T.C shuts part of Skyward down
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Centerstand...just one question. If a pilot did get canned for the auto-pilot thing, do really think TC would go to court for the pilot in a wrongfull dissmissal case? I just dont see it happening. I have talked to TC on several occasions regarding overloads etc. and met at best a cool reception. If you think TC is in it to help pilots NOT break the CARS, methinks you're dreaming...sure do wish you were right, but I've seen no evidence to back it up.
Not in defense of any company nor person here, but my problem with M0T is the inconsistency across the country. As I term it (and can give many fact-based examples), there are two MoT's in Canada. What is tolerated on the East coast will not necessarily be tolerated on the West Coast. I've seen OC's suspended for a week for as little as not having all the AD's in the back of the Tech Log entered sequentially....even though they were all done and one just out of place and ahead of the other. That was as a result of the particular inspecting person and him being backed-up at Region. The Regions also have their own little empires where they are allowed much discretion in applying their rules, without interference from Ottawa....and that is openly stated and admitted to.
Years ago I was grounded at Buttonville Airport because my a/c had a white lens strobe light. I was advised by two Mot inspectors onsite that that was not allowed and it would have to be changed to a red lens before further flight. When, upon further questioning, they found out that the a/c was registered in Pacific Region they allowed me to go stating that "they have different rules there on that and we wouldn't have stopped you had we known that". Granted that dates to the mid 80's, but those two MoT's still exist to this day.
Those companies having their OC's suspended doesn't alarm me at all UNTIL I find out the exact details first. Please do not tell me that a given audit cannot be 'chickensh*t" because I've had a Base that I ran, closed down for one week because the fire extinguishers were 6" too far apart on the hangar walls.....AND that was all they found wrong. That inspector was backed-up to the hilt until a lawyer's terse letter prompted further investigation. Did MoT compensate for lost revenue during that time period? If you don't know the answer to that, then you haven't been around long or haven't had many dealings like that with MoT.
Years ago I was grounded at Buttonville Airport because my a/c had a white lens strobe light. I was advised by two Mot inspectors onsite that that was not allowed and it would have to be changed to a red lens before further flight. When, upon further questioning, they found out that the a/c was registered in Pacific Region they allowed me to go stating that "they have different rules there on that and we wouldn't have stopped you had we known that". Granted that dates to the mid 80's, but those two MoT's still exist to this day.
Those companies having their OC's suspended doesn't alarm me at all UNTIL I find out the exact details first. Please do not tell me that a given audit cannot be 'chickensh*t" because I've had a Base that I ran, closed down for one week because the fire extinguishers were 6" too far apart on the hangar walls.....AND that was all they found wrong. That inspector was backed-up to the hilt until a lawyer's terse letter prompted further investigation. Did MoT compensate for lost revenue during that time period? If you don't know the answer to that, then you haven't been around long or haven't had many dealings like that with MoT.
-
Flying Newf
- Rank 2
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:09 am
So they didn't "give up" their OC voluntarily. They're out for a minimum of 30 days.Order No. 2005-A-48
February 2, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF the operation of a domestic service and a non-scheduled
international service by Skyward Aviation Ltd. - Licence Nos. 972172 and
977222.
File Nos. M4210/S87-1
M4210/S87-2
_____
Under Licence No. 972172, Skyward Aviation Ltd. (hereinafter the Licensee)
is authorized to operate a domestic service, small aircraft.
Under Licence No. 977222, the Licensee is authorized to operate a
non-scheduled international service, small aircraft, to transport traffic on
a charter basis between Canada and any other country.
Transport Canada has advised the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter
the Agency) that the Canadian aviation document of the Licensee has been
suspended.
Pursuant to subparagraphs 61(a)(ii) and 73(1)(a)(ii) of the Canada
Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 (hereinafter the CTA), the Licensee
must establish to the satisfaction of the Agency that it holds a valid
Canadian aviation document issued by the Minister of Transport in respect of
the services to be provided under the licences.
The Agency has determined that, in respect of the services for which the
licences were issued, the Licensee ceases to meet the requirement of
subparagraphs 61(a)(ii) and 73(1)(a)(ii) of the CTA.
Pursuant to subsection 63(1) and paragraph 75(1)(a) of the CTA, the Agency
must suspend or cancel a domestic licence and a non-scheduled international
licence where the Agency has made such a determination.
The Agency is of the opinion that in the present circumstances it should
suspend immediately the said licences and provide the Licensee with a period
of thirty (30) days to show cause why the said licences should not be
cancelled.
