Chuck: can you tell us what your TC scuffle was actually about? I've read all the posts I could find by you, but I'm still somewhat in the dark. I gather that you were assigned a TC inspector who you had a personal issue with. That inspector then brought up some potential CARS violation which you disputed, but you've never said what it was actually about. Care to elaborate?
Of course I can.Chuck: can you tell us what your TC scuffle was actually about? I've read all the posts I could find by you, but I'm still somewhat in the dark. I gather that you were assigned a TC inspector who you had a personal issue with. That inspector then brought up some potential CARS violation which you disputed, but you've never said what it was actually about. Care to elaborate?
But first I want to get something clear, I see this has already started to show signs of it becoming just my story and thus maybe a bit fuzzy.....
What I am relating is factual backed up by the legal system finding in my favour North Shore.
When you see how it started it will be obvious why I won my suit against them and why the Government had no choice but to award me a fair settlement to pay for the losses caused to me and my company.
It had zero to do with any CARS violations I have never had a CARS violation filed against me, it had to do with the actions of an inspector assigned to my application for a FTU-OC.
I had applied for a FTU-OC and as part of the application requirements I had listed the assets I had to start the application.
For aircraft I had two Cessna 150's one was a regular C150 and the other was a Cessna Aerobat that I had converted to a Texas Taildragger that I was using for tail wheel training in my spare time.
The conversion was done under a STC and had been approved and flying for several years.
I received a phone call from the inspector assigned to my file and he started off the conversation by telling me he would not accept the Tail wheel Aerobat because it was not a Cessna 150 anymore.
I said have you checked the C of A and read the STC that was part of it.
He said his decision was final and the Aerobat could not be used for flight training.
I was in my office and realised I had a problem so I put the phone on speaker and asked two of my employees to witness the conversation.
Anyhow it very quickly went south and I told him that the airplane was still a Cessna with an approved STC so there was no reason why It could not be used.
He then told me that if I continued to argue with him he would make sure I never got a Operating certificate.
I then asked me if he was threatening me and he said no he was promising me.
I then told him I was going to call his superior and get the problem solved.
Solving the problem turned out to take almost three years.
The DGCA eventually came to my home with a TC lawyer and one of the first things he did after I gave him verifiable evidence of what the inspector had said to me was had him fired.
That is a very simple outline of what started it, and once again it had zero to do with any CARS problems I had.
To be honest I'm a bit baffled why there was such a kerfuffle over something as basic as that. Either the thing is airworthy or it's not.
And why did the inspector have it in for you?
That was another issue to do with my being approved as PRM.Chuck, you said on one forum that there was some CAR that was going to be used to prove that you were legal, and you said TC went back on their word. What was that about?
.To be honest I'm a bit baffled why there was such a kerfuffle over something as basic as that. Either the thing is airworthy or it's not
I was as puzzled as you when it all started, but for some reason that inspector had decided he would not accept the airplane on my certificate.
I have no idea as I had never heard of him before he called me.And why did the inspector have it in for you?
One thing for sure when I went above him to his superiors they circled the wagons and the higher up the chain of authority I went the more they stonewalled me.
I eventually broke the log jam by going to my M.P. and then Ottawa.
Some inspectors have it in for everyone. It’s hard to believe until you’ve met one but they do exist. Lucky for us all it seems they are getting to be more of a rarity these days.
I have been flying since 1984. In the 34 years I have flown (25 commercially), managed in, and worked in for 25 years, I have run into ONE inspector that just plain hated pilots. I did a ride with this genius and aced it. It was one of those rides that you just know you nailed every altitude, every procedure, every instruction was followed to the letter...and yet after the ride, (he passed me)...he felt is necessary to lecture me on a rather obscure topic related to the aircraft. He couldnt just say in the de brief, great ride...watch this or that in the future, but overall a good ride. He instead found it necessary to make me look like I didnt know my aircraft by asking about an obscure topic that almost no pilot would know about the aircraft I was doing my left seat PPC on.lownslow wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 5:22 amSome inspectors have it in for everyone. It’s hard to believe until you’ve met one but they do exist. Lucky for us all it seems they are getting to be more of a rarity these days.
