Sonic Blue pilots - stand up for yourselves!

r22captain · Post by **r22captain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:25 am

damn triple post...site is weird today

sportingrifle · Post by **sportingrifle** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:00 am

I am really amazed at the arguement that if we don't have the Sonics, Wapati's etc, there will be no place for young pilots to get a start in aviation. Look at England, Germany, NZ, etc-some place where the regulator has fairly consistant standards and teeth. They have Islanders, Navajos, etc over there but I have yet to see any that looked like the ones around the west coast. The charter rate is probably double what it is over here but couruer companies still hire them. The point is that all operators are subject to a common, and much higher standard than in the Canada. All operators know that if they send a Navajo out into icing overgross, with a dead HSI, and boots that don't work, flown by a pilot on a 14 hour duty day, their OC is toast! No warnings, compliance plans, nothing. They are instantly out of bussiness. They don't risk it. Extreme maybe, less operators, maybe, but a viable industry with an accident rate we can't even aspire to. I would like to see local operators smarten up on their own without such heavy handed oversight but if that's what it takes, so be it. I'm sure that the parents of the MU-2 pilots, the Caravan, and all others currently flying for 703 operators in Pacific Region would agree with me.

swede · Post by **swede** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:12 am

The problem with this industry is systemic. People with low time hang out their shingle to work for nothing or next to nothing with the expectation of a big airline job a few years down the road. Meanwhile, people who stick with the smaller carriers with hopes of having some semblance of a life, get the shaft because of the dichotomy of thought between the new hires and the longer time employees. Now the danger of working for small, poorly run companies is becoming more apparent. Something like 6 fatal accidents with small carriers occured in B.C. last year. The problem is that a companies compulsion to cut costs by hiring scab type workers never ends there. Then they start undercutting maintenance and anywhere else they can to try to reduce costs, we are now seeing the result in the accident stats.

r22captain · Post by **r22captain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:50 am

The problem with everything starts at the bottom. Too many pilots....it's been hashed out a million times I know. but that is the problem. Physio's, laywers, and countless other fields have these professional associations that dictate the number of grads every year. Supply and demand. We clearly need that in aviation in Canada. We...the pilots....need to fix this.

Control the supply of pilots and wages will go up. The industry will get cleaned up.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:15 pm

" We...the pilots....need to fix this. "

How?

If your regulator will not enforce federal law how do you think the pilots can?

Your industry in Canada is pathetic, and you are a willing victim by being part of it.

It is a pathetic situation wherein a federal regulator can not enforce federal law.

I am ashamed to admit I am a Canadian when I see how disfunctional aviation is under it's present regulatory management.

Cat

Brewguy · Post by **Brewguy** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:16 pm

r22captain wrote:The problem with everything starts at the bottom. Too many pilots....it's been hashed out a million times I know. but that is the problem. Physio's, laywers, and countless other fields have these professional associations that dictate the number of grads every year. Supply and demand. We clearly need that in aviation in Canada. We...the pilots....need to fix this.

Control the supply of pilots and wages will go up. The industry will get cleaned up.

That's an interesting thought. Unfortunately, it just won't work. Some of these other professions, do try to control the number of qualified people through licencing - but can only do it because they have a level of control as the ones who issue licences.

So in order for your idea to work one would have to "apply" for the opportunity to get a Commercial or ATPL from the licencing authority. That authority is currently TC, but even if they handed over control of "professional" level licences to an industry body (yeah, right) the end result would be the same.

Example: the regulator decides that they will issue 160 "professional" category licences in 2006:
Fixed Wing: 75 Commercial / 25 ATPL
Rotary: 40 Commercial / 20 ATPL.
Now, out of these numbers (to keep it fair) they will only allow "x" number from each province.

So, here you are with bags of time, in every type of aircraft imaginable. You want to "apply" for the ability to get a spot for the type of licence you want, competing against all of the other applicants from your region? You want to submit a resume to the "regulator" and sit through an interview?

Lawyers come from the pool of graduated students from a handful of university law schools. The school admissions people control the size of that pool of graduates by controlling the student intake. The process of "getting in" can be very subjective and competitive. Similar things apply to other professions; the regulation is done largely through the training institutiuons for that profession.

