Sonic Blue pilots - stand up for yourselves!

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:02 pm

I have some knowledge that the majority of you are refusing to make public the truth behind working conditions for Sonic Blue / Regency. On one hand you say how upset you feel over the death of your co-worker but then when there's an opportunity to make a change by speaking out, you keep quiet. For most of you its probably your first "job" and was pretty hard to come by but maybe as you get older you'll come to realize that some things in life are worth more than hours. The only way you will change not only Sonic but all the other chisel outfits is to make so much noise that new legislation is brought in to make Transport accountable and responsible. If you all sit back and say nothing, life will go on and you'll get your hours, move up and eventually get to AC/WJ whatever. Just remember that in the next few months when the next pilot is killed at a similar company, you did nothing to stop it.

I feel in some ways your silence is an insult to Ed as you are in a position now to bring out the truth, albeit at the risk of becoming unemployed. By staying quiet, you are implying that your personal career is more important than shutting down Sonic Blue. My first company was pretty bad. We would call Transport, the OC would be pulled, we would change something and the OC would be reinstated. We never worked with the media as there were only close calls but no accidents. When my best friend almost bought it after a horrible crash (lack of maintenance) I grew up a lot and never went back. I guess its easier looking back and seeing what should be done now that I'm past just starting out but there are enough decent entry level positions in the industry that you just don't need to put up with the Sonic Blue's of the world. If these bottom feeders were all shut down when Transport is held accountable, you wouldn't have to worry about your kids someday dying at a similar outfit.

Call Lee Morrow with Global TV at 604 803-2477 and tell the the truth of what really goes on. The same goes for the ex NavAir/Westex/Timberline/Waglisla... employees who can explain what life is/was like starting out. I think by publicly humiliating the Pacific Regional Superintendent, things will get better as they can't get much worse. I've never seen one region of Canada where there are more accidents, low pay, worn out airplanes and poor working conditions, coupled with an extremely challenging area to fly.

U/S · Post by **U/S** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:20 pm

Agreed this BS needs to stop now. Take a stand

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:22 pm

Anonymous1:

I would guess you are from the older generation judging by your reference to the Regional superintendent, as they are now known as Regional directors...however that is not my real point here.

Now that we will soon have a new Minister of Transport after the election I will be giving him enough documented evidence of wrongdoing by the present Regional Director Civil Aviation and some of his minions that I can not imagine it being ignored any longer.

What is really needed is top news media coverage of the whole corrupted system being put under a spotlight.

Anyone with concerns e-mail me as I have a news journalist interested in what is really going on.

By the way who is Lee Morrow? I hope Lee is not with TC because regardless of how honest or dilligent he/she may be the very fact they are in TC negates any hope they can do anything due to the power brokers at the top...those are the people whom you must remove to ever have any hope of change.

... good post An1..

Cat

eep...2 Green · Post by **eep...2 Green** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:28 pm

I wholeheartedly agree that people should get in the media and focus as much negative attention on the Pacific Region as possible. It has fallen apart and is costing lives. This will continue until someone has an opportunity to do something, and then actually does something. Now is the time! Guess what...Sonic Blue/Regency isn't coming back from this, it's already gained momentum in the news. Get the focus onto Transport and we will all see some positive changes. If anyone who actually does something about this is worried about getting fired or onto some kind of a list...pm me and I’ll be happy to help with contacts, feel free to pm me...I will do what I can for the good folks who stand up and tell their story to the media if it's in good taste. Lets turn this tragic year into the year that things got better in the Pacific Region.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:35 pm

Lee is with Global TV. Sorry, I wasn't sure of the wording for the top but yes, Transport must be cleaned out from the top and the line inspectors and enforcement be given the support to do their jobs beyind ticking off the audit boxes. If the top Directors are not held liable for the failures at the bottom level, nothing will change. Its like a company where you blame the assembly line workers when sales go plummet or quality problems apear. Only in the TC bureaucracy does this mentality seem to exist.

You can debate all you want about how the ultimate responsibility for a flight rests with the PIC but how many much more skilled and smarter pilots than you have been killed in the past year? Did they want to die knowing they were taking off with ice / broken airplanes / inadequate training...? But they went anyways. Giving fines to companies is a waste of time as Sonic hasn't even paid their last fine.

