Globe&Mail: Lives Could Have Already Been Saved

[Hedley]

it's pretty hard to prove what the flight vis was

To the best of my knowledge, there have been two Tribunal
cases involving flight visibility, and both times, Transport's
charge was overturned.

During the more recent hearing, the Transport lawyer complained
to the Tribunal Appeal (chief) member that the flight visibility regulation
was impossible to enforce, and the member tartly replied that the
regulations were not enacted for the convenience of Enforcement.

Wow!

[petpad]

[]

[Widow]

Rules were not made to be broken, or bent for that matter. But in light of SMS, rule-bending and breaking could easily become far more prevelent.

Risk management is the process most alien to the aviation industry, which has previously relied heavily on rule-making to determine what safe practices are. It remains to be seen how regulators deal with the greater self-determination that the SMS concept introduces.

<snip>

... it is vital that the organization’s senior management accept that it is they that are accountable for the safety performance of their organization and that they need to therefore have active control of safety decision making, using all available information and making the right resources available.

Beyond Safety Management Systems

Risk management of safety must be a joint effort.

[SaskStyle]

I read back from the beginning and this whole thread is a lose-lose topic no matter where you stand. First it started with this article from the Globe and Mail, blaming the Tower for letting Pasco go, and also pointing the finger from the whistle-blower that TC does not enforce the regulations enough. Both items are pure non-sense. Tower is not responsible for Joe flying into fog 30 miles north, and it was proven that TC cannot enforce visibility regulations.

Then we have those who say "go after the repeat offenders" that will save lives - but wait a minute, this is about Pasco right? and didn't we all agree that Pasco is a great company with wonderful people? So is Pasco a repeat offender or is it not? Again, lose-lose.

My personal favourite - the suggestion that a "rat system" be developed to rat on those who are the only ones flying in bad weather... pleeaasse.. give me a break, who wants to be the rat, or the whitsle-blower, or the TC lawyer losing CAT case after CAT case trying to argue unenforceable regulations...? Should we hire head-hunters waiting around foggy patches with videocameras for the next floatplane flying below VFR limits?

Its about time pilots take responsibility for themselves, and recognize that most regulations are like... in the words of Captain Barbosa... more like "guidelines", and that flying according to regulations is a personal discipline that we cant wash-off of controllers, operators, and TC inspectors.

That Globe and Mail article is bullshit and everyone here knows it. Enough regulations, the limits are fine the way they are, and so are the SVFR "guidelines". Raising limits wont change a thing. Get a grip.

FINALLY!!!!

Good post....that's exactly what 90% of the whiners/complainers on here needed to hear.

Folks...let us not forget that the final decision to go rests with you and you alone. Quit blaming pay, pressure, pride...whatever.

We've all felt them all and all realize the situation....and it's not always fair.

But no job/life/situation is.

When you (remember you chose this, no one held a gun to your head to go this route) chose to be a pilot....along with that choice came responsibility. Live up to it!!!!!!

More regulations and blaming others for your own missteps or those of others won't fix the situation.

For all that energy you put into focusing on what others could do to improve the situation, take half of that and analyze your own performance and see where you can improve yourself professionaly.

That may be a big concept for a lot to fully grasp...but that's where the immediate solution lies. The bigger picture will come into place over time. But that's what we all can do tonight, tomorrow.

[flyinthebug]

petpad.. I felt almost exactly as you did.. Until I drove a DHC2 into the ground. That changed my perspective believe me. Ive run air services and I too believed that rules were meant to be "bent" and lets just accept the system as it is and learn to operate within it to the best of our ability. That included bending some rules. I was an Ops mgr for a small 703/704 op with 11 aircraft for 4 years. I bent the rules but never broke them, nor did i allow my team to break them either. That said, its only LUCK that nothing happened. I was fortunate that none of my young crew got in over their heads.. and truthfully, I was blessed with a very capable crew who have almost all moved on to bigger and better..

