RAIC application refusal

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Do you think I will receive a RAIC?

Poll runs till Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:11 pm

YES
14
56%
NO
6
24%
I need more information
5
20%
 
Total votes: 25

Message
Author
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: RAIC application refusal

#26 Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:08 am

Heliian wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:57 am
You can still work without a RAIC, you just have to be escorted by someone with the proper RAIC. Employers make it a requirement so they don't have to babysit you.
Foreign crews that come to Canada do not have a RAIC. They go through screenings like passengers do and go on the ramp to do a walkaround, without a RAIC.
When our crew members loose their RAICs while on a trip, they just go to the counter, get a boarding pass, and go through screening as a passenger would do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC application refusal

#27 Post by cncpc » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 pm

A few years ago, I was the company nominee to an airport users committee. I remember seeing correspondence where there was a concern by airport management that some companies which actually had no need for RAIC's were requiring them not for need, but as a means of determining whether an employee had a criminal record. That seemed to be a practice that was frowned upon, given that the circumstances where a criminal record, standing alone, is a legitimate selection tool are very limited. The primary examples seem to be medivacs, court flying, and border crossing.

This particular airport didn't like the practice because it unnecessarily created extra work for them in doing needless RAIC work administration.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

Bushman1515
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:28 pm

Re: RAIC application refusal

#28 Post by Bushman1515 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:37 pm

Hey
This issue is a very tough one for me. I have some serious criminal charges in my passed for which I have done time for and not been granted a pardon. I am now at the point in my career where I would like to leave the bush and start flying down south somewhere but I know getting a RAIC pass with armed robbery and drug trafficking charges won't be easy. So I decided I would be upfront with any employers during the time of my interview and I found that my biggest problem with having a criminal record is trying to get into the states for sin training on some of the larger AC. I myself haven't applied for a RAIC because I heard you must wait 5 years after a refusal, so I'm personally waiting till I'm closer to my pardon. I am curious to know tho how man guys there are out there with charges as serious as mine with a RAIC... I take it not to many but I stay positive in the fact that iv made it this far.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Bushman1515
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:28 pm

Re: RAIC application refusal

#29 Post by Bushman1515 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:46 pm

Hey
This issue is a very tough one for me. I have some serious criminal charges in my passed for which I have done time for and not been granted a pardon. I am now at the point in my career where I would like to leave the bush and start flying down south somewhere but I know getting a RAIC pass with armed robbery and drug trafficking charges won't be easy. So I decided I would be upfront with any employers during the time of my interview and I found that my biggest problem with having a criminal record is trying to get into the states for sin training on some of the larger AC. I myself haven't applied for a RAIC because I heard you must wait 5 years after a refusal, so I'm personally waiting till I'm closer to my pardon. I am curious to know tho how man guys there are out there with charges as serious as mine with a RAIC... I take it not to many but I stay positive in the fact that iv made it this far.
---------- ADS -----------
  

YVR_pushpull12
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:40 pm

Re: RAIC application refusal

#30 Post by YVR_pushpull12 » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:43 pm

-
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by YVR_pushpull12 on Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC application refusal

#31 Post by cncpc » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:26 pm

YVR_pushpull12 wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:43 pm
cncpc wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 pm
A few years ago, I was the company nominee to an airport users committee. I remember seeing correspondence where there was a concern by airport management that some companies which actually had no need for RAIC's were requiring them not for need, but as a means of determining whether an employee had a criminal record. That seemed to be a practice that was frowned upon, given that the circumstances where a criminal record, standing alone, is a legitimate selection tool are very limited. The primary examples seem to be medivacs, court flying, and border crossing.

This particular airport didn't like the practice because it unnecessarily created extra work for them in doing needless RAIC work administration.
I have heard of this tactic being used before to circumvent the background check being done by the company. It also allows the company to release any liability on there end for not hiring someone based off a criminal record.

Pretty sure it is against the charter of rights and freedoms to discriminate against someone with a criminal record. Not 100% sure though.
I think there will always be times when a recent criminal record may be a valid reason for denying employment. For instance, getting into a police force, access to narcotics, need to cross borders, and a few other things. Also, it obviously depends on the offense and whether there is a genuine danger to the public.