Sorry, it's a great idea, but it's not going to happen.

wsguy · Post by **wsguy** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:33 pm

there have been a lot of comments here about TC and small operators...

I can't help but wonder if Labour Canada should not be involved also.

If there was a minimum that every Cpt and FO had to be paid to fly for a small aircraft, pilots would benefit. Operators would also benefit as it would put them on an even playing field with other operators as far as managing their costs. What I am thinking is that all operators have to purchas fuel at more or less the same cost, purchase parts, buy insurance and..... pay pilots. If all these costs were less variable, then the cost of operating would have to be put to the Cargo Operators that tender these contracts... One operator could not undercut another because it pays it's pilots less than a burger flipper.

I think having Labour Canada involved would help operators and employees alike. You would not see PPC's being sold, $30 000.00 cash deposits for training being taken (ie JetsGo) and pilots being screwed over.

I know we do it to ourselves.... However I would like to see Labour Canada be involved as well as Transport Canada. Would be nice to see the industry get it self sorted out.

I don't profess to have the answers.... but I tell you I find it very frustrating.

Happy flying

Should've been FigPluker · Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:38 pm

r22captain hit the nail on the head. Pretty tough to walk from shiitjob after spending lifesaving on training. A warning on flight training books, like a pack of smokes.. But really regulating numbers in flight training to the commercial level would create opportunity for new pilots to walk/talk more easily and still have hope for other employment. For the countless others giving up on a flying career while swinging payments on training would also appriciate an agency having saved them the headache. Worst is, liciense at the end isn't a good smoke.

JOE BOY · Post by **JOE BOY** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:42 pm

AND IF YOU BROUGHT IN LABOUR CANADA WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE GUY THAT WORKS THE BUSH FOR 6 MONTHS VS A GUY WORKING AS CAPTAIN ON A HO FOR 12 MONTHS FOR COMPANY X HOW WOULD YOU DIFFERENTIATE THE PAY.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:49 pm

Cat Driver wrote: How?
Cat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4650374.stm

Oh, You take the High Road and I'll take the Low Road.

Maybe we should set up one of these. That would really make the "regulator"nervous.
It's not an aviation hotline but the idea is the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whistle-blowing figures revealed

Sixty-two anonymous informers called the hotline
Whistle-blowers informed on 115 staff at Scotland's largest council in nine months, a report has shown.
Allegations included theft and corruption and 16 cases were passed to the benefit counter fraud unit.

Glasgow councillor Craig Roberton said: "We're pleased our whistle-blowing line is having a positive effect in bringing issues to our attention."

Police were alerted in six cases, 30 allegations were unfounded while 24 cases are still under investigation.

One complaint alleging an abuse of power was received and two allegations of corruption.

Eighteen allegations of benefit fraud were made.

CLAIMS BY WHISTLE-BLOWERS
Equipment misuse 10
Working time abuse 17
Theft 5
Abuse of power 1
Corruption 2
Benefit 18

Five complaints of theft included one from a relative of a hostel resident who died.

The person was concerned cash belonging to their relative taken by Glasgow City Council may have been subsequently stolen.

An investigation is continuing and the local authority is looking at tightening procedures for dealing with cash.

Mr Roberton, convener of the audit and ethics committee, said: "I must stress it is a very small number of employees who are involved in misconduct."

Glasgow City Council employs about 38,000 staff.

Public sector union Unison said it supported the whistle-blowing system in principle.

But David O'Connor, Glasgow branch secretary, added: "There is an element of people reporting things that are incorrect or untrue and I am slightly worried about that."

The figures covered the nine months from April to December.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:49 pm

double post

r22captain · Post by **r22captain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:11 pm

I realize that the thought of an association is maybe a ways off....but where did the other professions start at? Not like the day the profession of being a lawyer was created, the association was born the same day. Obviously someone realized it was needed and they followed through with it.

As for your comments Cat. I agree. but let me give you the Physio Therapy example....this applys to thers as well.

