Directive from Minister issued yesterday.

[phillyfan]

I have not seen this mentioned yet (Cut and Pasted below) It seems that the Minister is asking that Operators have a plan to prevent pilots from flying airplanes after drinking, before the end of next month? The Police use RIDE checks to catch intoxicated drivers using breathalyzers, they suspend licenses and arrest people roadside and yet people still drive drunk. Pilots have zero tolerance. How could every operator be expected to screen pilots without the regulator providing them with the tools required by way of the Aeronautics Act, CAR's and Employment Standards Act? Beyond platitudes, what can an operator tell the minister by the middle of next month? TC themselves won't be meeting until the Spring to discuss the issue. Perhaps the Minister could implement a similar requirement as the one used in Australia?

http://www.casa.gov.au/safety-managemen ... ment-plans


To Commercial Air Carriers:

I am writing to you today as I am very concerned by the event that took place in Calgary on December 31, 2016.

As a commercial air carrier authorized to carry passengers in Canada, you have an obligation to ensure that flight crew members are fit to fly when requiring them to carry out such responsibilities and additionally a responsibility to have procedures in place to identify and manage hazards to aviation safety.

The incident in Calgary reminds us all of the need to ensure that protocols are up to date and that they are being implemented with all the required resources, including measures designed to confirm pilots’ fitness to fly. I ask that you please confirm with my Department that such measures are in place by February 15, 2017.

While standard protocols and quick crew action did address the recent incident, we all collectively have a responsibility to make sure our systems are robust enough to prevent such incidents in the future.

As part of our shared goal of improving safety, Transport Canada officials are organizing a workshop in early spring to bring companies, unions and medical experts together to consider further steps necessary to enhance aviation safety.

I look forward to your cooperation in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

The Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Transport

[DrSpaceman]

This is entirely a PR knee-jerk reaction. The same type as last year's, which now forces me to ask for a babysitter while I go pee.
But hey! It's not like actual works needs to be done right? (Cough cough duty rules cough)

[DanWEC]

Originally I thought it would be a positive thing for Aviation to have Mr. Garneau as Minister, but since the day he took the position I've thought he was out to lunch on policy and issues.

[Rockie]

This is entirely a PR knee-jerk reaction. The same type as last year's, which now forces me to ask for a babysitter while I go pee.
But hey! It's not like actual works needs to be done right? (Cough cough duty rules cough)

This is knee jerk, but get over yourself regarding the two in the cockpit rule. It is not babysitting any more than minimum two pilots, SOP's, FMA calls or challenge and response checklists are. It is a sensible safety precaution for a thankfully extremely rare event, but one that has nevertheless cost many lives. To whit:

https://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/1 ... t-suicide/

Your tender ego is just not as important as preventing more of these events.

[dhc#]

Originally I thought it would be a positive thing for Aviation to have Mr. Garneau as Minister, but since the day he took the position I've thought he was out to lunch on policy and issues.

He is a space cadet you know

Too bad he isn't as concerned about pilot fatigue as a safety issue.

[capt.pilot]

Have a read of this and tell me if you think they will even be able to enforce it if Canada's Supreme Court says they can't?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... -1.1340382

Granted there are 3 exceptions being:
Where there are reasonable grounds to believe an employee was impaired while on duty.
Where an employee was directly involved in a workplace accident or significant incident.
Where the employee returns to work after treatment for substance abuse.

[AuxBatOn]

He is a space cadet you know

Show some respect dude. You may not agree with his policies but he still went to space 3 times. A space cadet he isn't, but he is an accomplished astronaut.

[Zaibatsu]

All of our ministers are much more accomplished than the previous ones for the roles they serve--except for Mr Flaherty who was undoubtedly one of thx best finance ministers we've had in recent times.

But.... they like their PM are all a bunch of yes men. Trying to appease every side of the political spectrum while alienating themselves from every side at the same time. Just look at the irreconcilable acts of both approving pipelines and carbon taxes.

Going into space only gets you so far. I hope Chris Hadfield never enters politics.

[Cessna 180]

They should send that memo to the Transportation Department of Slovakia. Not like TC issued him a license anyways.

[DrSpaceman]

This is entirely a PR knee-jerk reaction. The same type as last year's, which now forces me to ask for a babysitter while I go pee.
But hey! It's not like actual works needs to be done right? (Cough cough duty rules cough)

This is knee jerk, but get over yourself regarding the two in the cockpit rule. It is not babysitting any more than minimum two pilots, SOP's, FMA calls or challenge and response checklists are. It is a sensible safety precaution for a thankfully extremely rare event, but one that has nevertheless cost many lives. To whit:

https://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/1 ... t-suicide/

Your tender ego is just not as important as preventing more of these events.

