CTV News: WhistleblowerAir taxi owner says safety violations rampant
Updated Thu. Mar. 29 2007 10:38 PM ET
Kathy Tomlinson, CTV News
Kirsten Brazier takes pride in her Ontario air taxi company, DaxAir Inc., which operates one of 3,000 small planes that fly workers and tourists all over Canada each day. Brazier is blowing the whistle on her own industry, though, and is going out on a limb to warn Canadians that many other air taxis are not flying safely.
"Their safety -- their lives -- are actually at risk," Brazier told CTV News.
She told us safety violations have become widespread in her industry. Brazier claimed many operators now break the law by overloading planes and not maintaining them properly. She said pilots routinely fly in bad weather or fly too many hours, without the required amount of maintenance -- practices which also violate the rules.
"There is a lot of rule-breaking going on across the board," Brazier said. "It's standard industry practice. It's a sad thing to have to say, but it is."
She said the pilots then have no choice but to fudge their log books -- to make it look like they aren't in violation.
"This happens all the time," Brazier said. "It's quite common for a pilot to be expected to continue operating the airplane with things that are broken to keep the operation going. There's a lot of pressure on the pilots and the mechanics to not do their job, essentially."
The primary reasons, Brazier said, are cost and competition. For small operators, fuel and insurance are becoming unaffordable, while the market is shrinking and becoming more competitive. Many operators, she said, now feel they must break the rules just to make a profit.
"In order to survive people are cutting corners," she told CTV News. "In the end we (in the industry) are faced with a decision to either break the law or go out of business."
What's driving Brazier to speak out now is Ottawa's proposed legislation, Bill C-6, that would essentially transfer responsibility for managing airline safety from Transport Canada to the airlines themselves. The proposed new regulations, called "Safety Management Systems," would require airlines to investigate their own unsafe incidents, and report back to government on how they will avoid similar situations the future.
"You're talking about new legislation that will put control of the industry in the hands of the industry," Brazier said.
She said the plan may be fine for larger carriers, which already have their own safety management people. She told CTV News, there's no way air taxi operators will be able to comply. She believes her industry needs more government oversight, not less.
"The industry might be breaking the rules but the government isn't helping the situation," Brazier said.
In anticipation of the change to Safety Management Systems (SMS), Transport Canada has already stopped regular safety audits of the industry, and cancelled ongoing investigations.
CTV News obtained dozens of reports on incidents involving Canada's air taxi operators, for 2005 and 2006. They are reports airlines must file with the government, by law, when an incident poses a serious or potentially serious safety hazard. On average, at least one of these incident reports is filed each week. They include accidents, near misses and mechanical problems. The majority of them were never investigated by government officials.
One of many examples occurred in Grande Prairie, Alta. in February 2005. It was a close call, and remains unexplained because it's never been investigated. A Cessna 550, C-GDLR, taxied for takeoff down a runway -- right into the path of a Beech King Air 100, which was heading in for a landing. The two aircraft were on a collision course in a runway intersection -- less than a quarter of a mile and only a few seconds apart - when the Beech King Air pulled up and away, aborting its landing.
Other examples include near misses where aircraft came within 200 feet of one another -- a hair away from collision, by aviation standards. Several mechanical problems are also documented, including mid-air engine failures and landing gear malfunctions.
"Because the inspectors will not be going out and doing the checks of the actual operation themselves anymore, it will be left to the industry and those kinds of activities will not come to light," said Greg Holbrook, a pilot who is president of the Canadian Federal Pilot's Association. His group represents aviation inspectors who work for Transport Canada, and has been very critical of the changes proposed in Bill C-6 -- especially when it comes to the air taxi industry.
"These air operators are occupying the same airspace and the same runways that all the major airlines are operating on," said Holbrook. "The inspectors will simply forward the information (about unsafe incidents) to the companies and they will be responsible for determining what they will or won't do about it on their own."
He said the majority of Transport Canada inspectors recently surveyed predicted a crash -- if the proposed changes go through.
"Most inspectors are very concerned about that possibility," Holbrook told CTV News.
