Bill C-7: An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act

[CID]

I'm not brainwashed widow. I just understand how to read the CADORs. And I understand the industry.

I'm actually getting rather sick of responding to your alarmist crap and your idiotic assumptions based on what very little you know about the industry.

I really should kick myself in the ass for falling in this never-ending trap for this long.

Excuse me while I take my leave of all this hysteria and get back to working and playing in the safe Canadian aviation industry.

Cheers.

[xsbank]

At last! Good riddance.

[xsbank]

At last! Good riddance.

[twotter]

I'm not brainwashed widow. I just understand how to read the CADORs. And I understand the industry.

I'm actually getting rather sick of responding to your alarmist crap and your idiotic assumptions based on what very little you know about the industry.

I really should kick myself in the ass for falling in this never-ending trap for this long.

Excuse me while I take my leave of all this hysteria and get back to working and playing in the safe Canadian aviation industry.

Cheers.

What a jackass. Why does anyone even respond to this morons posts? I've said for a long time that if we all ignore him, he will go away. The whole purpose of his involvment in this forum is to stir up shit.

It's time for him to go back to his comic book collection and wait for mommy to make his dinner, after that he can put on his foot jammies and she will read him a story about how good SMS will be. Or Alice in Wonderland because they both have the same relevance.

Ignore this jackass and hopefully he will disappear!!

Keep up the fight Widow..

[Widow]

I'd really, really like to know who feels comfortable with this from Bill C-7 as it stands:

Evidence

24.6 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3),

(a) a report purporting to have been signed by an investigator stating that the investigator has exercised any power under section 13 and stating the results of the exercise of the power, or

(b) a document purporting to have been certified by an investigator as a true copy of or extract from a document produced to the investigator under subsection 13(10)

is admissible in evidence in any prosecution for an offence under this Part without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the report or certified the document and is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of the statements contained in the report or proof of the contents of the document.

[snaproll20]

CID.
Your psychiatric help wants you to go back. They did not mean to leave the door open.

[snaproll20]

Widow.

This part of the Bill has to be wiped out.
We already have management of TCCA who thumb their noses at the truth......even if it does not hurt them. We cannot allow this skirting of our most precious possession i.e. 'innocent until proven guilty' taken away and abused by personality-challenged clowns who cannot find employment anywhere else but in the Government.
How did we get to this?

[CD]

Any indication on who this "investigator" is? Most Transport Canada inspectors are not delegated to "investigate". I think that only dangerous goods and enforcement have the authority to conduct investigators...

Just curious if you've found that it's expanded upon somewhere...

[Widow]

Just in case anyone has the time and inclination to check out tomorrows H of C sitting number 15, which should resume discussion on C-7 ... it can be viewed here: parlvu.parl.gc.ca starting at 10am EST.

[Widow]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7 because I come from a northern environment where air traffic is essential to the very nature of the communities.

As well, I grew up on an airport. My father was an airport manager and worked for the Department of Transportation for 30 years. I think right now he would be very annoyed with me if I did not stand up and speak out on the issues surrounding air safety.

For my hon. colleagues in the Conservative Party who seem to think that a voice in the House of Parliament is something that is not important, that someone showing a side of Canada that perhaps is not fully represented here is somehow degrading to the House, is an unfortunate turn of words. I am here to represent my constituents as best as possible on a matter of serious significance to them.

When we think of aircraft safety, we think of maintenance safety, and when we look at those issues we can look at anecdotal examples. I can think of what happened last week in Sweden where corrosion on a part of the landing gear on one of our Canadian built planes resulted in the plane collapsing on the runway. Luckily there were no civilian deaths but it was a situation that happened because of maintenance schedules that obviously were not adequate for the situation the plane was in.

When we talk about maintenance schedules on aircraft, we have a great concern with that process.

I will give another example. I was at the Edmonton airport last year in the winter waiting to go north on a scheduled aircraft carrier. We all trooped aboard the plane and then we sat and waited. The pilot finally did an inspection and found a football sized dent in the rear aileron. This, obviously, was missed by the maintenance staff even though they did have a maintenance schedule in place. The plane was emptied and on we went.

