Enforcement TCCA Style

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The last issue of TCCA’s Aviation safety Letter contains a very interesting article written by Jean-Francois Mathiew, LL.B chief , Aviation Enforcement Standards, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada.

This article is a must read if you fly for a living in Canada under the regime this guy is in charge of.

Read it very carefully so you can grasp the message he is sending to every one of you.

The message is clear, you either comply with their demands or they will use the full power of the Aeronautics Act to deprive you of your ability to work as a pilot and support your family.

He relates what he and his ilk that work under him are capable of if you are seen to not comply with their demands.

I personally find his choice of a violation of CARS’s and the punishment the pilot was subjected to be disgusting considering the infraction the pilot was originally accused of.

If they can come down with that heavy a punishment for what was a relatively minor infraction of the rules just imagine what they might do if you were accused of something really serious.

Anyhow it makes for good reading if you wish to have a good look at what these people are capable of if you do not comply with their every demand.

By the way the section of the act that the pilots license was suspended under does not specify that TC "must " suspend the license…it states they " can ".

The fact that they can is not in question, it is the arrogance and condescending attitude of these people that I find very distressing. The way I read his article is if you do not do as they wish they will use the full force of law to punish you.

Well Mr. Jean-Francois Mathiew I would rather meet with a common street criminal than attend a so called informal meeting with one of your Regional Enforcement Managers.

I have experienced what happens when one tries to co-operate with a Regional Manager of Enforcement…I have more respect for the common street criminal when it comes to morals.

Sincerely:

Charles W. .

Canadian pilot license #AA38841

[brokenwing]

straight from the ministry of truth, don't piss off big brother, he's watching

[Chuck Ellsworth]

straight from the ministry of truth, don't piss off big brother, he's watching

Exactly.

However there is not much big brother can do to me any more..so fu.k big brother.

[visual approach]

Hey . you read the safety letter, now you have to pay the licensing fee

I wish my license number only had 5 digits! Guess thats a way of judging experience levels.

[Strega]

I want to kick "big brother" in the nuts

[small penguin]

If they can come down with that heavy a punishment for what was a relatively minor infraction of the rules just imagine what they might do if you were accused of something really serious.

I've seen speedings tickets for 475 dollars...

I've seen a hit and run (running a red light, killing the pedestrian) for 250 dollars, 6 demerit points, and 6 month licence suspension.. Or so I recall reading of a local accident a few years ago.

Sometimes the bigger infractions dont always carry an equally bigger penalty.

I'll make sure to read the article though.

[KAFUFO]

and 6 month licence suspension..

to bad he wasn't drunk it would have been three weeks

[200hr Wonder]

The problem is with CARs being so much convoluted BS if you wanted I am sure you could violate each and every flight on a technicality.

[C23flyer]

I personally find his choice of a violation of CARS’s and the punishment the pilot was subjected to be disgusting considering the infraction the pilot was originally accused of...(t)he fact that they can is not in question, it is the arrogance and condescending attitude of these people that I find very distressing. The way I read his article is if you do not do as they wish they will use the full force of law to punish you.

Default in payment

7.21 (1) The Minister may suspend, or refuse to issue, amend or renew, a Canadian aviation document if a certificate under section 7.92, paragraph 8(b) or subsection 8.1(4) has been issued to the Minister in respect of the applicant for, or the holder of, the document or in respect of the owner or operator of an aircraft, aerodrome, airport or other facility to which the document relates.

Isn't Mathieu simply giving legal guidance to pilots on what provisions are contained within the Aeronautics Act that may threaten a pilot's ability to continue flying legally? CAR 602.101 specifies the procedures for VFR operations in a MF area. The pilot in question, as the study is written, violates this reg. by landing at a MF aerodrome without making his intentions known. I'm not trying to be a smartass ., but is it the regulation you don't like or the enforcement of the regulation? What good are regulations if they don't have teeth? The pilot had an opportunity to appeal, but basically ignored the entire process until he received notice of suspension, which he was still able to avoid by making the payment. While this type of guidance might not be necessary for someone with your experience, it might be a useful reminder for a lot of young cowboys/girls who spend more time flying than reading. I really didn't get the sense that Mathieu was being condescending or arrogant, but I also don't have the history with TC that you have.