""It's going to increase the risk to the safety of the Canadian air traveling public, without a doubt," said Justice Virgil Moshansky, from Calgary. He investigated the 1989 crash in Dryden, Ont. that killed 24 people. He told CTV News the current situation, especially with the smaller carriers, is like deja vu.
"If your direction is to keep the aircraft in the air, and you defer maintenance, then you increase the risk to safety. That occurred at the time of Dryden and I suspect that that is occurring now," Moshansky said. "We are on the slippery slope to another Dryden."
CTV News put those concerns to the head of Transport Canada, Merlin Preuss, in Ottawa. He responded that C-6 is still a proposal that will likely undergo changes before it becomes law.
"Everything we are doing, while making this addition to the regulatory framework, is being done extremely cautiously," said Preuss. "We think it's going to work."
Brazier wants Canadians to know that, in her opinion, their safety hangs in the balance.
"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
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Air taxi owner says safety violations rampant
Why, what do you know! Somebody with the courage to speak out.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
For any of you who may be even slightly interested in what is going on in this country concerning our industry, at least an attempt was made to try and get the message out and co-incide with Preuss being on the mat yesterday before the committee. Some of the members were not impressed with his arrogance.
splitpin;
Of course profit is involved. You have just been involved in a discussion with rfcpilot about rates charges. Do you think we are in it to lose money just because we are so fond of aviation? I think not!!.
If there is any chance that the shoddy operators can be put out of business and the playing field levelled somewhat, smaller companies are going to be able to compete on a more even basis with a chance to get to the profit line which is required for re-investment in their fleets, salaries and people. If it doesn't change, more and more of us will take our money and invest elsewhere.
If this beginning of SMS is to be incorporated without TC oversight and left to the operators to self-regulate, we will be gone anyway. We are not going to continue to sink money into a pit where we have to compete against operators who can away with breaking every rule in the book.
At present we are paying tax dollars to have oversight of which there is very little. We are not going to keep paying money just to have some TC
inspector/accountant audit our paperwork to justify our license when they haven't got a clue about the heavier than air device which is parked at the dock.
carholme
splitpin;
Of course profit is involved. You have just been involved in a discussion with rfcpilot about rates charges. Do you think we are in it to lose money just because we are so fond of aviation? I think not!!.
If there is any chance that the shoddy operators can be put out of business and the playing field levelled somewhat, smaller companies are going to be able to compete on a more even basis with a chance to get to the profit line which is required for re-investment in their fleets, salaries and people. If it doesn't change, more and more of us will take our money and invest elsewhere.
If this beginning of SMS is to be incorporated without TC oversight and left to the operators to self-regulate, we will be gone anyway. We are not going to continue to sink money into a pit where we have to compete against operators who can away with breaking every rule in the book.
At present we are paying tax dollars to have oversight of which there is very little. We are not going to keep paying money just to have some TC
inspector/accountant audit our paperwork to justify our license when they haven't got a clue about the heavier than air device which is parked at the dock.
carholme
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:36 pm
CTV News put those concerns to the head of Transport Canada, Merlin Preuss, in Ottawa. He responded that C-6 is still a proposal that will likely undergo changes before it becomes law.
I find that very interesting. I cant wait to see some of these so called changes.
Why is it, that this was not on the news last night...........because the traveling public does not care unless there is a crash and death.
(sorry Widow)
I find that very interesting. I cant wait to see some of these so called changes.
Why is it, that this was not on the news last night...........because the traveling public does not care unless there is a crash and death.
(sorry Widow)
- marktheone
- Rank 7
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:07 am
- Location: An airplane.
Oh God... Where to start? So this person from that air taxi company is acknowleding that she breaks the rules? By her trying to get TC going on her competition she just got them going on her. I would bet that she is fairly new to this business.
It really is simple. Charge enough goddamn money or don't move the A/C. Never give a damn what the competion is doing or how they are doing it. We are in a free market economy. If you can't do it here move to China and try it there.
