What exactly does this mean?

[Hedley]

you at the very least acknowledge you were performing aerobatics above a broken cloud layer

God, your reading comprehension is terrible. I shouldn't be
surprised, you being an airline pilot, but ...

There was a broken cloud layer. I flew beside, not
above a cloud between me and the people on the
ground.

Try to pay attention to this: On that day, there were
precisely TWO people - me and Peter Ashwood-Smith -
who were qualified to fly aerobatics, via our INDIVIDUAL
SFOC's issued via CAR 603.67. Both of us considered
the weather conditions legal and safe for aerobatic
flight as per the INDIVIDUAL (not aerobatic contest)
SFOC. The aerobatic contest was cancelled.

The people who didn't like the flight did not hold INDIVIDUAL
SFOC's. They were not qualified to fly that day. In fact,
I would agree that it would have been dangerous for
them to fly that day, since they were not qualified or
experienced to do so.

Imagine if Transport sends you a licence suspension under
CAR 602.01, and the reason is that they think you are
reckless because you believe that 2+2=4, and Transport
knows that 2+2=5.

Transport brings several grade-school dropouts to the Tribunal,
all of whom testify that indeed, in their subjective opinion,
that 2+2=5. I bring one Phd in mathematics, who testifies
that he believes that 2+2=4. He might even perform a demonstration
for the Tribunal. They might or might not comprehend it.

Now, Transport has brought more witnesses than me. Problem
is that their opinion on the subject is not worth very much.

Some of Transport's witnesses weren't even pilots. Some
of Transport's pilot witnesses weren't aerobatic pilots. None
of them held an INDIVIDUAL SFOC, and none of them held a
"Statement of Aerobatic Competency" issued by Transport
(as I do) which is required to perform aerobatics at airshows as
per CAR 603.

I have flown airshows in some pretty crappy weather. Transport's
motley collection of witnesses would have had no business flying
aerobatics in those airshows, or at Hanover on that day. Or even
if the weather conditions were perfect

[Strega]

The requirement to be in "good standing" with TCCA, comes from some "sheep" that cant think on his own, and needs to be told how and why to do everything. My guess is hes a "yes man" to Transport. Heaven forbid that someone in Canada can actually make a decision on their own, without government intervention.

If I were hiring a truck driver I would want to know if he had a poor driving record, and that there were no outstanding issues that might effect his licence and therefore his ability to perform his job. And I would be remiss if I didn't check into those things before hiring him.

If I were hiring a pilot I would want to know if he had a poor flying record, and that there were no outstanding issues that might effect his licence and therefore his ability to perform his job. And I would be remiss if I didn't check into those things before hiring him.

If I was interviewing someone with the kind of chip on their shoulder you're carrying around you would simply not get the job. Why would I take that chance?

Rockie,

I dont have a chip on my shoulder, I have a clear head that has been taught by many professionals, with the ability to think on my own.

I agree I wouldnt want a pilot with a terrible record for abusing the cars working for me. but what does this have to do with "good standing"? If a pilot has been violated and has paid his fines/dues, does this mean he is in "bad standing" with TCCA?,

In another forum, there are people admitting they violate the cars WRT hobbs time and flight time, and think its really no big deal,, now are these people in "good standing" with TCCA?

Where in the cars is "good standing" defined, further more, in Canada, if an applicant is qualified for a job, one cannot quash his application on the basis that you "dont like him".

you mention that I have a Chip on my shoulder, well I guess I sort of do, I want to see this industy in Canada rise up, and not be continually dumbed down as it has been. Is the desire to make things better bad? Why is it when you call a spade a spade, that you are looked down upon? Come one here there is another thread written about how to come about GTOW!

[Rockie]

Oh I see. You were flying a display over a small collection of people and they lost sight of you when you flew beside a cloud. Uh huh.

You still haven't answered the question.

[Rockie]

I agree I wouldnt want a pilot with a terrible record for abusing the cars working for me. but what does this have to do with "good standing"?

Already answered, but here it is again.

"If I were hiring a pilot I would want to know if he had a poor flying record, and that there were no outstanding issues that might effect his licence and therefore his ability to perform his job."

[Cat Driver]

Rockie:

With all due respect I am having problems understanding how an employer finds out if you meet the criteria of " Being in good standing with TC " .