[Hedley]

The message is clear, you either comply with their demands or they will use the full power of the Aeronautics Act to deprive you of your ability to work as a pilot

No kidding. I pissed off Transport a few years back, and now
I am "banned for life" from ever performing at a Canadian
airshow. I can fly at airshows in the USA, Mexico, Carribean,
central america, south america, europe, asia or australia but
never, ever in the country that I am a citizen of, and pay taxes to.

This is pretty incredible, but is within the letter of the law of the
Aeronautics Act - Transport simply claims that it is "not in the public
interest" for me to fly at an airshow in Canada and denies the SFOC
issuance.

Jason Newburgh, a very personable and capable aerobatic pilot and
mechanic, was similarly driven out of Canada. He pissed of Transport
somehow, and paid the price - he had to leave Canada and try to
find work in another country.

Transport Canada considers it within their powers to disenfranchise
citizens, amazingly enough.

Most pilots never feel the wrath of Transport, and simply do
not understand what Transport is capable of doing, if they
personally dislike you for some reason.

[trey kule]

The problem is with CARs being so much convoluted BS if you wanted I am sure you could violate each and every flight on a technicality.

The ALPA did a study in about 2000 and found that virtually every commercial flight that took off had at least one item in non-compliance. And the FAA, compared to TC is a much kinder and more controlled agency.

I dont usually want to take the bait when Cat is on a TC tirade, but he is right here. For those who have not lived in Quecbec, the subtlety of threats is sometimes lost on them....like when the tanks rolled through on an "eercise" a few days before the last referendum.

There is no system of checks and balances in TC, despite what they may tell you...Let me rephrase that. There is not a system that works. It is why they can get away with an accident/incident rate that would have shut down any Canadian operator a long time ago. It is why they can protect their thugs and their implorable behavior.

And it is why you see lawyers in TC's management.

Which brings me to the end of my coffee induced, Saturday rant.......pay attention. If you pop up on their radar you are doomed. Unless, of course you are willling to allow your rights to be violated, put up with their bullying, and have the money to take on a monster that fights for vengence, not truth.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Isn't Mathieu simply giving legal guidance to pilots on what provisions are contained within the Aeronautics Act that may threaten a pilot's ability to continue flying legally?

I have never met Mathieu, he is nothing more than another employee of TC that is in a position of power within the system that is supposed to work for the citizens of Canada.

Reading his article one can only come to the conclusion that it is written in a deliberate tone to intimidate the industry.

Where in his article do you see any indication that his intent is anything other than to use fear of what he can do to cow you into submitting to whatever demand he makes.....you will note he clearly pointed out that the pilot in his story did not meet with the " Regional Manager, Aviation Enforcement " for " an informal meeting "

If you go to one of their " informal meetings " you had better have an experienced aviation lawyer with you to protect your rights because you are playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in the cylinder if you trust these people to deal with you in a fair and legal manner.

Mr. Mathieu of course can explain his position and refute my opinion on what his intent was when he wrote that article and at the same time explain why we should trust him and his troops.

If someone can find his e-mail address I will e-mail him and ask him to come on Avcanada and refute my fears.

Have any of you ever appealed to their " Quality Assurance " department?

Judging by the results I received from " Quality Assurance " you should be afraid, very afraid of any of these people..be very afraid because that are not what they claim to be....fair and honest...they are anything but.

[CD]

.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Which brings me to the end of my coffee induced, Saturday rant.......pay attention. If you pop up on their radar you are doomed. Unless, of course you are willling to allow your rights to be violated, put up with their bullying, and have the money to take on a monster that fights for vengence, not truth.

No one has the money to defend their rights from these moral degenerates for the simple reason they have at their disposal a bottomless pit of your tax money.

They are worse than the tyrants who plunder and starve the population in many African countries.

For no other reason than they were protecting a few of their own who had acted outside of the law they destroyed my business and my right to work in aviation in my own country.

To make matters even more incredible the Director General, Transport Canada reneged on his word that he gave me in front of witnesses in my own home.

He told me that if his investigation into my allegations against some of TC's top people proved to be true he would see to it that I was compensated for the losses I had suffered at the hands of said TC people.

My allegations were proven to be true after one and a half years of waiting for them to finish the investigation....to this day I have received not a penny from them.