Widow as you know I support most of what you are doing. Remember though, these are airplanes and they go fast in an unforgiving environment. There are always going to be crashes. Sad but true.
It really is simple. Charge enough goddamn money or don't move the A/C. Never give a damn what the competion is doing or how they are doing it. We are in a free market economy. If you can't do it here move to China and try it there.
Widow as you know I support most of what you are doing. Remember though, these are airplanes and they go fast in an unforgiving environment. There are always going to be crashes. Sad but true.
The article is another example of "patchwork" evidence. The article is supposed to be about uncontolled air taxi operators breaking the rules but the example they use involves a Cessna 550 which in all likelyhood isn't operated in the air taxi category. At least I don't know of any that do. And it further involves a slip up that isn't normally a result of "cutting corners" or operating illegally.
As a matter of fact it was probably a pilot error that may not of occured if the respective pilots took human factors training and/or were employed by companies that promoted a "culture of safety" as prescribed by SMS.
And speaking of SMS, this is nothing new. Its just quality assurance repackaged using current terminology and methods.
Ms. Brazier states there is "no way air taxi operators will be able to comply" with the legislation that mandates large carriers having their "own safety management people." This show that perhaps she isn't familiar with how SMS works. SMS is scalable to the size of the operation. It doesn't (won't) require that small carriers adopt the same level of control as large carriers. It will however require operators to formalize their methods and have them approved.
If there are any 703 operators who don't have a quality control system in place, I would recommend that people don't fly with them.
I suspect Ms. Brazier would prefer having the government act as her QA department through complete anual audits, weekly ramp checks, daily operating reports etc. all so she can sue TC when her airplane crashes.
You can't run an airline with just a familiarity with the rules. You need a system that applies checks and balances. And if you run a Caravan you don't need to adopt an Air Canada quality system.
One of the fears of 703 operators is that SMS will force companies to identify a responsible executive. In other words the guy at the top. Currently these guys are relatively protected from litigation. They can blame things on the pilots, mechanics and the inspectors. With SMS, the buck will be passed to the responsible executive who will be ultimately responsible.
Is there a problem with 703 operators? Yes. We all know that. There are far too many slimy 703 operators out there. Kirsten Brazier is right and she deserves credit for blowing the whistle on her own industry. Unfortunatly the article lacks focus and understanding of the proposed SMS system. (in my opinion)
Why isn't she calling for executive accountability? Why doesn't she provide people with suggestions for selecting a carrier? Why are slimy owners who get shut down allowed to start new airlines?
As a matter of fact it was probably a pilot error that may not of occured if the respective pilots took human factors training and/or were employed by companies that promoted a "culture of safety" as prescribed by SMS.
And speaking of SMS, this is nothing new. Its just quality assurance repackaged using current terminology and methods.
Ms. Brazier states there is "no way air taxi operators will be able to comply" with the legislation that mandates large carriers having their "own safety management people." This show that perhaps she isn't familiar with how SMS works. SMS is scalable to the size of the operation. It doesn't (won't) require that small carriers adopt the same level of control as large carriers. It will however require operators to formalize their methods and have them approved.
If there are any 703 operators who don't have a quality control system in place, I would recommend that people don't fly with them.
I suspect Ms. Brazier would prefer having the government act as her QA department through complete anual audits, weekly ramp checks, daily operating reports etc. all so she can sue TC when her airplane crashes.
You can't run an airline with just a familiarity with the rules. You need a system that applies checks and balances. And if you run a Caravan you don't need to adopt an Air Canada quality system.
One of the fears of 703 operators is that SMS will force companies to identify a responsible executive. In other words the guy at the top. Currently these guys are relatively protected from litigation. They can blame things on the pilots, mechanics and the inspectors. With SMS, the buck will be passed to the responsible executive who will be ultimately responsible.
Is there a problem with 703 operators? Yes. We all know that. There are far too many slimy 703 operators out there. Kirsten Brazier is right and she deserves credit for blowing the whistle on her own industry. Unfortunatly the article lacks focus and understanding of the proposed SMS system. (in my opinion)
Why isn't she calling for executive accountability? Why doesn't she provide people with suggestions for selecting a carrier? Why are slimy owners who get shut down allowed to start new airlines?
