Who should really be responsible?

[Carrier]

Standard Operating Procedures are included in various manuals. These are approved by Transport Canada. Pilots are supposed to operate the company's aircraft in accordance with these. In practice at many companies pilots are encouraged/induced to ignore the SOPs and use other practices. These other practices often cut costs for the operator, which is the reason for them, but are also often less safe. As long as nothing goes wrong or there is no surprise TC check everything is fine. However, when a crash or other problem comes to the attention of the regulator or the courts it is always the pilot's fault for ignoring the SOPs! Blame very rarely is attached to the operator or its "management."

This is an example of expensive but useless paperwork and procedures being imposed on an industry by those who believe that the existence of such paperwork and procedures solves all safety issues and makes air transport crash proof. They ignore the fact that there will always be those who regard it as just a paper exercise and carry on as before. Aviation in Canada seems to have more than its fair share of such people.

Other posters have often said that the Captain is responsible and must always refuse to engage in doubtful practices. This is fine in theory but it does not work in the real world. Remember the old saying: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." A pilot has to dance to the employer's tune or lose his job/income. EI does not make up for this and I suspect few of those posters who are so vocal about the PIC being responsible are prepared to financially help a pilot who has been fired because he would not engage in unsafe practices. In many cases there is only one aviation employer in town so if a pilot loses his job it is a serious blow. He has the cost of trying to find work in another town or province, then the cost of moving there, lease break costs or real estate sales costs, plus the cost of a spouse giving up a job and hoping to find another in the new town. Meanwhile landlords, banks, municipalities and supermarkets still want money for rent, food, utilities, vehicle costs, loan repayments, etc. A pilot is a long way down the company totem pole and is in a position of financial weakness so it's rather stupid to say that the full responsibility stops with a lowly employee. Those who always say that the PIC is responsible and should refuse to fly are out of touch with reality. They are presumably independently wealthy and can afford not to work. It's easy for such wealthy people to be able to refuse to work but they should show some sort of consideration and compassion for those who are less well off and who have to work to survive.

The answer to the safety issue in aviation is for:
(1) the directors and company officials (Chief Pilot, Director of Operations/Maintenance, CEO) who hire, train and supervise pilots and others to always be held equally responsible for the failings of their subordinates, along with
(2) an effective inspection and enforcement system from a competent and fair regulator.
This would tend to eliminate the type of company official who got his job because he was a friend of the owner, a pencil pusher with no effective input, or an example of the Peter Principle. They would be replaced by Chief Pilots, etc. who would take a serious interest in the type of person they hire, ensure that all personnel are trained to competence as against just the minimum to get through a ride, and would adequately supervise their employees.

The above was written in response to Cat Driver's post on the Skydive Toronto???? thread. It sets the ball rolling. Do you agree that responsible company officials should always be held responsible? If not, why not and what do you propose instead? Perhaps it is not the answer or is only part of it. What are the thoughts of others? We have some posters on here such as Cat Driver, Doc, Widow, JC, Sulako, Panama Jack and others who take aviation safety seriously but also from a practical point of view, and who over the ages have made very useful and helpful suggestions or responses to questions. It will be interesting to learn their thoughts on this. Apologies to all those useful members not named; nothing personal. All helpful comments are welcome.

The next problem would be: how to go about making the necessary changes.

[mcrit]

The solution is to make the operator liable for the actions of their pilots. If the pilot deviates from the SOP, fine the operator.

[Cat Driver]

The above was written in response to Cat Driver's post on the Skydive Toronto???? thread. It sets the ball rolling.

Thank you carrier for actually looking beyond my simple question.

You have identified exactly what I was alluding to.

The system as it now exists makes me want to go throw up.

All of you are being badly served by bureaucrats who use mother hood words to make it look like they are really doing the job they are supposed to be responsible for.

When I read " safety " or hear some minion in a position of power / trust say " safety "
My asshole gets real tight because I can feel him/her trying to ream me.

[polar one]

Just a few thoughts here. In many other jurisdictions (countries), there is an accountable manager. Unlike the accountable exectutive TC wants, this person is truly responsible for everything...The regulator only agrees to the CP , CE, A&A postions..completely up to the Accountable Manager who they hire (subject to some qualifications). Any problems with the operations ...and this person is held up.to account .and they are quite serious about it.
The Accountable manager,for example, , is not liable if a pilot does a buzz job and gets violated..but let two or three of their pilots do it and the AOC is pulled. It is a much better system.

