Air Canada Captain didn't have required license

[careerpilot?]

This is what I'm trying to figure out.

"Captain Geoff Wall was elected Chair of ACPA's governing Master Executive Council (MEC). In addition to presiding over meetings of the MEC, the Chair is responsible for administration of the contract between the Association and the airline, as well as dealing with any issues arising between Air Canada and its pilots.

Captain Wall joined Air Canada in 1998, following 12 years of service in the Royal Canadian Air Force, where he flew the venerable Sea King helicopter. A native and resident of Barrie, Ont., Captain Wall served his fellow Air Canada pilots for the past 11 years as an ACPA volunteer and elected representative. Most recently, Captain Wall represented approximately 1,850 Air Canada pilots as the Local Executive Council Chair of the Toronto base."

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/air-canad ... cers-7789/

Ah, there ya go.

[Caterpillar]

Now… How many knew and didn’t say a thing?

Looks to me that this man had some power and/or leverage within the structures he operated in.

[Canoehead]

The Georgian College "Bio" was promptly removed when this went public this morning. But proof that the internet doesn't forget...

https://web.archive.org/web/20251226190 ... -take-off/

Really interesting.. perhaps even telling of his mindset. Bold emphasis mine.

That next chapter started in 1998, when Air Canada hired me as a pilot. I still remember thinking there was no way I’d get the job, but I took the chance and it led to a 25-year career. I flew DC-9s, Airbus 320s, Embraers, 767s, 787s and retired off the Boeing 777.

[BigQ]

They didn't hire many in 1998, no?

[digits_]

Is the RCMP going to hire him now to assist their Financial Crime Unit?

[Tanker299]

Air Canada has publicly stated that the individual held a valid Commercial Pilot Licence. They have also stated that he completed the company’s training program, passed recurrent training and flight checks, demonstrated a high level of competency, and that safety was not compromised.

Those are not my opinions. Those are the facts that have been released.

Now let’s move to the hypothetical ATPL-H

If it turns out that he also held a legitimate ATPL-H, then the story becomes much more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

To be clear, an ATPL-H is not an ATPL-A. If the regulations require an ATPL-A, then that’s what you must hold. If he misrepresented his qualifications, that was wrong. Full stop. Aviation depends on integrity and I have no issue with anyone losing their job over it.

What I struggle with is the attempt to portray this as though an untrained person somehow snuck into an Air Canada cockpit. This is not catch me if you can or any “movie.

A CPL holder is already a licensed professional pilot. An ATPL-H holder would be an ATP-level pilot with extensive experience, advanced training, IFR qualifications, and professional flight operations experience. Flying transport-category helicopters in complex commercial operations is not exactly a beginner’s activity.

The irony is that aviation recognizes a significant amount of knowledge transfer between categories. Air law, meteorology, navigation, IFR procedures, crew resource management, operational decision-making, and professional airmanship all carry over. A helicopter pilot converting to fixed wing does not start from zero, and a fixed-wing pilot converting to rotary wing does not start from zero.

So if the ATPL-H hypothesis turns out to be true, then we’re not talking about someone who lacked ATP-level qualifications altogether. We’d be talking about someone who already held ATP-level qualifications in another aircraft category, had been trained by Air Canada, passed airline checks, and allegedly occupied a position he was not legally entitled to hold.

That’s still wrong.

That’s still a firing offence. (Sounds like he was retired so that ship has sailed for him)

But it is very different from the public narrative that seems to suggest an unqualified person spent decades learning how to fly on paying passengers.

To me, this looks far more like an integrity and compliance issue than a competency issue.

And judging by the police press release, you’d think they had uncovered a widespread aviation safety crisis rather than a single retired pilot who, according to Air Canada’s own statements, was licensed, trained, repeatedly checked, and competent to operate the aircraft. The police should put this type of effort into solving serious crimes, like homicides etc.

[digits_]

And judging by the police press release, you’d think they had uncovered a widespread aviation safety crisis rather than a single retired pilot who, according to Air Canada’s own statements, was licensed, trained, repeatedly checked, and competent to operate the aircraft. The police should put this type of effort into solving serious crimes, like homicides etc.