I, as well as everyone else on that flight, would like to understand why that happened. With the absence of the proper ability to access that information we will not have those answers. Without careful attention to a regulatory and inspection process that can guarantee that we have high standards of maintenance, we can see this sort of thing occurring all the way down the line.

I will take a step backward and speak to the aircraft industry as a whole. In the north especially we are being impacted by changing climate conditions. This fall alone we have seen major problems in airport shutdowns in Norman Wells and in Inuvik for a whole four days. Our diamond mines lost four days of production.

We see these problems all over because of the changing climatic conditions and yet the past government reduced the federal government's role in maintaining aviation weather reporting. Many of our airports across the north do not have adequate weather equipment or observers on the ground providing information on a regular basis even though these conditions are changing. The travelling public is at risk.

Last year I flew out of Inuvik on a plane when the weather had changed. There is enormous pressure to fly in the north because people are trying to meet schedules, industrial activity is ramping up and everything is going much faster.

(1315)

When the plane left Inuvik we flew 50 miles and never went more than 200 feet off the ground. I was not too concerned because I was flying over the delta where there are no hills higher than 200 feet. Although I knew it probably was not legal, we went along with it.

When we returned to the airport in Inuvik, I found the same weather system had resulted in a tremendous tragedy for that airline company about 200 miles away. One of its airplanes flew into a hill in the same weather system and under the same kinds of pressures to deliver passengers when the weather conditions were so difficult.

What we did with eight aircraft and weather safety as a cost cutting measure with Transport Canada when its policy impacted on us for many years is something that is an object lesson that we should apply to aircraft maintenance as well. We need to have a strong system in this country that is run by the government and one that guarantees aircraft maintenance is carried out in a proper fashion.

Of the 27 public airports in the Northwest Territories, only 6 have paved runways, the other 21 have gravel runways and 23 airdromes are certified. The others are registered airdromes.

The Northern Air Transport Association called on the government to increase the length of northern runways and to improve the instrument landing systems available everywhere. We may talk about northern sovereignty but most of our military planes cannot land anywhere in the north because the runways are too short. The instrument landing systems are not adequate. It is the federal government's responsibility to maintain a standard for all Canadians across this country. We have privatized airports. We have caused these issues by our relentless concern over the bottom line.

The Prime Minister is proposing a deep seaport at Nanisivik. He should consider that the airport at Nanisivik has difficulty with fog conditions many times during the year. Once again, the condition of aviation in the north has deteriorated with the changing climate. We need a different response other than the government saying that it is getting out of inspecting the maintenance conditions of aircraft.

In 2004, a total of 93,000 aircraft arrived and departed N.W.T. airports. That figure is up almost 15% from the year before and 25% from the year before that. We are seeing an enormous increase in traffic in the north and yet we have small carriers that rely on maintenance staff that are transient in nature. If we had a strong Canada-wide system, the transient maintenance system may not be that bad, but when we start breaking down maintenance systems by individual aircraft companies, when we start setting standards in a fashion where the technicians and mechanics who service these planes will need to re-learn every time they join a new company, these are difficult issues for aircraft maintenance and safety. Bill C-7 would create these difficulties.

We can say that we have kept some inspectors, and I understand that is the case, but if we degrade the inspection system in Canada by reducing the personnel, we will not have the same quality of system at the end of the day.

Yes, I stand up and ask questions about Bill C-7, absolutely. I support the work of our previous transport critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. In his discussions with me, he indicated that the bill was moving in the right direction. However, he felt that the work they had done in bringing the amendments forward at the last moment had changed. He felt that all the good words and all the goodwill that was on that committee evaporated at the end.

That was the problem last June. Our former transport critic asked us to stand up and talk about this bill because many of the issues that we had assumed would be included and taken care of through amendments were just not happening.

