703 safety concerns; Let's find solutions

carholme · Post by **carholme** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:13 pm

Dockjock and other pilots supporting the organization proposal.

Where were all of you and your ethical reporting standards when we had our difficulties? Why do you need a new organization to do the right thing?How many of you are doing the right thing this very day?

If as some of you seem to be, so damned concerned about what is happening, what are you doing about it today? There is a regulatory agency you can talk to. Of course that may put your name out there for all to see but does that matter if you feel so strongly about 703 Safety and what you claim to see happening in the industry? If you want to have good operators you can fly for and make some decent money, what are you doing to see that it can happen?

I apologize if this may seem arrogant in any way but if you "talk the talk", you have to "walk the walk".

As well, in reference to Dockjock's hope for our perfect safety record, we are not supportive of the word "perfect". God willing that we all have one but it must be the investment and company culture that promotes an attitude of education, trying daily to do the right thing, and an in-house openess that allows for people to feel that admitting a mistake is not for personal blame, rather for the good of us all.

carholme

wrenchingirl · Post by **wrenchingirl** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:21 pm

Transport made a presentation at the Ontario AME conference in Thunderbay, about a Safety Management System that would be implemented in the next couple of years. The plan is to ditch the old audit system. Each year they would require air operators to submit a report of all incidents or staff safety complaints and a description of what the company did to rectify the situation and prevent future mishaps. The company would be responsible to make sure all employees adhered to and understood procedures. This would be backed up by a TC inspecter interviewing employees at random. There would be no fines if the company took the required steps to rectify the situation. Im not sure if this is still in the works.. But here is a link to a SMS guide by TC, it has many interesting points. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... script.htm

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:50 pm

Carholme:

For decades I also refused to carry overloads or fly unsafe aircraft, and now decades later I am still alive and get offers for employment from some of the best employeers on earth.

So good on you and the way you do things, if I were looking for a job I would like to fly for someone with your attitude..

Dockjock:

as to this...

" You should have to have at least 2-3 yrs of post secondary education to hold an ATPL. That's my view. "

So what would happen to all my licenses and authorizations?

I got all my flying qualifications with a grade eight formal education.

Cat

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:56 pm

Dockjock:

as to this...

" You should have to have at least 2-3 yrs of post secondary education to hold an ATPL. That's my view. "

So what would happen to all my licenses and authorizations?

I got all my flying qualifications with a grade eight formal education.

Cat

Yeah Cat I said it before and I'll say it again some of the best pilots I know have no post sec. education, you just can't buy P.D.M. skills it all adds up to experiance and pressure (and a good set of balls to stand up for yourself)

Dockjock · Post by **Dockjock** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:44 pm

Exististing license holders would keep their license. As I said a couple times, education doesn't make one pilot better than another. It certainly doesn't make one worse though.

Requiring a 3-yr course of study to qualify for the ATPL would be a simple, worthwhile way of restricting the supply of pilots by making it harder to get a license.

Big Pistons Forever · Post by **Big Pistons Forever** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:42 pm

Sadly Dockjock et al will eventually get their wish. GA is slowly dying and with it the entry level jobs. Europe has 300 hr 737 FO,s because there is essentially no 703 level operators in which new pilots can gain experience and which act as a farm team for the major arlines. In fact the EASA is proposing a Multi Crew Commercial license. Under this scheme pilots only get 45 hours in a light single followed by 200 hours in a transport jet simulator and then straight to the right seat of a jet. This license recognises the fact that GA jobs do not really exist in Europe.

My gut feel is the number of entry level jobs has been slowly but consistantly declining in Canada. This is not a concern for experienced pilots but does not bode well for folks just starting out. It is the extreme oversupply of new commercial pilots relative to the remaining entry level jobs, that is driving the recent trend of what is becoming the industry wide practices of buying PPC's and working for free. Unfortunately it is not going to be pretty as the low timers continue to chase the falling knife and in my opinion will ultimately drive a Europian style of flying with much fewer total flying jobs.

AntiNakedMan · Post by **AntiNakedMan** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:13 pm

Dockjock wrote:The job of operations manager and chief pilot should be arms length positions. No owners or part owners should be able to hold this position. Not permanently, not temporarily until "someone suitable" is found. It is the ultimate conflict of interest, in my opinion, to have the person accountable for safety also be the person most concerned with the bottom line. If this means the end of the 1 or 2 plane charter outfit where the owner is the ops man, chief pilot, line pilot, csa, charter saleman, crew scheduler, rampie, fueller, and accountant so be it. Perhaps this type of operation wasn't meant to be anyway, if safety is to be the first and foremost consideration for an air operator.