Perhaps, but would you still feel the same if he crashed a plane after 25 years? In that case I'm sure a few people would ask how this could have gone on for that long and why the authorities didn't do anything! If anything the investigation should reveal how this all happened. If it should be police or TC who should investigate this, is debatable I suppose.

Definitely one of the more interesting things to come to light recently!

[cdnavater]

Air Canada has publicly stated that the individual held a valid Commercial Pilot Licence. They have also stated that he completed the company’s training program, passed recurrent training and flight checks, demonstrated a high level of competency, and that safety was not compromised.

Those are not my opinions. Those are the facts that have been released.

Now let’s move to the hypothetical ATPL-H

If it turns out that he also held a legitimate ATPL-H, then the story becomes much more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

To be clear, an ATPL-H is not an ATPL-A. If the regulations require an ATPL-A, then that’s what you must hold. If he misrepresented his qualifications, that was wrong. Full stop. Aviation depends on integrity and I have no issue with anyone losing their job over it.

What I struggle with is the attempt to portray this as though an untrained person somehow snuck into an Air Canada cockpit. This is not catch me if you can or any “movie.

A CPL holder is already a licensed professional pilot. An ATPL-H holder would be an ATP-level pilot with extensive experience, advanced training, IFR qualifications, and professional flight operations experience. Flying transport-category helicopters in complex commercial operations is not exactly a beginner’s activity.

The irony is that aviation recognizes a significant amount of knowledge transfer between categories. Air law, meteorology, navigation, IFR procedures, crew resource management, operational decision-making, and professional airmanship all carry over. A helicopter pilot converting to fixed wing does not start from zero, and a fixed-wing pilot converting to rotary wing does not start from zero.

So if the ATPL-H hypothesis turns out to be true, then we’re not talking about someone who lacked ATP-level qualifications altogether. We’d be talking about someone who already held ATP-level qualifications in another aircraft category, had been trained by Air Canada, passed airline checks, and allegedly occupied a position he was not legally entitled to hold.

That’s still wrong.

That’s still a firing offence. (Sounds like he was retired so that ship has sailed for him)

But it is very different from the public narrative that seems to suggest an unqualified person spent decades learning how to fly on paying passengers.

To me, this looks far more like an integrity and compliance issue than a competency issue.

And judging by the police press release, you’d think they had uncovered a widespread aviation safety crisis rather than a single retired pilot who, according to Air Canada’s own statements, was licensed, trained, repeatedly checked, and competent to operate the aircraft. The police should put this type of effort into solving serious crimes, like homicides etc.

You are missing some key facts, it appears there is no carry over for the exams, a full set of exams is required, the H exams do not focus on jet operations, some critical information given what he was doing.
Another alleged fact, he forged documents and was in possession of a counterfeit mark, used for this crime.
Another reported fact, he was relieved from duty when AC discovered this, he retired, not a coincidence.
I’ll say this, I don’t feel safety was compromised, he spent years as FO and likely learned anything he would have learned talking the exams. I also don’t see this as a crime that should see jail time, his career is over, punishment enough as far as I am concerned.

[cdnavater]

And judging by the police press release, you’d think they had uncovered a widespread aviation safety crisis rather than a single retired pilot who, according to Air Canada’s own statements, was licensed, trained, repeatedly checked, and competent to operate the aircraft. The police should put this type of effort into solving serious crimes, like homicides etc.

Perhaps, but would you still feel the same if he crashed a plane after 25 years? In that case I'm sure a few people would ask how this could have gone on for that long and why the authorities didn't do anything! If anything the investigation should reveal how this all happened. If it should be police or TC who should investigate this, is debatable I suppose.

Definitely one of the more interesting things to come to light recently!

It’s certainly not like the things that happened in India, true fake licences of pilots who hired someone to take their tests

[Oxi]

There was a YVR 777 RP who recently also got fired, said he was a Cathay Cap & 77X ENG

[Tanker299]

While it would certainly be bad optics and demonstrate a lack of professionalism, I would not automatically see it as a contributing factor in an accident.

An ATPL, or any pilot licence for that matter, does not magically make someone a competent pilot. The licence is simply a certification that certain standards have been met. There is no ongoing flight training requirement tied specifically to holding an ATPL versus a CPL. Airline training, recurrent checks, PPCs, simulator evaluations, company training, and operational oversight are what actually assess a pilot’s competence year after year.

