Keystone blames Transport Canada.

[LH]

Sorry folks, but the second you accept responsibility for an a/c, DI it and take that 'Mother' off the ground, YOU are "the Accountable Executive". Dance around it, slice and dice it however you wish, but they ain't never going to change the rules on that. If anyone is expecting that a courtroom is where truth is found or discovered, then always remember this----- "Truth" is in the hands of he who paid the most for his lawyer because the expensive ones are usually the best ones.

[Cat Driver]

"Truth" is in the hands of he who paid the most for his lawyer because the expensive ones are usually the best ones.

How good is this pilots lawyer?

[CID]

The company in question has a website which states that they have SMS incorporated into their system. The real question for Accountable Executive is whether or not TC has approved the system within the company manuals. If it is not approved, the Accountable Executive is meaningless.

The company didn't have SMS incorporated at the time of the accident. From what I understand, incorporation of SMS was a condition of them getting their OC back.

The whole concept of an accountable executive is quite simple. He is ultimately responsible for the company having procedures in place to effectively operate in accordance with the rules.

That doesn't mean he has to be an expert in interpreting the CARs. He just has to make sure he practices due dilegence in hiring appropriate people with proper credentials and training to perform the tasks at hand.

That includes all aspects like quality control, dispatch, flight following, maintenance, operations, flight attendants etc.

The accountable executive can use various means to verify everything is covered. Some people are knowledgible enough about all aspects of the "biz" to determine it themselves. People that are the head of large airlines tend to delegate that to others and use advisors, self audits, etc. There may be an entire department devoted to self audit and making sure the company is up to snuff.

So if a pilot is found to be grossly negligent and crashes the airplane because it had no fuel, the accountable executive may not be "accountable". If the guy had any role in threatening the pilot, or not supplying proper procedures, or creating a culture of carelessness, or even if he knew the pilot had a history of being a careless cowboy, he may be sharing a jail cell with the pilot.

Of course there will always be accidents where there was no criminal negligence or intent. You won't see those end up in criminal court.

[Widow]

I still don't understand how the accountable executive is different from the operations manager. Can someone please explain?

[CID]

widow,

The accountable executive CAN be the operations manager however, he/she must be high enough in the executive management ladder (not just general management) to control where the money goes.

If a company tries to appoint their operations manager as the accountable executive but he/she doesn't have any commercial liability in the company beyond a paycheck then TC won't (from what I understand) accept that person.

In some companies the operations manager just might also own a large share of the company. In that case they may be eligible to be the accountable executive.

In a company like Air Canada, the accountable executive just might be the CEO or president of the company.

In a small charter company, the accountable executive might be the mechanic or the janitor for that matter as long as he/she owns enough of the company.

The whole idea is to make sure that the guy with all the money can't just skulk away after a crash if he/she didn't put reasonable measures in place to ensure safety and compliance with the regulations.

There are plenty of these people around. People who walked away from defunct airlines with their assets (usually airplanes owned at arms length) leaving the mechanics, pilots and QA people to suffer thorugh court and loss of wages only to start up another operation. Sometimes in the same province using the same airplanes.

[tripleittt]

CID you are right about the SMS program being adopted at Keystone shortly after the last accident. Let me tell you though. I had no idea what SMS was until I got a new job 18 months later. My new job had SMS and it was incorporated and pilots were indoctrinated on it.

All we were told at keystone was that we have a new safety system which will improve our safety record. They even went as far as to say that they were the first in MB and one of the first in Canada to adopt the program. Adopting and incorporating are two totally different things though. From my perspective as a pee-on, dime a dozen Navajo driver at Keytsone, nothing changed after the accident, just different colored smoke being blown up my buttocks.

[Widow]

The "accountable executive" idea should be covered by Bill C-45 (Criminal Code). If Bill C-45 was used, financial stakeholders would already be accountable.

[CID]

The "accountable executive" idea should be covered by Bill C-45 (Criminal Code). If Bill C-45 was used, financial stakeholders would already be accountable.

From what I understand widow, there are subtle differences. Bill C-45 doesn’t charge the executive of a company with the specific responsibilities required by SMS.

Bill C-45 goes after the executive that knowingly breaks the law for financial gain. SMS requires the accountable executive to responsible to ensure very specific requirements of the CARs are in place and working.

For example, if the accountable executive coerces or bribes someone to go vandalize a competing airlines airplanes, there’s a good chance that he will be answering to legislation derived from bill C-45.

If he has someone set up QA system that requires self audit to ensure proper maintenance is done and fails to act or follow up on reports that inspections aren’t being done, he (in my opinion) would probably be among the people being charged under the aeronautics act along with the maintainers and the inspectors.

Without SMS, there is a good chance executives in this case would avoid court because C-45 doesn’t require the responsible executive to ensure a quality system is in place and the proper audit procedures are carried out. He can just deny all knowledge and put the blame squarely on his staff. SMS would make sure the buck stopped on the accountable executive’s desk.

[Widow]

Bill C-45 does make the operator (corporation/owners) responsible for providing a safe working environment, and responsible for their representatives.

What is Bill C-45?

Bill C-45 is federal legislation that amends the Canadian Criminal Code. Bill C-45 became law on March 31, 2004 and is now the new Section 217.1 in the Criminal Code which reads:

"2.17.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task."

The bill established new legal duties for workplace health and safety, and imposes serious penalties for violations that result in injuries or death. It also establishes rules for attributing criminal liability to organizations, including corporations, for the acts of their representatives and also creates a legal duty for all persons directing work to take "reasonable steps" to ensure the safety of workers and the public.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/billc45.html

[black hole]

Would be interested to see what the pilots flight plan said????
Did he lie???
Was he forces to lie???
Did he make an honest mistake????


BH

[the_professor]

There are plenty of these people around. People who walked away from defunct airlines with their assets (usually airplanes owned at arms length) leaving the mechanics, pilots and QA people to suffer thorugh court and loss of wages only to start up another operation. Sometimes in the same province using the same airplanes.

Michel Leblanc, anyone?