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

[trey kule]

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

[CD]

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...

This could be a very interesting situation. If, as you suggest, inspections were to be found to be in contravention of the Charter, then perhaps the only means of providing oversight of the industry will be to "..monitor the SMS and not the organization..." as Widow observed above. Either that, or take the government out of the equation and let the industry oversee themselves the way the medical profession does through the various provincial College of Physicians, College of Dentists, College of Pharmacists, etc., a possible solution that has also been talked about on this site in the past.

I guess the CBAA already does that to some extent (including manadatory SMS for their members) so I suppose that ATAC, NATA, HAC, ACPA, COPA, Aero Club of Canada, AQTA, BCAC, CALDA, LAMAC, SAC, ALPA Canada, CUPE, CAAA, HEPAC, CAMA, UPAC, CAC, NavCanada, AIAC and the various other alphabet industry organizations could oversee their own parts of the industry. I'm not sure that would necessarily be an improvement but it would be interesting...

[Cat Driver]

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..

My career in aviation took a giant leap upward once I left this police state called Canada.

Soon though I shall be flying in Canada once again.

I am still a Canadian citizen as well as a status Indian under law, therefore I shall once again be taking advantage of the pilots licenses I hold.

I would love for any of the TC thugs who work under Dave Nowzek here in the Pacific Region to ramp check me.

I have no intention of flying in contravention of law, I will continue to fly exactly as I always did which was with due respect for the law.

However I hold the thug mentalilty that is so rampant within TCCA in utter contempt and it follows that I hold their thugs in utter contemp.

But I'm betting these pricks don't have the balls to try and intimidate me.

[trey kule]

CD

You have obviously given this much more thought than I have. I usually think of the consequences , but in this case, I am afraid that I let moral rage get the best of me.

I am jsut going through your links now. Will give it some thought and try and join in the discussion tomorrow. The problem essentialy being I do not disagree with idea of ramp inspections.

Thanks for giving me something to think about.

[snaproll20]

In response to previous posts.
At the risk of repeating myself over and over, I have the following expectation of TCCA.

They will oversee, consult with, and enforce the regulations with the Industry. They will (successfully) prosecute the deliberate wrongdoers, counsel the mistakers and support the do-rights.

It is actually a concept as old as history itself, but somehow, it is no longer is happening.

Fire the thugs and put in some people who are interested in being aviation professionals.

[Cat Driver]

trey kule:

Like you I have no problem with ramp inspections, provided they are done by professional enforcement officers.

What I have issue with is the fact that TCCA allows thugs to remain in their ranks...in fact it would appear from what I know of the Pacific Region from personal experience with their enforcement department being a thug is a plus to be in enforcement.

Until the cesspool that is Tower C under Preuss is flushed out things will only get worse.

[CID]

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

I see trey kule learned how to use "to" and "too" from the same place Cat Driver did.

Thanks for giving me something to think about.

It's actually an interesting turn of events. We need to give CD a great deal of credit for making trey kule "think".

[trey kule]

CD.

It seems to me that the root cause of the problem is that we, as Canadians, want the regulator to be proactive. That is we run to the regulator to put the bad guys out of business, find violaters etc.
One has only to read the threads here to see this phenonomon.

Unfortunately, the regulator, like the police, has to work after the fact. Until a company breaks the laws, is exposed, and is prosecuted, they should have no power to interfere.

As a result TC finds themself in the impossible position of working within the law as they should do, or trying to satisfy the demands and expectations by being proactive.

Once they step outside the law themselves the system starts to break down, as it has been doing for the last years. This is compounded by a dearth in senior managmen of anything but croynism as a qualification for hiring.

So. What can be done.

a. The Aeronautic Act must be brought into line with the charter. The regualstions must adhere to the Act. And the policies and directives must be in accordance will all of them.

b. Instead of promoting the latest in proactive plans that are not in force, violating the charter, and responding to oppostiion with goon tactics, transport needs to clarify their role. And have our population in general, and the aviation community in paricular understand their proper role.
This will mean oversight in hindsight, but that is the way it used to be many moons ago, and the only way it will work in the future.

c. Because of the preception, true or not, of the corruption in Transport, the department needs a complete overhaul in management, to the level of heads of sections. Particualrily the enforcement section needs to be reviewed.