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:51 am
CID;
I am listed as an "Accountable Executive" and I do not have any problem with that or the responsibilities that go with it. It is high time owners became accountable as well as it is time that TC became accountable.
You are entitled to your opinion as is everybody,
carholme
I am listed as an "Accountable Executive" and I do not have any problem with that or the responsibilities that go with it. It is high time owners became accountable as well as it is time that TC became accountable.
You are entitled to your opinion as is everybody,
carholme
It was (for all of two minutes). Kinda hard to give the complete picture in two minutes. You can still see it by clicking the "video" link on the right hand side of the page linked above.2milefinal wrote:Why is it, that this was not on the news last night
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:43 am
- Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Don't be too worried about SMS being mandatory for use 703 people. TC has pushed it back to march 08 now. It is too hard for TC to come up with SMS assessment guide that meets the requirements of 703/704/705 operators.
I am the CASO for my small 703 operator and it is defiantly not impossible for me to draw up (and have upper management comply) with SMS. We are very safe company, we have safety meeting all the time, and do internal safety audits, and etc, etc… because that is what a safe responsible operator does. In my eyes, not only are we going to be ready for when TC make SMS mandatory, but we are making our company a safer company.
As for the Citation in YQU, I was at that company who operated the citation when that incident happened, and there was many meeting that followed and lots of paperwork. That incident will never happen again because that company changed certain procedures to prevent it from ever ever happening again. Hopefully that is how SMS will work, a incident will happen and everyone will learn from it and it will never happen again if you follow the new procedure put in place made to prevent the incident. Just my 2 cents.
I am the CASO for my small 703 operator and it is defiantly not impossible for me to draw up (and have upper management comply) with SMS. We are very safe company, we have safety meeting all the time, and do internal safety audits, and etc, etc… because that is what a safe responsible operator does. In my eyes, not only are we going to be ready for when TC make SMS mandatory, but we are making our company a safer company.
As for the Citation in YQU, I was at that company who operated the citation when that incident happened, and there was many meeting that followed and lots of paperwork. That incident will never happen again because that company changed certain procedures to prevent it from ever ever happening again. Hopefully that is how SMS will work, a incident will happen and everyone will learn from it and it will never happen again if you follow the new procedure put in place made to prevent the incident. Just my 2 cents.
-
- Rank 0
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:36 am
OK I can't hold back anymore. This person that has gone on TV and bashed her own industry! Remember the one that pays her bills or tries to. Should be removed from the aviation world all together; she has done nothing good for the industry and has caused a problem wherever she goes. Not only for her employer but herself, now she has her own business and is trying to shitcan that one. From someone who has backstabbed and undercut all the competition in her area and basically blackballed herself around her area with the contracts as well as the other operaters. For a woman she has a lot of balls to be spouting off about how crooked and dangerous all the operaters are.
She reminds me of a kamikazee pilot "if you are going down take as many as you can with you"
Maybe lay off the wine for awhile and get your head clear before you do something evn dumber.
Sincerely
Cracked
She reminds me of a kamikazee pilot "if you are going down take as many as you can with you"
Maybe lay off the wine for awhile and get your head clear before you do something evn dumber.
Sincerely
Cracked
Greg Holbrook was interviewed on Canada AM this morning - there is a link on the Whistleblower article as well as on this page:
http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam under "more stories" "Air taxi owner says safety violations rampant"
Cheers,
Snoopy
http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam under "more stories" "Air taxi owner says safety violations rampant"
Cheers,
Snoopy
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Wow, do you think this anonymous, first time poster is one of her competitors that is flying overweight and in bad weather and using shoddy maintenance? The article refers to her as an operator, yet this person keeps referring to her employer? Perhaps she used to work as a pilot for this person and "caused problems" by questioning management? My impression from the article, was that this operator felt the time had come to speak out and save the industry, not bury it. Sounds like she does want a "take down" of the shoddy operators, so the good ones can compete in a healthy climate.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Yes.Wow, do you think this anonymous, first time poster is one of her competitors that is flying overweight and in bad weather and using shoddy maintenance?
