, president charged for alleged violations
By: Bruce Owen


Fast Air, a Winnipeg-based corporate, charter and medevac air service has been fined $213,500 and its president charged by Transport Canada for allegedly failing to follow maintenance regulations.
"We don't take chances when it comes to safety," Transport Canada spokeswoman Andrea Rudniski said Wednesday. "When we're accessing enforcement actions, it's always dependent on the seriousness of the violation."
Rudniski said the company, which operates 14 aircraft, has been fined on 11 counts of failing to enter defects in aircraft journey logs. Each count carries a $6,500 fine.
It has also been fined on 11 counts of operating an aircraft in non-compliance with Fast Air's maintenance control systems.
Fines vary from $5,000 to $25,000 per count, depending on the severity of the charge.
Dylan Fast, president of Fast Air, has also been charged by Transport Canada for wilfully omitting entries in records. His first court appearance is Sept. 14 in provincial court.
If convicted, the maximum penalty is $5,000, one year in jail, or both, Rudniski said.
She added because the case is before the courts, she cannot comment on the particulars.
Fast's lawyer, Joe Barnsley, said the company disputes the financial penalties and has asked for an independent review before the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. No date has been set.
Transport Canada's investigation goes back to Nov. 12 last year, when officials served a search warrant at the company's operations on Hangar Line Road.
At the time, Fast Air voluntarily surrendered its air operator certificate and grounded itself.
The certificate was re-issued Dec. 12 when Fast Air submitted a plan to Transport Canada to correct deficiencies in its maintenance control system.
"We are still closely monitoring Fast Air to verify that they remain in compliance with regulations," Rudniski said. "We fined Fast Air and charged its president to prevent both the company and Mr. Fast from wilfully disregarding aviation safety regulations in the future."
She said Transport Canada continues inspections of the company with both planned and on-the-spot visits.
bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca
For the record
FAST Air president Dylan Fast has been charged by Transport Canada for wilfully omitting entries in records.
Specifically, Fast is charged under Section 7.3 (1) (c) of the Aeronautics Act, which states:
'No person shall make or cause to be made any false entry in a record required under this Part to be kept with intent to mislead or wilfully omit to make any entry in any such record.'
Fast's lawyer, Joe Barnsley, said Fast and the company dispute the charge and that Fast will "vigorously defend" himself in court.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition September 3, 2009 A4

[Widow]

Dylan Fast, president of Fast Air, has also been charged by Transport Canada for wilfully omitting entries in records. His first court appearance is Sept. 14 in provincial court.
If convicted, the maximum penalty is $5,000, one year in jail, or both, Rudniski said.
<snip>
Specifically, Fast is charged under Section 7.3 (1) (c) of the Aeronautics Act, which states:
'No person shall make or cause to be made any false entry in a record required under this Part to be kept with intent to mislead or wilfully omit to make any entry in any such record.'

If Bill C-62/C-6/C-7, the Aeronautics Act amendments, had passed, the maximum penalty would have been $100,000.

[ringofire]

I guess it wasn't all rumors...

I am glad this has hit the papers, operators like this need to be exposed and ultimately this all needs to be put to a stop in our industry. However, is a $215,500 fine to a multi million dollar operation going to grab him by the balls and convince him to stop doing what he is doing? I don't think so... Thats just pocket change.

[North Shore]

Well, well, well... Looks like it wasn't a rumour after all...

[RFN]

Before everyone casts the first stone, remember that the next time you discover a minor snag while you are up north in a reserve, you better write it in the logbook, and unless you have an MEL you are grounded where you sit.

Failing to do so means you are now criminally responsible, and also unable to comment on this company.

[Giveitago]

Also remember, being charged isn't the same as being convicted.... some on this forum have expierience with the whole process now going on. Just a reminder that we should probably walk softly with some of our comments. If I was involved (and I'm not in case your wondering) I still wouldn't want a bunch of other unsubstantiated stuff flying around on a popular internet forum. But since we are responsible adults, I'm positive that that this thread wouldn't ever get out of hand'

Give

[Widow]

Taking the criminal charge approach speaks volumes about evidence.

How many times has anyone been criminally charged?

[ringofire]

Anyone know what the largest fine TC has ever given is? In respect to a company that is...

[Giveitago]

Taking the guilty until proven innocent approach Widow?