The reason im telling you this is it was just LUCK that the times I "bent" the rules.. that nothing happened. Regs are in place as a guideline yes, but one that you must not deviate from with any regularity .. or it WILL bite you in the ass. My bite came 4 years after leaving that company.. but it was my "faith" in the system that allowed me to believe and trust a guage that *I* as PIC should be able to trust.. espically after a fresh recalibration!.. but my trust cost me my career and the next 18 months in rehab. I bent the rules in my career and I was WRONG when I did it.. I looked out and knew the flight HAD to go and said.. yes sir, we have a solid mile now.. lets go! For me, it turned out to be a simple bending of the rules and I didnt confirm my fuel quantity.,. why should I have? I was with the AME owner and chatting about the plane and its idiocyncricies(sp??) .. but BY the BOOK, I should have confirmed fuel quantity by adding some right? I guess when it swallowed the first 28.5 gals, id have known the guage was faulty.

Yes some regs are ridiculous and some are even hard to adhere to with the best of intentions.. But in my experience my friend, you need to change your attitude or you too will find yourself bit in the ass. SMS will never work as long as theirs people with your attitude towards regs in our industry. Yes im biased and jaded by my personal experience..

Just my 2 cents.. and take it for what its worth.
But believe me when i say.. regs are a guideline you do not want to deviate from too often.
Fly safe all
Cheers,

PS.. I do agree though that rats belong in a sewer, not aviation or anywhere for that matter. There are better ways to enforce then "tattling".

[Cat Driver]

That Globe and Mail article is bullshit and everyone here knows it. Enough regulations, the limits are fine the way they are, and so are the SVFR "guidelines". Raising limits wont change a thing. Get a grip.

Petpad I do not agree that the article was bullshit, in fact I agree with Hugh Danford for the simple reason what he said is the way it really is.

I have been flying on the west coast since 1973 in many different airplanes and helicopters.....and I believe the rules are not enforced correctly I also believe that better enforcement would result in it being easier for young pilots to say no.

As for SMS it will not work for the companies who break the rules as a way of operating it will just make it easier.

[petpad]

[]

[petpad]

[]

[flyinthebug]

Thanks petpad and I appreciate you shedding some clarity on your comments.
I do agree that its up the PIC to make the right decisions and to stay within the regs. The problem is that "some" operators are using SMS to their advantage and the younger guys/gals feel the pressure.
What we are discussing is ways we can better police ourselves. Many highly respected pilots had a huge amount of input into the SMS system and its only going to be as good as those that stick to it. If we teach the young guys and gals coming up.. that deviation from the regs is unacceptable.. then as Cat said, it will be easier to say NO to unscrupulous operators who push their pilots into situations that are dangerous.. in an effort to save their jobs.

SMS can work if we ALL work together!
Liquid Charlie said it in another thread but its appropriate here.. he misses the comradiere (sp?) of his brothers in the industry.. Im not old enough to remember aviation 45 years ago but im willing to bet that an SMS system would have worked better with that generation then with the current.. but time will tell. In my short 14 years in the industry, ive seen best friends steam roll each other for a right seat in an A100. It seems its come to that.. so imagine if you look outside and see 1/2 sm and say no go.. meanwhile, your buddy will look at the exact same weather, call it a mile, and off he goes. Thats what pressure can and does cause. The results are all our statistics.

Thanks for the kind words about my accident.

Fly safe all
Cheers

[stef]

Making it illegal to dispatch an airplane VFR where conditions are forecast to be below VFR anywhere along the proposed routing could have three positive affects.

1. The legal responsibility (fine) for the decision to go would then be shared by the operator;
2. Pilots would have an easier time saying no;
3. The regulation would be enforcable.

[Keepitsafe]

In all Ops Manuals for VFR ops it states that weather must be VFR along the proposed route. It was not the day of the crash as far as I read it.

[scrambled_legs]

The thing I don't get, is everyone on here seems to be in agreement that flying in conditions under 1,000' and 3sm, is too dangerous.

Everybody here said that?

It can be perfectly safe flying in weather below 1,000 feet and 3 miles vis.

However when there is a low ceiling and low visibility in fog in the whole area then it becomes dangerous.

