Globe&Mail: Lives Could Have Already Been Saved

[trey kule]

FON

Is there a shift of responsibility when a special vfr is requested?

It is up the PIC, when requesting speical or making the decision to fly in those conditions to determine it is safe. The approval is simply, as I understand it, for traffic purposes.

Is there a shift in responsibilty. No...

Until there is an accident and eveyone is wanting to be a victim and play the blame game.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

So now, ., lets have your thoughts, and anyone else who can offer some good points. Maybe there is a way.

Thanks for the compliment of wanting to hear my thoughts Trey Kule.

This subject is to important to just quickly cobble up some ideas, first I want to sleep on it and think about it so I can maybe come up with some suggestions that are valid and workable.

But the most important thing is we need as many experienced people as we can find to form a really productive think tank.

I know of a lot of real high time pilots who post here who must have some good suggestions.

The industry sure needs it.

[_dwj_]

If the vfr requirement's are x feet and x mile's visibility why can you arbitralily request a special vfr? Were the vfr requirement's not set on the basis of safe visual flight? If the airspace is free of ifr traffic at what point will you be refused a special vfr? Is there a shift of responsibility when a special vfr is requested?

You can't. Special VFR visibility requirements are identical to VFR - it doesn't allow you to fly in lower-than-VFR weather. All it does is allow you to fly in poorer visibility than is normally required in a control zone (which normally requires greater visibility and distance from cloud than VFR flight in uncontrolled airspace, presumably so you can see other traffic). So in this accident SVFR really has nothing to do with it and I'm not sure why the Globe&Mail even mentioned it.

[freakonature]

Thank's _dwj_ that make's it a little clearer for me. I don't fly for a living but have to fly to make a living. I'm the customer. Hence the sometime's stupid question's. Thank's again. Freak

[Widow]

I think courses, at various levels of licensing, on the Canada Labour Code and the Aviation Occupational Health & Safety Regs, and the help available (which there isn’t enough of right now) when they do say “no”, should be required. Teaching what the consequences of certain actions/inactions can be. Skywolfe had a great idea in another thread – have the families of victims or victims themselves speak at courses. It would go a long way to reminding everyone of their responsibilities to say “no” – maintenance folk, CPs, OMs and “joe” pilot can all fall under pressure – So many lives count on that “no”.

[SkyWolfe]

flyinthebug: I think your post was really good and I support it. Just FYI...

[DowneastGuy]

I think complacency plays a major role in many aviation incidents/accidents.

How about this scenario:

You're returning to home base or to a very familiar destination where you have "local knowledge" versus the first landing at an unfamiliar airport having the same approach and runway facilities. The weather is right on limits in both instances.

How many pilots agree that you sit up a bit straighter in your seat and pay a bit more attention in the second case versus the first? Also, who hasn't felt the urge to push it a bit more at the familiar airport but wouldn't even entertain the thought at the unfamiliar one? Familiarity breeds complacency. There shouldn't be any difference in the way we fly; we need to bring our A game to work every day.

Regarding the pressure to fly, be it real, perceived or self-imposed. There needs to be an understanding that if a crew pushes the weather or accepts an un-airworthy aircraft and completes the flight, there won't be one more dollar in their pay at the end of the week. Conversely, and more importantly, the crew needs to understand that if, in order to abide by the rules, they don't take the flight or they do a missed approach at the destination and go to their alternate, there won't be a dollar less at the end of the week. A fantasy flight department? Not at all. I know of many but I suspect they're more the exception than the rule for commercial operations versus private.

If we could get all operators to commit to abide by the rules and to foster a safety culture the accident rate would drop dramatically. However as long as there's one operator in an area that pushes, the pressure remains on all the others. How do we get everyone on-side? I don't know but we've got to come up with something.

I know the family of one of the passengers of the latest accident very well. Their grief is heart-rending. We've got to do a better job.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You can't. Special VFR visibility requirements are identical to VFR - it doesn't allow you to fly in lower-than-VFR weather.

