Comprehensive BC safety study

[marktheone]

Here's a link for a VERY comprehensive study done by TC. Lot of reading but I would say that it worth it. I'm sure while reading it . you'll get all worked up and spit out your false teeth. LOL. All joking aside what I take from it the fact that there is useful information with respect to potentially recognizing potential pitfalls in the operations that we all conduct. Read away!!

http://www.tc.gc.ca:80/civilaviation/sy ... y/menu.htm

Mark

[Widow]

Hey thanks! What a co-incidence that this should pop up on line just days after I sent these requests to TCCA:

8. On the 14th of August, 2005, CBC News reported that Transport Canada was “reviewing the safety of floatplanes following some serious accidents”. Can you please confirm that this review was performed and advise how the results are available to the public?

9. On March 18, 2006, the Victoria “Times Columnist” reported that Transport Canada had “ordered a ‘full review’ of B.C.'s beleaguered air-taxi industry in the wake of the deaths of 14 people in six accidents over the past 13 months.” This was verified in DGCA Merlin Preuss’ speech at the CASS (2006) in Halifax on April 26, 2006. Would you please advise how the results of this review are available to the public?

I don't suppose you've seen anything on the floatplane study?

I'm off to read now ....

[marktheone]

No prob. I have seen nothing regarding float planes. That is a segment of the industry I have no involvement with.

After reading that study I would not agree that the industry is beleaugerd. (Spelling?) It appears mostly to have been a rash of "bad luck" without being able to say it was a lack of oversight. I think no matter how many dollars are thrown at it the only way to prevent all accidents is to park the aircraft. As much as I would love to hang it on TC it is not possible given that study. Fact remains that it is the operators responsibility.

And SMS is crap. For the record. Industry does require oversight, not more paperwork. Paper is not oversight and never will be.

[Cat Driver]

I'm sure while reading it . you'll get all worked up and spit out your false teeth. LOL.

Not really Marktheone.

I have been reading the stuff they churn out for 55 years.

For me the bottom line is credibility.

The authors of that " Study " can best be judged for credibility by researching some of their " Studies " when they are studying their own performance.

They will rig the results to suit their own agenda, even if it requires falsifying the documents.

With a little searching in the right place you may find some of that type of work by Nowzek and his boys that have been conveniently buried here in this region.

Without credible people in charge of these " Studies " the results are suspect.

[marktheone]

I would disagree with you there .. I don't think the conspiracy runs that deep. That study was done by people no involved with TC management and those that did it would be more concerned with false results than Nowzek's opinion or anyone elses. In a nutshell they punch in and out everyday.

[Cat Driver]

I would disagree with you there .. I don't think the conspiracy runs that deep. That study was done by people no involved with TC management and those that did it would be more concerned with false results than Nowzek's opinion or anyone elses. In a nutshell they punch in and out everyday.

O.K. Marktheone that is fair comment if you wish to take the position that those who run TCCA live in vacuums from region to region and Ottawa to the regions.

If we are to believe these reports are done with no interaction with the people who are in upper management such as Nowzek then you may have a valid point.

I believe you are in management of a charter company in Vancouver are you not?

If you are truly interested in just how these people work lets get together so I can produce some factual evidence of perversion of the rules by these people that in the world you and I live in would result in possible jail time for outright dishonesty in falsifying documents to screw some of their own people.

If they can do that to their own, how can you feel content trusting them as an outsider yourself?

Unless of course you are an insider..so to speak.

[Widow]

I'm going to begin by objecting to this paragraph found in the Conclusion:

The SATOPS Task Force developed 71 recommendations, most of which have been implemented. Following that, the accident rate in the air taxi sector improved. This study found that several of the hazards identified during SATOPS were not present now. It cannot be stated that SATOPS lowered the accident rate, but it is likely that SATOPS, the transition from the Air Navigation Orders to the Canadian Aviation Regulations, and other progress in the industry, combined to better manage risks and lower the accident rate.

Considering that flight training services make up a large percentage of the annual accident statistics, and that:

"Before 1999, flight training services were classified as air taxi but are now classified in the private/corporate/state aeroplane category. " (Source: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/stats/air/2005/ ... int_view=1)

I can't help but wonder if air taxi accident rates have IN FACT improved. Has this change been recognized in the analysis?

Furthermore, the statement that most of the SATOPs recommendations have been implemented does not match the analysis done here: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 25&t=32230 and in the ensuing threads.

