Safety Management System

[Widow]

This is real world....

I was a perforator for Computalog aka Precision Drilling. When Precision bought us out we joined a company that had thousands of employees and hundereds of drilling rigs, hundereds of service rigs, thousands of trucks and other peices of equipment. They also had a safety program called "Target Zero". Meaning zero loss time injuries per year. Was that a realistic goal that conforms to the realities of the "real world" likely not. Should the whole program have been scrapped for setting those goals? I don't think so. It did make a difference. Were there guys who dismissed it and said "here we go more paperwork" absolutly there was. But the majority took the program to heart and it did make things safer.

My husband worked for a large forestry company that has it's own "fabulous" SMS system. That system included a monthly safety meeting with it's air operators, according to the tender for contract. Somehow, I don't think they failed to notice the lack of flight-following going on. Or many of the other dangerous things that were going on. That didn't make any difference either.

[Dust Devil]

This is real world....

I was a perforator for Computalog aka Precision Drilling. When Precision bought us out we joined a company that had thousands of employees and hundereds of drilling rigs, hundereds of service rigs, thousands of trucks and other peices of equipment. They also had a safety program called "Target Zero". Meaning zero loss time injuries per year. Was that a realistic goal that conforms to the realities of the "real world" likely not. Should the whole program have been scrapped for setting those goals? I don't think so. It did make a difference. Were there guys who dismissed it and said "here we go more paperwork" absolutly there was. But the majority took the program to heart and it did make things safer.

My husband worked for a large forestry company that has it's own "fabulous" SMS system. That system included a monthly safety meeting with it's air operators, according to the tender for contract. Somehow, I don't think they failed to notice the lack of flight-following going on. Or many of the other dangerous things that were going on. That didn't make any difference either.

Damnit had to hit refesh again. grrrrrrr

Anywho Precision had accidents after their SMS came into effect as well. GP wrote off a few trucks as did the Highlevel station. But the number of accidents did get better. It's not going to solve every problem but it will help solve some.

[trey kule]

DD. If your reading this you know you should be doing other things.

I was not trying to win. I was hoping to add some balance and perspective to TC's education/brainwashing campaign.

But.. I have to add this. One of the bright young stars who realized that I was not really checking the Wx for the last hour came over to see what kind of porn I was looking at. and now to the story.

He mentioned, and we just had a discussion about it....here was the question.

Yes , our company has been doing SMS. So whats the problem?

the problem, in the past, is that all documentation had to be hidden away...Why...because TC, the folks that brought you SMS would use it as evidence to show you were running a shoddy operation. Now TC suddenly wants us to bring all this documentation (and more) for their viewing...why. To see that we have aprogram in place, or to judge (and sanction us) for our work...Guess what the consensus is in our office.

After all, you are dealing with a ministry that ignores the Charter of Rights, poorly trains their own inspectors, and covers up all evil doers, deeds. they do not understand how to properly use the power invested in them, and they continually want to obtain more. As anyone who has been in the management end of the business for a few years will tell you, the less you put on paper, the better off you are. and that is not the way its should be. and in my opinion the fault for this lies right at TC's door.

I will be retired in a couple of years... I feel for those who remain, for as a wise man once said...all it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

[Living_Sky]

Living sky...how much "skill" does it take not to go below limits? To carry enough gas? To check the weather? Not to fly too much overweight? To keep a clean wing? It's not "skill", it's not doing anything really stupid! And, that's what SMS is all about, right? Except with paper work. But this has been covered. I check my OWN airplane. I check my OWN wx, etc. etc. And no, I don't need TC to force something I'm already doing down my throat.

So if thats the case... why do you seem to be fighting it so... If you are already doing what is required by SMS, then it would have very little effect on you, your flying, or your operation. Thing is... following that 'heaven forbid' ACCIDENT... how are you going to prove that all of that was done... that you were in fact following your SMS. The only difference that I can see is that your ego is telling you that filling out a bit of paperwork is 'beneath you'. At least, with the system, you will have the appropriate paper trail to prove due diligence.

As per your other post

Well then, it seems you read all that well. Take the time to read my other posts. And a few of the others as well. You can use phonics to sound out the big words.

If you want to take this to a grade school level... I WILL TYPE IN BIG, BLACK, LETTERS FOR YOU![/b]

[trey kule]

Living Sky wrote:

filling out a bit of paperwork is 'beneath you'

Ever hear the parable of the straw that broke the camel's back? It seems to me that you dont know exactly how much paperwork is required to operate an air service. And for the most part it has no other use then to become evidence against you. the bad guys fake it. The good guys fear it. It is not about being "beneath me" and it is more than just "a bit"

The sense I get from your comments is that you are not involved with the operational management of a company.