There is a college of Physio Therapist's...they control testing/clinics are abiding by the rules etc etc...IE Transport Canada.
The association looks after the number of new grads, fair working conditions etc etc......(IE fairy tale Pilot's association)

see where I'm going? I know it's not that simple just to start one up but it's a thought that should be taken into serious consideration. And don't think it should be applied to currently lisenced pilots. They're already in....licensed by TC....just join the association. They'll get a free pass. Just need to start controlling the number of new pilots. I realize this is a very cyclical indusrty where companies pilot need flucuate (sp) month to month. But this in turn will drive up wages keeping pilots happier, hopefully companies more stable, having less turn over.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:14 pm

" Mr Roberton, convener of the audit and ethics committee, said: "I must stress it is a very small number of employees who are involved in misconduct."

True, but when they are in top management positions it becomeseven harder to remove them.

A case in point would the the Pacific Region TCCA.

Cat

Brewguy · Post by **Brewguy** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:21 pm

wsguy wrote:I think having Labour Canada involved would help operators and employees alike. You would not see PPC's being sold, $30 000.00 cash deposits for training being taken (ie JetsGo) and pilots being screwed over.

Ok, I'm going to briefly play the side of the operator here; strictly as the "Devil's Advocate"

, so to speak.

Let's look at a hypothetical example:
Say I want to start-up a new 703 operator. Just 1 a/c doing a bag-run. Let's go for a Twin Otter. To get the business going, you need to have facilities that are "suitable" to TC. You need to buy or lease an aircraft, re-register it, pay taxes on it, insure it, have it inspected etc. You're looking at tens of thousands of dollars.

Now, let's hire pilots for this operator. Say we need 2 crews, just so we don't have any flight time / duty time issues. So, 2 captains with PPCs (one can be CP, the other Ops Mgr) - and two F/O's with either PPC's or PCC's. These pilots will all need to be hired and trained (line indoc + PPCs) before TC will issue the new OC. So, how much does this cost? Again, tens of thousands.

Ok, so you have all of your general business expenses, aircraft expenses and crew expenses - that you have to pay for before you sell a single minute of flight time to the public. Not to mention all of the regulatory fees, writing manuals etc. You could be carrying these costs for weeks or even months as your application for an OC progresses.

So, from the perspective of the business owner: Do you go for a training bond with your 4 new pilots? Or do you just say, "they're honest looking. if they promise to stay working here fo the next 2 years..."? Now, I wouldn't expect anyone to "pay" for their own training - not in the form of $30K cash like the stunt JetsGone pulled. But you sure as hell are either going to:
a) Work for less while I pay for your training;
b) Sign a contract to work for not less than "x" months, while I get my money's worth from you; or
c) All of the above.

Personally, I think the "bank loan" method is the best. You and the company both take out a loan for the cost of your training, for say 2 years. As long as you keep working, the company keeps paying. You walk, you pay. After all, the "training" you are receiving is valuable to you, and not revenue generating to the company.

As for your suggestion of Labour Canada regulating a minimum wage... good idea. As you say, fuel and insurance costs are fairly standard (in that everyone is getting equally screwed). But how do you keep the company from slacking off on maintenance costs to help cover these labour costs?

Again, the above is just me playing Devil's Advocate

... just food for thought. I've worked in other industries where unions, acting in the best interest of their workers (and feeling fully justified in doing so), put their employers out of business. Does the auto industry ring any bells? I'm not justifying the actions of any particular operator here - but there are always many different perspectives to every situation.

As for regulatory improvements, here's one. The Canadian Transportation Agency is supposed to be in place for "consumer protection". If you want to operate commercially (other than an FTU) you need a CTA licence. Depending on the size of your operation, you need to submit proof that the company is financially sound, before getting a licence. Unfortunately, this is not an on-going requirement. You only have to prove sound finances before initial licencing. If this requirement was made on-going, like with TC on the operational side....? Again, just food for thought.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:00 pm

If your regulator will not enforce federal law how do you think the pilots can?

The industry has evolved a great deal over the years. Due to public demand, many aspects including maintenance an operations are now "self" regulated.

An AMO can now determine on its own, who has aircraft certification authority. Of course the AMO must first demonstrate how it will operate and have the process approved by TC, but once approved, the onus is on the AMO to conduct business lawfully.

