Wabusk Air C-FDOY in CYYU

[spaner]

Post removed, that's how the adults do it...

As for the rest of it; can't make heads nor tails out of those couple of angry posts.

As you were...

[pez]

Ahh, it's a sad looking airplane today.... belly skins worn through, props trashed, and looks to have had a post crash fire in the RH nacelle...

[Wabusk Air]

Greetings AVCanada bloggers,
Thank you for all of your comments regarding Wabusk Air.
We have been in business since 1996. Over the years we have had some set-backs but we have endured. No one has ever been injured whether passenger or employee in our company history.
We have employed many beginner pilots who have gone on to great careers with large carriers such as Air Canada and West Jet. Recently we have lost some good guys to Porter, Jazz, Bearskin, and Air Creebec to name a few. It is gratifying to know that those pilots started their careers with us.

Recently we had a gear up landing in Kapuskasing. This was unfortunate and expensive. The Captain has over 12,000 hrs of experience and many hours on retractable aircraft. Why did it happen? A break down between the crew members in SOP's and CRM.
A course of action has been implemented and Transport Canada officials have completed an audit / investigation as expected, and they are satisfied with their findings regarding rules, regulations, training and compliance. Obviously our training programs are approved and crews have to meet all of those requirements.
Both crew members remain employed as pilots with our company and both are on active duty.

We have a good relationship with Transport Canada and we are proud of that relationship. Our Inspectors are friendly and always welcome.
If you have any concerns about anything relating to our air service I invite you to contact our regional office of Transport Canada and I am certain that our Aviation Safety Inspector will be able to address any and all of your concerns.

Sincerely,

Wm.R. Hutchison
Chief Pilot
Wabusk Air

[Cat Driver]

We have a good relationship with Transport Canada and we are proud of that relationship. Our Inspectors are friendly and always welcome.
If you have any concerns about anything relating to our air service I invite you to contact our regional office of Transport Canada and I am certain that our Aviation Safety Inspector will be able to address any and all of your concerns.

Yeh, for sure that is the answer.

[Doc]

Mr. Hutchison....very impressive of you to jump in here. Thanks for doing this. You sir, are a class act.

[railroad]

I like the post.

For myself, after spending a number of years in one location, I find it difficult to maintain a true perception of the various companies, regions and facets of the aviation industry in Canada.

It is refreshing to get a direct response from a real (identified) person involved in an incident.

Thank You,
Bob

[flyinthebug]

Mr. Hutchison...

Thank you for your post. I appreciate you taking the time to address some of the comments and concerns on here. I used to come on here and defend my company with my real name as well, and for the most part it had a positive outcome. Running a 703/704 op can be a handful at the best of times. I was VERY proud of the 31 year accident free record our air service enjoyed, and I can see you take pride in your record as well. Id be willing to bet not one person who posted negatively about your air service, even knew your safety record or lack of injuries or fatalities.

One piece of advice though...a good relationship with TC does not equate to safety. You are the one all eyes are on and it is your responsibility to ensure your drivers are all up to speed. Keeping a good relationship with TC makes for slightly less intrusive audits, but it does not do a single thing to stop gear ups and other "brain fart" type accidents. If an accident occurs, TC defaults to your paperwork and say, well, his paper was all in order, so my job is done (CYA). You obviously take pride in your job and your company, and I wish you many years of accident and incident free flying.

Thanks again for posting.
Fly safe as always.

[Rudder Bug]

Mr. Hutchison....very impressive of you to jump in here. Thanks for doing this. You sir, are a class act.

+1

Gilles

[iflyforpie]

Both crew members remain employed as pilots with our company and both are on active duty.

Funny how a couple days changes everything....

[Doc]

Both crew members remain employed as pilots with our company and both are on active duty.

Funny how a couple days changes everything....

No kidding.

[swamp donkey954]

hey u write off a plane, no more plane to fly == layoff

[flyinthebug]

hey u write off a plane, no more plane to fly == layoff

Then why did his Chief Pilot come on this thread and defend him and tell us he was still flying missions the very next day? I see you attacked oldncold in the other thread on this topic, so thought id ask your opinion on why the CP defended him and put him back in a company aircraft the very next day? You seem to be in the know...so fill us in swampdonkey954.

[Doc]

hey u write off a plane, no more plane to fly == layoff

Then why did his Chief Pilot come on this thread and defend him and tell us he was still flying missions the very next day? I see you attacked oldncold in the other thread on this topic, so thought id ask your opinion on why the CP defended him and put him back in a company aircraft the very next day? You seem to be in the know...so fill us in swampdonkey954.

The donkey is just that. An ass.

[Rudder Bug]

Yes indeed. An invincible who will never ever put a scratch nor bend metal over a lifetime career.

Gilles

[CID]

One piece of advice though...a good relationship with TC does not equate to safety

So what are we supposed to take from this? And the rest of the rant? that having a BAD relationship with TC equates to safety? Let me put this out there. If you run your airline with a high level of transparency with the regulator, chances are that in the end you have nothing to hide. Chances are you respect the regulations and don't break the rules.