[Living_Sky]

Flew under a commercial operating certificate for several years, so yes... I am well aware of the paperwork involved. Not to the extent that some of the regionals or larger would deal with... but I think I have a fairly good grasp.

Odd thing is... I have heard the EXACT Words spewing from rig workers to waitresses. "More paperwork, more paperwork, more paperwork"

As per your comments of SMS being used as evidence against you... thats absolutely rediculous. A documented Safety Management System will prove to the courts that you do in fact have the training in place... the hazard assessment and control in place... the Management Commitment, Procedures and so on in place. How will you prove that otherwise?

I'm sorry sir... but standing in front of a judge and saying "we already make sure our wings are clean, because my pilots tell me they check the wings" will not cut it in todays courtroom.

[CD]

the problem, in the past, is that all documentation had to be hidden away...Why...because TC, the folks that brought you SMS would use it as evidence to show you were running a shoddy operation. Now TC suddenly wants us to bring all this documentation (and more) for their viewing...why. To see that we have aprogram in place, or to judge (and sanction us) for our work...Guess what the consensus is in our office.

I believe that this is true. Once upon a time, I had a locked cabinet in the office that was not for TC's eyes, mostly because it would then be subject to the Access to Information Act - it was for internal use and contained those types of reports that would now fall under the auspices of an SMS. The difference going forward in the future is that one of the amendments to the Aeronautics Act is to introduce the concept of collecting safety data - and proctecting that data. This is the text from the Annex 2 revision:

Collection, analysis and reporting of safety data

It is proposed that the Act be amended to authorize the Minister to enter into administrative arrangements with persons engaged in aeronautical activities (including aircraft operators; airport operators; air navigation service providers; and persons engaged in the design, distribution, maintenance, manufacture, distribution, maintenance, approval and certification of aeronautical products) respecting the collection, analysis, use and reporting of safety data.

It is proposed that the Act also provide explicit regulation making authority under s.4.9 with respect to safety data systems, including regulations respecting the collection, analysis, use and reporting of data.

The term "safety data" will be broadly defined to include data related to civil aviation security matters as well as aviation safety data, and will include data evidencing violations of the Act and regulations.

The amendments to the Act will provide that the safety data collected, analyzed and/or reported by the operator or service provider will be treated as confidential and may not be communicated to any person without the consent of the operator or service provider. Appropriate amendments will be recommended to the Access to Information Act to prevent disclosure of safety data under that Act.

The Minister may make such use of the safety data as is consistent with the objectives of the Act.

The Act will provide that the safety data may not be used in enforcement proceedings under the Act except in circumstances identified in the regulations. The circumstances under which the data could be used in enforcement proceedings would include situations where the data pertains to:

* an aircraft accident;
* an offence under s.7.3(1) of the Act;
* any other offence under the Act which was wilfully or deliberately committed;
* the competency and/or qualifications of a person (individual or company) to hold a Canadian aviation document; or
* a second (repeat) offence committed within the past 2 years.

As regards proceedings other than under the Aeronautics Act, the amendments will provide that the safety data may not be used in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings, unless the public interest in the administration of justice outweighs the public interest in keeping the data confidential.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Bill C-6 and whether it gets passed before the next election. If not, then as I believe has happened in the past, it all has to be debated in Parliament again...

[Widow]

Flew under a commercial operating certificate for several years, so yes... I am well aware of the paperwork involved. Not to the extent that some of the regionals or larger would deal with... but I think I have a fairly good grasp.

Odd thing is... I have heard the EXACT Words spewing from rig workers to waitresses. "More paperwork, more paperwork, more paperwork"

As per your comments of SMS being used as evidence against you... thats absolutely rediculous. A documented Safety Management System will prove to the courts that you do in fact have the training in place... the hazard assessment and control in place... the Management Commitment, Procedures and so on in place. How will you prove that otherwise?

I'm sorry sir... but standing in front of a judge and saying "we already make sure our wings are clean, because my pilots tell me they check the wings" will not cut it in todays courtroom.

I'd just like to say, that as long as you only fly working stiffs, no employer is likely to ever have to face a courtroom.

[Doc]

Okay Living...we must agree to disagree. I don't think more paperwork will make you safer. You do.
Question: Do you think the log entries and load sheets for overweight crashed aircraft, reflect that overload? I don't think they would. You see, paperwork only reflects what you want it to. If the aircraft has a gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds, have you ever seen an entry in the log showing 13,895? No, you haven't, and neither have I. But there are lots of overweight aircraft flying around, all with paperwork as PROOF that they were indeed under gross.
It's the same with inspections. Ever seen the paper work appear BEFORE the inspection. I have. But there's the PROOF judge!
I've never seen anything on an aircraft that didn't appear on the manifest. Yes I have. Paper can be (and often is) total bull shit!
So, if paperwork makes you feel all warm and cozy, gives you that fuzzy secure feeling, have at it, and fill your boots.
Me? Paperwork = ass wipe.