(1320)

The level of air safety achieved in commercial aviation is, in no small part, the result of adding levels of responsibility. The delegation or devolution proposals of Bill C-7 go directly against this principle of redundancy. By removing regulatory oversight, we effectively remove a fallback position. However, that does not seem to be of concern to some members of Parliament, to the two larger parties that have such a strong principle of laissez-faire business in this country.


By reducing the inspection level and eliminating the ongoing development of a federally controlled and regulated air transport system, the government is going in a direction that we in the NDP do not consider appropriate. I am sure most Canadians would support us if they were to look at what the bill would create and the direction in which it would move us, just as we have seen in the rest of the deregulation of the aircraft industry across this country.


Transport Canada's own documents admit that the level of air safety has not substantially improved during the past 10 years. This is a reversal of the past history of commercial aviation where safety records were constantly improving. What is happening, why is it happening and how would this bill change that?


The bill is going to change it for the worse. It is going to continue the process that is going on now, where, through the deregulation of the industry, more and more of the decisions are being taken by people on the ground in situations where cost becomes a factor. How can we support this bill? How can we be assured that what we are doing is in the best interest of Canadians?


Studies have shown that the European community has an enviable aviation safety record and yet Europe has not and is not delegating or devolving its safety responsibilities to private designated organizations. The United States, which was the first to engage in economic deregulation, is not deregulating safety.


After Enron, Hollinger and WorldCom, governments are strengthening their regulation and enforcement of corporate governance. If we cannot rely on corporate directors and their audit committees to regulate financial activities with shareholders' money rather than when public lives are at stake, how can we count on the boards of directors of private aviation concerns, whose legal duties are to shareholders, to take full accountability for previously regulated areas of passenger safety? These are questions that the bill skirts. These are questions that Canadians do not want ignored.


There can be only one goal in aviation safety. It is not to understand how we can nickel and dime the system in order to provide a lower cost to compete with other carriers. The only goal should be the highest possible level of safety, which is what we are after and why we are standing up one after another speaking to the bill. It is not because we have any other interests at heart at all. It is not because we have the interests of large businesses or of large unions. It is because we have the interest of public safety in our minds.

Euphemisms, such as risk management, best practicable level of safety and commensurate with cost effectiveness, are not the kinds of words that we use. They are not the kinds of words that work for northerners.

(1325)

We northerners have a difficult enough time travelling throughout the north. We do not want it made more difficult. We do not want our airline companies to be pushed to the limit even more through competition, through larger companies coming in, where they are taking risks that they know are risks and where they are taking risks that perhaps they do not know are risks.

This bill does not answer the questions for me. This bill does not answer the questions for northerners.

When we stand up here, we stand up for a good reason. We stand up for a purpose. We will continue to stand up on this. For all those who are flying in airplanes across this country and who may be listening to this debate, I urge them to speak to their MPs and ask their MPs to tell them whether this bill is going to increase their safety in the air. If those MPs can give them a good answer, then those MPs should be saying it here in the House of Commons.

www2.parl.gc.ca

[Cat Driver]

but when we start breaking down maintenance systems by individual aircraft companies, when we start setting standards in a fashion where the technicians and mechanics who service these planes will need to re-learn every time they join a new company, these are difficult issues for aircraft maintenance and safety. Bill C-7 would create these difficulties.

Of all the Alice in Wonderland garbage that gets churned out of the cubicles of TCCA this idiocy of having different procedures and policies for maintaining and operating the same airplane form company to company is truly difficult to understand.

[CID]

Of all the Alice in Wonderland garbage that gets churned out of the cubicles of TCCA this idiocy of having different procedures and policies for maintaining and operating the same airplane form company to company is truly difficult to understand.

Just more alarmism. We have that situation right now and it's nothing new. Show me two MPMs that are identical now. Show me two SOP manuals that are identical now. Both are subject to regulatory review and approval.

There is nothing wrong with allowing operators and maintainers develop procedures and policies that are alligned with their business plan and quality philosophy. There is also nothing wrong with an operator that sets their standards higher than the minimum required.

It's been happening since the beginning of aviation and this bill won't change anything in that regard.