Can it be done. Yes. Will it be done. I have my doubts. Canadian mentality, for one thing will limit their ability. Less interference until their is an accident .....then bleating for the government to do something, or worse, that the government should have done something.

Transport ultimately, should work on simplifying and providing the legal frameword to work under and provide police services and investigation services through a properly trained work force.

If I may end with two of my personal bitches..The first is that Transport start using its proper and legal name as a way of showing they are working within the law. Transport Canada is not their proper name and they know it.
Secondly, TC should have a dedicated small group of pilots to fly their aircraft. Thie policy of everyone getting a few hours is expensive, unsafe from a currency standpoint, and a complete abuse of privelege. To those who will quit if they dont fly I say go back to the private sector if you want to fly..

My thoughts of the day.

[Cat Driver]

Once they step outside the law themselves the system starts to break down, as has been doing for the last years. This is compounded by a dearth in senior managment of anything but croynism as a qualification for hiring

And therein lies a lot of the problem.

In my case it was not me who was in violation of the law, it was one of theirs who was in violation of TC policies and abusing the power of his office.

Cronyism demanded they circle the wagons and rather than deal with the origional problem they decided to defend him.

From there it escalated up the chain of command as I escalated my refusal to be dealt with in that manner.

In the end we have the top people in TCCA found guilty of behavior that was not only against the law but shows a level of systemic dishonesty that is breath taking.

The chain I appealed to for a fair and just resolution went like this.

Richard Murray: Regional Manager M&M Pacific Region.

Don Sherritt: Manager M&M Ottawa.

Dave Nowzek: Regional Director Civil Aviation Pacific Region.

Art LaFlamme: DGCA TCCA Ottawa.

Robert Sincennes: Manager of TCCA " Quality Assurance " ( arguably one of the most slippery dishonest people in the Civil Service, this prick caused me thousands of dollars and months of agony as he worked hand in hand with Merlin Preuss to stonewall and deny my case. )

Merlin Preuss: DGCA.

And finally Michael Langan:

This guy came to my home as acting Director General Transport Canada.....the higest office in Transport Canada.

I am certain the real reason he came to my home was because of the letter I have from Merlin Preuss that shows a level of moral degeneracy that would not be accepted in the Mafia.....some day I would like to get Langan under oath in a Federal Court and have him repeat his spiel trying to defend Preuss.....it went like this .... you just don't understand how the system works....

Like hell I don't the very fact they would send the top person in Transport Canada to my home to try and weasel out of the corner they had painted themselves in shows I understand perfectly how the system works.....they are a gang of dishonest self serving thugs who are convinced they are unaccountable.

We met twice, once in my home and once in a hotel business room. These meetings lasted eight hours each and I had witnesses present at both.

He told me that if my allegations were proven to be true he would see to it that I would be compensated for my losses. I have witnesses to this.

We agreed on the sum of $250,000.00

After about a year of investigation by the office of the Director General Transport Canada all my allegations were proven to be true.

That was in 2003, to this date I have received 0000 dollars from TC.

[trey kule]

Cat.

this is a little off the topic here, but did you sue them (ie the Queen, the minister personally and the other individuals)?

co incidently, I just noticed another thread by CD noting a lawsuit on the MISC forum...interesting.

[Cat Driver]

trey kule:

It would be useless for me to try and sue the government, I would be dead before it ever got through the court system

I had the misfortune of trying to deal with one of the top lawyers in the Justice Department about this and that prick was so arrogant I fu.kin near went to Ottawa to kick the coc.sucker in the nuts...

Where would I get the money to sue these pricks??

[Widow]

Peter Julian is no longer the NDP Transport Critic, it is now Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West).

The bill is once again on the Orders of the Day for Monday (Nov 19).

C-7R — November 2, 2007 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Mr. Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities), seconded by Mr. Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), — That Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a third time and do pass;

And of the amendment of Mr. Masse (Windsor West), seconded by Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

“Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”.