[Living_Sky]

Yes Doc... I understand. And I'm not saying that more paperwork will aleviate accidents... I'm saying that the amount of paperwork added by an SMS or Safety program... whatever you want to call it will be negligeable.

PEOPLE are the only thing that will make the system safe, but what the SMS does is provide guideline structure and tracking to an otherwise ad-hoc program.

Yes, paperwork can be manipulated, and yes... it likely will be... but I think that would only be for a very shady few.

And yes sir... Agreed to diseagree (handshake)

[Doc]

Screw the handshake....where's the beer???

[snaproll20]

Hey, Living Sky.

I see a mile-wide hole in your argument and it is another "perversion" that needs to be addressed in coping with TCCA.

For whatever reason (and I mean legitimate or illegitimate on the part of the particular Inspector), that TCCA decides to suspend your OC, you are gone, toast, finito, defunct, broke.

The reason behind this is that a suspended OC means huge legal costs to get back, remedial action that costs money and very likely, a bureacratic degree of heel-dragging that ensures you go out of business. Are you aware that TCCA has this cute little procedure of issuing dated suspensions that give you the briefest span of time to prove compliance before you get the hammer? They blackmail you into a "voluntary suspension" and make you write a letter telling the world why. (mea culpa).

You cannot survive the time it would take to regain your OC and you will not be able to navigate the courts to sue and get proper compensation for a wrongful act by TCCA.
(Unless you are very rich, in which case, why the hell be in aviation?)

You are suggesting that you "cannot" be taken to court. HA!!! You will be lucky (rich) to even GET a day in court!!!

You are also suggesting that openness with your SMS will ensure a defence. What if you missed some small item? SMS covers such an enormous range of territory that I would suggest EVERYBODY will miss some TRIVIAL ITEM. And remember, truth does not always prevail in court. Often it is who has the best (or most) lawyers.

Sorry, but the way I see it, your naked ass could be pointing at the sky.

[Living_Sky]

You are suggesting that you "cannot" be taken to court. HA!!! You will be lucky (rich) to even GET a day in court!!!

No... I'm not suggesting that at all... what I said is... that in the event that you 'may be' taken to court... a properly documented SMS will provide a good defence. (a paper trail so to speak)

The following is the definition of Due Diligence
1. appropriate carefulness: the degree of care that a prudent person would exercise, which is a legally relevant standard for establishing liability

With an SMS in place, you will be much better prepared to prove that you were operating in a prudent manner. The courts don't listen to "he said, she said"... if it isn't documented... it doesn't exist. SMS (managed properly) will provide operators with that documentation.

If you have missed a 'small item', the courts will compare that to the prudent person test... could it have been overlooked by anyone else given the same circumstances. Prudent Person does recognize some leeway if the rest of your manual (SMS) shows compliance/effort.

As for your comment re: suspension of OC. I think I addressed that in another post where I made it quite clear that SMS will not work unless TC provides significant training to their own personnel. Additionally, Guidelines need to be set to establish exactly how TC will respond to concerns and/or incidents.

[Widow]

SMS will not work unless TC provides significant training to their own personnel. Additionally, Guidelines need to be set to establish exactly how TC will respond to concerns and/or incidents.

Very clear.

[Living_Sky]

One last thing to add to all this, is that SMS, as has been said is nothing new. This is not something that has been developed by TC to be rammed down our throats.

A Safety Program, or SMS is a tool to prove compliance with Bill C-45 Criminal Code amendments. Yes... the Safety Management Systems are coming down from the auspice of TC, but its roots go back to C-45 under which employees, managers, supervisers, etc. can be criminally charged for violations of Safety policy. Basically, although TC's version of the SMS is in its infancy... it's still going to cover your ass.

On June 12, 2003, the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, introduced Bill C-45, an Act to amend the Criminal Code that imposes criminal liability on corporations and organizations, that fail to take reasonable measures to protect employee and public safety. The Bill received Royal Assent on November 7, 2003 and on February 25, 2004, the Library of Parliament announced that the Act will come into effect on March 31, 2004.

[snaproll20]

Quote....

"SMS will not work unless TC provides significant training to their own personnel. Additionally, Guidelines need to be set to establish exactly how TC will respond to concerns and/or incidents."

Yeah, SKy, there it is, spoken clearly by yourself....SMS will not work.

TCCA has failed miserably and completely at not only training its own people, but selecting (certain) employees who are not suited to the job.
The Regional differences in application and methodology are staggering.
With decades of failure behind them, how do you think they could launch SMS overnight?