The level of air safety achieved in commercial aviation is, in no small part, the result of adding levels of responsibility. The delegation or devolution proposals of Bill C-7 go directly against this principle of redundancy

Let's not forget the certification standards, the special systems and equipment and the advanced training and operating processes introduced. We're talking CARS/FARS/JARS, TCAS/TAWS/GPS and CRM/HF/QA.

For every person that says that regulatory oversight is the keystone of saftey, I can find five that have kicked TC inspectors out if their hangars, or refused to give TC inspectors access to their aircraft for a ramp inspection, or cries foul after an inspector grounds their airplane (or denies their application for an FTU).

[Cat Driver]

For every person that says that regulatory oversight is the keystone of saftey, I can find five that have kicked TC inspectors out if their hangars, or refused to give TC inspectors access to their aircraft for a ramp inspection, or cries foul after an inspector grounds their airplane (or denies their application for an FTU).

For every person that says that regulatory oversight is the keystone of saftey, I can find five that have kicked TC inspectors out if their hangars,

Why do owners kick TC inspectors out of their hangars CID?

If TC has viable reason to believe the operator is in non compliance of the regulations and they are kicked off the property they can get a warrant to search the property.

or refused to give TC inspectors access to their aircraft for a ramp inspection,

The last time I checked the law in Canada TC had no legal right to demand access to your airplane, therefore refusing them access is not against the law.

(or denies their application for an FTU)

CID, in my case I was denied a FTU OC by TCCA because they, not me, acted in an illegal manner and were found guilty of so doing on over forty issues.

Furthermore I have never been found guilty of having acted in an illegal manner under the Regulations ( CAR's ) and I have a safety record in aviation that should to be a benchmark for everyone to strive for.

CID, your position is advising people to be unquestioning of TC and to comply with their wishes at all times.

My advice to my colleauges is to refuse to co operate with any request that is beyond their legal right to demand....such as access to your property without a warrant.

My reason for giving this advice is I have found TCCA to be a thug mentality regulator under the management of the present DGCA Merlin Preuss who was stupid enough to give me license to make these statements in his last letter to me, in which he clearly demonstrated that he is a moral degenerate of the first order.

Maybe it is time for you to do a little research on why I was refused a FTU OC CID and quit leaving yourself open to my having to correct your accusations.

One last question CID, what do you think should be done when TCCA is found guilty of denying a Canadian citizen due process and results in said Canadian being driven into financial ruin?

[CID]

OK Cat. So do you want MORE oversight or LESS? Or in your mind is it just a question of competance? If TC inspectors are incompetent (or at least less competent than the operators who deny them acces to their hangars and airplanes) then why do you want more of them? Or less of them?

Maybe we should just give the existing ones more power to search airplanes and facilities. Or less power.

Which is it again?

[Widow]

CID, I thought you took your leave of this thread ...

Since you're back ...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/directives/dir20.htm

Frequency of Inspection Policy
Policy Objective:

To provide a consistent and standard approach in conducting regulatory oversight activities.

Background:

Based on a 1995 review of oversight activities within the National Civil Aviation Program, two key concerns were identified:

• a lack of national adherence to established inspection and audit frequencies; and
  the absence of a structured approach to determining inspection and audit frequencies.

To address these issues, the Frequency of Inspection Policy Document was developed to achieve a high degree of uniformity throughout the National Program. It is the single source authority detailing the frequency of performing specified regulatory oversight tasks in accordance with Part 1 para. 4.2 of the Aeronautics Act.

The directive incorporates the use of risk indicators contained in the former Manual of Regulatory Audit. The risk indicators are incorporated to assist those involved in the management of regulatory oversight activities and to identify, support and document any adjustments to prescribed frequencies.

Mr. Schoenberger, Transport Canada/ Aviation, Regional Manager, Maintenance and Manufacturing states in his January 17, 2007 email: "The Frequency of Inspection Policy Document directs Transport Canada to audit Air Taxi operators every 2.32 years and complete a mandatory inspection every 1.75 years. CAD 20 allows adjustments to these inspection and audit intervals based on the available resources and the risk indicators as listed in appendix "A" in CAD 20".