[Widow]

OK. So, the House is about to shut down for the "holiday season", and Bill C-7 will not be back on the table before that time. There is a lot of talk that there will be an election soon after the 2008 return, and if that happens, the Bill will be tossed.

We can only hope ...

[Widow]

[quote]`Wall of secrecy' alleged over air safety reports
Legislation bans airlines from releasing information on incidents reported by employees

Jan 16, 2008 04:30 AM
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa bureau chief

OTTAWA–Transport Canada has put up a "wall of secrecy" around reports of air safety problems, a blow to accountability that will undermine public faith in Canada's airline industry, advocates warn.

A controversial change to the regulation of Canadian airlines contains a blanket ban on the release of air safety incidents reported by airline and airport employees.

The Canadian Newspaper Association and the Canadian Union of Public Employees are raising the alarm, saying air travellers will be left in the dark about safety concerns.

"They're constructing a bulletproof shield of secrecy around the reports of air safety incidents that is immune to challenge," said David Gollob, senior vice-president of public affairs and communications at the newspaper association.

But Transport Canada was quick yesterday to deny any shift to secrecy, saying that the information off-limits under the new law has not typically been available for public scrutiny.

"The information that is protected is information that would not otherwise be available," said Franz Reinhardt, Transport Canada's director of policy and regulatory services. "That's because the information is contained in internal company reports."

However, Richard Banlis, a senior researcher at CUPE, which represents 8,500 flight attendants, said that under the censorship provisions of Bill C-7, airlines will be able to "bury their problems."

"We made the argument that that's a cone of silence that is descending on the industry which suits Transport (Canada) and the airlines," Banlis said yesterday in an interview. "We think that's wrong as a matter of policy.

"At the end of the day you will know nothing about what's happening in the industry except what comes through the minister's and the airlines' news releases. That is simply unacceptable."

At the heart of the change is a move by Transport Canada to let airlines police their own operations. Under this change, airline employees will be encouraged to flag safety concerns within their own organizations.

If that information is gathered by federal inspectors, the legislation bans its public release, even under access-to-information legislation. And unlike cabinet confidences, which are made public after 25 years, the reports of safety concerns would stay secret forever.

"We will never know what is going on with safety at an airline," Banlis said.

Access-to-information legislation has been used to reveal shortcomings in airline safety. In 2006, a joint investigation by reporters from the Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator and The Record of Waterloo Region, revealed potentially dangerous shortcomings in a number of areas, including federal oversight, safety regulations and the pressure on front-line aviation workers to maintain an on-time flight schedule, sometimes at the expense of safety.

The primary source was Transport Canada's database of more than 50,000 aviation incidents since 1993, obtained through a federal access-to-information request.

Under the new regime, some of that information will be evaluated by the airline, and even Transport Canada, to track an airline's safety performance. But to encourage employees to voice concerns, Transport Canada agreed to keep those reports secret if they came into the possession of its own inspectors.

He said making those reports public could have a chilling effect if employees know their reports could "make headlines in a newspaper. We are not trying to hide any information."

Bill C-7 has passed the Commons. But CUPE and the newspaper association are taking their concerns to the Senate, hoping to win changes before it is finally made law.

Gollob said the secrecy risks undermining confidence in the new aviation regulation that has already attracted criticism.

[/quote]

http://www.thestar.com/article/294467

[Widow]

Secrecy in the skies
Information about airline safety incidents would be confidential under new bill
Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, January 19, 2008

A "curtain of secrecy" is poised to descend over safety problems within Canadian airlines, say critics alarmed by legislation currently before the House of Commons.

The legislation, Bill C-7, could receive third reading as early as next month. Among other things, it authorizes airlines to adopt a form of industry self-regulation known as safety management systems, or SMS, to police their operations.

Bill C-7 provides that information about safety-related incidents -- including material from flight data recorders and self-reported violations -- voluntarily provided by airlines or their employees will remain confidential.

It also designates such safety reports as "mandatory exclusions" under the Access to Information Act, putting them beyond the reach of access requests.

That means they can never be released, making them even more secret than cabinet confidences, which receive absolute protection for 20 years. Nor can they be reviewed by the information commissioner.