In my experience TC has been easy to work with, and most inspectors are just guys doing their jobs and not looking to shut anyone down...but rather to ensure that airlines are being run safely and by the CARs. I was DFO at a 703/704 Op and went through 4 audits in 4 years (one for our AMO, one for charter, and 2 on the flight training unit)...and the worst outcome was 9 findings of which 8 of them were of a "clerical nature" and easily fixed. I found most inspectors want to work with you rather than against you.
Now that said, I am familiar with Chuck`s situation that he went through, and clearly Chuck was dealing with that 1 in 100 TC inspectors that just was miserable and didnt want to get along with anyone. He was on a power trip, and sadly Chuck was his victim. In the end, Chuck won his case but last I heard, he was never awarded the 250K or 300K he was promised.
As in ALL industries, we have a few bad apples in control of it. Luckily they are few and far between...so very few experience it directly. Chuck was just one of the unlucky ones.
Fly safe all.
I would like to respond to these issues.
Almost all the inspectors are fair and easy to deal with, however like any part of society there will be a few real misfits and he was one of them plus he was positive he was untouchable in his job with the government.Now that said, I am familiar with Chuck`s situation that he went through, and clearly Chuck was dealing with that 1 in 100 TC inspectors that just was miserable and didnt want to get along with anyone. He was on a power trip, and sadly Chuck was his victim.
Fortunately I was not prepared to be treated like crap by a loser like him so I decided to fight it through the best avenue available which was the legal system knowing it would probably be very costly.
I started with a real good lawyer who detested those who abused the power of their office and he helped me for no pay just advice on legal matters. So by the time it was finished I had a real good education in law which really was valuable.
In the end, Chuck won his case but last I heard, he was never awarded the 250K or 300K he was promised.
It was $250,000 an amount which was agreed to between me and the lawyer that was with the DGCA when they spent a whole day at my home here in Nanaimo.
The money was not why I did it, I did it to show the industry that you do not have to accept unlawful treatment by any Government official.
I of course did attempt to collect the money but very quickly learned that getting it meant more legal hardship with at least two more departments of Government and I was not willing to got through that torture so they still owe me the money.
I still have the file in my house and it is mind boggling in the amount of time and paperwork that was involved in the nearly three years it took to win the case.
For those of you who may someday decide to use the justice system to defend yourself here is some advice.
The bureaucracy within TCCA has unlimited money, lawyers and time to wear you down and it will seem to be impossible to win, but you can if you really keep at it and use the law to convict them when they break it.
In my case it went from Victoria to Vancouver to Ottawa within TC's management structure.
Then it went to Ottawa and their management structure.
Then it went to TC's so called Quality Control department which was the most dishonest description of any group of people I ever dealt with.
Then I went to my member of Parliament and convinced him that I could get the news media involved if he did not bring it up in their system....that turned out to be a stroke of genius on my part and that was how the DGCA contacted me and asked me to meet him in Ottawa, I told him I would be more than willing to meet with him but not in Ottawa if he wanted to meet he had my home address, he agreed and we set up a time and we each had our own lawyer present and it went very well because in the end all my allegations of wrongdoing by TCCA was found in my favor and I have the verdict in my files which is priceless.
Because of the problems with TCCA during the time this fiasco went on I decided to work outside of Canada and it was the best decision I ever made because I did very well financially and in my files there are ATPL Pilot license's from the FAA, EASA and CASA. Getting them was really time consuming and difficult but anything worth while usually takes effort.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
What does DGCA stand for in this context?
If I understand it correctly, you followed all of TC's internal procedures/structures and there was no actual lawsuit/court of law involved? The 250k was their way to admit their fault and to prevent an actual lawsuit?
Can I ask why you were unable to collect the promised money?
Thank you.Interesting to read!
Director General Civil Aviation.What does DGCA stand for in this context?
Yes, basically that is correct, I found my way trough that structure with the help of several high ranking TC officials who sent me documents in brown envelops with no way of tracing who sent them.If I understand it correctly, you followed all of TC's internal procedures/structures and there was no actual lawsuit/court of law involved? The 250k was their way to admit their fault and to prevent an actual lawsuit?
There was a lot of people involved in the process and I have only outlined the skeleton of the creature with the salient parts.
One of the top people in Government met with me in Vancouver towards the end of the process and during the meeting I told him about something that he did not believe was true.....so I slipped a brown envelope I had received across the table and said read this.
His yes got as big as a bull dogs nuts as he read it and he passed it to one of their lawyers and asked him if it was genuine and the lawyer said it sure looked genuine....which of course it turned out to be.