I disagree entirely with you on this one. While cases like these do occur, what can a flight attendant do in any case? It actually hinders safety by creating problems that didn't exist before. What if the flight attendant is the suicidal one? They are standing right next to an axe after all. And how are they more trustworthy after 3 weeks of training vs a pilot who on average takes 5-10 years to get to an airline?

Even worse, what if an emergency descent needs to be done and the flight attendant thinks I'm crashing the plane, then uses that said axe? What about the fact that we open the cockpit door twice as many times now?

All other examples you provided (sop, fma calls, crm...) all have bases in actual safety, with studies done proving their uses. This measure was enacted whitin days of an accident without any industry consultation. It's no wonder that European pilots are fighting this measure very hard, maybe we should too.

[Rockie]

While cases like these do occur, what can a flight attendant do in any case?

The flight attendant opens the door...pretty simple.

It actually hinders safety by creating problems that didn't exist before. What if the flight attendant is the suicidal one? They are standing right next to an axe after all. And how are they more trustworthy after 3 weeks of training vs a pilot who on average takes 5-10 years to get to an airline?

Nonsense. Is that something you've ever worried about before, and are you now going to stop flight attendants from ever entering the F/D for any reason because of it?

Even worse, what if an emergency descent needs to be done and the flight attendant thinks I'm crashing the plane, then uses that said axe?

They'll know something is wrong no doubt, and if not you tell them. If they don't believe you they open the door, because that's all they're supposed to do. You won't die from that.

All other examples you provided (sop, fma calls, crm...) all have bases in actual safety, with studies done proving their uses. This measure was enacted whitin days of an accident without any industry consultation. It's no wonder that European pilots are fighting this measure very hard, maybe we should too.

See the list I posted of aircraft crashes due to pilot suicide, it happens too and more than once. Now if you really want to do what the Europeans are doing, it was posted in another thread they are required to undergo actual psychological testing rather than the "feeling ok?" we are currently being asked. Which would you prefer, psychological testing that may disqualify you from your job if they don't like what they see, or having a FA in the cockpit for a few minutes?

Another question, was having a FA in the cockpit a problem for you before TC made it mandatory?

And one more question, pilots would love to have family members allowed in the cockpit, is that not a threat as well since they undergo absolutely no screening at all and are utterly unfamiliar with aircraft operation?

[Liftdump]

On your mark " GO" get set

Ready "Fire" aim

[Rookie50]

This is entirely a PR knee-jerk reaction. The same type as last year's, which now forces me to ask for a babysitter while I go pee.
But hey! It's not like actual works needs to be done right? (Cough cough duty rules cough)

Guess what, sports fans: you're dealing with the public in a high profile job. And you don't make the rules.

PR is absolutely a part of that job, to maintain the publics confidence.

[DrSpaceman]

I'm actually not against psychological testing. Of course, not in the goal to ban pilots who are depressed, but with the goal of helping them if issues are found.

With that said, all I'm saying is there were no studies made that proved having a flight attendant present in the cockpit while the other pilot is out had any safety benefits, and more importantly none looking into the risks before being implemented. Doesn't that strike you as irresponsible? I would definitely call that a knee jerk reaction.

[Rockie]

Some things are so simple you don't need a study. Pilots have locked people out and crashed their airplane killing hundreds. Do you really need a scientific study to see the benefit of having somebody there to open the door?

[B208]

So I guess Rockie will be first in line to help the wrenches install breathalyzer locks on all the A320s. After all, some pilots on rare occasions try to fly drunk.

Also, Garneau lost all entitlement to respect when he ran under Trudeau.

[JBI]

http://www.whitelawtwining.com/document ... esting.pdf

Here's an article I wrote a few years ago that gives a pretty good summary of the law in Canada (this was in 2014)

An Issue of Substance

In October of 2011, a Cessna Caravan on a VFR flight plan crashed in low visibility between Yellowknife, N.W.T., and the community of Lutsel K’e, N.W.T., on Great Slave Lake. The pilot and one passenger were fatally injured; the other two passengers were seriously injured. When the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) report was released on March 20, 2013, one of the key “Findings as to causes and contributing factors” was:

The concentrations of cannabinoids [in the pilot’s body] were sufficient to have caused impairment in pilot performance and decision-making on the accident flight.

In response to this finding, the air operator revised its existing drug and alcohol policy to include random testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions. On the surface, implementing random drug and alcohol testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions may seem like a logical and prudent action to prevent a similar accident from occurring again. However, Canada’s courts, arbitrators and tribunals have not always agreed that this is an acceptable practice.

Random Testing in Canada
As outlined in the TSB report, there currently are no regulations in Canada that require random alcohol or drug test- ing of pilots. This is opposite from the United States where, pursuant to the Department of Transportation’s rule 49 CFR Part 40, operators are required to conduct random drug and alcohol testing on employees in safety specific roles.