Considering that the TSB does not thoroughly investigate all accidents (fatal or otherwise), that TC does not necessarily investigate those not investigated by TSB, and that despite the SATOPs recommendation, management factors which may have contributed to an accident are often NOT reported on ...

How valid is this study? Knowing what I know about previous TCCA studies, and the information gathered which was then hidden from public view, as do others, how can we help but be mistrustful of the source?

[Cat Driver]

widow, what do you think it costs the tax payer for these " Studies "

I have a pretty good idea what it cost us for the effort put into the internal investigations that resulted from the inquests into the sodomizing of a couple of TC inspectors in the Pacific Region...and the resulting appeal which the TC sodomizers lost.

But of course we don't want to dwell on such unimportant issues do we.

Naw, good little Canadians only need lots of the TCCA lube applied regularly as they dutifully take it with their eyes tightly closed.

[Widow]

Well, for instance, the DMR report, which was a "precursor" to this report and due to be released on September 12, 2001, was deemed a failed document and never published. It cost in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million. (see thread: http://www.avcanada.ca//forums2/viewtop ... 54&t=31422)

[Cat Driver]

I wonder what the " Bonita Smith " report cost?

I know what it cost to bury it because I was dealing with the so called Regional Director, Pacific Region Transport Canada at the time and he went into a real temper tantrum when a I produced the actual report before Nowzek and the boys got it buried. He went really spastic when I refused to tell him how I came by a report he didn't have.

I really miss dealing with those people because catching them trying to distort reality was so easy and the results was like pulling wings off flies.

He almost died of high blood pressure when I told him the reason he didn't know what was going on was he was probably to dense to understand the issues anyhow

By the way it was really interesting in reading Nowzeks comments regarding said report where he said.

We must not dwell on the past we must deal with the future....or something to that effect.

Slippery SOB isn't he?

[Widow]

Here's a snippet:

Forty-four of the fixed-wing aircraft were single-engined aircraft, while 14 were multi-engined aircraft. The majority of fixed-wing aircraft were on floats (33) and 21 were on wheels.

Now, considering that the majority of fixed-wing aircraft that operate commercially are on wheels, it should be a matter of great concern that the majority of accidents were for float-equipped aircraft. Makes you wonder what happened to the floatplane safety study, doesn't it?

Another concern comes to me from this:

Twenty-eight percent (of unsafe acts leading to the accident) were undetermined due to limited data availability (Class 5 accident reports).

Knowing the type of error involved helps to identify the factors that led to the unsafe act.

Another reason why the TSB Occurence Classification Policy isn't good enough.

[marktheone]

I would disagree with you there .. I don't think the conspiracy runs that deep. That study was done by people no involved with TC management and those that did it would be more concerned with false results than Nowzek's opinion or anyone elses. In a nutshell they punch in and out everyday.

O.K. Marktheone that is fair comment if you wish to take the position that those who run TCCA live in vacuums from region to region and Ottawa to the regions.

They do to some degree live in vacuums. The regulatory environment in Prarie and Northern is much different than Pacific. More what I meant by that is that the people doing the report couldn't give a shit what Nowzek may of may not have to say. Likely they were commisioned from Ottawa likely with the hope of finding holes in their programs. I truly believe that they are trying to make improvements. After all that is what they are hired to do.

Widow, float planes generally have a higher accident rate than wheeled aircraft. Again, I'm not a float guy but I think it is inherrently a little trickier and they do not have the benefit of going IFR. Wheeled aircraft if we miss not a big deal. We go somewhere where the Wx is better and get there a lot quicker too. Reduces exposure time. Also generally there is a second engine unlike a Beaver.

[ScudRunner]

Here's a snippet:

Forty-four of the fixed-wing aircraft were single-engined aircraft, while 14 were multi-engined aircraft. The majority of fixed-wing aircraft were on floats (33) and 21 were on wheels.

Now, considering that the majority of fixed-wing aircraft that operate commercially are on wheels, it should be a matter of great concern that the majority of accidents were for float-equipped aircraft. Makes you wonder what happened to the floatplane safety study, doesn't it?

