Transport Canada's Liability

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:08 pm

A couple questions to ponder:

I'm just lying here thinking about today's unfortunate accident, and after reading about the long list of "issues" Sonic Blue/Regency has had over their operational life, I can't help but wonder when Transport Canada will start to incure some liablity.

If Transport knows about companies like this, Nav Air etc etc, and continues to let them operate because they manage to get their $hit together for a short while AFTER each incident, how can they NOT be liable at least in part? There are documented maintainence issues, training issues, and instances of students doing revenue flights... I find this very confusing in a day and age where everyone gets sued for everything. When will one of the victims name TC in the lawsuit? And why should they not?

A helicopter pilot in Hawaii just got charged with Manslaughter due to negligence, TC's lack of action here seems to be negligent to me. How can they, knowing the facts signed-off by their own inspectors, allow outfits like this to run? Good people die when things go wrong in this industry, the slugs go to the bank...

Now, I know it's early days yet in this investigation, and it MAY be found to be weather realated or "pilot error," but the list of infractions is long and distinguished with this company regardless. When is enough enough?

Like to hear your thoughts. Any lawyers out there?

STL

classiv · Post by **classiv** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:29 pm

Cat Driver in

3...

2...

1.........

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:03 am

sky's the limit wrote: allow outfits like this to run? Good people die when things go wrong in this industry, the slugs go to the bank..

Good luck on blaming TC, lol.. You can smoke, can't you? Funny, it kills you, the gov't taxes it at 100% but they let you do it knowing it'll kill you, but they won't let you do crack...

Seconldy, this in no way relates to the recent crash or any other crash lately...

But how are "good people dying?" If the pilots would stop working for them, if these operators have "bad maintenance," "bad training" why are all these "good people" flocking to pay to work for these people? Why are these pilots signing the aircrafts out on flights if it's "bad maintenance" and they've been "poorly trained?"

Don't worry about TC, or Regency, how about you worry about the guys who undermine our industry in the first place....

If these operators didn't have pilots willing to pay for PPCs or work the ramp for X years maybe we wouldn't have "scumy" operators...

No Scabs working for them, they'd go broke or be forced to pay, forced to train, forced to hire and forced to "maintain" the planes...

Blame all the "good guys" first, blame the operators seconds and blame TC third.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:03 am

TC is an arm of the Fed gov, not to say that one CANT sue them, but it is a VERY costly process, and any judge who would be dealing with such a case would be VERY careful about the economics of any precedence that may be set. IE if TC was fiscally liable for ANYthing this would open the flood gates. Rather the most I could ever imagine happening (would need a VERY major incident) would be what we do best here in Canada when it hits the fan... A Royal Commission would investigate and give its findings, some new policies would come about, some bearcatic musical chairs; and the day would be done......
A VERY BAD day for EVERY Canadian is when the fed gov is liable for something.... remember this isnt some company with anonymous share holders to keep happy, this is the government, this is OUR money handled by "servants" the most I would think should ever be done would be go after those who handle policy; but NEVER to start giving payouts; every accident ever to occur would be taken to court, it would cost the legal system untold $$s and well..... TC would STILL have to do its job, now with less of a budget (unless dep of finance stepped in); but regardless something this big would eventually get to supreme court; and I would imagine that it would be struck down in the best interest of the citizenry...

sportingrifle · Post by **sportingrifle** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:11 am

FYI, TC was successful sued after the Wapati crash that killed a politicion in the mid-eighties. Sounds like it's time for somebody else to sue them again. Then maybe a regional director will get canned, a new guy will replace him and get the inspectors out in the field looking at the operation instead of logging King Air time and scruitinizing pzperwork. Big long post to follow. My hearts go out to yet another set of grieving parents. Just mu opinion worth $0.02.

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:21 am

Now some of this may be a little off,- I'm sure Cat can straighten me out though, however.....

TC doesn't crack down like they used to in part because of the legal system. The once pulled the OC of a little operator named skylink. The owner then turned around and sued TC claiming all these workers now have no jobs and it was their (TC's) fault.

The guy actually won in court and TC ended up paying a huge settlement. Ever since then they've been gunshy of cracking down on operators.

They may have every right to shut someone down - but like in all other cases, the courts are a completely different story.

CD · Post by CD » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:10 am

Discussed previously here as well...

Keystone blames Transport Canada

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:01 am

CYYZ

The "good people" I was refering to are the passengers.... wake up.

And as the oversite body for our industry, TC does have a responsibility, just trying to figure out how much.

If you take any time to read my other posts, you'll know what I think about the foks who accept these jobs, however, they are poeple, and they do occasionally get killed - and no, I'm not ok with with some 25 year old kid getting klled because he/she was taken advantage of by an outfit, and that outfit was allowed to operate by the Gov't. In my opinion, that's what they're there for.