In Canada, as stated by a New Brunswick Court of Appeal judge, “the scope of legal issues that arise in the context of an employer’s unilateral adoption of a drug and alcohol policy is indeed broad.” Courts have ruled that drug and alcohol dependencies are disabilities which may be protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, a policy implementing random drug and alco- hol testing is likely to be found to be discriminatory and unenforceable, unless it can be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement, which requires demonstrating that the policy:
1. was adopted for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
2. was adopted in good faith to achieve a legitimate, work-related purpose; and
3. is reasonably necessary to achieve that legitimate, work-related purpose (“Reasonably necessary” has been interpreted to mean the policy represents the least discriminatory way to achieve the employer’s goal).

In a unionized environment, a random testing policy can be challenged as an unreasonable intrusion on an em- ployee’s privacy. Such policies have generally been found to be unreasonable if there is a less intrusive way to achieve the employer’s goal.

Random Drug Testing v. Random Alcohol Testing

Although drug and alcohol policies are often combined, there is a distinct difference between the way courts have treated random breathalyser tests and random drug tests. This is so for three reasons: (1) a breathalyser test is less intrusive than drug testing; (2) unlike alcohol testing, drug testing cannot measure present impair- ment (a positive test simply means that the employee has taken drugs in the past and may not be impaired at the moment); and (3) breathalyser results are instantaneous, whereas drug testing results must be performed in a lab, so there is a delay in getting results.

For these reasons, there have been circumstances where random alcohol testing has been found to be reasonable and a bona fide occupational requirement. However, with the exception of cross-border truck drivers, random drug testing has yet to be upheld. Notably, the argument that random testing might act as a deterrent against employees using drugs generally has not been accepted as a sufficient reason to justify random drug testing.

Safety-Sensitive Position

A safety-sensitive position is defined as one in which incapacity due to drug or alcohol impairment could result in direct and significant risk of injury to the em- ployee, others or the environment. Whether a job is con- sidered safety-sensitive is viewed within the context of the industry, the particular workplace and an employee’s involvement in a high risk operation. Unquestionably, pilots and maintenance personnel would fall into this category. Other positions such as dispatchers or ground handlers may be considered safety-sensitive positions, though each situation would have to be determined from the facts.

Should Operators Risk Testing?

Previous decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Tribu- nal have found that for-cause and post-incident drug and alcohol testing are generally acceptable. For example, if a pilot’s actions reasonably led an employer to suspect that he or she may be impaired, a drug or alcohol test may be an acceptable practice in the circumstances. However, the following are not acceptable practices:
• Pre-employment drug testing;
• Pre-employment alcohol testing;
• Random drug testing; and
• Random alcohol testing of employees in non-safety-sensitive positions.

Even if an operator were able to justify a random testing policy, the operator would still be required to accommodate employees who test positive, to the point of undue hardship.

Despite the consistent refusal to uphold random drug testing, the law is far from settled. Irving Pulp and Paper in New Brunswick is headed to the Supreme Court to defend random alcohol testing of employees at its mill. Suncor in Alberta attempted to introduce random drug and alcohol testing for oil sands employees last fall, but their union successfully applied for an injunction to stop all testing pending arbitration. The direction in which the arbitration will evolve is currently unpredictable.

Previous cases have noted there are certain industries that are so highly safety sensitive as to justify a high degree of caution, including firm and forceful steps to ensure a substance free workplace. It is likely that air operators could justify a random alcohol testing policy, and conceivable that a random drug testing policy might also be justified if challenged.

In terms of evaluating the risk that a drug and alcohol policy will be challenged, unless the air operator is unionized, an employee with a drug or alcohol dependency would have to make a human rights complaint and navigate the human rights process at their own expense. That employee would also run the risk of their case becoming public.

Implementing a Drug & Alcohol Policy

Drug and alcohol use in the workplace is a complex issue without easy solutions. A one-size-fits-all solution is not the answer. When implementing policies to prevent impairment from drugs or alcohol, operators should ensure that it is a policy that specifically addresses the needs and concerns of their specific operation. Any policy should also allow flexibility for individualized accommodation, and reference access to support, counselling and addiction assistance programs.

If the decision is made to implement a drug and alcohol testing policy, operators should work with an employment lawyer familiar with the human rights process to create a policy that is not only effective at increasing safety, but also has a greater chance of being accepted if challenged.

[Rockie]

So I guess Rockie will be first in line to help the wrenches install breathalyzer locks on all the A320s. After all, some pilots on rare occasions try to fly drunk.

I don't see how you equate one with the other, especially when one entails nothing more than a FA being in the cockpit for 2 minutes. Does that sound too onerous or unusual to you?