Specifically in the Vancouver area where there is no excuse for not knowing the weather on the route you are planning to fly.

Exactly the point I was trying to make Cat. The pilot is responsible for ensuring that they can fly the route at or above VFR minimums. The current limits often provide very safe flights, even at the minimums, whereas 1,000' and 3sm, can sometimes be deadly. Despite that fact, numerous people on here have spoken out against allowing SVFR. Having a controller deny SVFR because he/she feels that the weather is too bad outside of the control zone, is ridiculous. SVFR is only there to prevent midairs not CFIT's and we have zero training, or route knowledge, to be able to make an informed decision. So if you feel people can fly safely in the current VFR minima, then nothing should be done. Other then a serious reality check for the PIC's who keep pushing their luck and the companies that push them to go, the current rules are fine and just need enforcing. Unfortunately, as Hedley pointed out, proving flight vis and nailing a company for it, is next to impossible, so instead we have to be honest with ourselves. This isn't the first crash due to bad weather on the coast and won't be the last. All we can do as individuals, is make sure that we're not the next. If everyone played it safe and followed the current rules, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Cat Driver]

Trying to discuss these issues with some of you here is like trying to swim up Niagara Falls.

True enough, but I dont recall the Pasco pilot being "young" (and inexperienced).

The Pasco accident is only one of hundreds of accidents involving low visibility and ceiling.

We can argue forever about the pilot being the final decision maker but it does not change the culture of 703 float plane operations where it is normal for some companies to either push or allow their pilots to fly poorly maintained airplanes that are overloaded as the norm into bad weather.

It is my personal opinion that in many cases the pilot is the weakest link in the chain of decision making due to the culture of this end of aviation either directly or insidiously pushing them to fly when they shouldn't.

To claim that no one was aware that a given company was guilty of rule breaking or blind to pilots breaking the rules after an accident is absurd.

As long as the industry has this head in the sand belief that the pilots are the final and only real entity that are responsible for many of these accidents nothing will change.

[petpad]

We can argue forever about the pilot being the final decision maker but it does not change the culture of 703 float plane operations where it is normal for some companies to either push or allow their pilots to fly poorly maintained airplanes that are overloaded as the norm into bad weather.

It is my personal opinion that in many cases the pilot is the weakest link in the chain of decision making due to the culture of this end of aviation either directly or insidiously pushing them to fly when they shouldn't.

To claim that no one was aware that a given company was guilty of rule breaking or blind to pilots breaking the rules after an accident is absurd.

As long as the industry has this head in the sand belief that the pilots are the final and only real entity that are responsible for many of these accidents nothing will change.

Best SMS endorsement I have read today.... I am 100% in accord .

[Widow]

Lord knows I can be slow to understand, but how exactly do Cat's comments endorse SMS as a "fix" for the insidious problems in floatplane ops?

Companies that operate safely will operate safely with or without SMS. Companies that do not operate safely can easily use SMS to cover their tracks ... UNLESS effective whistleblower protection is instituted. The general consensus here seems to be that neither TSBs Securitas nor TCCAs CAIRS are working for this purpose.

[Cat Driver]

Best SMS endorsement I have read today.... I am 100% in accord .

How exactly do you see that post as an endorsement of SMS petpad?

Or are you in agreement with widow that this must be part of SMS.

UNLESS effective whistleblower protection is instituted.

And followed up by effective over site of the industry and serious penalties for convicted rule breakers?

[petpad]

You clearly identify the problem as a culture problem - which it is. That is why I believe that you endorse SMS - or at least the concept of it. The fear of course is that enforcement will completely disappear with SMS, which is not the case I hope. I dont enjoy being subjected to a random ramp check (as rare as they are actually), but somehow it is OK to know someone is doing his or her job.

So I agree with the second point you quote from widow, that a strong SMS program still must include strong and effective enforcement from TC towards 703 sector, flight training, and also AMOs. But enforcement alone wont cut it, you still need to educate and promote best practices, benefits, common sense, and playing by the rules or the CARs for the lack of a better term. When is the last time anyone has seen a RASO? or does anyone even know what a RASO is? They are few or no RASOs left and operators must therefore form their own in-house RASO that will play that role.