Access to Information proved to me that MJM Air had not been inspected since 2001 - almost four years previous to the fatal accident in '05 - despite a number of high risk indicators. After the aircraft disappeared, it took six months for an audit to be initiated. This lack of adherence to the FOIPD was not unique to this company. It would seem that TCCA does not adhere to this improved policy meant to correct a known problem. They seem to go in with guns blazing if a jealous competitor makes an anonymous complaint, but sidestep, whitewash and ignore formal complaints made through the CAIRs.

SMS Staff Instruction

5.4 On-Going Oversight of SMS Compliant Organizations

(1) On-going monitoring of the risk indicators associated with a company’s operation will be maintained as they may serve to highlight a problem with the company’s SMS. See Section 9 for a detailed description of risk indicators.

(2) Normally, only after the organization’s own analysis and corrective actions have been completed, and where these actions and our internal evaluation of available data (using one or a combination of the four oversight methods) have failed to provide the necessary level of confidence in the certificate-holder’s state of compliance, will TC consider resorting to traditional oversight activities at the operational level using inspection and/or audit methodologies.

(3) In cases where this level of intervention is required, a program validation will be convened. This might involve a program validation of one or more areas of an organization’s SMS or a process validation. Examples of program validation triggers are a CADORs event, high personnel turnover or an incident report. When conducting a program validation resulting from a specific event, the validation activity will encompass the complete life cycle of the event from detection to determining the effectiveness of the company’s corrective action.

(4) Where a SMS program validation places the company’s SMS system in question a full assessment shall be initiated.

(5) Where a SMS program validation shows a break down in the company’s SMS, to a point where there is an immediate threat to safety, certificate action shall be taken. The company’s certificate will be restored only when the company has demonstrated that their system is functioning and effective based on a full SMS assessment.

So now they will be monitoring the SMS, and not the organization.

CID, most here want TC to follow their own already existing rules.

[CID]

CID, I thought you took your leave of this thread ...

Yah. You're right. Boredom makes you do strange things sometimes.

CID, most here want TC to follow their own already existing rules.

That's funny. TC wants operators to follow their existing rules too.

Sorry for the intrusion. I'll try to excercise more restraint in the future.

[trey kule]

Boy, I hate to wander into a thread that Cat and STD are posting on, but I cant let this go.

Cat is 100% right about TC pushing past their limits. Want a quick example STD. SMS for 700 operators...Not law. Not regualtion yet.
But TC is pushing it down our throats. I have no object to SMS but I do have a BIG objection to a government department that ignores the rules themselves.

Cat is also 100% right about not having to allow them into your aircraft.They know this is a violation of the charter but will continue to do it until a. someone takes them to court over it, or b. they find a way to slither around it. If someone does take them to court, and win, you can bet their career in aviaition will be over..

I, for one, believe we need rules and reuglations. But we need to have confidence in our regulator, and until almost all the upper and middle management is replaced, the current mentality will continue.

Now rave asway STD.

[CD]

The last time I checked the law in Canada TC had no legal right to demand access to your airplane, therefore refusing them access is not against the law.

You do recall that we've had this discussion once or twice before...

Powers to enter, seize and detain

8.7 (1) Subject to subsection (4), the Minister may

(a) enter, for the purposes of making inspections or audits relating to the enforcement of this Part, any aircraft, aerodrome or other aviation facility, any premises used for the design, manufacture, distribution, maintenance or installation of aeronautical products or any premises used by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, regardless of whether or not the inspection or audit relates to that place or to the person who possesses or controls it;

(a.1) remove any document or other thing from the place where the inspection or audit is being carried out for examination or, in the case of a document, copying;

(b) enter any place for the purposes of an investigation of matters concerning aviation safety;

(c) seize anything found in any place referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) that the Minister believes on reasonable grounds will afford evidence with respect to an offence under this Part or the causes or contributing factors pertaining to an investigation referred to in paragraph (b); and

(d) detain any aircraft that the Minister believes on reasonable grounds is unsafe or is likely to be operated in an unsafe manner and take reasonable steps to ensure its continued detention.