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.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:43 am
- Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
-
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 3592
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
- Location: The Frozen North
- Contact:
Well Cracked, If he or she was talking about 702/703 operators in Northern Ontario North of Kenora, she would have been right on the money.
Not just now, but since, well, all the hair was on the top of my head.
Perhaps instead of crying in your beer, you might think about your own operation.
JC
Not just now, but since, well, all the hair was on the top of my head.
Perhaps instead of crying in your beer, you might think about your own operation.
JC
Speaking from experience, in a short two minute piece, there is no way the reporter can use everything you say. She likely made much more specific comments, which were not used.
I gotta say I love the fact that her name is Kirsten! Let's hear it for the Kirstens of the world! Kirsten, if you read this forum - you go girl!
Widow, aka Kirsten Stevens
I gotta say I love the fact that her name is Kirsten! Let's hear it for the Kirstens of the world! Kirsten, if you read this forum - you go girl!
Widow, aka Kirsten Stevens
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
When you watch your competition make calls to Ottawa to get the Transport Inspectors out of their offices and the inspectors not allowed to do their jobs due to politicall interference from the highest level .The inspectors were not allowed to do their jobs after complaints from pilots working for a certain operator.Even the After the Crash Special Audits were completed by Special Auditors from Ottawa who found nothing wrong
.While the local inspectors had there hands and feet tied and bound from carrying out their duties.
And yet you wonder why i do not trust a Lieberal .
.While the local inspectors had there hands and feet tied and bound from carrying out their duties.
And yet you wonder why i do not trust a Lieberal .
All this talk about dodgy maintenance, being pushed to fly in shit wx, dangerous industry.....
I think none of this would go on if all the pilots took the responsibility of REFUSING TO FLY if there is unacceptable risks involved.
Besides, you probably don't even make what you deserve to fly in good wx with good planes let alone risk your ass and your license.
Problem is, is that there is always going to be some idiot that will do the job regardless of safety because he or she needs the hours and good reference.
If everyone got together and made a pact to refuse flights if there is a safety issue, there would be no talk of shitty operators or dangerous companies.
The final decision rests with the Pilot In Command and if or when shit hits the fan, the PIC will be the first one questionned and 9 times out of 10, we be blamed.
It's the easy way to close the case.
So if there is a ''shitty operator'', the only ones to blame, unfortunately, is the drivers for accepting the aircraft and flying it.
Fortunately, this is becomming less of a problem since there are jobs galore for qualified pilots and it's alot easier to find other work.
I've worked for shitty companies in the past and been in the situation. there is alot of pressure to fly especially when every hour counts in the logbook. Sometimes it's really hard to say no and the consequences of doing so can be almost as bad as an incident. I mean loosing you job, getting a bad reference and in a small industry like this, that means alot.
I think none of this would go on if all the pilots took the responsibility of REFUSING TO FLY if there is unacceptable risks involved.
Besides, you probably don't even make what you deserve to fly in good wx with good planes let alone risk your ass and your license.
Problem is, is that there is always going to be some idiot that will do the job regardless of safety because he or she needs the hours and good reference.
If everyone got together and made a pact to refuse flights if there is a safety issue, there would be no talk of shitty operators or dangerous companies.
The final decision rests with the Pilot In Command and if or when shit hits the fan, the PIC will be the first one questionned and 9 times out of 10, we be blamed.
It's the easy way to close the case.
So if there is a ''shitty operator'', the only ones to blame, unfortunately, is the drivers for accepting the aircraft and flying it.
Fortunately, this is becomming less of a problem since there are jobs galore for qualified pilots and it's alot easier to find other work.
I've worked for shitty companies in the past and been in the situation. there is alot of pressure to fly especially when every hour counts in the logbook. Sometimes it's really hard to say no and the consequences of doing so can be almost as bad as an incident. I mean loosing you job, getting a bad reference and in a small industry like this, that means alot.