How about giving an inspector the power to pull an OC after management is unable to prove that they actively encourage and promote a positive safety culture in terms of paying industry standard salaries and flying aircraft that are clean and well looked after. Do they do the bare minimum in everything or do they look for ways to improve on their operation above and beyond the CARS. Even just having a look at the company financial records will say so much. No company can sustain this culture if the profit margins are inadequate to buy spare parts and allow for aircraft downtime. A sensible empowered inspector should be able to see that a freight contract that requires 100% dispatch is going to place enormous pressure on maintenance and pilot staff. If the money isn't there because of underbidding on work, how can all the bills get paid and money be put aside to replace old aircraft?

Make top directors directly accountable for the safety record of their region. Provide the same powers to TC line staff as the RCMP in terms of the right to go undercover, for example as a line pilot at a problem company. If the RCMP can infiltrate the Hell's Angels after just a few murders, then what is the difference with an airline manager who treats human life with the same disregard (and I've opersonally witnessed it). Require ops managers to prove that they have instituted a positive, proactive safety culture and include confidential employee surveys looking for positive morale, job satisfaction and low stress or the company is closed. And most importantly, close companies that can not show adequte financial margins in their tariffs as a shortage of money is the death in so many pilots.

One last thing about freighter contracts. This seems to cause no end of accidents at so many Canadian carriers, yet stateside they are some of the highest paid with many brand new aircraft and almost perfect safety records. A simple act of parliament to prohibit shipping companies from utilizing 3rd parties for their dirty work would do so much as FedEx/UPS/Purolator would have to treat their Canadian operations on par with their US counterparts if they want to fly freight in Canada.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:42 pm

A1,

Good post, I can only hope it resonates with those you have aimed it at.

STL

anonymous2 · Post by **anonymous2** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:57 pm

anonymous1 most likely is lee morrow
anything for a story eh lee?
give it a rest and have some respect for the grieving family and friends.

ski_bum · Post by **ski_bum** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:06 pm

Great Post...

Luckily I personally have not been exposed to this end of the industry, and hopefully will never have to put up with it. I am not too familiar with Sonic or these companies on the coast but from what I have heard, how can people even want to submit a resume, or fly in one of there planes? How can TC let operators get away with this when it seems to be such public knowledge? Even now, how are these guys still operating?

I guess to a passenger a plane is a plane and a pilot is a pilot, some make good landings and some don't... If they make it to the destination it was a good flight.

Why won't pilots stand up for themselves? It is your life on the line as well as your passengers. We can all go work at Wendy's and make the same cash... right?

scabber · Post by **scabber** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:21 pm

If someone wants to email the canwest/global news network on an anon. level

tabtips@png.canwest.com is the email which you can do it. A reporter will be back to you within the hour.

Come on guys, its time to stop this.

ski_bum · Post by **ski_bum** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:22 pm

In response to anonymous2...

I'd safely say anonymous1 is one of the top notch operators around this country, he seems to care for his crew, aircraft, and is looking to set a standard in the industry.

As for showing some respect for grieving family and friends, what more respect can be shown for trying to ensure that this will not and cannot happen in the again in the future. But good try anonymous2....

my 2 cents.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 pm

ski_bum wrote:In response to anonymous2...

I'd safely say anonymous1 is one of the top notch operators around this country, he seems to care for his crew, aircraft, and is looking to set a standard in the industry.

As for showing some respect for grieving family and friends, what more respect can be shown for trying to ensure that this will not and cannot happen in the again in the future. But good try anonymous2....

my 2 cents.

/agrees making it almost a nickle...

swede · Post by **swede** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:02 am

I was involved with a company a number of years back that had a fatal crash in Sachs Harbor. The aftermath of that involved TC inspectors for the region interviewing (extensively) all pilots employed there. The result was, heads rolled in mgmt, and necessary changes to improve safety were made. To the best of my knowledge and from experience, that sort of thing does not happen now in the wake of these accidents. Companies (like sonic blue) continue on their merry way and little if anything changes and the same people remain in control. If anyone does get interviewed it's mgmt, and they simply feed TC a load of crap and lame excuses because they will not incriminate themselves. It is bloody high time that TC got back to interviewing pilots of affected companies after accidents, rather than pilots having to go cap in hand to them to try to bring about changes.

sportingrifle · Post by **sportingrifle** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:05 am

A few thoughts on the many excellent posts in this thread. (Do you think that the standard could migrate to other threads???)

First of all, I work for a major Canadian carrier and several close friends are on the interview boards. I can categorically state that if you ever tell the interview board of any respectible company that you refused to fly an airplane because of serious maintanence or weather issues, you will have demonstrated that you have the judgement that the airline is looking for in spades. The bad reference you may get from the rinky dink outfit will only confirm it.