If the reports are accurate, he still held a valid CPL. After 25 years at Air Canada, and likely a decade or more as a first officer before becoming a captain, he almost certainly had well beyond the flight experience required to qualify for an ATPL. The issue appears to be administrative rather than a lack of skill, knowledge, or experience.

If he had crashed after 25 years, investigators would rightly examine every aspect of his qualifications and licensing. However, absent evidence that the licensing issue affected his training, competency, medical validity, or operational qualifications, I would be surprised if the lack of an ATPL itself was found to be a causal factor. The investigation should absolutely determine how it happened and why it went unnoticed for so long, but that’s a different question from whether it made him unsafe to operate the aircraft.

[pelmet]

Air Canada has publicly stated that the individual held a valid Commercial Pilot Licence. They have also stated that he completed the company’s training program, passed recurrent training and flight checks, demonstrated a high level of competency, and that safety was not compromised.

Those are not my opinions. Those are the facts that have been released.

Now let’s move to the hypothetical ATPL-H

If it turns out that he also held a legitimate ATPL-H, then the story becomes much more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

To be clear, an ATPL-H is not an ATPL-A. If the regulations require an ATPL-A, then that’s what you must hold. If he misrepresented his qualifications, that was wrong. Full stop. Aviation depends on integrity and I have no issue with anyone losing their job over it.

What I struggle with is the attempt to portray this as though an untrained person somehow snuck into an Air Canada cockpit. This is not catch me if you can or any “movie.

A CPL holder is already a licensed professional pilot. An ATPL-H holder would be an ATP-level pilot with extensive experience, advanced training, IFR qualifications, and professional flight operations experience. Flying transport-category helicopters in complex commercial operations is not exactly a beginner’s activity.

The irony is that aviation recognizes a significant amount of knowledge transfer between categories. Air law, meteorology, navigation, IFR procedures, crew resource management, operational decision-making, and professional airmanship all carry over. A helicopter pilot converting to fixed wing does not start from zero, and a fixed-wing pilot converting to rotary wing does not start from zero.

So if the ATPL-H hypothesis turns out to be true, then we’re not talking about someone who lacked ATP-level qualifications altogether. We’d be talking about someone who already held ATP-level qualifications in another aircraft category, had been trained by Air Canada, passed airline checks, and allegedly occupied a position he was not legally entitled to hold.

That’s still wrong.

That’s still a firing offence. (Sounds like he was retired so that ship has sailed for him)

But it is very different from the public narrative that seems to suggest an unqualified person spent decades learning how to fly on paying passengers.

To me, this looks far more like an integrity and compliance issue than a competency issue.

And judging by the police press release, you’d think they had uncovered a widespread aviation safety crisis rather than a single retired pilot who, according to Air Canada’s own statements, was licensed, trained, repeatedly checked, and competent to operate the aircraft. The police should put this type of effort into solving serious crimes, like homicides etc.

You are missing some key facts, it appears there is no carry over for the exams, a full set of exams is required, the H exams do not focus on jet operations, some critical information given what he was doing.
Another alleged fact, he forged documents and was in possession of a counterfeit mark, used for this crime.
Another reported fact, he was relieved from duty when AC discovered this, he retired, not a coincidence.
I’ll say this, I don’t feel safety was compromised, he spent years as FO and likely learned anything he would have learned talking the exams. I also don’t see this as a crime that should see jail time, his career is over, punishment enough as far as I am concerned.

Betcha he could fly circles around some of the properly licensed DEI hires........Yup. But some AC insiders with actual real world first hand could confirm based on their opinions, just to confirm accuracy.

[careerpilot?]

Air Canada has publicly stated that the individual held a valid Commercial Pilot Licence. They have also stated that he completed the company’s training program, passed recurrent training and flight checks, demonstrated a high level of competency, and that safety was not compromised.

Those are not my opinions. Those are the facts that have been released.

Now let’s move to the hypothetical ATPL-H

If it turns out that he also held a legitimate ATPL-H, then the story becomes much more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

To be clear, an ATPL-H is not an ATPL-A. If the regulations require an ATPL-A, then that’s what you must hold. If he misrepresented his qualifications, that was wrong. Full stop. Aviation depends on integrity and I have no issue with anyone losing their job over it.