The amount agreed upon was $250,000.00 tax free.

Can't you people see the truth when it is in front of your eyes.....

...don't you know that if what I have told you was not true they would have been all over me like lice on a dog?

For Christ sake this forum is read by people all over the world, these pricks have hundreds of lawyers and you know they read these forums.....

What more proof do you need?

[C23flyer]

Peter’s commercial pilot licence —helicopter had been suspended for non-payment of a monetary penalty, and the suspension would remain in effect until the monetary penalty was paid in full. - from Matheiu's article

In my view, the meeting with the Regional Manager was an invitation for the pilot to discuss the violation and the resolution of the suspension, given that he had not responded in any way to the fine that was levied.

I haven't had the chance to research on these forums all the specifics of individual members' encounters with TC, but I will do that. It doesn't help me to form an opinion based on the statement that someone pissed off TC. I'm getting the sense from . and Hedley that TC was incorrect in their treatment of your cases, or they did not exercise compassion and leniency - not sure which. But I'll start searching the threads. If you've been exonerated ., then your situation should have been remedied right away.

What I got from the article was that if I violate a CAR, and if I am assessed a penalty which I continue to ignore i.e. non-payment or not accepting an invitation to discuss the penalty with the RMA, then my license will be suspended until the fine is paid. This is pretty much the same way the MTO and the police use the Highway Traffic Act in Ontario.

You may have plentiful reasons to take issue with TC, but I don't think this little article (six paragraphs) is one of them.

[small penguin]

., a tape recorder or similar digital device would have done you wonders I think.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You may have plentiful reasons to take issue with TC, but I don't think this little article (six paragraphs) is one of them.

And what exactly is your background to make that evaluation of my opinions regarding their enforcement tactics?

In my view, the meeting with the Regional Manager was an invitation for the pilot to discuss the violation and the resolution of the suspension, given that he had not responded in any way to the fine that was levied.

Is it written in the act that you must expose your self to one of their enforcement people?

I'm getting the sense from . and Hedley that TC was incorrect in their treatment of your cases, or they did not exercise compassion and leniency - not sure which. But I'll start searching the threads. If you've been exonerated ., then your situation should have been remedied right away.

I was not exonerated.

To reach that conclusion you would have to determine that the victim of a criminal act was exonerated when the perpetrator of the crime was convicted of having committed the act on the victim.

That way of thinking is goofy.

Do you think Mr. Mathieu will come here on avcanada and explain what he meant in his article and put to rest my fears?

Do you think he should?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

., a tape recorder or similar digital device would have done you wonders I think.

Small Penguin, not only did I have tape recordings I had witnesses including a journalist to back up my evidence.....but my silver bullet was a letter signed by Merlin Preuss that left no doubt as to how dishonest and morally corrupt the system is...what better proof do you need than having one of these morons put it in writing and sign their name to it?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm getting the sense from . and Hedley that TC was incorrect in their treatment of your cases, or they did not exercise compassion and leniency - not sure which.

I am stunned by the lack of understanding of how TC works when it suits their agenda of the moment...simply stunned...my mind can not connect the dots trying to find some example of how TC shows compassion and leniency towards anyone they are dealing with if you are not seen to be " On side " or even worse seen to be a danger to their good old boys club in Ottawa and the regional offices.

The closest I can come to imagining how TC shows compassion is a pedophile priest stroking and kissing a boy as he sodomizes him, yeh , that is showing " compassion "

[87Strat]

I'm curious as to what type of Enforcement would be the most effective then? My understanding is that Canada is an ICAO signatory, which means that in order to play in the aviation world, it must have an enforcement program.

How would you guys suggest TC enforce the rules, keeping in mind the above, that it MUST enforce it's own regulations? Here's a question: Would you rather have pilot's enforcing the regulations, or ex-cops? Or maybe a person with neither background? Both?

Now don't get me wrong, but I've been reading this forum for a long time, and I'm not sure TC telling a pilot who may have broken the rules "We understand you're a professional, so please don't do that again", would be effective in some cases.

Somebody else explained it here, but I think all Mathieu was doing is trying to remind pilots how easily s*it could get out of control for something that was relatively minor, not because of heavy handedness, but because the Aeronautics Act, which was passed by Government, not Mathieu. It's a good reminder to not dismiss this stuff without at least trying to see it's about, and then retain a lawyer if required.