The difficulty is trying to get a job shortly after you quit/got fired in the same local area. All I can say is that if your prospective employer values the owner of Rinky Dink Air's opinion, you probably don't want to work there either. In addition, if you don't say no and have an incident or accident, the aforementioned hiring board will not be so impressed.

Cat Driver,,,I like where you are going with this and may be able to help with some very interesting info on TC's oversight of several areas out here. PM me if you get a sec.

Flying is a wonderful vocation an I feel that those of us who have been around a while and now work for good operators should get involved and help out those just starting out in the industry. It will never be highly paid or easy at the bottom but surely we can at least make it safe?

sportingrifle

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:21 am

One last thing about freighter contracts. This seems to cause no end of accidents at so many Canadian carriers, yet stateside they are some of the highest paid with many brand new aircraft and almost perfect safety records. A simple act of parliament to prohibit shipping companies from utilizing 3rd parties for their dirty work would do so much as FedEx/UPS/Purolator would have to treat their Canadian operations on par with their US counterparts if they want to fly freight in Canada.

A1,
I agree with you except for the above. There are many crappy companies in the US flying clapped out a/c - most even worse off than the ones here. One the flip side I know of a few canadian companies flying very nice/near new equipment.

One thing that would go a long way is for TC to make reporting things annonimus. I tried to blow the whistle a few years ago against a company and they told me I would have to go on record - then admitted my name would more than likely get out there. That would hamper me getting a job anywhere else. It's a really hard thing to do when this industry is so small.

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:49 am

another thing that would help is an asr system like the states where if you file a report, that TC could not prosecute you after the fact.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:09 am

Ya allow anonnymous reporting. Then any pissed off pilot can make up unfounded accusations against a company and have them raked across the coals. Why not just quit? The problem is simply pilots agreeing to fly unsafe equipment. Same as pilots agreeing to fly for free, it's the pilot who is agreeing to do it.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:42 am

Who needs covert TC to sit in the back?

If a pilot thinks it's unsafe the pilot should be able to call TC and have them fly the plane, if TC decides it's not gonna happen they write up the operator for whatever reason they didn't want to fly the plane for.

And if they do go on the flight and die, we'll possibly be out of CID.

And if they survive, at the end they'll either be shaken up from the flight or give it the seal of approval, oh, and said whimpy pilot might be out of a job.

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:58 am

How about giving an inspector the power to pull an OC after management is unable to prove that they actively encourage and promote a positive safety culture....

The SMS system was introduced to address this issue.

There is an underlying theme here that Transport Canada shares a great deal of responsibility for the existence of shady operators. Perhaps a little history is appropriate.

In the "olden days" the culture of "keep those flat footed goombahs from Ottawa out of my face" was quite prevalent. In my younger days I personally witnessed several Transport Canada inspectors forcibly (OK not "forcibly…but threatened) removed from the premises.

Inspectors had a tough time if they showed up unexpected and many operators had much to hide even back in those less complex days.

One inspector ended up in court because he did a spot ramp inspection, found the airplane full of car gas and grounded it. The owner won his "trespass" case and the aircraft C of A was restored. But that wasn't the end. The aircraft owner's wife took TC to court for endangering her husband's life by restoring the C of A on an aircraft that wasn't airworthy.

As time progressed, operators (of all types) demanded more autonomy and less TC "interference". Those demands and the memory of the lumps TC took from some shady operators resulted in a program that saw a gradual transfer of responsibility and liability from Transport Canada to the operators.

One of the first manifestations was the introduction of the AMO. Maintenance departments could now control most aspects of certification authority. TC slowly receded into the role of policy maker and overseer and put the "regulation" aspect on autopilot allowing the various entities to "self-regulate".

As time wore on, additional transfer and delegation of powers were implemented in other areas of the industry. One of the latest manifestations is the Ministers Delegate, Maintenance or MDM. An MDM can issue a C of A under certain conditions.

Some MDM are employed by the very airline that own the aircraft they are signing the C of A for. Can you say "Conflict of Interest"? I knew you could.

So these days the onus is primarily on the operators to provide proof that they are operating within their authorized scope and limitations. Transport Canada oversight is carefully doled out where there is just cause. Inspectors are careful not to overstep their bounds. Slimey operators sometimes slip through the cracks because they are able to narrow the window into their operation just enough to hide their crimes.

It's amazing to me that the most outspoken people here, the ones who are pinning the blame on TC, are the same ones who coach others on how to refuse inspectors access to their airplanes for spot inspections. The very same people who cry foul when they are grounded are looking for some TC inspector to hang for not grounding the outlaw operators.