So what do you suggest Cat? Should TC step up random ramp checks? Should they have the enforcement department walk a beat from hangar to hangar and hand out tickets for infractions? Maybe audits should be done every 6 months and last 2 months so that every aspect of the operation is checked including the overhaul history of all the components on every airplane.

The current system attempts to place its priority on spot checks not complete tear-down. It works on self regulation and the principal that people typically don't want to harm others or risk their customers lives.

For the vast majority, this principal is true. Generally speaking, nobody wants anyone killed on their airplanes.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the industry that just don't understand what is important and what isn't. They'll tell you that paperwork isn’t important. Or that they don't need TC to tell them what is safe and what isn't. Everyone who starts a small airline thinks they are friggen' experts on everything. That attitude is so prevalent even on this forum. The biggest bunch of misinformation seems to come from the drivers.

When the unthinkable happens and an airplane crashes with a bunch of fare paying passengers, some extremely uninformed people somehow thinks it's the fault of TC. What a bunch of horse-shit.

This isn't brain surgery. It's not difficult to understand. The fault lies directly on the criminal activities of the operator, not the efforts of the regulator.

Is a cop responsible for a guy running a red light and T-boning a mini-van full of kids? No. But they sure come under fire for erecting intersection cameras in an effort to reduce this sort of thing.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:17 pm

r22captain · Post by **r22captain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:24 pm

right on the money Altiplano

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:04 pm

" So what do you suggest Cat? Should TC step up random ramp checks? Should they have the enforcement department walk a beat from hangar to hangar and hand out tickets for infractions? "

What I would suggest is a completely new approach to the problem of accountability.

There was a time when chief pilots determined the suitibility of what pilot to hire and also monitor them during their term of employment. There was no such thing as a transferable PPC.

So why not put the responsibility for safety in each company back in the hands of the chief pilot.

To better ensure that every chief pilot conducts their duties regarding flight safety in accordance with the regulations they must belong to an association of chief pilots and the association would have the authority to police the chief pilots.

Also there must be a process whereby anyone in a company can lodge a complaint regarding an unsafe operation without fear of being identified and punished for doing so.

However may I remind everyone of you that these problems within the Canadian aviation industry do not have any affect on my career, because I no longer work in the industry in Canada.

And I should go get a mental examination for spending so much time pissing into the hurricane of diverse ideas that go nowhere in this group.

In other words I'm just as inefective as the rest of you to find a solution to " Y O U R " problems.

Cat

Viking · Post by **Viking** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:04 pm

The last I heard was a team of Sonic/Regency mechanics getting things ready to fly again. Makes me want to puke......

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:25 pm

So why not put the responsibility for safety in each company back in the hands of the chief pilot.

Are you saying that the chief pilot has no role in safety for airlines in Canada? I'm not following you.

r22captain · Post by **r22captain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:40 pm

Cat I want to take action. I'm in a pretty good position right now and could sit back and fly a pretty happy/well paid career. But the overall state of this industry makes me ashamed/laugh/shake my head. I ahve so amny friends from FW school that are struggling/underpaid/overworked.

I've only been in for a few years and I'm just a young pup. But if we can get our poop together and make some positive changes without slamming all the blame on one agency...maybe actually work in conjuction with them. Maybe a pipe dream. But a concept to start with non-the-less.

r22captain · Post by **r22captain** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:41 pm

stupid douple post again....

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:59 pm

" Are you saying that the chief pilot has no role in safety for airlines in Canada? I'm not following you. "

CID, you don't have to follow me because regardless what I would post you try and spin it.

If you don't know what role chief pilots in the smaller airplane segment of Canadian aviation have, or in most cases do not have I would suggest you educate yourself on that matter.

There is a guy who posts as STC on another forum and used to post as Airplay on yet another forum and he has exactly the same style of windup artist as you do, you wouldn't be posting from Winnipeg would you?

Oh, by the way go fornicate yourself CID.

Cat

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:02 pm

Oh, by the way go fornicate yourself CID.

I asked for a simple clarification. I guess you can't provide one.

I prefer my where-abouts remain anonymous and I don't know any STC or Airplay, but if you don't like them, my guess is that they figured you out too.

Cheers!

Sonic Blue pilots - stand up for yourselves!

Pilot training cancer causing