What I struggle with is the attempt to portray this as though an untrained person somehow snuck into an Air Canada cockpit. This is not catch me if you can or any “movie.

A CPL holder is already a licensed professional pilot. An ATPL-H holder would be an ATP-level pilot with extensive experience, advanced training, IFR qualifications, and professional flight operations experience. Flying transport-category helicopters in complex commercial operations is not exactly a beginner’s activity.

The irony is that aviation recognizes a significant amount of knowledge transfer between categories. Air law, meteorology, navigation, IFR procedures, crew resource management, operational decision-making, and professional airmanship all carry over. A helicopter pilot converting to fixed wing does not start from zero, and a fixed-wing pilot converting to rotary wing does not start from zero.

So if the ATPL-H hypothesis turns out to be true, then we’re not talking about someone who lacked ATP-level qualifications altogether. We’d be talking about someone who already held ATP-level qualifications in another aircraft category, had been trained by Air Canada, passed airline checks, and allegedly occupied a position he was not legally entitled to hold.

That’s still wrong.

That’s still a firing offence. (Sounds like he was retired so that ship has sailed for him)

But it is very different from the public narrative that seems to suggest an unqualified person spent decades learning how to fly on paying passengers.

To me, this looks far more like an integrity and compliance issue than a competency issue.

And judging by the police press release, you’d think they had uncovered a widespread aviation safety crisis rather than a single retired pilot who, according to Air Canada’s own statements, was licensed, trained, repeatedly checked, and competent to operate the aircraft. The police should put this type of effort into solving serious crimes, like homicides etc.

You are missing some key facts, it appears there is no carry over for the exams, a full set of exams is required, the H exams do not focus on jet operations, some critical information given what he was doing.
Another alleged fact, he forged documents and was in possession of a counterfeit mark, used for this crime.
Another reported fact, he was relieved from duty when AC discovered this, he retired, not a coincidence.
I’ll say this, I don’t feel safety was compromised, he spent years as FO and likely learned anything he would have learned talking the exams. I also don’t see this as a crime that should see jail time, his career is over, punishment enough as far as I am concerned.

It is true that TC doesn't consider any credits from one set of exams to the other like they do for CPL or PPL. But the difference between SAMRA/SARON and HAMRA/HARON was maybe 20% new / different material. It was an important 20%, high altitude stuff, north atlantic tracks, etc - but nothing he wouldn't probably have known from on the job training as an FO already, and confirmed by his line checks and PPCs. Probably close to 50% of the questions were actually identical, word for word. I studied heavily for one set (SAMRA/SARON) then with a quick review of the differences walked into the HAMRA/HARON and had no issues. And let's be honest, TC exams being what they are, most write the exam and ram/dump much of the material immediately after. I've never had to, and never will have to, fly a fixed card ADF, but you know there were questions on how to do it on the exams!

With the skill+experience requirement met (a PPC as captain and all the necessary hours), I agree this is more of a clerical discrepency. Still fraud, still serious, but not necessarily unsafe.

I'm just left questioning why, with all his experience, he didn't just write the SAMRA/SARON and get it over with. Why be so dishonest and fraudulent about it?

[ruffdeezy]

I'm just left questioning why, with all his experience, he didn't just write the SAMRA/SARON and get it over with. Why be so dishonest and fraudulent about it?

Seems like it would be easy but one look at his logbook if he was a captain already and it would be pretty obvious something was off

probably got away with it for so long didn't want to take a chance someone finding out

[Heretowork]

I’m pretty sure the “news” of this was out close to a year ago. I’m wondering if the timing of that Georgian article was some attempt at clever PR to attempt to get some good press out there.

[bobcatdriver]

There was a YVR 777 RP who recently also got fired, said he was a Cathay Cap & 77X ENG

Who was this?

[Red_Comet]

He did 12 years flying helos in the RCAF. For those who don't know, RCAF pilots are all trained to wings standard on the harvard II, and phase 2 is a far more grueling course than any civilian training in existence (including airlines).