Accordingly, the Agency, pursuant to subsection 63(1) and paragraph 75(1)(a)
of the CTA, hereby suspends Licence Nos. 972172 and 977222.
In addition, the Licensee is provided with a period of thirty (30) days from
the date of this Order to show cause why the said licences should not be
cancelled pursuant to subsection 63(1) and paragraph 75(1)(a) of the CTA.
This Order shall be affixed to Licence Nos. 972172 and 977222 and the
suspension of the licences shall remain in effect until further order of the
Agency.
Do they have to reapply from scratch? Yes and no. The burden of proof is upon them to show TC that they are back in compliance with all aspects of their operation. Is this starting from scratch? In a legal sense, yes. But the various aspects of their company which were in compliance need not be readdressed. As such it isn't quite as bad as starting from square one.
I've heard many reasons behind what caused this grief for them. Some may be based on reality, some may not. The issue is moot on many levels. The real questions I have are thus:
Why, with the minimum 30 day suspension, did they put their pilots on a 48 hour recall? This probably makes the pilots feel better, but achieves little.
Do they have deep enough pockets to weather the storm for 30 days?
What spin are they giving their customers? They've done well to quash the media interest (nothing in the major news since Feb 1.). If the customers jump ship, replenishing their war-chest will be a challange.
What perception is there amongst the staff and how many will choose to bail out?
I've heard many reasons behind what caused this grief for them. Some may be based on reality, some may not. The issue is moot on many levels. The real questions I have are thus:
Why, with the minimum 30 day suspension, did they put their pilots on a 48 hour recall? This probably makes the pilots feel better, but achieves little.
Do they have deep enough pockets to weather the storm for 30 days?
What spin are they giving their customers? They've done well to quash the media interest (nothing in the major news since Feb 1.). If the customers jump ship, replenishing their war-chest will be a challange.
What perception is there amongst the staff and how many will choose to bail out?
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Werein lies a real exercise in reading and interpertation of what was read.
" Pursuant to subparagraphs 61(a)(ii) and 73(1)(a)(ii) of the Canada
Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 "
Try reading all these subparagraphs and the further subparagraphs that may be contained therein....then when you and your lawyer figure you understand it all...see if TC agrees with your understanding thereof.
Cat
" Pursuant to subparagraphs 61(a)(ii) and 73(1)(a)(ii) of the Canada
Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 "
Try reading all these subparagraphs and the further subparagraphs that may be contained therein....then when you and your lawyer figure you understand it all...see if TC agrees with your understanding thereof.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Not with standing the issue here, what I see is a company and its employees bleeding and a number of others picking at the wounds.
How about showing some support for your fellow pilots, AME, and other ground workers for a change.
Into our fourth page of responses and no one has asked how these people are doing. Hope you guys/gals are holding out okay up there.
How about showing some support for your fellow pilots, AME, and other ground workers for a change.
Into our fourth page of responses and no one has asked how these people are doing. Hope you guys/gals are holding out okay up there.
My frank assumption is that they are doing quite sh!tty. Lets see, they gave away a good portion of their life, their loyalty, and trust to Skyward aviation. They've faced all the challanges of building a career in aviation (or in some cases are just beginning) and they find themselves laid-off. They don't know where, if, or when they will have another paycheque. They have mortgages, children, loans. They're out of the loop.
So asking "how are they doing" to me is not needed. They're doing as well as any of us would be.
So asking "how are they doing" to me is not needed. They're doing as well as any of us would be.
And they're in YTH, Man. Not the centre of the universe by anyone's stadards...so if they want to remain "in the game" they'll be looking to relocate to more friendly places on the constant hunt for pilot jobs. Dont want to stay a day too long...and you dont want to pull up the roots to quickly! What to do, what to do??
Regarding the suspension, I believe that if Skyward can show compliance in say 10 days, than with the blessing of TC the licenses could be reinstated by CTA, If after 30 days Skyward can not show cause why they shouldn't be under suspension, then the CTA could cancel the licenses and then Skyward would have to start from scratch and apply for a new OC. This as we know is a long process, just like starting a new airline. Hopefully they can get all thier ducks lined up in less than 30 days.
Bandaid, Son;
If posting the document by Transport, if saying I have sympathy for the staff who are laid off, if commenting that it will be interesting as to how this all plays out, and if wondering how big Skyward's 'war chest" is.. If that is trolling, well son, I truely apologise then.
If posting the document by Transport, if saying I have sympathy for the staff who are laid off, if commenting that it will be interesting as to how this all plays out, and if wondering how big Skyward's 'war chest" is.. If that is trolling, well son, I truely apologise then.
-
Flying Newf
- Rank 2
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:09 am