And speaking about VOLUMES of evidence.....

The president has been charged with ONE count of willfully not entering a defect. Maximum $5000 penaltie.

My guess is that they are taking a run at him as accountable executive and if they are succesful he will no longer be able to hold the position. Doesn't sound like VOLUMES of evidence to me. Sounds like they are taking a personal run at him.

Give

[Hedley]

johndoes1023 - you seem to be implying that when you
were working as a pilot for this company, you did so when
the equipment was unairworthy to the point of dangerous.

I must ask - why did you, as PIC, fly those dangerous
airplanes?

Did the management of the company kidnap your family
and cut off small parts of their bodies and mail them to you
until you agreed to make the flights?

It's called being pilot-in-command. You choose to make
those dangerous flights. Was a gun being held to your head?

I know I will be crapped upon from a great height for saying
this, but try walking away next time, ok?

[RFN]

It is strange that TC never took this hard a run at the folks next door.

Given that there are criminal charges pending, I don't think that commenting on actual snags on actual planes is a good idea.

In a GENERAL sense though, I have never flown a plane I thought was unsafe. In other words, it might be time for TC to actually improve 703-704 safety by insisting on an MEL for these aircraft.

[Sidebar]

Hey folks, I think you're going overboard with the "criminal" bit.

Specifically, Fast is charged under Section 7.3 (1) (c) of the Aeronautics Act, which states:
'No person shall make or cause to be made any false entry in a record required under this Part to be kept with intent to mislead or wilfully omit to make any entry in any such record.'

These are alleged breaches of the Aeronautics Act, not the Criminal Code.

[overshoot]

In response to all those who are ready to congratulate transport canada on a job well done, I offer the following.

The group of people, whom are the watchfull eye of Prairie and Northern Region have nearly 800 operators to watch. Of these 800 operators, Fast Air has always maintained to my knowledge a proactive relationship with transport for years. Safety has always been a top priority, as has the condition of the aircraft they fly. They are an executive corporate service! How could they operate with such success for 15 years flying clapped out planes. Business alone would regulate that. Transport has not been able to keep this country safe to the level that we all hope for but this is the reality we live in. The new SMS is supposed to improve safety. Hopefully it will but it is being imposed because the regulator cannot regulate anymore the old way. Not because of safety alone. I have seen operators from all over continue to operate outside the mandate of the CARS and the ACT (which are not always practical for the environment we all operate in). Transport knows many of these companies are operating outside the law. The problem is that companies are not generating evidence to act on. Therefore are not enforcable until an accident occurs. This happens time and time again. I believe it safe for me to say that Fast Air has always had a good reputation. Never have I heard that they operate unsafely. No company is perfect and certainly it would go against common sense for Fast Air to break the law knowing they could easily be in the situation that is currently unfolding. I would be curious to know to what extent transport is acting on to make a good company pay so dearly to show the rest what happens when you operate even remotely outside the limits of the CARS.

It is evident to me that if Fast Air is going on the stand for what is written on these posts and the media, then operators near and far are all on the stand. They are no different than the rest of the operators flying safely out there. I don't believe for one second that even the best operator hasen't flown with a minor defect unwritten. I gaurantee you all that even Transport Canada pilots themselves have flown an aircraft home AT LEAST ONCE in their lives and had something break that is not in the MEL. I bet you that every time, it miraculously broke on their last leg. They are clearly being hypocrites of their own rules. I sure am saddened by all of this. So much for closing the gap between transport and the operators. They have just pushed everyone back underground. Good luck to everyone.

[Widow]

Hey folks, I think you're going overboard with the "criminal" bit.

Specifically, Fast is charged under Section 7.3 (1) (c) of the Aeronautics Act, which states:
'No person shall make or cause to be made any false entry in a record required under this Part to be kept with intent to mislead or wilfully omit to make any entry in any such record.'

These are alleged breaches of the Aeronautics Act, not the Criminal Code.

From the Criminal Code Part IV:

Disobeying a statute

126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

So a breach of the AA is a criminal offense. I would assume the Crown Prosecutors office has some say in whether to procede, based on the likelihood of conviction.