Thanks for posting that _dwj_ it just goes to show how out of touch one can get when they don't fly in a given country for a number of years and fail to keep up with the rules. When I flew commercially in Canada special VFR was requested when the weather conditions were below VFR minimums but I guess things do change.

Generally speaking when one requests special VFR one does make the leap in logic that the weather outside the control zone could possibly be even worse than where you are when you take off, therefore logic would conclude that there is a difference between VFR and SVFR a really big one I might add.

You do fly commercially as a pilot do you not?

[lilfssister]

Special VFR visibility requirements are identical to VFR - it doesn't allow you to fly in lower-than-VFR weather. All it does is allow you to fly in poorer visibility than is normally required in a control zone (which normally requires greater visibility and distance from cloud than VFR flight in uncontrolled airspace, presumably so you can see other traffic).

That is very confusing. I think I see what you are trying to say. Let's try this:

VFR limits 1000 foot or greater ceiling and 3 miles or more visibility in the control zone.
SVFR may be authorised by ATC within, to enter, or depart a control zone for fixed wing aircraft with visibility one mile or greater, rotary with half mile or greater.
The SVFR authorisation is for operations within the control zone only and does not authorise you to ignore the rules governing VFR flight outside of the control zone.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

So now, ., lets have your thoughts, and anyone else who can offer some good points. Maybe there is a way.

O.K. here is one thought.

First lets ask some questions and answer them.

Who has the power to ensure compliance with the regulations in a commercial flying service?

Answer:

The chief pilot.

Question:

How can we better improve the ability of a chief pilot to enforce the rules in a given company?

Answer:

By forming a solidified dedicated group of chief pilots who can collectively support each other in their duty to ensure safety within their flight operations.

There is a start trey kule, so now lets see how many suggestions we get from chief pilots as to how best to accomplish this.

Assuming of course my suggestions even have merit.

[_dwj_]

Sorry, my mistake, I checked a bit more carefully and what I said wasn't entirely accurate. I was thinking that SVFR relaxes the viz requirements so that they are equivalent the VFR in uncontrolled airspace, but it looks like that isn't exactly the case.

So, what I should have said is that SVFR doesn't mean you can fly in any weather - you still need 1 mile visibility.

And no I don't fly commercially, just privately.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

So, what I should have said is that SVFR doesn't mean you can fly in any weather - you still need 1 mile visibility.

When you make the decision to fly in weather that is only giving you 1 mile visibility and you plan on leaving the circuit and your plan is to fly by visual contact with the ground or water you have just put another bullet into your revolver to play the aeronautical game of Russian Roulette.

[safetywatch]

DowneastGuy's comments are very poignant. Until you have gotten close to a family that has experienced a loss like this, you have no idea what the impact is. We can all understand that somebody died, and there are tragic accidents every day, but for the friends and relatives this is a live changing situation that will impact some people for the rest of their lives. And so those of us who know, get very passionate about the issue, particularly when we believe that it is all so unnecessary. We go after people like TC mainly because they do such a poor job of communicating. The arrogance and contempt that spokespeople like Rod Nelson show in front of the cameras only adds to the anger and frustration. If only someone in TC would have the decency to put a human face on these tragedies, and appear to care about doing something about it, at least we would all feel there was some hope.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

safetywatch, I can only imagine the never ending grief some of you must feel every time they watch some of these TC officials pontificate from the cushy protected cocoon they live in.

The truth is nothing will ever change until the regulator screens out the sociopaths that find a secure heaven in TCCA, where performance and accountability are words they can not even comprehend let alone strive for.

If it is any comfort to you every time I think about how it could be compared to what it is in reality I will never give up trying to bring about accountability within the regulator.

. E.

[SaskStyle]

My experience over the years in Canada is that one of the most important things a CP could do in a small operation is keep pilots from going out and killing themselves trying to push the weather..Not pushing them out"

Good chief pilots who have the backbone to do the job they accepted ( ensure the safety of flight in the company they work for. ) can reduce these accidents by a very high percent.