Unfortunately, TC, like many Canadian departments, has bleated so much about safety that the public looks for them to be more than a regulator, which has resulted in them getting unneccesarily involved in the appointment of management. And they have absolutely no requirements as to management ability. Meet the flight qualifications, write the silly little test, interview with regard to the Ops Manual (so you later cannot claim ignorance), and voila....postion approved.
Unfortunately, this has resulted in companies hiring people based only on what TC wants, and not what is good for the company.

It will not change any time in the future.

As to helping out a pilot who stands up for the rules. There are , in fact , some very good organizations, other than TC who will take action. Workmen's compensation, fo one, if you are really being asked to do something unsafe...it is good , if nothing else, to get a file started. If what they are asking you to do is illegal, and TC wont get involved, there are the police, and the courts for wrongful dismissal suits...which, if they are even remotely successful, should get TC's attention.

Tough when you stand up for prinicples and get turfed. Been there. If you dont want to take action, stop doing the typical Canadian thing and whine for help. Suck it up and get back to work....not probably what you want to hear though.

[Ogee]

When I read " safety " or hear some minion in a position of power / trust say " safety "
My asshole gets real tight because I can feel him/her trying to ream me.

You don't paint a pretty picture, Cat.

[bezerker]

Carrier, the basic premise of what you are saying is already in place.

704.124 Standard Operating Procedures
(1) Every air operator shall, for each of its aircraft that is required to be operated by two or more pilots, establish and maintain standard operating procedures that enable the crew members to operate the aircraft within the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual and that meet the Commercial Air Service Standards.

The fines for non-compliance with 704.124 for an individual is $5,000 and for a corporation it is $25,000, that seems to meet the spirit of your post, the fines for corporations are far larger than the fines for individuals.

Two problems that I see when it comes to SOP's.

One, the requirement for SOP's is pretty benign. Basically SOP's must enable the crew to operate within the limitations of the AFM/POH (exceeding aircraft limitations are not generally an issue in my opinion, except maybe weight limits). It seems to be more of a regulation that forces you to write a manual than a regulation that forces you to follow the manual.

And two, if the regulations as currently printed are enough to find pilots/operators in non compliance, who is gonna enforce it? I certainly have never heard of anyone being charged with "not following SOP's" although I have seen that comment written often enough on the 0249 forms.

Come to think of it, no one seems to ever get charged with anything lately unless there is an accident/incident (asides from noise abatement infractions at Pearson and low-vis taxi infractions at various other airports across the country).

I guess I am saying that no one gives a flying you know what about enforcing the regs as they now stand (as far as I can see), so why make any new regs/policies? I gotta agree with Cat in that the whole system is fubar'd.

I do agree that if owners/cp's/Op's manager's and the like were told that they were going to be charged along with their employees for any infractions, and that they may lose their OC/title/etc if they are convicted, there may be a change in policy/procedures at many companies. There has got to be some bite to go with that bark however.

[Shiny Side Up]

When I read " safety " or hear some minion in a position of power / trust say " safety "
My asshole gets real tight because I can feel him/her trying to ream me.

In all fairness, and from personal experience I don't think this is always the case, at least not intentionally. You're justified in your response because your assumption is often accurate in that yes someone genuinely has selfish intent at play. Much of the time though it simply is pure ignorance - and sometimes just plain inexperience. Much of the time someone in a position of power/trust often has no idea what those that they hold power/trust over actually do. They are only working in numbers and statistics and really have no idea what the real human factor is like at, to use a phrase, "at the point of maximum danger".

[Cat Driver]

Much of the time someone in a position of power/trust often has no idea what those that they hold power/trust over actually do.

Then why is this situation condoned?

If these people were in a position of power in private enterprise they would with that position have to be accountable for whatever they have power over.

Not so with our regulator as their only identifiable responsibility seems to be avoiding responsibility.

So we must look further and identify who gives them that power and then allows them to have no accountability.

Would that be Parliament?

[Bushav8er]

The solution is to make the operator liable for the actions of their pilots. If the pilot deviates from the SOP, fine the operator.

Two things;
The Company may get nailed for failing to properly train or enforce their OPs, and second the same old - PIC is responsible for everything under their control as described in both the SOPs and the CARs. The operator didn't make the pilot deviate; the pilot did so because a) he chose too, b) he didn't say 'no' to the operator.

That will never change.

Remember, legally the written SOPs, CARs, Aeronautics Act and other related printed guidance/flight documents WILL be used against you; verbal instructions from the operator...never happen/don't exist.