[Brown Bear]

I think we should all make sure our own sheets are unstained, before we are so willing to air Fast Air's laundry on this, or any other web site? Personally, I find it very unfortunate that this thread has been allowed to continue to this point. I, for one, am not in the long line of "back slappers" when it comes to TC.
Comments were made regarding radar altimeters that were U/S? Never knew they were a requirement. Don't think they are. I'm pretty sure, fuel gauges can be deferred, but that would be up to the MEL for the aircraft.
But....if you really think an aircraft you've been dispatched to fly, is unsafe, park it.....don't come whining about it on an open forum.
You guys fly the equipment. Do you really need TC to hold your bloody hand? Just say...."no".

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Just say...."no".

Unfortunately far to many pilots are unable to do that because it is to difficult.

[Laxputs]

I'm curious about what reprimands face a pilot. If the pilot is flying with fuel gauges that are not accurate (though he obviously knows how much is in them), will he face a fine? Are the prosecutions/fines/penalties ever directed at the pilot? Lots of snags aren't a question of safety and snagging little things means we won't have a job. It's the truth. So tell me how much trouble a pilot gets in please.

[lost in the north]

fuel gauges read full,unreliable till you get to the low end,and they become accuate,a very accurate dipstick is used to confirm fuel...would you fly the plane or snag it.Its an older plane that after changing the components they still work the same.Factory said this the normal for that old fuel system desighn???What to do!!!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

?What to do!!!

Here let me help you struggle through this perplexing problem.

We know that if you run out of fuel you will not complete the flight.

Therefore before before flight we make sure there is enough fuel to safely complete said flight regardless of the reliability of the fuel gauges.

Are you aware that this airplane has no fuel gauges?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... CF4318.jpg

Yet we fly them thousands of hours and never run out of fuel.

We do so by making sure there is enough fuel in the tanks.

[ringofire]

I'm curious about what reprimands face a pilot. If the pilot is flying with fuel gauges that are not accurate (though he obviously knows how much is in them), will he face a fine? Are the prosecutions/fines/penalties ever directed at the pilot? Lots of snags aren't a question of safety and snagging little things means we won't have a job. It's the truth. So tell me how much trouble a pilot gets in please.

Some of the Fast Air pilots were charged with violations and monetary penalties.

[Doc]

Some of the Fast Air pilots were charged with violations and monetary penalties.

That's what it's going to take. Hang out a few pilots to dry. That WILL work. Because, the bottom line, it really IS up to the PILOT to say "NO"
I thought, what happened to the Twit (yes....TWIT) that ran his 'ho dry over YWG would put the rest of the industry on "notice" that this shit can't be allowed to continue. Obviously, this has not been the case. Come on, kids. Say NO!

[roscoe]

?What to do!!!

Here let me help you struggle through this perplexing problem.

We know that if you run out of fuel you will not complete the flight.

Therefore before before flight we make sure there is enough fuel to safely complete said flight regardless of the reliability of the fuel gauges.

Are you aware that this airplane has no fuel gauges?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... CF4318.jpg

Yet we fly them thousands of hours and never run out of fuel.

We do so by making sure there is enough fuel in the tanks.

The PBY-5A's I crewed on (tower man aka flight engineer) had vertical glass tube fuel quantity indicators, float operated, right in front of me. They were not too bad when straight and level. When the little ball got to the bottom of the tube it was time to land.

[The Other Kind]

A rad alt is required for SPIFR, not sure if Fast Air flew single or two crew though. Faulty fuel gauges cannot be deferred on some aircraft, such as the C208 - no way to know if you're within the 200 pound imbalance limit without gauges - again, not sure if Fast Air flew Caravans or if this was an issue on any of their types.

*EDIT* - I could be wrong about the SPIFR and rad alt...it might be only required for SEIFR, it's one or the other...or maybe both? It's been a while since I worked in that segment of the industry.

[co_intoxicated]

Black Cat you say some interesting things....offers of immunity...lol. From what I hear those pilots at Fast that were willing to purger (sp?) themselves, or basically lie...got off of their charges. The pilots that told the truth got nailed.

TC has not been interested in safety for a long time now, or with working with operators to improve safety. It's just a paper game now, and it's a little scary the tactics TC is taking with this. CYA folks.

[Sidebar]

TC has not been interested in safety for a long time now, or with working with operators to improve safety.

TCCA defines safety as "management of risk to an acceptable level." This means it all comes down to the definition of acceptable. Apparently, the stuff going on at Fast Air was not acceptable.