"The net effect will be to throw a curtain of secrecy over safety information, shutting down public scrutiny in Parliament and in media," say briefing notes prepared by David Gollob, senior vice-president of policy and communications for the Canadian Newspaper Association.

The secrecy provisions have prompted the CNA and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents 8,500 flight attendants, to call on the Senate to intervene.

"We are extraordinarily concerned about it," said Anne Kothawala, the CNA's president and CEO. "This is unbelievable in terms of the level of secrecy.

"Essentially the public and the media are being asked to take both the airlines and Transport Canada's word that any safety violations have been dealt with."

Ms. Kothawala said members of the public rely on media reporting to ensure that airline safety standards are being upheld. But if Bill C-7 passes, she said, "the only time we're going to hear about it is when it's too late, when it's a really serious accident."

Kirsten Goodnough, a Transport Canada spokeswoman, said the expanded secrecy provisions apply to airline employees who voluntarily report safety concerns to their employer -- information Transport Canada would not normally see.

The rationale for keeping those reports secret is to "encourage employees to report and to create a culture of safety within organizations," Ms. Goodnough said.

Similarly, the move to keep routine information from flight data recorders secret is meant to encourage airlines to voluntarily implement flight data monitoring programs, she said.

"This is part of the safety culture within safety management systems. So this is adding an additional layer to regulations and safety procedures that already exist."

Ms. Goodnough said Transport Canada "will continue to have full disclosure of any information that directly affects the safety of Canadians," including Transport Canada air safety audits and corrective action reports.

But Richard Balnis, a senior researcher at CUPE, said departmental officials have publicly said they intend to invoke confidentiality protections in the Access to Information Act to seal off air safety audits from public scrutiny.

The result, he said, is "the public will now never know the state of safety in the airlines."

Mr. Gollob said he's been told Transport Canada fears passenger confidence in airlines could be undermined if the safety reports are made public.

Mr. Balnis said the proposed changes are consistent with the "cult of secrecy" that prevails at Transport Canada.

The information commissioner has gone to court several times to force disclosure of safety reports Transport Canada argued should remain confidential.

A spokeswoman for Information Commissioner Robert Marleau said he "doesn't feel its appropriate to comment" on the issue while the bill is progressing through Parliament. However, she added, Mr. Marleau will make his position known to the Senate if it addresses the issue.

Bill C-7's critics say the secrecy provisions are especially troubling given Transport's Canada's steady withdrawal from from day-to-day on-site inspections and safety audits since it began phasing in the SMS approach in 2005 under ministerial authority.

"If there was ever a time for greater transparency, it seems to me that it would be under that kind of arrangement," Ms. Kothawala said.

Transport Canada has argued that SMS enhances safety by adding another layer to departmental oversight.

But critics are unconvinced. They point to the rise in rail derailments since railway companies were given the authority to implement a version of SMS in 1999. Last year there were more major rail accidents in Canada than in the previous six years combined.

"There are fears that moving to this kind of safety management system in the airline industry will lead to the sort of increase in accidents that we've seen in the rail industry," said Mr. Gollob.

CUPE and two unions representing airline inspectors have said the shift to SMS is being driven by budget cuts and an impending retirement crunch among inspectors.

But Transport Canada denies that, maintaining that its sole motivation is to improve airline safety.

CUPE says Transport Canada is effectively giving up its safety oversight role and dismantling the system of checks and balances that has produced the current low airline accident rate. Flight attendants are starting to realize that SMS means "Selling-out My Safety," the union says.

Some of CUPE's concerns about SMS were addressed last spring during committee study of the bill. MPs on the committee adopted roughly half of more than 30 amendments the union proposed. But the secrecy provisions survived after an NDP amendment was defeated.

"We got half a loaf," said Mr. Balnis. "We improved from white bread to brown. Now we're going to take it to multi-grain."

Because Transport Canada is already rolling out the SMS approach with airlines, Mr. Balnis said it probably can't be stopped.

Instead, "we're trying to mitigate the damage, because quite frankly, they're doing it regardless of what Parliament says."