However, I think that what has been lost sight of is the fact that when an offender has served the sentence of the law, he or she has no less rights than a person with no record. The state no longer punishes that person. In fact, in a recent BC Court ruling, the Harper hardline changes authored in 2012 by Vic Toews, the babysitter diddler, were struck down as being in violation of the Charter provision which says that once a person is punished, they cannot be punished again. That judge ruled that there is collateral punishment that includes the ability of employers to force revelation of a criminal record. Pardons were meant to curtail that collateral punishment and the effect of the Toews shitshow was to make it harder to gain a paradon and stop that quite arbitrary punishment, doled out by employers. The retrospective provisions were struck down.

Society has a powerful interest in rehabilitation. We differ immensely from the United States, where one conviction almost mandates an entire lifetime of trying to earn a living outside the law, or at the bottom scale of legal incomes. We have a common sense and economic interest in rehabilitation and stopping, case by case, a return to crime by individuals. Nothing flies in the face of that societal goal more strongly and destructively than the denial of employment by employers, who clearly want all the benefits of society, without bearing some of the responsibility by being agents for rehabilitation.

Every person who gains employment after a conviction, who is able to earn a living and support a family through legal means, is one less person the rest of us are paying $100 grand a year to keep in prison. In many cases, these people are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, who have no intention ever to return to unlawful lifestyles. It says as much about a manager who schemes to deny employment based on criminal record as it does about the person with the record. Of which may be the most antisocial, I'd say the manager has to wear that label. Not in all cases, because some people seeking work may be actively pursuing a criminal lifestyle.

Many countries in the world do not allow employment discrimination based on record. In fact, criminal records cannot be released even to the offender. In others, what is effectively a pardon issues automatically after a set period, usually five to ten years. That is now under consideration in Canada.

As far as a RAIC goes, there are very few offenses that make the offender a risk to aviation security.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6534
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: RAIC application refusal

#32 Post by photofly » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:21 am

As far as a RAIC goes, there are very few offenses that make the offender a risk to aviation security.
That’s a bold statement.

What’s your evidence or expertise to support it?
I think there will always be times when a recent criminal record may be a valid reason for denying employment. For instance, getting into a police force, access to narcotics, need to cross borders, and a few other things.
... but not access to secure areas of airports?
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6534
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: RAIC application refusal

#33 Post by photofly » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:22 am

...
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC application refusal

#34 Post by cncpc » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:45 am

photofly wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:21 am
As far as a RAIC goes, there are very few offenses that make the offender a risk to aviation security.
That’s a bold statement.

What’s your evidence or expertise to support it?
I think there will always be times when a recent criminal record may be a valid reason for denying employment. For instance, getting into a police force, access to narcotics, need to cross borders, and a few other things.
... but not access to secure areas of airports?
It's not a bold statement.

Aviation security as the public understands it means securing aircraft from any reasonable, forseeable possibility than someone will act with the intent to endanger an aircraft and its passengers. It implies an assessment by rational fair minded people balancing the societal concerns that may conflict, i.e. genuine security vs. the right to employment. It is not about fantasy fears that may seem to be outside the window to a Trump supporter.

Canada has codified the acts that endanger the security of an aircraft in section 77 of the Criminal Code. These are the only offences that Canada's Parliament has defined in respect of security of an aircraft:

Endangering safety of aircraft or airport
77 Every one who

(a) on board an aircraft in flight, commits an act of violence against a person that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft,

(b) using a weapon, commits an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil aviation that causes or is likely to cause serious injury or death and that endangers or is likely to endanger safety at the airport,

(c) causes damage to an aircraft in service that renders the aircraft incapable of flight or that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight,

(d) places or causes to be placed on board an aircraft in service anything that is likely to cause damage to the aircraft, that will render it incapable of flight or that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft in flight,

(e) causes damage to or interferes with the operation of any air navigation facility where the damage or interference is likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft in flight,

(f) using a weapon, substance or device, destroys or causes serious damage to the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or to any aircraft not in service located there, or causes disruption of services of the airport, that endangers or is likely to endanger safety at the airport, or

(g) endangers the safety of an aircraft in flight by communicating to any other person any information that the person knows to be false,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

All I really know about this pass denial thing is what I know from reading news reports in the papers and the discussion on here. but I can say that any reasonable person would think that an effective denial of employment should be bsed on clear evidence that links a RAIC applicant to some behaviour that warns of a real possibility of one of these above offences being committed through access to a secure area.

