Widow in the news

[Widow]

The budget certainly indicates that capital expenditures on "policies, rulemaking, monitoring and outreach in support of a safe and secure transportation system" are taking quite a hit.

[CD]

Are TC safety officers referred to in the MOU above the same as TC Safety Inspectors (thereby being the ones who oversee the Labour Code)?

This is the best description I could find:

The Minister of Labour is responsible to Parliament for the administration and enforcement activities of the Code. However, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC)-Labour Program, Transport Canada is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Code as it applies to employees working on board aircraft in operation (see Appendix A). To this end, CASI–OH&S hold their delegation from the Minister of Labour, upon recommendation by the Minister of Transport following successful completion of a basic training program. As employees of the Department of Transport, CASI–OH&S also hold a delegation from the Minister of Transport, as per Schedule H-17 of the Transport Canada Ministerial Delegation of Authority Document (No. 146797).

Regulations concerning the occupational health and safety of employees working on board aircraft in operation, are made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport.

Civil Aviation Safety Inspector - Occupational Health & Safety Manual (TP 7886)
SCHEDULE H-17 - Civil Aviation Safety Inspector, Aviation Occupational Health and Safety

[gli77]

Widow can you expand on this:

"It is important to make as many officials as possible, who have an ability to affect some kind of change, aware of the problems facing the 703 industry. I believe it is important that these officials are aware of the size of this industry group, and it's relevance to workplace safety (both those in industry, and those being transported by the industry). The corruption allowed of some operators (shutting doors after several accidents and reopening under a new name to clear the public perception and insurance slates, using un-certified mechanics, getting gas and other fees subsidized by another industry client, people without aviation backgrounds being allowed to operate, etc.) needs to be addressed."

Seems to me you are outside the scope of TC and into business law.

I gather that you want to bring up the bar and add restrictions. So what about pilots? How about no one can fly commercially without a 1000 hours? No one can fly into a remote area without 100 hours supervision of experienced crew? No IFR flight without 500 hours supervisions of experienced crew? I have never heard you tackle the issue of the 703's and the lesser experienced crews.

I dont follow your thought of "people without aviation backgrounds being allowed to operate"

Who are you to tell someone they can not start an aviation business if they choose? I can understand the sentiment since the trend for larger companies is to employ management based on degree's and not experience, but by the same token I think you are off the mark and into a realm you do not understand.

Whats wrong with this: "getting gas and other fees subsidized by another industry client" There must be a story there so please share. Perhaps a conflict of interest area?

[Widow]

Well gli77, there are a few questions there. I'll do my best, since you took the trouble to ask.

The talk about workplace safety stems from the fact that provincial OH&S/WC boards are not responsible for investigating, enforcement action or recommending criminal charges in regard to accidents causing injury or death in this industry , TCCA is. According to the links provided by CD:

Obligatory Investigations: As required by the Canada Labour Code, Part II, subsection 141.(4), health and safety officers are required to investigate every death of an employee that occurred in the work place or while the employee was working, or that was the result of an injury that occurred in the work place or while the employee was working. Therefore, if there is an aircraft accident that results in an employee fatality, an investigation is obligatory.

and

It is the policy of the federal government to prosecute serious contraventions and to prosecute when contraventions are not corrected in spite of the efforts of the CASI‑OH&S.

Criminal offences include those in the Criminal Code, such as criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that a majority of air taxi travellers are travelling for business purposes, which expands the obligation of oversight, investigation and enforcement (since these working travellers are subject to the same safety concerns as those working in the av industry).

With regard to being suitable to run an aviation business, I'll just quote what someone once told me:

I remember a guy out in Vancouver - Raf Zur - that used the political connections to "get around" some of the rules. His airline wound up killing people. We Canadians wound up with the change in the Aeronautics Act now known as the "Raf Zur ' amendment - Part 6.71 - I.e. - are you suitable to run a business in aviation. It never went nearly far enough because of industry pressure at the time.