While Transport Canada will continue to inspect airlines, Mr. Balnis said it will focus on assessments of safety management systems, not airplanes.

"As long as your system is functioning and collecting the data and you appear to be processing it, that's all the inspector will do," he said.

Ms. Kothawala wants to Senate to hold public hearings on the bill. "If ever there was a role for the Senate being that sober second thought, they can really wade in on this," she said.

Mr. Balnis agreed that the Senate must address the concerns about Bill C-7's secrecy provisions.

"We will not know if SMS is working, and we will not know if they're managing the risk," he said. "Everything will be hidden and we'll only know when the crash happens. And that's too late, in our view."

[CD]

Letter written by Rich Gage in response to an article in the Ottawa Citizen entitled "Secrecy in the Skies"
2008-01-24

Reference: Secrecy in the Skies, by Don Butler, in the Saturday, January 19th edition of the Ottawa Citizen.

Dear Editor,


According to Don Butler, a “curtain of secrecy” is poised to descend over safety problems within Canadian airlines – this is a catchy expression but hardly accurate. The article, which espouses the view of one component of the aviation community, does not reflect the strong, widespread industry support for Bill C-7 (Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act), and muddles risk management and safety management systems (SMS) with self-regulation. SMS and self-regulation are mutually exclusive concepts.

A safety management system imbeds organization-wide accountability and actions to preclude accidental losses, and establishes proactive management tools to identify and control risks prior to their occurrence. It is a documented process that integrates operations and technical systems with the management of financial and human resources to ensure aviation safety.

An insular group within the aviation community would like us to believe that ministerial delegation translates into self-regulation. Delegation is extensively used by governments and is an accepted and routine way of doing business, whereas self-regulation, particularly within the aviation sector, has not progressed past academic musing. A delegated authority remains accountable to the minister for all of its actions.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other national aviation entities, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States, are developing and implementing a similar accountability framework, using SMS. SMS is one of the key tools in the identification and management of aviation risk and is widely accepted by the insurance industry.

The amendments to the Act incorporate proactive and proven management practices, organizational flexibility, broad-based accountability, and a non-punitive reporting system, all of which are designed to improve aviation safety and efficiency.

The “curtain of secrecy’ reference I assume refers to non-punitive reporting. Non-punitive reporting is an essential element of SMS and a well-recognized and established means of enhancing safety through timely and accountable reporting. It is intended to develop a reporting culture that is open and system-wide.

The amendments to the Aeronautics Act have been fully developed, debated, and consulted over the past ten years. This is a well-considered document that reflects the broad interests of the aviation community wherein safety is at the forefront. Safety is good business. Let the politicians to do their job by passing Bill C-7.


Rich Gage
President and CEO
Canadian Business Aviation Association

Letter available here...

[Widow]

SMS is a joke. I've seen it used more than once to cover up willfully neglegent errors that have caused aircraft to nearly pile up. Only the skill of the pilot and sh*thouse luck kept people from being killed.

Any system that allows an organization to investigate itself is pure stupidity.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 27&t=39169

[Widow]

Please note that Bill C-7 is back on the Order Paper for debate in the House of Commons today (January 29, 2008).

[CD]

Keep internal airline safety reports secret: pilots' union
Confidentiality key to addressing problems, association president says

February 4, 2008
Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen

Internal safety reports by airline employees need to be kept secret to promote a culture of safety within the aviation industry, says the union that represents Air Canada's 3,300 pilots.

"Virtually everyone who's looked at this from a safety point of view has recognized the need for a confidential reporting system," says Andy Wilson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association.

He was responding to criticism of Bill C-7 by the Canadian Newspaper Association and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents flight attendants.

The bill, poised to receive third reading in Parliament, amends the Aeronautics Act. Among other things, it authorizes Safety Management Systems (SMS) in the aviation industry, a process that includes non-punitive confidential reporting of safety issues by airline employees.

CUPE and the newspaper association strenuously object to clauses that exempt those safety reports from Access to Information, warning that a "curtain of secrecy" is poised to descend over aviation safety problems.