The official demanded to know who sent it to me and I smiled and said even if I did know he would be the last person on earth I would tell.....watching their responses gave me such warm fuzzy feelings I almost orgasm ed.
As I have said when I went to the treasury department to collect I found out I would have to take them to court and they had me check mate, because I just did not have the resources to pay a law firm to take the case.Can I ask why you were unable to collect the promised money?
You have to understand that showing the industry that you do not have to accept abuse of power from any TC official made my efforts worth while to me. So I accepted the results of my struggle and went on with my life.
And of course my wife who stood by me through it all.
- Rank 8
- Posts: 906
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
- Location: location, location, is what matters
Did a post about all of this and for some reason it was removed. Hell, my comments were even tamer than this.B208 wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 5:53 am[
Long and short, gotta agree with the assessment. I did a hit and run at TC, a five hear hit and run actually, and after the fog of the first two years wondering ''what the hell is going on in here'', spent most of my energies trying to escape.
Sad but true, there are some real pieces of work in the system, and they tend to be untouchable. As other previous posters have indicated though, most are reasonable people, but the trouble in the system is.....the reasonable people are typically marginalized. Previous experience is somehow frowned upon.
Thought I had my retirement job, but the ''cost'' was too high for me to endure. Personally, took a huge toll on me;. Many took the job after the 9/11 situation, the vast majority left.
veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.
Exaclly.Sad but true, there are some real pieces of work in the system, and they tend to be untouchable
As my complaint went up the ladder of authority each and every one of them advised me that after reviewing my claims they stated that the inspector's actions were proper and he had their full backing. I have their letters in my file and it is weird how they all said the same thing.
It was amazing, like they all just signed off on the same letter.
That was when I decided to call a spade a spade so to speak and started to reefer to them by name and described them as moral degenerates, and told them I would love for them to serve me with a subpoena charging me with liable.
It was interesting they never took me up on my request.
Cat Driver wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 5:59 pmIt is simply amazing how many of the long time members of this forum are still reading it, good to see you are still here flyinthebug and thanks for the comments.
Thanks Cat. Good to see you still posting as well. You have shared a wealth of knowledge with us over our many years on Avcanada, and it is nice indeed to see some of the old guard are still posting here.
Fly safe as always my friend.
PS...I obviously am not familiar with the new format or how to "quote" what I want to quote from you...my reply is somehow imbedded in your quote? Oh well.. ill figure it out lol.
There could be for those who are interested in how your regulator can and sometimes violates the very laws they are sworn to uphold.Was there a point to this thread?
For those of you who see nothing wrong with the regulator abusing their power it obviously does not matter to you.
Is there a point to your post?
Almost all the inspectors are fair and easy to deal with, however like any part of society there will be a few real misfits [/quote]
Wait a minute, there is a well-known former poster from this forum who has me convinced that almost every TC inspector is evil. You mean that not true? Imagine.
Go through this same hell as Chuck did because of "one" and see if you won't react the same initially.hamstandard wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 10:30 pmWait a minute, there is a well-known former poster from this forum who has me convinced that almost every TC inspector is evil. You mean that not true? Imagine.
Don't forget that this "one" had all the back up from above.
Chuck is correctly able to articulate:
A certified aircraft, when modified by STC is still that model aircraft. Indeed, it would be very hard to modify a certified aircraft that it became a certified aircraft of a different model by C of A. I would venture that by the time someone accomplished this, the aircraft would have cost too much to make it available for flight training! But, it is the owner/applicant's responsibility to understand what aircraft they are applying with, and what it's privileges are.he would not accept the Tail wheel Aerobat because it was not a Cessna 150 anymore.
I said have you checked the C of A and read the STC that was part of it.
It's pretty common now for legacy aircraft to have STC'd mods. Of course, "STC" stands for "Supplemental Type Certificate". The original aircraft was certified in accordance with a Type Certificate, so now it's supplemented. That supplement will be done to either match, or be to a newer (higher) standard than the original certification, so there is no reason to think that the aircraft is less compliant with the mod installed, with three important exceptions:
In a few cases, an STC could introduce a restriction, in which case, the word "Restricted" will be prominent on the STC certificate. This will restrict how the aircraft is to be used. Most commonly - no passengers. Examples of this would be research/SAR/firefighting aircraft, where there is no intention to carry pax anyway. Somewhere in the STC "demonstration of compliance" process, it will have agreed that the aircraft no longer meets the requirements for passenger safety, but that's still okay for the intended crew only role. An example might be that a cabin exit has been blocked, or cabin flammability requirements are no longer met.