Now keep in mind that the guy who ran the offending company in my husbands death, was a logger. He bought a plane and hired a pilot to run his employees in and out of camp. Then the international company he contracted to, had to change their local air taxi supplier. They put out a tender for service and suddenly this logger gets the contract. Word on the street is that the big company was paying the av gas bill (etc) so the operator could "compete". Still, they couldn't afford maintenance, dispatcher training, or effective communications - but they did get another plane. I believe that whoever audited/inspected this outfit should have smelled a rat - everybody else on the spit did. But since they didn't notice, these things should NOW be noticed by a TCCA Safety Inspector as required in the docs CD posted. So here we have a logger who already has one death on his shoulders according to WorksafeBC, who is possibly given a subsidy (unfair advantage over the competition) but is certainly given a contract because of his forest industry contacts - not because he's proven himself safe or reliable (in fact they'd be more likely to push weather due to cross industry/financial concerns).

So you got me going and I speiled out a whole bunch. I've gotta put the kids to bed so I'll come back and edit if necessary ...

Oh ya ... I've not said much about pilot experience because I don't know enough (have not had the time to investigate, priorities elsewhere due to not concerned about "our" pilot experience). I think if you check out the Hawaii threads, I've made a few comments there.

[gli77]

I don't see your example as cause for a law to prevent someone from starting an aviation business.

What I see is for the enforcement and accountability of the laws we currently have. An idea often skipped over.

Seems to me you have a deep interest in aviation safety in small operators. In that case the first place to start would be with pilots and tech's. The 703 operations you are after usually are the bottom rung of the industry. Very few experienced crews want to work for 703's. Any sector with a constant and rapid brain drain is likely to encounter some troubles, in more ways then one.

[xsbank]

It seems to me that every time I rode with a TC (MOT or DOT) inspector, despite my nervousness with the possible failure of a ride, (we all know what that's like) I always learned something from them. They weren't all to be feared and despised, in fact some have their own aircraft and some come from extensive commercial backgrounds with lots of experience. If there is a concern about allowing low-timers to operate commercially, it seems to me that the oversight of these inspectors and their ability to mentor might be a worthwhile goal rather than removing them from direct contact with industry players. Perhaps if TC is determined to abandon the oversight of the middle-tier and airline operations, the inspectors could each be assigned a 703 company or two. This means a change in the relationship between the company, personnel and TC inspectors; I don't mean to have a cop on every corner, but there is a valuable resource about to be discarded that might be able to provide virtually personal oversight. This might go a long way towards changing the adversarial attitude that currently exists and could only add to the level of safety in the bottom-feeder companies.

I might even be an inspector if I could get close and personal with a firm that actually valued my input and experience!

This might also make the problem of who can own an aviation company go away, as the ownership problem seems to me to be a red herring. There would not be an ownership problem with proper oversight.

Widow, it also looks like that stuff that CD provided means that every accident involving a worker must be investigated and it might give you the means to further your case by forcing the government to follow its own rules.

Malfeasance - great word!

[CID]

Many of us believe that an overhaul of TCCA and a rewrite of the CARs (to remove obfuscation and simplify) may be necessary.

The CARS don't need a rewrite. People who work in the industry need to put more effort in understanding them. Training works wonders.

Of course the CARS aren't perfect and need constant improvement, but what doesn't?

It’s funny that some suggest a return of the Air Regs, Air Nav Orders and E and I manual. That proves that the major complaints stem from a refusal to learn and understand the CARS rather than any concern that they are confusing.

“Overhaul” of TC? TC has overhauled themselves many times in response to various pressures. You’ll NEVER be short of people calling for “overhauls” because there will always be someone who thinks they can do it better.

They are in the middle of another major overhaul as we speak with many initiatives in the works.

There are many regulations that allow for broad interpretation to allow adjustments for everything from unique operations to unique cultures. Just because one TC inspector in Atlantic Canada interprets a rule differently than one in BC is, by itself, no great reason for concern.

If there is a true concern that creates a commercial advantage between competing operators, there may be a legitimate concern, but guess what? There is a process in place to deal with that!

The message here is educate yourself on the rules and processes that apply to you. Far too many people fail to bother reading and/or find help to understand the CARS and the processes available to them.