But the pilots union, the airline industry and Transport Canada all deny that implementing SMS means greater secrecy, saying everything that is now publicly available will remain available.

Mr. Wilson says the reports covered by the proposed confidentiality clauses contain internal company information that often wasn't even generated in the past and has never been public in any case.

Lucie Vignola, a special communications adviser at Transport Canada, says the confidential information is "proprietary information in terms of competitive advantage. So that's not for us to give out."

Without confidentiality, airline employees would be far less likely to report safety problems, Mr. Wilson says, because they wouldn't want to see their own mistakes "on the bulletin board."

SMS encourages voluntary reporting by promising confidentiality and avoiding a punitive response.

The experience of Air Transat, the first Canadian carrier to adopt SMS, proves the value of that approach, Mr. Wilson says.

"We know that the reporting increased by a factor of several hundred per cent. There's no reason to think that the number of incidents increased at all -- it's the reporting that increased."

The additional reporting improves safety by allowing airlines to look for systemic problems they can address, Ms. Vignola says. "If things are reported, then we can stop an accident before it happens."

Under SMS, which large carriers must fully implement by June, airlines are required to keep a record of safety reports and what they have done to address them, says Fred Gaspar, of the Air Transport Association of Canada, an industry group. Transport Canada is able to audit and review those files, he says.

Stephen Guetta, chairman of the pilots union's accidents investigation committee, likens the confidential reporting system to "the ultimate employee message box."

Compared to the United States, Canada is "much further along" when it comes to implementing SMS, which has been mandated for adoption by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Mr. Guetta says.

Mr. Wilson says airline pilots support Bill C-7, even though they are already "the most monitored group of people in the world. We're wired. It's pretty intrusive, and yet we welcome more monitoring because we have the most direct interest possible in safety."

Mr. Guetta said Air Canada pilots have agreed to participate in a "line-oriented safety audit" (LOSA) in April and May.

About two dozen Air Canada pilots will write detailed reports on the actions of pilots on 310 flights over a six-week period to determine how well the airline's standard operating procedures are working.

"It's a little intimidating," Mr. Guetta concedes. "But the point is our line pilots will accept that if it's conducted by one of their peers."

While reports generated by the SMS process will be confidential, information about safety incidents and violations will continue to be available on Transport Canada's website, Ms. Vignola says.

Since last year, reports on safety-related incidents have been posted online in the department's Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Report. And summaries of punitive action against companies that break safely rules are posted on Transport Canada's "corporate offenders" website.

Though CUPE maintains that Transport Canada intends to seek an exemption under Access to Information for safety audit reports, Vignola says that's not true.

"They have always been available and they'll continue to be available."

CUPE has also characterized SMS as a move toward self-regulation by the airline industry. But Gaspar disputes that.

"It's absolutely not self-regulation," he says.

"It's introducing accountability. It's simply saying to the company that holds the operating certificate, 'you are legally responsible for safety.' That doesn't mean you get to decide what safety is."

[snaproll20]

Without confidentiality, airline employees would be far less likely to report safety problems, Mr. Wilson says, because they wouldn't want to see their own mistakes "on the bulletin board."

But, is that not what SMS is all about?

What is the point of reporting a mistake that could affect other people unless those other people are shared the information so they can avoid the same mistake?

Recently I assisted a company in investigating some "problems". It became abundantly clear that the causes were human error, coupled with lack of attention. Nobody voluntarily confessed their "mistake". Dragged kicking and screaming into confession for the communal good, perhaps the embarressment equated to "punitive" for them.

Really, the Government (TC) is trying to legislate human traits here. People simply do not like to admit their mistakes and if it is a deliberate disregard for safety issues (flying overweight, busting limits etc.) do they really believe these events will be reported? We all grew up with the cause and effect nature of our species. You do something wrong, and Mom says: "You just wait 'til your Father gets home!!!" (This, lacking the instant wielding of a wooden spoon). For most of us, this is the beginning of moral responsibility within our society. We fear retribution in the wake of wrongdoing. "Hey, Mom, I stole twenty bucks from your purse yesterday." "That's OK, little Jimmy, when Daddy gets home we will discuss it. Rest assured there will be no punishment since you have confessed." "Thanks, Mom. Oh, do you still keep your purse by the fridge?" By the same permissive trend of our society, we allow child molesters out of prison to prey on more victims.