I haven't had time to read everything here, but this caught my eye... I've worked for at least 2 charter companies that had the owner as the CP... once because he was the only pilot. In another situation, our pilots gaurantee us a year of flying, so what's the point in having them as a CP for one year then leaving and having a void having someone new trained?

Of course, this is all dependant upon the specific situation, but I don't believe that you should make such a general statement when it ovbiously will not work.

Anti

flyer · Post by **flyer** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:30 am

Gotta say it, I've seen some pretty horrible airmanship and flying skills come out of the 'upper class' flight training schools. Nothing trains better than real life, ask any industry leaders and they'll tell you a framed piece of paper usually means very little. Education is a good thing but does not translate into skill. On the other side of the fence, I've met veteran bush pilots who couldn't fly straight and level if their life depended on it...

jjj · Post by **jjj** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:40 pm

An operator can't make you do anything you don't want to...

When you set power on the take-off roll, there isn't a manager pushing your elbow - it's your choice.

If you take a bird into the sky that you know isn't safe and something bad happens - it's your fault.

I applaud your ideals and preventive thought process, but you are not as powerless as you think and a regulatory body cannot give a pilot a spine.

Fear of repercussions from an employer is not an acceptable excuse to do something that you know in your heart is wrong.

Don't hold your breath and wait for Transport Canada to make all the tough decisions of your career for you.

For now, make the tough calls and if you lose your job, so be it. You won't be dead. It's not fair - it's life.

jjj

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:07 am

Not to worry. 703 is a hell of a long way from dead in Canada. This is not Europe, thank god. We have a spread out population with small airstrips that a 300Hr 737 driver wouldn't stand a hope in hell of landing on. So 703 will continue.

Big Pistons Forever · Post by **Big Pistons Forever** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:55 pm

Marktheone

When I started flying commercially in 1987; just on the West Coast there were 5 operators flying a total of over 20 PA23/34/31/BN2/C402 aircraft purely on pax flying plus a bunch more frieghters and interior operators. As far as I can see there are only a 2 or 3 entry level twins left on the Coast. I do not know how things are in the rest of Canada but 703 is definitely going away in BC.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:34 pm

2 or 3? Really. What 2 or 3 are you thinking of just out of curiousity. I would say that there is more than that.

Cheers, Mark

Big Pistons Forever · Post by **Big Pistons Forever** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:04 pm

With respect to entry level twins doing pax (not freight) on the Coast. The only ones I can think about is Juan Air in YYJ and the guy in ZBB. The 1987 figure of 20 I quoted was aircraft flying pax services. If you counted the freighters the number would be over 30. I am also only talking about aircraft from outfits based on the Coast. There is no way that there is anywhere near that many aircraft now and therfore by extension much fewer oportunities for low time guys/gals to get a start in the industry.

CD · Post by CD » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:17 pm

You can do a search on who's doing what kind of operations here:

Operator List Search

Dockjock · Post by **Dockjock** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:56 am

As per usual, everybody's out of the woodwork to denigrate the apparent lack of quality produced at the "upper class" flying schools. This isn't about better pilots. This isn't about training. This isn't about a class struggle where the little-underdog-that-could is gonna get left behind. This is about reducing the GLUT of pilots on the market, thereby raising the standard of living for everyone. I didn't once suggest a 3-yr college course as a way of increasing safety or increasing skills. I suggested it as a worthwhile, simple way of making it harder to get a license.

Is not every professional designation entirely arbitrary? With standards set out by a council of peers? Sure, we could have a pilot association that did same, but if you let everybody in, then what's the point? The college of physicians, when you get down to it, is about protecting DOCTORS interests as much as it is about protecting PATIENTS interests. Let me ask you this, if the CMA (Canadian Medical Association) was solely concerned with patient care, why have they not moved to lobby government to ease immigration/qualification restrictions on foreign doctors? Get more doctors in here! Why, because right now they're IN DEMAND, and therefore have POWER as a group. Pilot are not, and thus have no power, and nobody cares what we get paid, how long our duty days are, or how any of this relates to safety.

Anyway perhaps that's a topic for another thread. I still stand by my contention that flight safety positions and ownership should be separate. That would be a big departure from our current industry model, but that conflict of interest separation is common in every other industry.

703 safety concerns; Let's find solutions

703 Safety Concerns