It's sad that people equate regulations with paperwork and nothing else.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

One piece of advice though...a good relationship with TC does not equate to safety

flyinthebug your comment was correct.

This other side of the coin is equally true.

Wearing knee pads for TC and coming away with a brown nose does not equate to safety either.

Carry on you are on the right track.

[flyinthebug]

One piece of advice though...a good relationship with TC does not equate to safety

So what are we supposed to take from this? And the rest of the rant? that having a BAD relationship with TC equates to safety? Let me put this out there. If you run your airline with a high level of transparency with the regulator, chances are that in the end you have nothing to hide. Chances are you respect the regulations and don't break the rules.

It's sad that people equate regulations with paperwork and nothing else.

CID... You`re sure on a tear of late. I guess im your latest attack? Im not sure what you are getting at with this post, but I assure you I always run a safe and by the book operation. My track record speaks for itself. All I was stating was that a positive relationship with TC does not equate to safety and I stand by that comment (and the rest of my "rant" as you referred to it). Just because you take your POI to lunch and share a smoke out back...doesn't mean your running a safe air service. Nor does pushing all the paper TC requires at times. Its a combination of "company culture" and training that keep a company safe. I just wanted to remind the CP that there is more to running a safe operation than being friends with bureaucrats.

Maybe your issue is with people who have exposed themselves on this board? Under your cloak of anonymity, you seem to enjoy attacking people who have a differing view from your own. I used to think many of your posts were full of positive information and you used to offer some sound advice on here. Lately though, you seem to be looking for a fight with anyone who even remotely steps on your toes. Lighten up. I think you have a lot to offer this forum, but jumping on your computer and tongue lashing me publicly, does not automatically mean you are correct in your assumptions. Lets face it, you are assuming you know me by a quote from a paragragh of words I wrote? I have been through 3 charter audits, 2 AMO audits and 1 school audit in positions of responsibility and transparency was always at the forefront of any meeting I had with TC. I wanted to learn if I was doing something wrong...so I listened and used audits as a learning tool. All our audits passed with flying colours (other than some minor infractions that were clerical in nature).

I assure you CID, I run safe, and by the Regs operations. I cut corners where I can but never would I sacrifice safety for profit. None of the operations ive ever worked for in a position of responsibility ever had a crash of any sort, and I take great pride in that record. I too enjoy a positive relationship with some of the TC offices (YWG & YQT in particular) and always worked hard to ensure we were in sync with what TC wanted from us. However, just because im friends with a couple of TC inspectors, does not ensure I run a safe air service. What ensures that I do, is my actions as a leader, to stay within the regs at all times. I sincerely don't know why you came on so strong over such a mundane comment? Maybe ease up on the meds? Or maybe increase them? I dunno, but lighten up.
You are too intelligent to get so wound up over nothing.

Fly safe.

[CID]

flyingthebug, thanks for the extended clarification. But here's the thing. It just re-enforced your unhealthy attitude towards what could be a "good relationship" with the regulator.

You have stated that you knowingly "cut corners" while maintaining safety. To me that translates to compliance when it's convenient. And then you equate a good relationship with TC with having lunch and a smoke? If that is truly what you consider a good relationship it's little wonder you are having difficulty with my comments.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I assume that the good relationship the fellow was alluding to involves openness, honesty and respect for the process and the regulations.

Distilling all that down to paperwork, lunch and selective adherence to regulations just shows contempt for the regulator.

This is not a matter of "attacking" anyone. I'm voicing my opinion. It's called discussion. If you feel as though you are being attacked, I can't help you.

[Beefitarian]

You have stated that you knowingly "cut corners" while maintaining safety. To me that translates to compliance when it's convenient.

Weird, I read it as he buys scratchy toilet paper for the office but pays for proper maintenance.

[Donald]

Maybe your issue is with people who have exposed themselves on this board? Under your cloak of anonymity, you seem to enjoy attacking people who have a differing view from your own. I used to think many of your posts were full of positive information and you used to offer some sound advice on here. Lately though, you seem to be looking for a fight with anyone who even remotely steps on your toes. Lighten up. I think you have a lot to offer this forum, but jumping on your computer and tongue lashing me publicly, does not automatically mean you are correct in your assumptions.

This could apply to several "senior" members of this site. The lack of, or at times random, "moderation" doesn't help.

[flyinthebug]

You have stated that you knowingly "cut corners" while maintaining safety. To me that translates to compliance when it's convenient.

Weird, I read it as he buys scratchy toilet paper for the office but pays for proper maintenance.

Beef understood what I meant by cutting corners. Why couldn't you CID? I do NOT cut corners on maintenance! I thought I clearly stated that I followed ALL the Regs ALL the time? That I did not sacrifice safety for profit?
Hopefully most were like beef, and able to distinguish between cutting corners for safety, or cutting corners where there is fat to trim.

[Beefitarian]

where there is fat to trim.

I'm working on it.

[Rudder Bug]

You're too funny Beef!