And I'd like you to explain how "this in no way relates to this crash." I think it relates very well. Tell me, how does one "go after scabbs" who work for these outfits, if not through TC??? Do you go and beat them Tanya Harding style or what? I'm interested.

STL

CD, Beoing, Walker,

That's stuff I'll have to read up on later, flying today. I didn't realize there was preccident in this already, makes sense on why they(TC) are reluctant to act. Thanks

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:43 am

CD, there's a huge difference between Keystone and this case, though. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Regency/Sonicblue should hold TC accountable, but the passengers and the family of the pilot should probably be able to. I realize that you're just saying it's another case where TC got taken to court, but I though it should be pointed out that one might be justified, the other wasn't, really. As for those who suggest that TC shouldn't be taken to court or held liable... What's the point of having a regulatory body if they don't regulate the industry properly? Maybe don't open the chequebooks, but if Regency really was as bad as some people on here make it out to be, then those responsible for allowing it to continue to operate, when they had the power to stop it, should definately have some sort of inquiry done into how they did they jobs.

They released the identity of the male passenger who was killed, by the way. He wasn't exactly a nobody, from the sounds of it:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/n ... 5804&k=180

it'sme · Post by **it'sme** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:51 am

Boeingboy is quite correct when he suggests that TC is very reluctant and gun-shy to pull OC's or really take anything in the way of severe action against operators that operate beyond the boundaries of safe practice. This is not a new phenomenon but seems for the last decade or so has become more prevalent. The problem seems to lie less in the regions but more with headquarters in Ottawa; they are after all the ones that set policy. TC by in large tends to take the position of putting their hands over their eyes and ears and repeating over and over, “oh I hope nothing happens, oh I hope nothing happens”. And when sh!t does happen they swoop in, puff their collective chests out and pronounce that an operator wasn’t complying with best practices. Well no sh!t Sherlock, they (TC) knew that before hand but unless someone is willing to put their name in writing and provide everything in a neat little package ready for the Crown no action is taken that might save lives.
I have utmost respect for many individuals within TC …..but TC as an entity I have zero respect for. It gives me no pleasure what so ever to say that and I shouldn’t be able to say it, but that is where we have come to.

Ok, rant over. Now I am REALLY in the mood to go and vote!

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:22 am

TC is the regulator not the babysitter. Operators have been lobbying long and hard for TC to transfer some oversight authority to the industry. In part the result was the restructuring of maintenance licensing and the introduction of the MDM.

This is a case of "be careful what you wish for". The oversight as well as the liability has been transferred to the operator.

So does TC share the blame in this case? Does a cop share the blame if a known Hell's Angels member kills someone? Does a parent share the blame if their 40 year old son sells drugs?

The answer is no. Why should TC share the blame for the actions of criminals? No matter what rules or regulations you dream up, there will always be shady operators that break them and unfortunately sometimes it takes a fatal crash to remove these idiots from the system.

We were lucky with Skyward.

Gramps · Post by **Gramps** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:37 am

Part of the problem, IMHO... why should they spend so much time and $$ on investigating a shady operator, when they can just do a 10 minute ramp inspection and bust some poor pilot making jack-squat for money for not having an up-to-date CFS!! That kind of sh*t really gets under my skin! As far as I'm concerned, the CFS should be free for all. Better yet, free to download online . Just take a gander at some of these, and you'll see what I mean...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegSe ... s/menu.htm

Be sure to check out both corporate and non-corporate offenders.

BTW, I remember years ago (guess I'm going to date myself here) when a good friend was going to get written up for not having a "sweep second hand" available in the aircraft. The digital Davtron and his $3000 Breitling were not going to cut it in Transport's eyes. Anyone know if this archaic reg is still out there?

Ahhh, feel much better now. Time to go vote...

Gramps

it'sme · Post by **it'sme** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:05 am

CID wrote:TC is the regulator not the babysitter. .

True to a point, but as the regulator that also makes them the entity to ensure regulatory compliance. I purposely did not refer to those that don't comply with every CAR. Not complying with every CAR by everyone's interpretation does not necessarily insinuate operating beyond the limits of safe practice BUT operating beyond the limits of safe practice does insinuate not complying with the CAR's IMHO.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:06 am

You get what you pay for, you want free food go to Dominion and you can have expired produce/products for free.. You die, your problem.

Like I said the operators should star colluding so they can raise their prices like the gas companies so they could afford to pay for maintenance and staff.

and TC should just get out of the aviation business and let us kill each other... PS. that would mean @#$! CARS...

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:36 am

YYZ,

Why don't you just move to Texas and give us all some peace a quiet?

To call your view, if I can even use that term in this instance, simple, would be an understatement - but I will anyway.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:01 pm

sky's the limit wrote:YYZ,

Why don't you just move to Texas and give us all some peace a quiet?

To call your view, if I can even use that term in this instance, simple, would be an understatement - but I will anyway.