Already, we hear that 703 application is running into difficulties in its preparation. I would suggest 703 is where most of the future SMS non-compliance will occur.

It is not that I do not support SMS, as I have stated elsewhere here. After all, throughout my expired career, I practiced it and preached proper operations as a means of recognition. The safety record was excellent.

Still, I am willing to bet you that SMS-style scrutiny applied (say) ten years ago would have sent me down the toilet. Moreso because giving out damaging information willingly is a suicidal gesture.

You cannot legislate human nature.

[Cat Driver]

Last Thursday I E-mailed both Mr. Potter and MS. Sauve of TC with some questions about this educating the TC employees on integrity etc.

Both of them are in the department that is supposed to explain to TC employees that integrity is part of their job description.

So far I have received no reply.

[CD]

One last thing to add to all this, is that SMS, as has been said is nothing new. This is not something that has been developed by TC to be rammed down our throats.

A Safety Program, or SMS is a tool to prove compliance with Bill C-45 Criminal Code amendments. Yes... the Safety Management Systems are coming down from the auspice of TC, but its roots go back to C-45 under which employees, managers, supervisers, etc. can be criminally charged for violations of Safety policy...

As you noted, SMS is not new nor unique to Canada. As most fields of aviation internationally will be required to implement SMS by 2009 (ICAO requirement), here are some links with additional information that I had posted on page 1:

ICAO Safety Management Website
ICAO - Safety Management Manual
Transport Canada - Safety Management Systems
CASA - Safety Management Systems
FAA - AC 120-92 - Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Air Operators
FAA - Safety Is Our Business - Safety Management System
FSI Fourth Quarter 2004

[Living_Sky]

Thank you CD. and another point worth mentioning, is that with all the worry about TC involvement, the SMS is an 'in house' method of handling safety concerns. Yes... an auditor will likely look at the documentation, but if they see that problems have been identified, and addressed... What justifyable concerns would they have?

[Widow]

Will SMS really make it easier to criminally prosecute the shady operator? Because if so, I just might have to think again. It won't stop shady from operating, but at least we might be able to get shady behind bars after he kills some one. It's better than not being able to get shady at all. Better still, get TCCA to do their job to start with - consistently and with common sense - shady can't operate and nobody dies unnecessarily any more. Boy I'm a dreamer.

BTW Living-Sky, I think they are talking about TCCA's not uncommon unjustifiable concerns.

[Living_Sky]

Bill C-45 will make it easier to prosecute re: an Occupational Health and Safety issue.

As presented by TC, the SMS seems to encompass Employee Health and Safety as well as operational safety, for the most part, they go hand in hand.

In other industries, charges have already been laid under C-45. When the first in aviation will occur could be anyones guess. The legislation is there... and no-one is exempt.

Re: TCCA's unjustifiable concerns... a portion of that is due to guesswork (on their part) and with a good SMS in place... some of that guesswork would be eliminated.

[marktheone]

Let's not confuse some govertment bonehead's thinking with safety. SMS will make us no safer because, as Doc pointed out, it is just paper and can be fudged.

Pardon me for being sceptical but everytime the goddamn government comes up with some "great" idea they end up making a mess out of everything.

Industry needs to find a way to enact a reasonable check and balance system with TC. Therefore both sides (TC and Industry) would be regulated.

It can be done.

[Cat Driver]

" Industry needs to find a way to enact a reasonable check and balance system with TC. Therefore both sides (TC and Industry) would be regulated.

It can be done. "

Of course it can.

And that is the only way it will work.

Like Doc said paper is for wiping your ass.

[Living_Sky]

There was a time I could have agreed with you all. But experience has taught me otherwise... When I see a drilling rig go from one of the most dangerous places to work... to the safest (2005 Stats) as the result of SMS, then I have no choice but to see the validity in it.

It could be that TC is not the organization to run it/implement it... but SMS is a benefit to all, and I haven't seen any industry associations step up to the plate.

[Widow]

Last Thursday I E-mailed both Mr. Potter and MS. Sauve of TC with some questions about this educating the TC employees on integrity etc.

Both of them are in the department that is supposed to explain to TC employees that integrity is part of their job description.

So far I have received no reply.

On December 6, 2006 I sent an email to TSB demanding an investigation for cause, and followed up on January 19th after receiving the TCCA inspection report. I have yet to receive a response.

On January 19th, I emailed the BC Minister of Transport Kevin Falcon. On January 21st I emailed Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transportation Infrastructures and Communities, Wayne Chapin TCCA Chief Operational Certification and Standards as well as Bohdin Goyaniuk TCCA Chief Continuing Airworthiness. Not so much as an acknowledgement has been received.

I did hear from the Canadian Transportation Agency's Enforcement Division - they advised me to get a good litigation lawyer.