People are afraid of accountability and the concurrent trend of blame-transfer seems to blend in. (Spill coffee on yourself and successfully sue McDonald's). TC is just trying to avoid its responsibilities in the same fashion. I believe accountable executives should be vigorously pursued for wrongdoing. Surely, it would be easier to write that into the CARS that to go through all of this mularkey. It is just a means of going around existing rules that are not being enforced. Maybe each company should write its own CARS and be held to them. Do away with the whole bureaucratic burden.

I talked recently with a lady who has a Doctorate in Leadership studies. She is still trying to find her eyebrows after I described SMS to her.

Is the principle of SMS wrong? No.
Is TC's legislating it wrong? Hmmm, certainly impractical, given human nature, but then, we do not expect much from TC in terms of practicality, do we?

[Widow]

Excellent commentary, snaproll.

[Widow]

C-7: Airline safety, the Queen of the North and CN

(PIAC 19/03/08) — The government's plan to turn airline safety over to the industry remains stalled in the Senate, as its main element, "safety management systems" are implicated in the sinking of the Queen of the North and CN's poor safety record.

On February 5 the Transportation Safety Board reported on the sinking of BC Ferries Queen of the North. "That night, many basic principles of safe navigation were not followed. For instance, a dedicated certified lookout was not posted, a senior officer was not called and speed was not reduced in restricted visibility, and the vessel's position and ship setting were not monitored," Terri Theodore of Canadian Press quoted TSB investigator Pierre Murray. BC Ferries is regulated via safety management systems,

A March 7 report to Parliament on the Railway Safety Act concluded safety management systems at CN are less than effective because of a "culture of fear and discipline".

C-7 Aeronautics Act will do for air safety what similar amendments over the last twenty years have done for marine and railway safety — ie transfer primary responsibility for safety from Transport Canada to the industry itself.

Hold airline safety hearings on Bill C-7, Canadian Newspaper Association urges

(PIAC 22/01/08) — The Canadian Newspaper Association is calling on the Senate to hold public hearings on Aeronautics Act amendments which replace government safety inspections with corporate self-policing.

"Bill C-7 provides that information about safety-related incidents — including material from flight data recorders and self-reported violations — voluntarily provided by airlines or their employees will remain confidential. It also designates such safety reports as 'mandatory exclusions' under the Access to Information Act, putting them beyond the reach of access requests" the Ottawa Citizen reported on January 18.

"Essentially the public and the media are being asked to take both the airlines and Transport Canada's word that any safety violations have been dealt with. The only time we're going to hear about (safety problems) is when it's too late, when it's a really serious accident" Anne Kothawala, CNA boss told the Citizen's Don Butler.

Bill C-7 is currently before the Senate. PIAC supports the Canadian Newspaper Association's call for "sober second thought."

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewConsForum8.cfm?REF=12


The media keeps saying the bill is before the Senate, but I cannot find anything to verify this.

[Brick Head]

Without confidentiality, airline employees would be far less likely to report safety problems, Mr. Wilson says, because they wouldn't want to see their own mistakes "on the bulletin board."

But, is that not what SMS is all about?

What is the point of reporting a mistake that could affect other people unless those other people are shared the information so they can avoid the same mistake?

He is talking about removing the individual identity from the bulletin board, not the incident itself. Identification of an individual has nothing to do with learning from others mistakes.

This is exactly what happens with the company I work for. Bulletin boards, safety magazine's, computer simulations of incidents in flight planning. All derived from self reporting.

All names and information that could lead to disclosure of the individuals removed. Yup even seen my own incident on the board. No on else knew it was me.

I would like to comment on the importance of unanimity in reporting. As for SMS itself? I agree with a lot of the concerns voiced here. To most pilots though, unanimity is a separate issue to SMS. And that is all I would like to speak to. Parts of the legislation before the house are intended to beef up protection for the self reporter. It is included in the legislation because some of the recent attacks on the confidentiality of, CVR data, FDR data, and Flight Data Analysis data, threatens aviation safety in Canada.