What about from the companies perspective? What about one that is truly trying to run a safe and proper business and the pilot doesn't perform as trained/told? I'm of the 'three strikes your out' mentality; we trained them, we re-trained them, we disciplined them - they were 'let go'. All actions documented. Frankly I think that to preserve the "Profession Pilot" pool these 'poor' pilots should also be documented so that a history of their performance can be collected. Unfortunately under current laws, some with nothing to do with aviation, these people just move on to become 'someone else's problem' until an accident happens (and they have.)

I'm also believe that pilots should help themselves. First they should start saying 'NO' more often and standing up for themselves in regards to safety, and even poor regs (ie. duty times). And second they should document everything from operators actions/instructions contrary to safety, SOP or regs to their own personal actions like; I read/studied/reviewed the CARs, this book, course, exam, took a course etc. This shows that you, on your own, took reasonable and tangible steps to stay current , trained and informed.

[Cat Driver]

I'm also believe that pilots should help themselves. First they should start saying 'NO' more often and standing up for themselves in regards to safety, and even poor regs (ie. duty times). And second they should document everything from operators actions/instructions contrary to safety, SOP or regs to their own personal actions like; I read/studied/reviewed the CARs, this book, course, exam, took a course etc. This shows that you, on your own, took reasonable and tangible steps to stay current , trained and informed.

The problem is when pilots do that and are fired for no just cause they can't feed their family with paper work.

How many pilots here lost jobs because they refused to break the rules and after losing their jobs were backed up by the regulator and or any other department and were reimbursed for their losses?

[Bushav8er]

Unfortunately, TC, like many Canadian departments, has bleated so much about safety that the public looks for them to be more than a regulator, which has resulted in them getting unneccesarily involved in the appointment of management. And they have absolutely no requirements as to management ability. Meet the flight qualifications, write the silly little test, interview with regard to the Ops Manual (so you later cannot claim ignorance), and voila....postion approved.
Unfortunately, this has resulted in companies hiring people based only on what TC wants, and not what is good for the company.

First I have to say that I'm somewhat in favour of the idea of starting an air service by simple means.
Joe Blow wants an air service. He sends a letter to Revenue Canada and Transport Canada stating this fact. He, after they (TC) clear his cheque, send him an OC which now requires him to follow all published regulations and allows them to visit to see that he is following said regs. That should be enough no?

And why not? Everything Joe needs to know is in the CARs (among others). Because TC realizes (benefit of doubt please) that Joe often doesn't know anything about what he has to do or even where to find the information so they make him write SOPs and OP Manuals etc, which we all know is almost duplicate of the CARs. They also make him write an Ops Man/Maint. Man exam and have an interview to see that he has a basic idea of what is expected (they aren't people "TC wants", but ones they stamp as capable) (I know, Joe may hire someone for this but he has to sign off and should know by association whats going on - he's the Accountable Exec.)

Although the 'Manuals' become the company 'Bible', the CARs and Aeronautics Act take precedence.

What the 'Manuals' do is force Joe to get into the regs and (somewhat) understand how they work and whats required to do what he wants to do. It also (to some degree) forces him to stay current with regs - how? The 'Manual' that was 'approved' and Joe was happy with is now old and needs amendments because regs have changed and some of the procedures in Joe's 'Manual' now violate the CARs - he is forced to stay current.

(no, I don't agree with all the paper work, or some regs, or all of TCs practices, I merely see where some of them came from)

[Cat Driver]

O.K lets look at this from another perspective.

List all the positive services you can think of that you get from TCCA, that without their support you would be unable to fly safely and or operate an air service safely.

The key word in the previous sentence is " support ".

[Bushav8er]

I'm also believe that pilots should help themselves. First they should start saying 'NO' more often and standing up for themselves in regards to safety, and even poor regs (ie. duty times). And second they should document everything from operators actions/instructions contrary to safety, SOP or regs to their own personal actions like; I read/studied/reviewed the CARs, this book, course, exam, took a course etc. This shows that you, on your own, took reasonable and tangible steps to stay current , trained and informed.

The problem is when pilots do that and are fired for no just cause they can't feed their family with paper work.

How many pilots here lost jobs because they refused to break the rules and after losing their jobs were backed up by the regulator and or any other department and were reimbursed for their losses?

I know what you're saying Cat but that follows the same logic as better pay and 'buying PPCs' - nothing will change by status-quo. I refuse to work for $1500 a month but Jr shows up and works for free for experience. It's up to all of us to act together and force change.

Additionally, if they were fired for "no just cause" and have been documenting everything they may well have a case, at least more then if they didn't document.