I've actually seen a few former RCAF pilots that treat civilian flying and associated TC regs as a bit of a joke or chore, as it is so much more lax compared to military aviation. It's the wrong attitude to have, because it's the law of the land, but old school macho air force pilots rightly catch on that the civilian side is much more laid back and they tend to phone it in.

As an example, I've worked with former RCAF pilots turned civvie instructors that were genuinely the worst instructors I've ever seen. Their students eventually just quit and found a decent instructor who didn't have the military baggage.

As with all things, it's all about the individual. Some pilots use their RCAF training to become leaders and set standards, while others use it to inflate their egos beyond the atmosphere. This fella in the article seems to be of the latter bunch.

If you got through Phase 2 in moose jaw, you can write the damn SAMRA/SARON and pass a group 1 IPC. But to humiliate oneself by letting a lowly TC Group 1 examiner have the ability to fail you? No, not for this Maverick. He would rather forge his ADB and become infamous as a result, while dragging the rest of us down with him in public.

Thanks Maverick!

[CaptDukeNukem]

Fake it till you make it.

[Me262]

Air Canada has publicly stated that the individual held a valid Commercial Pilot Licence. They have also stated that he completed the company’s training program, passed recurrent training and flight checks, demonstrated a high level of competency, and that safety was not compromised.

Those are not my opinions. Those are the facts that have been released.

Now let’s move to the hypothetical ATPL-H

If it turns out that he also held a legitimate ATPL-H, then the story becomes much more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

To be clear, an ATPL-H is not an ATPL-A. If the regulations require an ATPL-A, then that’s what you must hold. If he misrepresented his qualifications, that was wrong. Full stop. Aviation depends on integrity and I have no issue with anyone losing their job over it.

What I struggle with is the attempt to portray this as though an untrained person somehow snuck into an Air Canada cockpit. This is not catch me if you can or any “movie.

A CPL holder is already a licensed professional pilot. An ATPL-H holder would be an ATP-level pilot with extensive experience, advanced training, IFR qualifications, and professional flight operations experience. Flying transport-category helicopters in complex commercial operations is not exactly a beginner’s activity.

The irony is that aviation recognizes a significant amount of knowledge transfer between categories. Air law, meteorology, navigation, IFR procedures, crew resource management, operational decision-making, and professional airmanship all carry over. A helicopter pilot converting to fixed wing does not start from zero, and a fixed-wing pilot converting to rotary wing does not start from zero.

So if the ATPL-H hypothesis turns out to be true, then we’re not talking about someone who lacked ATP-level qualifications altogether. We’d be talking about someone who already held ATP-level qualifications in another aircraft category, had been trained by Air Canada, passed airline checks, and allegedly occupied a position he was not legally entitled to hold.

That’s still wrong.

That’s still a firing offence. (Sounds like he was retired so that ship has sailed for him)

But it is very different from the public narrative that seems to suggest an unqualified person spent decades learning how to fly on paying passengers.

To me, this looks far more like an integrity and compliance issue than a competency issue.

And judging by the police press release, you’d think they had uncovered a widespread aviation safety crisis rather than a single retired pilot who, according to Air Canada’s own statements, was licensed, trained, repeatedly checked, and competent to operate the aircraft. The police should put this type of effort into solving serious crimes, like homicides etc.

You are missing some key facts, it appears there is no carry over for the exams, a full set of exams is required, the H exams do not focus on jet operations, some critical information given what he was doing.
Another alleged fact, he forged documents and was in possession of a counterfeit mark, used for this crime.
Another reported fact, he was relieved from duty when AC discovered this, he retired, not a coincidence.
I’ll say this, I don’t feel safety was compromised, he spent years as FO and likely learned anything he would have learned talking the exams. I also don’t see this as a crime that should see jail time, his career is over, punishment enough as far as I am concerned.

It is true that TC doesn't consider any credits from one set of exams to the other like they do for CPL or PPL. But the difference between SAMRA/SARON and HAMRA/HARON was maybe 20% new / different material. It was an important 20%, high altitude stuff, north atlantic tracks, etc - but nothing he wouldn't probably have known from on the job training as an FO already, and confirmed by his line checks and PPCs. Probably close to 50% of the questions were actually identical, word for word. I studied heavily for one set (SAMRA/SARON) then with a quick review of the differences walked into the HAMRA/HARON and had no issues. And let's be honest, TC exams being what they are, most write the exam and ram/dump much of the material immediately after. I've never had to, and never will have to, fly a fixed card ADF, but you know there were questions on how to do it on the exams!