Regulation of company flight operations starts with the chief pilot.

You are correct Trey Kule, that is sadly lacking in a lot of operations.

So how can that be changed?

I don't mean to sabotage the thread....but look a few threads down to the current situation at WestWind. There the 705 Chief Pilot resigned over upper management's decisions to fire his pilots.

Regulation of company flight operations start with the chief pilot but can easily be influenced.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I don't mean to sabotage the thread....but look a few threads down to the current situation at WestWind. There the 705 Chief Pilot resigned over upper management's decisions to fire his pilots.

Regulation of company flight operations start with the chief pilot but can easily be influenced.

Excellent point, which means we are in even more trouble that we thought.

When corporate decisions trump the ability of a chief pilot to do the job they have been given government approval to do we are truly fu.ked.

[trey kule]

I don't mean to sabotage the thread....but look a few threads down to the current situation at WestWind. There the 705 Chief Pilot resigned over upper management's decisions to fire his pilots.

Regulation of company flight operations start with the chief pilot but can easily be influenced.

I dont like to comment on specific issues as this is not the place to get all the facts. Having said that, there are usually several options for resolutions with upper management available to a chief pilot, and one of them is, of course , resigning.

If there are no other solutions , then resignation is the best way. You keep your principals. And you dont have to get up every morning wondering if one of your crews is going to prang one in that day. Sometimes a tough decision, and if there was no other, I admire the CP for doing what they did.

And again, I want to emphasize I do not have any facts on any particular situation and speak in general terms. It is to bad that when a CP leaves a company TC does not do an exit interview with both the company and the person. Might give them a heads up in some cases....to either party.

[pontius]

. . asked............



"Who has the power to ensure compliance with the regulations in a commercial flying service?

Answer:

The chief pilot."

I had always thought that the Operations Manager was the person considered by Transport Canada to be the head of the flight department of a commercial flying company, and that the Chief Pilot reported to him.
As far as I am aware, the Chief Pilot is responsible for training and standards under the direction of and subject to the approval of the Operations Manager. The Operations Manager is responsible to Transport Canada for compliance with the regulations and procedures applicable to his company and I believe does not have to be a serving pilot.
I could be wrong, I usually am.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

As far as I am aware, the Chief Pilot is responsible for training and standards under the direction of and subject to the approval of the Operations Manager.

Please note that I have not been chief pilot in Canada since 1995 so my opinions may be out of date.

The Operations Manager is responsible to Transport Canada for compliance with the regulations and procedures applicable to his company and I believe does not have to be a serving pilot.
I could be wrong, I usually am.

Yes the operations managers duties are is as you stated above.

However the operations manager as far as I understand does not have to be a pilot who is current or even flying period.

Therefore the chief pilot is the person who will have hands on knowledge of the suitability of each individual pilot to perform their duties ( or should have. )

Based on that who has the more important position to ensure the safety of flight operations?

If push comes to shove and the chief pilot does not wish to carry out the directions of the ops manager because the directions are not in the best interest of flight safety the chief pilot can quit.

Of course that will sometimes result in TCCA approving a new chief pilot who will follow orders even if the orders are wrong.....it's sort of a good old boys club, if you are not a follower you will be driven out.

[SRV]

"It was, if you don't take it, the other guy will. And if you do that too often, you don't have a job..."

Sadly this is very much a reality. It's pretty rare that an employer will come right out and say go flying or your fired though. Usually it's much more subtle. For many there is a "perceived pressure" that is felt on a daily basis. It's a pressure you put on yourself really and that makes it so much harder to ignore. Sources for this pressure include your boss, passengers, outside commitments (I've GOT to get home tonight etc.), and other pilots at your company. Most of time it's you that's talking yourself into it. . says "The hardest part about flying is knowing when to say no." Sometimes it's almost impossible.