Does a company phone TC and ask if Rockie is in good standing with the regulator or can an employer phone TC and say I'm thinking of hiring Rockie and I want to know what sort of a record he has with you people and is he in good standing with you?

You said:

"If I were hiring a pilot I would want to know if he had a poor flying record, and that there were no outstanding issues that might effect his licence and therefore his ability to perform his job."

So would I, especially the pilots accident record or lack thereof, the problem in todays world is how exactly do you get this information without getting someone in a corner for violating a persons rights to privacy?

When I used to hire pilots I got that information first from the person who I was hiring and if I had doubts I just asked his/her previous employers the questions I wanted answered......generally I found the answer if not by what they said by what they didn't say and the way it was said.

I am certain that TC can not give out personal information about a perspective employee to a company....but I have been wrong before.

Do we now live in an industry where you must be in good standing with TC to get a job, if so I guess I'm lucky to be retired because I would never work again if that was the criteria for employment......and the best part is my record as a pilot with TC is spotless.

As is my regulatory compliance record.

[Rockie]

I agree a wide statement like "in good standing" covers a lot of ground Cat. I can only assume that someone who is under suspension or something similiar would realize they need not apply. An interview would probably clear up any other stuff like being six months in arrears on their medical fee. I don't think this statement is anything to take so literally as to ruffle feathers over percieved human rights violations or anything. There are a lot of people here who mistakingly think an employer can't refuse to hire someone because they don't like them. Nonsense. Employers can hire anybody they like (or not) as long as they don't discriminate, and this doesn't come under that heading.

I would be shocked if TC were permitted to divulge any information on any licence holder to anybody which is why some questions like this are asked. It's a perfectly acceptable request in my opinion, and if through other means an employer found out that the employee lied then that would be grounds for dismissal. The person who asked this question may not like TC any more than you do, but they realize that TC issues the licence for his employees and he simply wants to make sure there are no surprises. I'd do the same in the interest of protecting my business and I know you would too. It's the smart thing to do.

[Strega]

ok heres one for you Rockie,,

2 applicants apply for a job that you are interviewing for..

One is white, and the other is a visible minority,
They are both equally educated, qualified, and experienced.

You dont "like" the minority, so you hire the white guy. Since "like" is such a broad term, one can be certain that what you didnt "like" about the applicant can be tailored to a human rights violation, if the minority complains to the human rights commissioner, good luck, you will have no case, and will most certainly loose.

[Rockie]

No you won't lose Strega, discrimination has to be proven. But in the case you state there may be other factors at play as well. Businesses with over a certain number of employees are required to have a representative cross section of employees, and he may be required to hire the minority in order to comply with that. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's the way it is.

[Mitch Cronin]

I am having problems understanding how an employer finds out if you meet the criteria of " Being in good standing with TC " .

And I'm having problems understanding how you can be so thick. You've seen reasonable answers here. They want a flippin' honest AME who doesn't have the feds on his case, so they can get on with the job of keeping airplanes flying. How do they find out? They ask you. If you lie, and there's a problem later, there's grounds for dismissal. ...and, maybe it could be argued, they NEED to ask, in keeping with due dilligence. What on earth is so hard to understand? I think you're just stirring the pot .. That's it right? It's some kind of fun you're having?

[Strega]

Rockie,

Its clear to me you have no experience dealing with Human rights in Canada.
Perhaps in Aviation, employers can get away with not hiring people as they "didnt like them", in the same manner empoyers get away with paying less than min wage, making pilots fly overgross, overtime, beyond personal wx limits etc, but in the real world, you as the employer must hire the most qualified individual, not depending how much you do or do not like them..

Example,
I dont like liberal losers from Ontario or Quebec, but this would not be grounds for passing over an individual.

Think about what you "dont" like in someone for 5 mins, and then think how it could be twisted into a human rights violation, not that difficult is it?

[Strega]

I am having problems understanding how an employer finds out if you meet the criteria of " Being in good standing with TC " .

And I'm having problems understanding how you can be so thick. You've seen reasonable answers here. They want a flippin' honest AME who doesn't have the feds on his case, so they can get on with the job of keeping airplanes flying. How do they find out? They ask you. If you lie, and there's a problem later, there's grounds for dismissal. ...and, maybe it could be argued, they NEED to ask, in keeping with due dilligence. What on earth is so hard to understand? I think you're just stirring the pot .. That's it right? It's some kind of fun you're having?