With the skill+experience requirement met (a PPC as captain and all the necessary hours), I agree this is more of a clerical discrepency. Still fraud, still serious, but not necessarily unsafe.

I'm just left questioning why, with all his experience, he didn't just write the SAMRA/SARON and get it over with. Why be so dishonest and fraudulent about it?

A CPL holder with IATRA learns all about high altitude jet by simply flying for Jazz. And 50% of SAMRA/SARON is already in IATRA (quite a few questions are word by word). An ATPL-A doesn't magically makes one an amazing pilot. Through Jazz (and if AC would simply hire CPL holders with IATRA, like they legally could), he's experience would be identical.

I bet $100 right now that 90% of you will fail SAMRA/SARON exams if you would do 0 studying. 90% of what they test is simply not used in real life. (Who here reduces thrust as weight drops? Or analyzing the clouds to figure out where the fronts are while flying at 380?)

I would personally feel safer with someone on my left that has a CPL and passed all the PPC's vs someone with an ATPL that passed their PPC's after a 2nd or 3rd attempt.

Just for the record, I do not condone what he did.

[redbusdriver]

Now let's see if they catch those who padded their logbook. Yes I know there are some here

[khedrei]

You are missing some key facts, it appears there is no carry over for the exams, a full set of exams is required, the H exams do not focus on jet operations, some critical information given what he was doing.
Another alleged fact, he forged documents and was in possession of a counterfeit mark, used for this crime.
Another reported fact, he was relieved from duty when AC discovered this, he retired, not a coincidence.
I’ll say this, I don’t feel safety was compromised, he spent years as FO and likely learned anything he would have learned talking the exams. I also don’t see this as a crime that should see jail time, his career is over, punishment enough as far as I am concerned.

It is true that TC doesn't consider any credits from one set of exams to the other like they do for CPL or PPL. But the difference between SAMRA/SARON and HAMRA/HARON was maybe 20% new / different material. It was an important 20%, high altitude stuff, north atlantic tracks, etc - but nothing he wouldn't probably have known from on the job training as an FO already, and confirmed by his line checks and PPCs. Probably close to 50% of the questions were actually identical, word for word. I studied heavily for one set (SAMRA/SARON) then with a quick review of the differences walked into the HAMRA/HARON and had no issues. And let's be honest, TC exams being what they are, most write the exam and ram/dump much of the material immediately after. I've never had to, and never will have to, fly a fixed card ADF, but you know there were questions on how to do it on the exams!

With the skill+experience requirement met (a PPC as captain and all the necessary hours), I agree this is more of a clerical discrepency. Still fraud, still serious, but not necessarily unsafe.

I'm just left questioning why, with all his experience, he didn't just write the SAMRA/SARON and get it over with. Why be so dishonest and fraudulent about it?

A CPL holder with IATRA learns all about high altitude jet by simply flying for Jazz. And 50% of SAMRA/SARON is already in IATRA (quite a few questions are word by word). An ATPL-A doesn't magically makes one an amazing pilot. Through Jazz (and if AC would simply hire CPL holders with IATRA, like they legally could), he's experience would be identical.

I bet $100 right now that 90% of you will fail SAMRA/SARON exams if you would do 0 studying. 90% of what they test is simply not used in real life. (Who here reduces thrust as weight drops? Or analyzing the clouds to figure out where the fronts are while flying at 380?)

I would personally feel safer with someone on my left that has a CPL and passed all the PPC's vs someone with an ATPL that passed their PPC's after a 2nd or 3rd attempt.

Just for the record, I do not condone what he did.

Pretty sure everyone reduces thrust as weight drops. Or the A/T does it for them.

[pelmet]

(Who here reduces thrust as weight drops? Or analyzing the clouds to figure out where the fronts are while flying at 380?)

Isn’t that a basic of LRC? True….in today’s world of automation, one could easily fly their career safely while unaware of this.