...

Warrant required to enter dwelling-house

(4) Where any place referred to in subsection 5.7(6) or subsection (1) of this section is a dwelling-house, the Minister may not enter that dwelling-house without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (5).

AvCanada - Ramp Inspections
Aviation Enforcement Policy Manual Chapter 2 - Inspection
CAR 103.02 - Inspection of Aircraft, Requests for Production of Documents and Prohibitions
Aeronautics Act - 8.7(1) Powers to enter, seize and detain
Criminal Code - Information for search warrant (required for entry of a dwelling house)

[Cat Driver]

Hey don't leave yet CID you have not answered this question.

One last question CID, what do you think should be done when TCCA is found guilty of denying a Canadian citizen due process and results in said Canadian being driven into financial ruin?

You are always quoting the adherence to rule of law so answer that question.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks CD:

Of course the reality is TCCA can do anything they want to.

For me personally I would go to jail before I would submit to the thugs that are employed by TCCA.

The whole world is getting a real interesting insight into how Canada goes about enforcing the law in that video of the Polish immigrant being dealt with in Vancouver.

Here is a question:

Are the TCCA enforcement people better trained than the RCMP?

Anyhow I personally know I am at greater risk when being approached by a TCCA inspector than if I were being confronted by a common street criminal.

[CID]

Now rave asway STD.

Thank you trey fool. I appreciate that. Of course you're wrong but that shouldn't stop you. Keep up the good (and incorrect) fight.

One last question CID, what do you think should be done when TCCA is found guilty of denying a Canadian citizen due process and results in said Canadian being driven into financial ruin?

Kind of a no-brainer. They should be held accountable. Now ask me what should happen to slimey operator when TC catches him trying to pull a fast one.

Anyhow I personally know I am at greater risk when being approached by a TCCA inspector than if I were being confronted by a common street criminal.

This kind of hyperbole helps nobody. It just shows that you are capable of making extremely outrageous claims. So why should we take you seriously?

[Cat Driver]

Kind of a no-brainer. They should be held accountable.

Exactly CID, they should.

But they have not been because they never paid me the money they owe me.

Now ask me what should happen to slimey operator when TC catches him trying to pull a fast one.

They should be punished to the full extent of the law.



.

I said:

Anyhow I personally know I am at greater risk when being approached by a TCCA inspector than if I were being confronted by a common street criminal.

You say:

This kind of hyperbole helps nobody. It just shows that you are capable of making extremely outrageous claims. So why should we take you seriously?

CID, no criminal has ever stolen anything from me.

Transport Canada on the other hand has.

Therefore I have every right to fear TCCA more than a common street criminal.

[trey kule]

CD:

I am in no way arguing with the way the wording is. What I am saying is that it is in contravention of the Charter, which takes precedence.
There are lots of laws in Canada that were put in place that subsequently had to be changed as they were challanged under the charter .
My concern is as follows:

a. this is one that is clearly in contravention of the charter.
b. Senior mananagement at TC are aware of this, and have put down a "policy" whereby an inspector will make a request to see your documents and do an inspection. If you agree you have waived your charter rights.
and thirdly, and most importantly in my mind:
pretty much everyone at TC's lower echelons falls into line with the offical thinking and will continue to do so until it is challanged incourt and changed.

Please do not, as some others have done, question the need for ramp inspections or my ethics (ie. if you are doing nothing wrong,,,).
It is simply about the law. A govenment agency knowingly violating the charter, and no one within the organization questioning the official policy.
I have said it before and I will again. The similarities between this and the way the Nazi organiizations were run is frightening.

But forgive an old man for not wanting to surrender any of his liberties.

[CID]

So Hitler ramp checked airplanes to see if the operator was respecting the regulations? That bastard!

[trey kule]

Yep, and apparently he had a retarded son to. Called him CID.