[cncpc]

So I guess Rockie will be first in line to help the wrenches install breathalyzer locks on all the A320s. After all, some pilots on rare occasions try to fly drunk.

I don't see how you equate one with the other, especially when one entails nothing more than a FA being in the cockpit for 2 minutes. Does that sound too onerous or unusual to you?

I think you're under the misapprehension, Rockie, that you are talking to a rational being.

[sportingrifle]

Yes the flight attendants job is to open the door if I exhibit abnormal behavior or refuse to let the F/O back in. But it is kinda hard for them to do at -1 G on the ceiling as the airplane goes thru the sound barrier.And they couldn't prevent that.

I maintain that the 2 person rule has created a bigger hazard. I know all the pilots that I work with. I have never even met most of the flight attendants before the flight. The next threat to the security of the cockpit is probably going to be a flight attendant.

[Rockie]

Yes the flight attendants job is to open the door if I exhibit abnormal behavior or refuse to let the F/O back in. But it is kinda hard for them to do at -1 G on the ceiling as the airplane goes thru the sound barrier.And they couldn't prevent that.

I maintain that the 2 person rule has created a bigger hazard. I know all the pilots that I work with. I have never even met most of the flight attendants before the flight. The next threat to the security of the cockpit is probably going to be a flight attendant.

You can create 1000 what if scenarios just like you can with any eventuality, but we don't let that stop us from taking measures do we? You also want your uncle Bob (whom I've never met, know nothing about, knows nothing about airplanes and hasn't undergone anything but normal passenger screening) to sit in the cockpit for the entire flight. Yet you all of a sudden don't trust a fellow employee, crew member and RAIC holder, and one that you are happy to have up there if they are commuting or just chatting. But if you're going to the can they're suddenly a threat?

The other day the IC FA was up for about 10 minutes discussing an issue and the FO took the opportunity to go to the can. Should I have made the FA leave too?

Pilot objection to this is all about their ego (yes you if you've ever used the term "babysat") and their arguments against it are ridiculously easy to poke huge holes in.

This is a classic case of "be careful what you wish for". If FA's are too much of a threat to enter the cockpit for 2 minutes, they are too much of a threat to come in for any reason including with coffee or to feed you. They are too much of a threat to commute up there certainly, and the same could reasonably be said about pilots being up there unnecessarily since in all those cases it was pilots - not FA's - who crashed the airplane. Family in the jump seat...forget it.

[mbav8r]

Prior to German wings my company policy was to have an FA replace a pilot going to the lav, it was removed from the COM for about 2 months and then reinstated shortly there after. We still had the option to request the FA come up and most of the time did, personally I prefer this extra layer of safety!
Also as a Class 1 driver I had to submit to random drug screening, again I did not have a problem with this considering the potential ramifications of an impaired driver. These policies are always a result of past incidents and not just PR, I'd like to think it's a check and balance in the hopes of preventing another event.
Maybe I'm silly but I also don't let it bother me going through security screening at work, admittedly it used to but I've adopted the mind set, if I have nothing to hide, no problems. I sometimes think those that protest too much have something to hide!

[goingnowherefast]

Anyway, back on topic.

I bet the "workshop" and the new procedures you will see is that pilots are now required to interact with other employees or their passengers before their first flight. People will realise it's a joke and no actual rule change will take place. Just a big PR move to keep the newspapers happy. Might even throw some big, important sounding statements in the press release like "behavioural screening will be conducted among crew" or "impairment assessments are to be conducted during the crew briefings prior to departure". Sounds really fancy, but basically means you have to talk to the other pilot.

[Gannet167]

I would like to point out that in the Sunwing incident, the system worked.

Crew members observed each other and noticed that one of them was not in a state to fly. This issue was raised and the crew member in question did not actually fly.

Granted, this is an extreme case - given the level of intoxication was very high. This wasn't a case of 12 hours later an insignificant amount of blood alcohol. Why this guy didn't call in sick, I can't figure out.

Do we need to implement new policy, regulation, expensive new gadgetry, have a royal commission? Perhaps we could have a government white paper written on it. Pay some academics to study the issue for a decade and produce some Phd thesis on it.

The system worked. Pilot was drunk. Crew members made calls. Pilot did not fly plane. Case closed.

[Gannet167]

What the minister could better spend his time on (although perhaps with less PR driven public fan fare) is crew duty times which pose a far greater risk to the general public.

also to the question of whether a foreign pilot, trained to foreign standards, as I understand holding a foreign licence should have been operating a Canadian airliner. There's a lot of rhetoric coming from their party about Canadian workers and jobs for our economy, blah blah blah. I'd think his political spin doctors could come up with a great narrative about licencing standards, safety of the travelling public, employment for Canadian workers [insert political tag line BS here] and how they're going to rectify what the previous gov't did etc.