Take one step further back and you see it is the cut-throat nature of the aviation industry that drives this mentality. If your company can't do the job, then the contract will go to company "B" who say they will do the job. In the world of logging, barge loaders, and construction contracts etc., one lost job kill's a company and so the need to push the crews a little harder, cut a few expenses here and there and before you know it, it's part of the company culture and accepted as normal industry practice, even amongst those tendering the work. That's where the chain has to be cut.

[beaverbob]

Have the VFR rules changed for the BC coast? If I remember correctly minimum low level flight visibility on the BC coast is clear of cloud and two(2) miles visibility whereas it is 1 mile visibility in the rest of Canada.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Bob

[Flying Nutcracker]

One article... so many arguments!

One thought... If aviation was not driven by money, and there was no crying over revenue lost or lack of pay check... there would be no pressure!

Everybody keeps asking for more money to do things safely, however, the catch 22 is added pressure!

Effective oversight??? Yes, that would help matters! But what does oversight really do? Is there a penalty to inviting the "authorities" into our domain so they can impede the driving factor of the industry?

Mr. TSB himself said that certain recommendations were not considered because of the economical impact it would mean to the aviation industry... so if we ask for it because we want effective oversight, what would the future hold???

It all comes down to knowing when to say no! And the more money at stake... the harder it seems.

These comments purely philosophical and by no means aimed at recent events!

[J31]

Have the VFR rules changed for the BC coast? If I remember correctly minimum low level flight visibility on the BC coast is clear of cloud and two(2) miles visibility whereas it is 1 mile visibility in the rest of Canada.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Bob

Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Uncontrolled Airspace
602.115 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within uncontrolled airspace unless
(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;
(b) where the aircraft is operated at or above 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than one mile,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three miles, and
(iii) in either case, the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and 2,000 feet horizontally;
(c) where the aircraft is not a helicopter and is operated at less than 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than two miles, except if otherwise authorized in an air operator certificate or a private operator certificate,

I believe “with special training and specific aircraft instrumentation” ops spec, operators are able to get flight visibility of 1 mile for flight below 1000 ft.

[Rudy]

I believe “with special training and specific aircraft instrumentation” ops spec, operators are able to get flight visibility of 1 mile for flight below 1000 ft.

They are. What "special training" and instrumentation makes it safe to fly VFR low to the ground in low visibility is anyone's guess. GPWS or some kind of tower sensing radar ? Those are not required.

Also, please note that regular regulations AND the ops spec is valid for day time flight only. At night the required visual reference goes up threefold. That's one that is usually forgotten as the days get shorter.

[Rubberbiscuit]

As far as the much higher number of accidents involving 9 seat or less, single engine aircraft in BC is concerned this came to mind. Are the same VFR Weather minimums that are used on the prairies suitable in the mountains? Why do pilots continue to fly good airplaines in to the side of the mountains? Are the current VFR weather flight rules not restrictive enough, or pilots ignoring these very rules? Would it be prudent to apply higher VFR minimas in areas with rugged terrain and mountains? IFR obstacle requirements are higher in certain areas of the country for damn good reasons.

As far as pilots feeling pressure to fly in bad weather, I believe this phenomenon has to be combated from the ground up... it lies in the foundation of a company, the company culture of these smaller operators. The owners has to put safety before $$ and make it clear to their pilots that this is the case. In my previous company the owners made it clear to their pilots that puitting themselves, aircraft or passengers at risk by flying in unacceptable weather would be diciplined.... and they meant it! That is why I was willing to accept the CP position there. We strived to have pilots come forward when they felt pushed or uncomfortable with another crews action, and it worked. It is not enough to not push pilots out the door by way of intimidation or any other means, the company has to come down on those who willingly and knowingly break the rules.

Pontius is right about the Chief Pilots main role, it is to oversee the training and standards in a nutshell. I do however belive that everyone in management, including the Chief Pilot is instrumental in creating the right culture and attitude in the pilot group. There will always and inevitably be the odd cowboy in a crowd, but they are easy enough to filter out and come down on. It is a simple equation really. The only qustion is what comes first, $$$ or safety?