[Wilbur]

Give your head a shake .. If the case cited in this article simply outlines the legal process. It doubt it has any similiarity at all with your personal issue with TC, becaue if it does, you don't have a complaint.

This is a straight forward case of somebody being accused of an infraction, and then ignorning the process through either ignorance or the rules or fundemental thinking errors. His licence didn't get suspended because of landing at an MF aerodrome without making radio contact. It got suspended because he was ignorning the legal process.

1. He may or may not have actually violated CAR 602.101. However, he de facto plead guilty by not responding to the allegation within the prescribed time limits. Thinking error number 1 - "They can't do anything to me if I ignore them."
2. Thinking error number 2 - "I'll ignore this invitation for an informal meeting." Had he met, and I would recommend doing so with legal counsel, the issue may have been resolved.
3. Thinking error number 3 - "I won't file for a review hearing with the Tribunal." Had he done so, the issue may have been resolved.
4. Thinking error number 4 - "I'll ignore this fine." Every law or regulation in the land that carries monetary penalties for violation, also contains provisions to further sanction those who don't pay. In the case of the aeronautics act, it's a requirement that you surrender your licence.

The process for dealing with non-payment of fines is normally fairly automated with most regulatory agencies. If you don't pay by the required date, a few days later a form letter notice is automatically generated and sent to you. The "may take action" provisions in regualtions of this type allows the regulating agency to exercise discretion and grant exemptions in unique cases. For example, if he got hit by a bus, was in a comma, and wasn't capable of responding to the process. It does not require them to evaluate each individual case before initiating action. The burden of asking the agency to use their "may" provisions lies primarily with the accused.

[marktheone]

. if you conduct yourself in an appropriate fashion both sides (TC and Operators, pilots, however) are bound by the CARS. You know they can't make shit up right?

Mark

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm curious as to what type of Enforcement would be the most effective then? My understanding is that Canada is an ICAO signatory, which means that in order to play in the aviation world, it must have an enforcement program.

An even handed fair enforcement not perverted by any considerations other than ensuring the law is respected.

That would be a start.

What we have is a dysfunctional system enforced at the whim of individual TC employees....a good example is their " informal " talks they have with those who are accused of a violation of the rules.

I can attest to the fact that should you fall into that trap and play their game you may just be in for a unpleasant surprise after it is finished and you walk away thinking you did the right thing.

But even more important is how they fail to enforce the rules when their own operate outside of the rules.

Will Mathieu come on Avcanada to put these fears to rest?

Should he?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Give your head a shake .. If the case cited in this article simply outlines the legal process. It doubt it has any similiarity at all with your personal issue with TC, becaue if it does, you don't have a complaint.

Give my head a shake?

I don't have the right to question their tactics and the way in which they interact with their clients? Is Canada now a dictatorship ruled by the chosen few?

My personal issue with them was quite clear cut, it was not me who was doing something wrong, it was several of theirs.

The final result was I was punished, their people were not punished in any way...well except for the one inspector who suddenly " resigned " from TC two days after the DG left my home having seen the affidavit I produced concerning the actions of said inspector....

The DG's comment after reading it was it was a criminal matter and not his concern.

You claim to be working in the justice system somewhere Wilbur, therefore you must be conversant with the law concerning liable.

So how come they do not charge me?

Give your head a shake.

[Bank Angle]

Years ago, TC Enforcement called me because they were investigating an accusation against me by another pilot stating that I had purposely steered/aimed towards their aircraft in flight. I had an "informal" meeting to explain my side of the story (in brief I never saw the other aircraft, who's pilot never made any radio calls for the area), followed by a letter from my student to support my statements. A few months later I got a letter back from them stating that they had finished their investigation and I was exonerated from the accusation with only a reminder to keep a good lookout. Although obviously a stressful experience, the system seemed to work fine in my experience. I didn't have a lawyer present but did have a reputable witness to support my case and would probably recommend at least one or the other. And as far as their "friendly" reminder, believe me, I've had enough close calls in my career to remember that you can never look out too much or make to many position reports!

p.s. At the end I was only pissed off at the other pilot for making the accusation while himself obviously not taking all precautionary measures to avoid the situation (ie. making proper radio calls for the area).