[happily.retired]

I can agree that there are plenty of people who don't really bother to figure out the CARs but there are also alot of the CARs that even TC can't figure out. I'm sure we could start a poll to see how many of us have called TC for clarification and recieved an answer such as "Umm, I dunno. Let me get back to you on it" or more frustratingly just an "I dunno" without a suggestion of who to ask or what to do about the confusion. I'd estimate that close to a third of my calls to Transport have gone this way, in multiple regions, and I find it the most frustrating and telling thing about TC - even they don't know a lot of the time.

[Widow]

We set up a booth at the Logger Sports competition over the weekend. A little ribbon campaign, exposure for the petition, and fundraising for engine recovery ...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5n6Do_f7UsQ

[buss]

We need a regulator, in part, to protect us from ourselves

OK

Enough is enough.

Every car on the road can drive at 160 mph.

Do most drivers?

No.

People must take some resposibility for their own actions.

I survived flying small airplanes. Luck was sometimes involved sometimes common sense, sometimes both. We must and will (eventually) take responsibility for our own actions. You and only you decide to advances the thrust levers. Government be damned.

I worked with a fellow who flew 50 year old airplanes. Over his 13 years with the company he had over 25 engine failures. Old engines are old. He survived. Would he fly a single engine airplane God no. Could he possibly be forced into flying a single beaver, otter? No bloody way. Those who do either don't understand the risk or accept it. ACCEPT it. No government force, persuasion or otherwise. People who choose to fly old airplanes on the coast for substandard companies do so at their own risk. NOBODY forces them to. They can choose to be cops, fire fighters , CF privates, bank tellers anything less risky. Your choice. Not illegal. Well advised NO dangerous YES.


MOVE ON.

[Widow]

Uh huh. This should not have been a fatal accident. It's becoming fatal seems to have been a direct result of poor safety management by both the operator and the regulators, and not the pilot. There are many, many things which could have/should have been done and which would have prevented the accident and or it's fatal nature. When someone official does something so that no one else dies like my husband (NOT the pilot but a logger going to work), then I will "move on".

In the meantime, I, and many others, would like to know what brought down AQW to start with.

[Cat Driver]

buss before we ......

MOVE ON.

What should be done about that operator on the West coast that was being discussed on the bush flying forum who intimidates his pilots into flying in dangerous conditions?

Or are all those pilots just making up that story?

[twotter]

ADS-B is a good advancement of avionics. But it will take time to test, certify and implement. Same as ILS, TCAS, GPS and EGPWS. They all increased saftey but implementation did not happen quickly.

True statments but it should be stated that none of the systems you mentioned will help someone flying VFR.

Flying airplanes is inherently dangerous, just like driving a car or operating a boat.

I strongly disagree. None of those are "inherently" dangerous if risks are properly managed. Inherent means it is a permanent characteristic or even neccessary. If flying were inherently dangerous you wouldn't have millions of people all over the globe doing it.

The regulations are a framework for risk management. Therefore what IS inherently dangerous is to fly with an operator that flaunts the rules. That includes things like pushing the weather or flying with inoperative required or essential equipment.

It even applies to how an employer treats his employees. If a company operates within a culture that promotes illegal activity or fear of reprisal.

CID,
Can you qualify yourself by detailing your experience of;

#1. Operating an airplane.
#2. Operating a motor vehicle.
#3. Operating a water vessel.

Maybe you can enlighten us with your vast experience.

I'm sure we would all like to know WWCIDD.