Simple?? ROFL, Exxon 6 billion PROFIT, Shell 6 BILLION Profit...

No colllusion isn't difficult... It is very simple.. And if bag runners and the majors started raising prices to increase prices and the other guys followed suit the consumers would have no option but to pay.

With more money, companies would have more money for maintenance and money to pay and train staff..

Yes, simple..

As for TC getting out, simple? Yeah, I would think so too, but everyone is on here complaining 24/7 how TC lets these guys operate... Last time I went out I signed out a plane as PIC..

So as a "trained" professional, you shouldn't need TC to come baby sit for you.... TC is redundant... TC is the "all mighty authority" guess what they're not, the PIC is, and if they're too stupid to do anything and are just sitting on their ass waiting for tc to stop them, well jesus, that "pro" has really gotten into the wrong sport.

Athletes get the doctors opinion if they should play or not, but it's their call, you don't see a player go onto the ice, sprain his injury more and say, "NHL you didn't stop me from playing."

Whos to blame when you run over a J-walker? The driver, the j-walker, the cops, the lawyers, the government?

If the pilot wants to fly unsafe, cool let him, stop wasting tax dollars on TC and their bs...

$ 250 for a PPC ride, lol, funny how all these guys that crash all had a PPC ride, what a waste of 250, maybe instead of that ride they could have spent it towards better training.. But ah well.. TC knows what's best for all of us...

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:02 pm

[blah

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:50 pm

YYZ
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/inte ... =1140&lg=e

As a minor detail collusion is illigal in this country......

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:50 pm

cyyz,

I'm chalking it up to emotion, but you are scaring me. Its not the ideas you present, but your implied understanding of what it takes to run a safe operation.

If thing were the way you suggest, we'd have airplanes falling out of the sky every day.

clarence oveur · Post by **clarence oveur** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:04 pm

CYYZ how can you compare the government allowing people to smoke to allowing people to travel on an airplane operated by a company with a shady history? The government makes sure people know what may happen to them if they choose to smoke. Do you think they warn the passengers who travel on crummy airlines what they might encounter? Maybe they should start having warning labels on the tickets like they do on cigarette packs.
I think TC should be responsible to an extent. They allow a company to continue to operate below standards. Everybody in the aviation industry may know about the hazards associated with travelling on their airplanes, but who is going to warn the passengers?

scabber · Post by **scabber** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:39 pm

Transport canada is to blame for accidents like this, that much is true.

Fare paying passengers expect the government to actually monitor, and regulate these low life types out of the industry.

If the rules and regulations, and procedures that transport make up....... DO NOT protect the fare paying public... well, then transport canada is a worthless enterprise.

This being said... Transport will not take blame for this (even though I believe they are at fault at least partially). As the slick political types will throw up so much ass covering smoke, only the sleeze at regency, and the poor aircraft manufactuer will be around when it clears

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:43 pm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/ ... 6-p01e.htm

Transport canada is to blame for accidents like this, that much is true.

That's quite an interesting point of view.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:45 pm

Beware what you wish for. If Transport Canada was to go pro-active rather than re-active, I would be you would see a fair number of carriers suspended along with lots of flight delays. The industry in Canada has for years lobbied for the right to be self-governing, this was supported by the feds and Transport Canada's inspections slowed, what you are calling for would involve a massive hiring of inspectors and then lots & lots of spot inspections with no warning.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:01 pm

Quote:

" and then lots & lots of spot inspections with no warning. "

I would support that if we had inspectors free to do inspections without warning based on documented reason to believe there was a problem.

Makes a lot more sense to me than knee jerk suspensions after people are killed.

But then again maybe in the case of Sonic Blue no one had the faintest idea there may be a problem?

Cat

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:05 pm

Walker wrote:YYZ
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/inte ... =1140&lg=e

As a minor detail collusion is illigal in this country......

No, really /sarcasm? Funny how they don't do anything about the Gas companies though..... They're all the same price at the same intersection, "competition."

Like I said, if the Airlines just mimicked the gas companies, they'd be okay, and making record profits..

Maybe they should start having warning labels on the tickets like they do on cigarette packs.

You can drive can't you? Do you know what "could" happen to you on the road??? Can you walk?? Do you know what "could" happen to you on as a pedestrian??

But I like the idea of warnings on tickets, then the morons couldn't sue Air France for a "good" flight where they all survived..

If thing were the way you suggest, we'd have airplanes falling out of the sky every day.

I thought the Allies and Luftwaffe got shot out of the sky by each other, not because they didn't have good ol' transport watching over their shoulders....

Don't be silly, You don't have cars flying off cliffs, do you?? I don't see any regulatory board doing anything about cars.

TC is redundant, since the PIC makes the final call, and bad PICs will go in a clapped out piece of crap if we have or don't have TC to watch over them..

Transport Canada's Liability

Transport Canada's Liability

Re: Transport Canada's Liability