Both Air Canada and Westjet have more recently introduced a Flight Data Analysis program. (FDA). Basically each aircraft stores huge amounts of information. Much more than a FDR. All that information is downloaded stripped of anything that can identify the crew and then analyzed. What this amounts to is big brother always looking over your shoulder. Pilots and both companies, in the interest of safety, have agreed to this only on the condition that no identification of crew is possible. The process for ensuring unanimity is complex and involves third parties stripping and destroying identification information. Then returning the data to the FDA team sans the ability to identify crew, flt numbers, dates ect. In fact due to the third party process it is impossible to go back after the fact, and find the crew, even if they wanted to.

It can not be overstated how important the FDA program is to flight safety. To see trends, watch them develop, then snip them in the bud through procedural changes, awareness, simulators adaptation ect. All before an incident even took place.

Confidentiality is at the heart of this program and if threatened we will loose it. As our unions and the company have assured us. It is impossible to go back in time to identify. The first instant that information becomes accessible by a court, or through legislation, the program will be terminated.

Why would a corporation run a program that could later incriminate them? The answer is they won't.

Why would a pilot participate in a program that could later be used to incriminate them? The answer is they won't.

That would be a huge step backwards for flight safety in Canada.

As for SMS. I share your concerns. No oversight is just something I don't comprehend. As I have head a few times now. SMS is one accident away from extinction.

As for confidentiality and immunity it is nothing new. It is the way the system works now. For the system to continue to work it must stay that way.

[Widow]

This could be a very interesting situation. If, as you suggest, inspections were to be found to be in contravention of the Charter, then perhaps the only means of providing oversight of the industry will be to "..monitor the SMS and not the organization..." as Widow observed above. Either that, or take the government out of the equation and let the industry oversee themselves the way the medical profession does through the various provincial College of Physicians, College of Dentists, College of Pharmacists, etc., a possible solution that has also been talked about on this site in the past.

I guess the CBAA already does that to some extent (including manadatory SMS for their members) so I suppose that ATAC, NATA, HAC, ACPA, COPA, Aero Club of Canada, AQTA, BCAC, CALDA, LAMAC, SAC, ALPA Canada, CUPE, CAAA, HEPAC, CAMA, UPAC, CAC, NavCanada, AIAC and the various other alphabet industry organizations could oversee their own parts of the industry. I'm not sure that would necessarily be an improvement but it would be interesting...

Interstingly enough, and as posted by Carholme in the heli forum:

HEPAC submits SMS - Industry Self Management proposal to Transport Canada
Thursday, April 03, 2008 / HEPAC

Industry Self Management (ISM) is fast approaching. Transport Canada will be downloading management and enforcement responsibilities for our industry. Helicopter operators will evolve from compliance to safety risk management. Transport Canada will transform from regulatory auditors into system evaluators. The onus for proving or disproving adequate safety performance will be on the helicopter operators not Transport Canada.

Looking towards the future, the Helicopter Engineers and Pilots Association, Canada (HEPAC) has submitted a proposal to Transport Canada for the implementation and auditing of the Safety Management System (SMS) within the Canadian helicopter industry.

Don McDougall, who is spearheading HEPAC’s proposal: “HEPAC has put on the table a coherent proposal for the implementation of SMS that meets Transport Canada’s objectives while putting operators, engineer and pilots in a leadership role. This is the first step towards Industry Self-Management.”

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news ... a=7262&z=5


We really ought to be following the thread: Some question FAA oversight strategy

[Widow]

Bill C-7 On Todays' Projected Order of Business


http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublication ... 923&File=0

C-7 — The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities — An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts — Third reading (resuming debate on the amendment of Mr. Masse (Windsor West))

Length of speeches, pursuant to Standing Orders 43 and 74:

The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition — unlimited time and speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period.

All other Members —

During the next 40 minutes of debate — 20 minutes maximum and speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period.

After the period of debate referred to above — 10 minutes maximum and speeches are subject to a 5-minute question and comment period.