[crazyaviator]

After having spent 2 days looking at avcanada and widows mail concerning her ordeal in coming to conclusions, with respect to her husbands death and the ensuing TSB/TC fiasco, I would like to offer my 2 cents worth. For background , i shall say that I have had 23 years experience in aviation as an AME and commercial pilot , with beaver , DOM and much floatplane experience.
I very much agree with the efforts of "widow" and the supporting letters from experienced members of the aviation fraternity ! ( my love goes to BC)
There is an element which has and shall not be discussed here in the aviation forums and it has to do with the nature of mankind. Mankind shall always (in the majority) submit to the ways of self preservation, selfishness, and everything which maintains or increases the statis quo with the person with no regard to anything or anyone else around him or her. This is evident within the organization called transport canada and ALL other organizations throughout history. ( This is not right and wholesome)
There shall always be a fight for justice and truth and it SHALL become MUCH worse than it presently is in Canada and the world
YES, the system does not fully support the integrety of the pilot/ame/dispacher/owner/etc who stands in the way of corruption, unsafe practices etc. this is to continue and to get worse in the future .
I at present, am employed with a company in central Ontario and have found numerous discrepencies in the operation of the AMO and have continued to address the issues of manufacture of unapproved products, uncertified welding of products, shoddy maintenance, contravention of labour board practices, contravention of safety practices, and many other issues which also involve pressuring AMEs to sign aircraft that are not airworthy.!!! I am happy to say that widows postings have strenghtened my resolve to deal with the issues of this company that have had the attitude of being above the regulations and with a military dictatorial attitude towards compliance with the owners demands. I have little concern for losing my job and SHALL persue all avenues for the furtherence of aviation safety .
Concerning your plight widow, May i suggest looking into the possibility of fuel contamination or mechanical failure resulting in the PARTIAL OR complete loss of power,,,,whether intermittant or total ,,,,,resulting in the turn around of the pilot and landing in less than ideal conditions!, even for a precautionary measure( more ideal than trees and rocks)
There need not be a smoking gun from the engine examination to prove total failure BUT radial and other engines have a propensity for partial power reduction caused by fuel contamination or other mechanical problems which do not show up in major brocken parts. I any case, your investigation and (witch hunt as some may think) is truly appreciated by those such as I who desire to know the whole truth and operate within the bounds of safety and truth . I have had 23 years of experience to reflect upon the nature of aviation AND the nature of humans within my industry and I find it lacking both within myself and others and the industry in general and so i say that ALL positive correction is good . Keep up the good work Widow !!

[Widow]

Thank you crazyaviator. Every small difference that can be made, could make all the difference to someones life. I feel very proud when I get messages like yours. They strengthen MY resolve.

cpl_atc - just because you work in aviation should not preclude you from having some protection when facing occupational safety hazards. Transport Canada has identified those problems (see SATOPs), but have done little to rectify them. What is their Aviation OH&S for? Because they don't seem to do much at all, and the WCBs aren't allowed to be involved.

[CD]

What is their Aviation OH&S for? Because they don't seem to do much at all, and the WCBs aren't allowed to be involved.

I'm pretty sure this has been clarified before, but keep in mind that the Aviation Occupational Health & Safety Regulations belong to Labour Canada, not Transport Canada. There is an agreement in place that allows TC inspectors (with aviation knowledge) to provide oversight on behalf of the Minister of Labour related to aircraft that are "in operation". I would suggest that this limitation by Labour Canada is likely problematic, but that too has been discussed before.

[Widow]

Wow CD. Good memory to pull up that three year old thread - and what an interesting read it is, too ...

Thanks

[Cat Driver]

No regulator will ever eliminate intimidating operators, and re-writing the CARs to the size of phone book will not fix it either.

Then lets get rid of the regulator because unless the regulator regulates it is useless.

Don't point the finger at TC,

How about all the pilots who have complained to TC and got ignored?

and don't point the finger at the CARs.

Are you saying that the CAR's are not a legal document and owners can just do whatever they want so employers are free to intimidate pilots until they get the ones who will disregard the law?

If your employer is threatening the safety of your ass, every pilot is responsible for telling them (kindly, if possible), to f*ck off. Sure, it may cost you your job. But will it cost you your license or your ass? No

So in your mind the responsibility lies 100% with the pilots?

[BoostedNihilist]

.

[Guido]

First post, not even a pilot yet. Chop me if you will
I don't know much about TC or any of the political intricies you all talk and argue about, I do know unions.

Shhhhh... stop talking sense here, they don't like that stuff.

Unions = Communism = Pinkos