Yes, I didn't specifically state "...access to secure areas of an airport" because that is what this thread is about.

It is worth saying that what we are talking about here is airline employees working in the terminal and on the ramp, including pilots. My comments relate to the civil liberties issues that arise from the way some of those people have been treated in the pass approval process.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6534
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: RAIC application refusal

#35 Post by photofly » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:08 pm

cncpc wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:45 am
Aviation security as the public understands it means securing aircraft from any reasonable, forseeable possibility than someone will act with the intent to endanger an aircraft and its passengers. It implies an assessment by rational fair minded people balancing the societal concerns that may conflict, i.e. genuine security vs. the right to employment.
Tell me more about the right to employment in a secure area. I’ve not heard of it previously.

Your argument appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t rational or fair, because if they were they’d agree with you.

You might be correct about who deserves a RAIC pass and who doesn’t, but there’s not much to convince anyone that your judgement is better than those people who society charges to make those decisions on a professional basis.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: RAIC application refusal

#36 Post by cncpc » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:22 pm

photofly wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:08 pm
cncpc wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:45 am
Aviation security as the public understands it means securing aircraft from any reasonable, forseeable possibility than someone will act with the intent to endanger an aircraft and its passengers. It implies an assessment by rational fair minded people balancing the societal concerns that may conflict, i.e. genuine security vs. the right to employment.
Tell me more about the right to employment in a secure area. I’ve not heard of it previously.

Your argument appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t rational or fair, because if they were they’d agree with you.

You might be correct about who deserves a RAIC pass and who doesn’t, but there’s not much to convince anyone that your judgement is better than those people who society charges to make those decisions on a professional basis.
I take it that you are one of "...those people who society charges to make those decisions on a professional basis"?

Thanks for your input. Whatever it was.

There are many, many people who question who question these "professionals". That's why some of these decisions make the news.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: RAIC application refusal

#37 Post by confusedalot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:33 am

The fact that charges were withdrawn does not matter since the rcmp will fork over any information that they have on you, and that information is there forever. As someone previously indicated, even if the ex hubby who decided to join a street gang is no longer in your life, for example, you will be denied a raic, since, in transport canada's judgement, you lack reliability and judgement since you have partnered up with that sort of person in the first place, rendering you an unreliable person. There are lots of different cases out there on the internet that make your head shake.

It will all depend on the subjective decision that ''the minister'', meaning a handful of low to mid level public servants, are completely free to make. Hope you don't have a problem though.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: RAIC application refusal

#38 Post by RatherBeFlying » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:34 pm

The aforementioned National Post article describes:

Any police encounter that puts a RAIC holder's name into CPIC will be on the desk of the RAIC head the next morning.

A big concern is smuggling, understandable given the opportunities in freight and baggage handling. Cleaners can quietly pick up a package left in an arriving aircraft.

Coworkers of anybody caught smuggling can expect to see mass RAIC revocations.

Very few folks are successful appealing a RAIC revocation or denial.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: RAIC application refusal

#39 Post by confusedalot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:41 pm

The obvious issues like smuggling, harm to persons, etc......are quite understandable. That sort of stuff will show up in police files right away and you won't get a pass in the first place.

But transport has gone a helluva lot further than that in their assessment of what constitutes a threat. Basically, you have to be beyond any sort of reproach in order to be deemed harmless. (be a priest and keep your pants on)

They use the word ''may'' often. As in, you ''may'' do this or you ''may'' do that. They also like the notion of judgement. If you exibited a lack of judgement, you are automatically deemed to be unreliable, and since you are unreliable, here goes......you ''may'' do something to interfere with aviation safety.

Heard of a guy who was caught up in a bar fight and suddenly he was deemed a threat to safety, took his pass away.

Crazy I know, but it is what it is. the raic pass is considered a privilege and not a right, it is issued by the good graces of the government of canada, and they can take it away any time for whatever reason they feel like. And it appears like any minor fault makes you a problem.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”