Plus, on big jets, I noticed significantly less thrust lever movement required to maintain a target speed on approach between MLW and a medium/lightly loaded aircraft….. ATPL stuff.

Weather had always been one of the various subjects in aviation that I found most interesting(general stuff, not the extreme technical stuff of professional meteorologists). Analyzing clouds should be a part of flying. At the ATPL level, it would be at a higher altitude perspective.

[rudder]

“Wall has been charged with fraud over $5,000, public mischief, two counts of uttering forged documents and three counts of possession of counterfeit mark, Peel police said in a release issued after Tuesday’s news conference.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -9.7228077

According to reports, the TC related civil investigation appears to have originated following the licence documents verification associated with a line check. TC ended up imposing administrative fines against the pilot. The Peel police press conference included the comment that the matter was referred to them by TC for potential criminal offences.

Personally, I found the press conference overblown. Tax dollars well spent? Hardly. How about a simple press release? Certainly the investigation has merit. But these alleged white collar crimes are hardly worthy of an assembly of valuable law enforcement personnel resources in front of cameras. One can only presume that the headline of ‘Air Canada Pilot’ was too tempting to pass up.

Forging an official document will likely be easily proven or disproven to the required legal standard. But fraud requires both a victim and calculable harm. With the mention specifically of wages earned while performing the duties of a Captain, one can resume that the employer will be the alleged victim. That may be a taller legal hurdle. There may also be consideration of whether hull insurance and liability insurance was valid with a non properly licensed crew member. Perhaps that may meet the legal standard of harm.

This is hardly a case of ‘Catch me while you can’ (a Pan Am pilot impersonator). But it is still truly bizarre. One can only wonder what licence and logbook was presented at the original employment screening interview from 1998.

[Tanker299]

A great explanation by Marc Antoine Plourde. Calming the media storm the police made. The police keep going after the low hanging fruit and pumping it up. Making it look like they are doing a super duper good job… Hero Doughnuts all around, maybe even some medals for the brave foot soldiers of “Operation Icarus” … lol. Way bigger fish to fry out there!

https://youtu.be/4kPm_hwLAV8?si=eAK3zA6S5C0aX67l

[airway]

.

“Wall has been charged with fraud over $5,000, public mischief, two counts of uttering forged documents and three counts of possession of counterfeit mark, Peel police said in a release issued after Tuesday’s news conference.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -9.7228077

According to reports, the TC related civil investigation appears to have originated following the licence documents verification associated with a line check. TC ended up imposing administrative fines against the pilot. The Peel police press conference included the comment that the matter was referred to them by TC for potential criminal offences.

Personally, I found the press conference overblown. Tax dollars well spent? Hardly. How about a simple press release? Certainly the investigation has merit. But these alleged white collar crimes are hardly worthy of an assembly of valuable law enforcement personnel resources in front of cameras. One can only presume that the headline of ‘Air Canada Pilot’ was too tempting to pass up.

Forging an official document will likely be easily proven or disproven to the required legal standard. But fraud requires both a victim and calculable harm. With the mention specifically of wages earned while performing the duties of a Captain, one can resume that the employer will be the alleged victim. That may be a taller legal hurdle. There may also be consideration of whether hull insurance and liability insurance was valid with a non properly licensed crew member. Perhaps that may meet the legal standard of harm.

This is hardly a case of ‘Catch me while you can’ (a Pan Am pilot impersonator). But it is still truly bizarre. One can only wonder what license and logbook was presented at the original employment screening interview from 1998.

This case reminds me of an experience I had in 1990's. It was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure I have the main points right.

I was a young new hire as an F/O on the DH8 at a 705 operation. Back then a full ATPL was required to be hired even as as an F/O. That wasn't a problem for me as I had an ATPL then, but some guys were hired on the condition that they have their ATPL by the first day of ground school. There were 8 guys in my ground school (no computer learning back then) and we were all told to bring in our licenses and medicals on that first day. There was one guy who said he forgot, but would bring it in the next day. He kept delaying for a couple more days before finally admitting he didn't have his ATPL yet, and he was fired immediately.

I think a major problem with both of these cases is the lying. How can the company trust anything a person says or does when the lying starts on day one and continues for days or years?






.