What about the guy that doesn't say no or stand up and has an accident that kills people? How far will his career go?

[Cat Driver]

Additionally, if they were fired for "no just cause" and have been documenting everything they may well have a case, at least more then if they didn't document.

I can only speak from my own experience so here are two instances where I had everything documented and in both cases the company fired me for refusing to blatantly break the rules.

First an airline where I was chief pilot and refused to allow crews to be in contravention of the law.

I took both TCCA and the company into Federal court and won my case, in the final analysis I never received a penny for unjust termination.

If it were not for a law firm taking my case for one dollar I would have been stuck with the cost of being represented in court by a law firm.

The second instance was refusing to carry an over load and it was documented beyond doubt that I was told to either carry it because that the company told the customer they would carry that much load.....when I asked TC to back me up for wrongful dismissal I got absolutely no where as they refused to even talk to the owner of the company.

What about the guy that doesn't say no or stand up and has an accident that kills people? How far will his career go?

Usually not far but I do know of a top TC official who " allegedly " had a fatal accident .. running in a float plane and he made it into TCCA's top management.

I guess it all depends on who you know and a lot of other factors.

[Shiny Side Up]

Much of the time someone in a position of power/trust often has no idea what those that they hold power/trust over actually do.

Then why is this situation condoned?

If these people were in a position of power in private enterprise they would with that position have to be accountable for whatever they have power over.

It is unfortunately the nature of the beast. Don't be mistaken in assuming that those in position of power in private enterprise are accountable either, in fact when it comes to the workplace these are the ones directly accountable. It isn't after all the regulator wanting guys to work long shifts, overload planes and generally cut corners. The point of the matter is that we're all responsible for our own and each other's safety. That's where the buck stops - at the end of the day you alone are responsible for making sure you make it home at the end of the workday in one piece. Keep in mind that someone else shirking his or her responsibility for their own safety is also taking a risk with yours.

The problem really comes into play when we seek to decrease the risk in our work by placing some of that responsibility in another's hands. Sometimes that's unavoidable to varying degree. Workers place a bit of their responsibility in their manager's hands and vice-versa. We rely on the regulator to prevent selfish action from corrupting that trust.

The issues creep in with that age old problem though. You've heard the story. Joe is good at making widgets. You might say that Joe is a master at making widgets. Someone in their wisdom puts Joe in charge of a group of widget makers. Maybe Joe even gets an offer from the government to regulate widget making. Unsuprisingly Joe is poor at those tasks - at heart he really just wants to make widgets. If Joe isn't good at his new jobs, who do we place in that position? Certainly we need to organize and regulate widget making. Its the problem with regulation and management. Its a rare find to get individuals who have both skill at management (and want to) as well as the task of the workers they manage so that they can efficiently and safely maximise the process. Even rarer is the individual who can be put into the position of regulator.

I'll say that even the good ones who work within the structure of the regulator are often at arms length from what they may at one time have been a master at. By the very nature of government work it corrupts - or at the very least memory fades. This is a very obvious problem with our regulator is that they are at the very least way behind the problems they need to be adressing. They're playing a perpetual game of catch up.

Not so with our regulator as their only identifiable responsibility seems to be avoiding responsibility.

And realistically, that's all they can do. They're as far away from the problems in aviation as our politicians are away from the actions of the troops they send off to war.

So we must look further and identify who gives them that power and then allows them to have no accountability.

In the end, all we have to do is look into a mirror. They are not accountable, we are. At the end of the day the government is not going to get you home. The problem is that so many have shirked their personal accountability to put us in the system we have now. Change won't come from the top down. The effort must come from the bottom up. Every pilot and every worker in aviation has to be made aware of what's at stake. Each one that does not hold themselves responsible for making their workplace a safe one hurts the cause of all.

[Widow]

There is a lot of talk about safety - but there is no safety. In order to have safety you have to stop the (air taxi) industry from what it is doing."

Air taxi owner says safety violations rampant

As you've pointed out Carrier, the solution would appear to be strong enforcement capabilities (and action) which includes accountability on the part of the operator.

Many will recall my favourite SATOPS recommendation:

When an accident occurs, often the pilot is the only one held accountable. While the pilot may be at fault for having made a poor decision or series of decisions that led to the accident, other questions have to be asked... Were there any systemic problems in the company? What was management’s role in the accident? What did management do to prevent the accident? What is management doing to prevent a recurrence? Management must be accountable for the safety of the day-to-day operations. When management is held responsible for an accident, they will become more proactive in promoting safe operating practices.