The STC might introduce a limitation which affects it's operation with the STC mod installed. The aircraft is still otherwise compliant, but something it used to be allowed to do, is no longer permitted. This will not affect passenger carrying, but will affect something else. The only "Cessna" type example which comes to mind is that the STC installation of a Horton STOL kit will remover the permission to intentionally spin 150/152/172. This is not because the aircraft is less able to spin and recover (it still meets the requirement to be recoverable), but rather, it can no longer be held in the required number of turns, and then recovered - the spin changes/recovers itself before that requirement is demonstrated. A very safe characteristic, but non ideal for teaching spins! You can still train in these aircraft - just not spins - it's a limitation.
My personal record is a wonderful 182 amphibian, which in addition to a few unique mods I did to it, has 27 off the shelf STC mods installed. Is it still a 182Q? I don't think Cessna would think so, but it still has the Cessna data plate, with the type certificate number, and a C of A saying that's valid. But the aircraft is so highly modified that many speeds, weights, dimensions, systems, and limitations are not what the aircraft left the factory as being. The result was a lot of document writing on my part, to define how to operate and maintain this highly modified aircraft. I got to that step before the maintenance person did, because I was involved from the beginning of the modifying. However, for aircraft which go into the shop for "one more" mod, the installer/maintainer is responsible for considering the following condition which is on every STC:
That's a big one, and worthy of the thought. Either of the two STC's could be well compliant, but combine them, and the aircraft becomes non compliant - because each STC holder did not consider (and test) in combination with the other STC'd modification (there's no expectation that they would - hence the statement). The installer now responsible for discharging a certification expectation, which could be well outside their base of knowledge and experience. Often, it requires another STC to allow the combination of the previous mods, and limitations could be imposed. An example of this which I was involved in testing back in the late '80's is the combination of a carburetted 520/550 in place of the O-470 on a Cessna 180/182 + a STOL kit. Either is a fine change to the aircraft, and one would think that both together are better yet. However, the gravity feed fuel flow requirement is greater for the 520/550 than it was for the O-470, and the airframe still meets this requirement for the required "attitude least favourable" - with a normal airfoil. But, modify the airfoil so the aircraft can fly at a greater yet AoA, and you may find that the carb can be higher than the fuel level with less than 1/4 tanks, fuel stops flowing, and the engine quits with the nose pointed very high. I have experienced this during flight testing - it would have been really startling, if it were not what I was actually trying to accomplish in the test.Conditions: This approval is only applicable to the type/model of aeronautical product specified therein. Prior to incorporating this modification, the installer shall establish that the interrelationship between this change and any other modification(s) incorporated will not adversely affect the airworthiness of the modified product
So, it's up to you, the owner/applicant to understand ALL of the effects of the mods you choose for your aircraft. There are many fine mods available by STC, and each will benefit the aircraft somehow. Just assure that you also understand any unintended changes which could accompany the modification to the aircraft, and how that could affect your intended use of the aircraft.
Oh, by the way, the aircraft in my little avatar picture was modified to the point where STC approval was not possible (compliance could not be demonstrated). The only way to continue to fly the aircraft at all, was that it be accepted into the Owner Maintenance category. TC agreed to allow that, so I bought the plane, and moved it over. That was an example of an eager person, who (albeit with an FAA DER Engineer leading the way) put too many changes, and the result was not certifiable. Without OM, that plane would never have flown again.
While I don't dispute some posters have a flair for the dramatic, I have no problem believing Chuck's side of the story on this one. I've been closely involved in dealing with a similar personality type TC inspector. A lot of them are indeed professional and can even admit when they are wrong, some are not. If using a law/rule to your advantage triggers a personal vendetta response from an inspector because that inspector's personal believes are that something is illegal/"unsafe", that person is not fit to serve in an inspector/enforcement role.
The correct response should be to back up those believes with rules and regulations. If he can't find it, it's not up to the inspector to create rules or impose extra restrictions. That is not his job. He has to enforce the existing ones. Those personalities seem to have a problem making that distinction.