There is an AME at CYBW, one of the best in the buis,, that is undoubtedly not in good standing with TCCA, now would you not want to hire him?

[Mitch Cronin]

I'd personally want to know the details of why he's "undoubtedly not in good standing" with TC, but if the insurance company had a problem with him, or his licence wasn't valid, I wouldn't hire him.

[Rockie]

Example,
I dont like liberal losers from Ontario Quebec, but this would not be grounds for passing over an individual.

Think about what you "dont" like in someone for 5 mins, and then think how it could be twisted into a human rights violation, not that difficult is it?

If you're dense enough to actually say you're not hiring someone because you don't like liberal losers from Ontario Quebec (wherever that is) then you deserve what you get. Most employers are smarter than that though Strega.

[Strega]

Sorry I forgot an "or"..

Yes Rockie, employers are this dumb, I was told by an employer (in liberalland) that I was not being hired as I was from Alberta.. this is the truth 100%

[Rockie]

Then consider yourself lucky he didn't hire you. Anyone that stupid is not a very good person to work for.

[Mitch Cronin]

deleted -....except to say... unless you mean "because I live in Alberta" (ie commuting wasn't acceptable or something like that), I think you're full of beans Strega.

[Strega]

nope,, not full of beans. I was told I was not being hired due to my background being from western Canada, namely Alberta.

[Mitch Cronin]

[Strega]

Think what you want.....

[CID]

Wow. Four pages and going strong. Although there is really little practical (or sane) content in this thread, it at least gives us insight into the personality of some AvCanada members. Conclusion? There are some very scary individuals out there!

[Strega]

you forgot to mention with too much time on our hands

[wanderer]

Businesses with over a certain number of employees are required to have a representative cross section of employees, and he may be required to hire the minority in order to comply with that. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's the way it is.

I do not believe that this is accurate. Can you cite a specific law requiring a private business over a certain size to staff itself with reference to a minority hiring policy?

As to the original question. "In good standing" to me means nothing more than the applicant holds the required license, that said license is current and valid and that the applicant is eligible to obtain necessary ratings. There is nothing subjective about this. In the event that there is pending regulatory action it would behoove the applicant to disclose this information during the selection process and indeed the employer should ask the applicant if there is any reason to believe that the validity of their license may be called in to question as a basis for rejecting the application or for future termination if an untruthful answer is given. Notwithstanding the potential for future action, if the engineer is currently licensed and able to turn wrenches, the engineer is currently "in good standing" with TC. The ad was redundant in mentioning that the applicant need both a valid M1 and be in good standing with TC.

[Rockie]

Businesses with over a certain number of employees are required to have a representative cross section of employees, and he may be required to hire the minority in order to comply with that. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's the way it is.

I do not believe that this is accurate. Can you cite a specific law requiring a private business over a certain size to staff itself with reference to a minority hiring policy?

It's called the employment equity act. To clarify, while I certainly agree completely with equal opportunity I don't think the government should be telling employers who they can and cannot hire.

http://www.canadabusiness.ca/servlet/Co ... lay&c=Regs

[wanderer]

Businesses with over a certain number of employees are required to have a representative cross section of employees, and he may be required to hire the minority in order to comply with that. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's the way it is.

I do not believe that this is accurate. Can you cite a specific law requiring a private business over a certain size to staff itself with reference to a minority hiring policy?

It's called the employment equity act. To clarify, while I certainly agree completely with equal opportunity I don't think the government should be telling employers who they can and cannot hire.

http://www.canadabusiness.ca/servlet/Co ... lay&c=Regs

Thanks for the reference.

Looking at the Federal Government site, it appears that northern operators do not need to factor in the north of 60 portion of their business.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs ... rbo-ga:s_3

"private sector employer" means any person who employs one hundred or more employees on or in connection with a federal work, undertaking or business as defined in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code and includes any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the Government of Canada that employs one hundred or more employees, but does not include

(a) a person who employs employees on or in connection with a work, undertaking or business of a local or private nature in Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, or

(b) a departmental corporation as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act;

[marktheone]

. I would have to say that statement probably disqualifies you.