SR 30 - Recommend the Transportation Safety Board evaluate the management factors that contributed to the accident during the accident investigation.

I'm sure TC didn't like it much when the TSB turned it around on them, as they did way back with recommendation A01-01 from A99A0036:

Regulatory Safety Oversight

This occurrence investigation uncovered several serious deficiencies in the conduct of the mission. These deficiencies could be symptomatic of a broader and ongoing disregard for regulations and company standard operating procedures (SOPs).

...snip...

These serious accidents indicate that some operators and crews have disregarded safety regulations and, consequently, put passengers and themselves at an unnecessary and unacceptably high level of risk. In these accidents, findings indicate that, in certain areas of commercial operations, the safety oversight efforts of TC have been somewhat ineffective. Therefore, the Board recommends that:

The Department of Transport undertake a review of its safety oversight methodology, resources, and practices, particularly as they relate to smaller operators and those operators who fly in or into remote areas, to ensure that air operators and crews consistently operate within the safety regulations.

A01-01

Whereas some recent TSB reports have done quite a good job of discussing management factors (like the Transwest/Sandy Bay report, the Tim Horton's/Fox Harb'r report and the ADWEL Investments/Wainright report) , others have not (like the Pacific Coastal/Alice Lake report). Of course, those that did examine management also found flaws in TC oversight via SMS. And SMS was TC's answer to Rec. A01-01!

If only TC had stuck to the intent of SMS - bringing the Aeronautics Act in line with the CLC and providing for executive accountability. Instead dear old Merlin did the typical bureaucrat thing of protecting the minister and turned it into a way to delegate authority - and hence liability.

You can't fix the system from the bottom up - SMS is right in that the "safety culture" has to come from the top down as the top is the first link in the chain. But the top starts with TC. They need to promote their own accountability by "allowing" an Ombudsman to be appointed and enacting effective whistleblower protections for both public and private service. They need to provide an anonymous safety "hotline", to promote information sharing (like the searchable database at the NTSB and the ASRS down south) and concurrent investigation by responsible organizations (My diatribe for the day: Accident Investigation), and focus their attention on the most dangerous sectors.

Oh, and for goodness sake, give the TSB some "teeth"! What good is their announcing the new "Watchlist" tomorrow if they have no teeth? Has the NTSB's "Most Wanted" done much to get the FAA to act?

Of course, that's all just my humble opinion.

[Cat Driver]

Shiny Side Up you have answered my questions and are basically correct in your descriptions.

I do not ask these questions for my own self education as I am finished with aviation and can look back on a very long career where once I learned how the system works I did exactly what you described, which was took responsibility for ensuring the aircraft had a safe flight.

By doing so I put myself out of work in a few occasions but my end goal was 100% successful all my flights were finished safely.

Now that we have gotten to here we obviously have to council all pilots that they are alone in decision making and any dependence on anyone else for help in making decisions including refusing to bend or beak the rules is 100% your responsibility even if it means being unemployed with no or very little chance of anyone supporting you.

In other words the system is stacked against you and if you stay in the business you have to accept the fact that no one but you will suffer when you go against any pressure to break the rules.

Great industry and anyone who calls it a profession is dreaming.

[mcrit]

Two things;
The Company may get nailed for failing to properly train or enforce their OPs, and second the same old - PIC is responsible for everything under their control as described in both the SOPs and the CARs. The operator didn't make the pilot deviate; the pilot did so because a) he chose too, b) he didn't say 'no' to the operator.

That will never change.

Remember, legally the written SOPs, CARs, Aeronautics Act and other related printed guidance/flight documents WILL be used against you; verbal instructions from the operator...never happen/don't exist.

You'll get no disagreement from me about the way it is right now. I was talking about the way it should be. Place the final responsibility with the person who holds the final authority. (The final authority being the ability to blackball/fire someone).

[crazy_aviator]

Some say its a top down fix, others say its a bottom up fix, well folks ,short of this being a religion,,,,both camps are right , it IS BOTH a top down AND a bottom up approach which will improve the situation,,,,,we NEED regulation for those who WONT conform AND we all need to maintain the acceptable , safe standard with or without regs !!

[Bushav8er]

Shiny Side Up - thats it. Governments may change but the bureaucrats that run the (unionized) departments keep doing what they've been doing nothing changes.

By doing so I put myself out of work in a few occasions but my end goal was 100% successful all my flights were finished safely.