This doesn't concern me at all, Floats planes and pilots deal with more variables (weather, tides, swells, etc etc) all are operated VFR and the majority fly low level and operate in remote area's without consistant WX reports and ever changing conditions especially on the west coast. Wheel pilots have runways and approaches, WX reports, you fly down to Mins and go to your alternate if you don't see anything. no chance of hitting a dead head on the runway (unless your in Shamattawa) All the float plane "study" will say is exactly that commercial float flying is inhearantly riskier than wheeled IFR operations. And just wasted 10 million dollars on a study that everyone knew the results already, but the politicians can now say they are doing something about it.

[Widow]

Conversely, I see some issues with the floatplane industry. The adequacy of training for instance. The way floats are not always treated with the "respect" that landing gear deserves. The very fact that, because it is, as you say, inherently more dangerous supports the idea that more attention should be paid to making it safer. The fact that the Transportation Safety Board claims they do not have the expertise to determine how float condition may contribute to accident severity is in itself a concern.

The question isn't whether floatplanes are riskier, but what can be done to mitigate those risks.

[Cat Driver]

Marktheone I used Nowzek as an example of the quality of report you will get after he has had a chance to skew it to make it look better for his office.

I was responding to this part of widows posts.

8. On the 14th of August, 2005, CBC News reported that Transport Canada was “reviewing the safety of floatplanes following some serious accidents”. Can you please confirm that this review was performed and advise how the results are available to the public?

9. On March 18, 2006, the Victoria “Times Columnist” reported that Transport Canada had “ordered a ‘full review’ of B.C.'s beleaguered air-taxi industry in the wake of the deaths of 14 people in six accidents over the past 13 months.” This was verified in DGCA Merlin Preuss’ speech at the CASS (2006) in Halifax on April 26, 2006. Would you please advise how the results of this review are available to the public?

It would be reasonable to assume that the Pacific Region would be front and center in examining float plane safety.

It is obvious that widow like me has issues with trying to get answers from the regulator and the last time I looked Nowzek was the top bureaucrat in this region, for sure he interfaces with Preuss on these matters.

So using Nowzek as an example of what is wrong with the system would be fair comment in my opinion.....

The Pacific Region has the reputation of being the worst managed in Canada.

However if there are other regions that are managed worse I'm all ears to hear about them.

[marktheone]

TC always has to be very careful not to cross the line between advice and answers. It could be part of your problem . was that you felt you were asking for answers when in actual fact you were looking for advice. Is that possible?

[Widow]

You can have a little re-read of the Five Deaths Demand Justice thread to see how adept Nowzek and his cronies are at NOT answering direct questions.

[Cat Driver]

TC always has to be very careful not to cross the line between advice and answers. It could be part of your problem . was that you felt you were asking for answers when in actual fact you were looking for advice. Is that possible?

Marktheone no that is not even remotely possible.

I have never ever in any context asked TCCA under Dave Nowzek's term as Regional Director for advice in any context unless you want to consider asking the Regional Manager M&M to confirm the meaning of a specific CAR.

In that instance the Regional Manager M&M confirmed that my interpertation of the said CAR was correct.

Nowzek phoned me two days prior to a meeting that was requested by Art LaFlamme to ask me if there was anything that either me or my lawyer wished to have added to the agenda of issues to be solved in the upcoming meeting my reply was no. However I did specifically ask Dave if the issue surrounding the CAR in question would be dealt with as per the letter I had from the Director of M&M.

Dave answered in the positive and assured me that would happen.

The meeting ended in chaos when Dave retracted his promise regarding the CAR and stated that the CAR did not in fact mean what it said.....my lawyer pointed out that he was acting directly opposite to what he had agreed to both in his phone call and his confirming that his Director of M&M had given me the correct answer to my question in writing and signed by said M&M manager.

By the way there were four of the top TCCA managers at that meeting and me and my lawyer.


That Marktheone was only one issue that Dave lied to me about, there were other issues where he was either totally incompetent or a pathological liar or both.

Therefore with that kind of person in the top management position in TCCA in this region backed up by people like Preuss who actively supported such behavior after LaFlamme left is it any wonder that I think the system is corrupt?

Remember I have sufficient proof of these allegations including the fact that Preuss knew exactly what had transpired and still supported Nowzek that these two cockroaches do not dare to charge me with lible.

[Widow]

Six hazard and risk factors isolated in the SATOPS study were seen in the potential factors in the current study:

Deficiency in TC-industry communication;
Inadequacies in inspection activities;
Inadequacies in training regulations;
Training deficiencies;
Operational pressure; and
Worker fatigue.

Subject matter experts should reassess the risks associated with these factors once they have been substantiated through other data sources.

???