And look at all the pilots coming out of the woodwork who are admitting they were PIC on several flights on aircraft they knew were unsafe. And this is all TC's fault?

Human factors training and SMS are the newest programs introduced by TC to help self-regulated operators to build and promote safe operating practices. How many threads have we seen where the same loud mouths condemn the programs?

So what will it be? Do you want to be responsible for your own actions or do you want TC to have a greater (and more intrusive) role in your operation? Where do you want the liability to lie?

My advice is be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:32 am

Great post CID!
I particularly liked this bit: "It's amazing to me that the most outspoken people here, the ones who are pinning the blame on TC, are the same ones who coach others on how to refuse inspectors access to their airplanes for spot inspections. The very same people who cry foul when they are grounded are looking for some TC inspector to hang for not grounding the outlaw operators.

And look at all the pilots coming out of the woodwork who are admitting they were PIC on several flights on aircraft they knew were unsafe."

I've been thinking exactly the same...
A short while ago, "common sense" was the buzz word of the day... "we don't need all the stinking regulations, we know when our airplanes are fit and when they're not!"...
But now it seems (quite naturally) that in the face of cruel realities, that several may be willing to admit that their own "common sense" isn't quite enough to keep unsafe machines and the necessities of remaining employed from putting them in peril... and the wishes for TC to help come trickling out...

I quite agree! Transport Canada should help. Pilots should all look at this latest senseless loss (*) as a trigger for immediate correction. Refuse to fly the machines you know aren't fit (even if only for "trivial" reasons). Welcome the TC inspectors who want to help you stay safe... Report any attempts to force you to fly an airplane that isn't airworthy, and make it known that you'll report any other pilots who do fly those machines with full knowledge of their unfit state.

If enough of you did so, it wouldn't take long to change things. The flying still needs to get done. If it costs a bit more to do, because the airplanes need some work, so be it!

* I'd like to offer my sincere condolences to all friends and family of those killed in this latest tragedy... and I truly hope your loss can manage to provide some value in becoming a catalyst for badly needed change in this end of our industry. Though I'm sure it's only a small consolation, with some effort, and a bit of luck, it seems quite possible to me that some lives will be saved as a result.

Mitch

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:41 am

CID, are you by any chance including me in this statement?

" It's amazing to me that the most outspoken people here, the ones who are pinning the blame on TC, are the same ones who coach others on how to refuse inspectors access to their airplanes for spot inspections. The very same people who cry foul when they are grounded are looking for some TC inspector to hang for not grounding the outlaw operators. "

Cat

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:52 am

Nothing no SMS or any other stupid program will fix the problem. The problem is doing a $1000.00 flight for $850.00. Fix that and everything else will come into line.

Good post though CID.

godsrcrazy · Post by **godsrcrazy** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:52 am

Anonymous1 wrote: One last thing about freighter contracts. This seems to cause no end of accidents at so many Canadian carriers, yet stateside they are some of the highest paid with many brand new aircraft and almost perfect safety records. A simple act of parliament to prohibit shipping companies from utilizing 3rd parties for their dirty work would do so much as FedEx/UPS/Purolator would have to treat their Canadian operations on par with their US counterparts if they want to fly freight in Canada.

You are kidding right. It has been awhile since I have been to the states. When I was there the Cargo airplanes were the crap of crap if you were not flying for the big guys like Fedex, Puralator, UPS etc. If you wish to discuss maintenance unless things have changed there when you became an AME you could sign out anything with no type rating or training.

As I said its been a while and things may have changed.Have you ever watched US registered aircraft be imported to Canada and the problems with unaproved mods and patches. Yet you can take a Canadian registered aircraft and do an import to the US in some cases the same day.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:53 am

Cat, I can't speak for CID obviously, but hell, if the shoes fit, put 'em on. If not... let it go man. This doesn't seem the time or place for your personal beefs about CID to be aired.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:59 am

Godsrcrazy... What the man said with regard to the specific courier companies he mentioned (FedEx, UPS and Purolator) is spot on. They're very well maintained airplanes and their employees are all well paid. It's when they contract their flying out that troubles begin to surface.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:02 am

If disregard for safety is as bad at this company as it is being made out, perhaps someone should contact the police or Crown Counsel rather than worrying about what TC will or will not do.

Knowingly placing the safety of employees and customers at undue risk was made a criminal offence in 2003 following the Westray mine disaster.

Bill C45 added section 217.1 to the criminal code and it can be applied to the corporation and/or the individual owners/officers/managers.

217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.a ... l=37&Ses=2