Was that the right decision(s)? I would think so. Thats all I'm saying. Each one of us has to take responsibility. The old operator mantra - 'If you don't do it, someone will' has to disappear. Imagine what would happen if everyone told him where to go. (Won't happen without a control on pilot supply and demand though.)

Mcrit - I know what you're saying but "Place the final responsibility with the person who holds the final authority." Isn't that the PIC? It would be nice to see the person or company responsible, held responsible. Should a business that failed be allow to return under a different name? A company should be its owners not a mysterious entity unto itself and not accountable.

Cat is right the system is slanted against the individual. It is nearly impossible for a company (or Government) to fail. And a company isn't the staff, its the shareholders. They may be fined, never enough to force failure - often not even enough to discourage repeated infractions. And as you pointed out, you may win a court case but there is no procedure to actually make them pay.

[mcrit]

Mcrit - I know what you're saying but "Place the final responsibility with the person who holds the final authority." Isn't that the PIC?

In an ideal world, yes. From a more pragmatic standpoint, no. The operator holds the final authority in that they can bench a pilot that makes decisions the operator does not like. If you look at it from a shady operators standpoint the current system is low risk; if the operator pushs a kid out the door to do a questionable flight the kid eats the pain (either gets fined or worse, killed). If anything goes wrong the operator can point fingers at SOPs etc. The operator's motivation to do this is profit (flights=revenue). If you make an unsafe operation painful for the operator (fine them when their people break the law) now the operator has more incentive to keep everyone on the straight and level. This setup would make an operator less likely to shove a kid out the door with an overloaded a/c or some other such thing.

[Bushav8er]

The operator's motivation to do this is profit (flights=revenue)

Very true! I had a paragraph about that but removed it.

The 'Free World' isn't about personal freedoms directly but 'Free Enterprise', long live Capitalism and the pursuit of the Dollar, often using unethical, if not illegal, practices in the chase. The difference between a Company and an employee when it comes to disputes is the 'rules', as Cat said, are slanted to favour business (and Government).

Look at bezerker's example. "The fines for non-compliance with 704.124 for an individual is $5,000 and for a corporation it is $25,000, that seems to meet the spirit of your post, the fines for corporations are far larger than the fines for individuals." True companies pay more. By the example, 5 times more. That for even a small company with assets of $2 million equates to $400 thousand for you and me; hardly proportional. A fine charged to both company and individual will likely wipe the individual out but only be a nuisance to the company. There are companies that pay repeat fines (non-aviation) because the cost of doing what is required (and right) costs more and down grades their bottom line.

Hold those responsible - responsible, but I'd like a balance. I feel that a company should be protected from pilots that don't follow the SOPs and instructions as much as pilots should be protected from companies that do it. The charges to a company have to be high enough to force compliance. If the individual could face bankruptcy, shouldn't the company face the same risk?

[Widow]

An increase in fines was proposed in the (failed) AA amendments:

(i) $50,000, in the case of an individual, or

(ii) $250,000, in the case of a corporation.

[YOWza]

The problem is when pilots do that and are fired for no just cause they can't feed their family with paper work.

How many pilots here lost jobs because they refused to break the rules and after losing their jobs were backed up by the regulator and or any other department and were reimbursed for their losses?

I got a huge reality check last year when i got fired for repeately saying "no" to unsafe and illegal practices. TC was aware well before I was canned, as well as other applicable agencies. One agency would just tell me it was a matter for the other agency to resolve. I went without a job for a while and you guessed it, the operator kept clicking along with a replacement that says "yes" to anything. For months I was on the phone trying to find someone to take action and was even granted a meeting with TC. Still nothing. I finally gave up.
In my view, no one on the enforcement side wants to get out of their seat and rattle any cages for fear they may risk their cozy retirement. If they would come by the operation promptly when serious safety complaints are made, they may just catch something illegal being done. There needs to be something to protect the pilot when the management gets out of line. On the other end, there's still plenty of pilots who do not care to protect themselves and other pilots, making it extremely difficult for pilots who put safety first on every flight. But what can be done?

[Cat Driver]

On the other end, there's still plenty of pilots who do not care to protect themselves and other pilots, making it extremely difficult for pilots who put safety first on every flight. But what can be done?

Form an association of pilots, or several associations to cover smaller areas.

When an operator intimidates crews such as you experienced the association can document illegal or unsafe practices and when the association has enough proof file charges through TCCA if TCCA fails to act file charges against TCCA through the RCMP.

It works because that was how I finally got action.

If you are going to be out of work you really don't have much more to lose do you?