Whistleblower protection is a contradiction in terms, ask any whistleblower what happens to them. Ask Hugh Danford what happened to him. Whistleblowing is as much a curse as winning millions in the 6/49. Unless you remain completely anonymous in the whistleblowing (as in 6/49), your life will become HELL. Getting a job will become very hard. Its always easier not to rock the boat, to be a team player, and shut up, than wanting to challenge the status quo, to save the world. Oh perhaps you will to a degree, but at what expense? your own. That is why I dont believe in ratting or whistleblowing. There are better ways.

Securitas is relatively weak because I dont think TSB has horsepower to effect anything outside their final reports. Have you ever heard of a formal TSB Recommendation stemming from Securitas? Me neither. CAIRS is weak too because it is marred in TC redtape of endless puck bouncing and pre-cooked answers. It will answer you, but you better not disagree with anything. You better fire up your complaint to Ho Ho Ho North pole than to CAIRs. Anyway, I dont think CAIRs is meant to blow the cover of nasty operators anyway, CAIRs is just a large FAQs system.

So yes I do believe in SMS, and I think we all want to. All we need is to get better oversight. I dont think Pasco had anything to do with SMS or no SMS, and that's why I dont like when newspaper blame SMS everytime there's a new 703 accident.

[Cat Driver]

When is the last time anyone has seen a RASO? or does anyone even know what a RASO is? They are few or no RASOs left and operators must therefore form their own in-house RASO that will play that role.

Educate me petpad, what exactly will seeing a RASO do for some pilot working for a rule breaking company?

[petpad]

I wont even pretend I can teach you anything, but here's my opinion only. RASOs can contribute in building confidence for those pilots as you said, who are afraid to say no. RASOs are a lot more than people going around and telling pilots and AMEs to be safe, they are resource-persons who have the knowledge and the tools needed to help turn the culture around. The challenge was, and still is, that those "rule breaking" operators didn't like RASOs to come around all that much because they were suspicious of the old white hat/black hat mentality. RASOs were TC inspectors for the most part (pilots or AMEs or ATC/ATS background), and those operators could only see the police side of RASOs - the black hat. They felt it was an illusion, and RASOs were nothing but TC inspectors pretending to be good guys - while in fact they had the obligation to report any infraction should they notice one. Good operators were fine with RASO visits, as they had nothing to hide. In the end for RASOs it was a matter of developing trust, and RASOs had to build and develop trust over the years.

An in-house RASO or company safety officer will likely not attract that same level of openess from the ranks because the company safety officer is just that, a company man or woman, being paid by the same person as the other employees.
To think of it SMS may bring back the RASO, not in that exact title but in the form of the TC SMS assessor. They will still carry the good guy/bad guy image, but with no white or black hat - just a huge gray one! Anyway, I've babbled long enough here... I'm done on this thread!

[xsbank]

Something is wrong with Pasco. I am not sure what it is but there have been three bad accidents there. I know the T.O. was an elevator cable but now there have been the two bad Goose crashes. There has to be some sort of thread that connects these accidents, otherwise the entire complement of employees should start buying lottery tickets. This is probably the way I would be thinking if I was their insurer. Something needs to be addressed in their culture, oversight, training, I don't know, that would de-rail this sad series of events. Given that everybody loves them, yet they are still killing people, what would be the first step you would take to 'fix' Pasco?

[flyinthebug]

XS you raise a very good point and UNIQUE problem. We are usually slaggin on bad companies and thats fuelled by anger towards shady operators etc. Its easy to hate Sonic/Regency but how do u hate a company that everyone seems to love? I know from my 3 years on the coast that all the young float drivers aspire to Pasco. Im starting to believe that xs is right and there IS a real problem at Pasco.. If this is the case, how do u convince the wet coasters that PASCO is not the be all end all? Its the main "turbine" op on the coast and all the young guys/gals want it.. You would think three crashes in sucession would be the FIRST clue that things are NOT all perfect at Pasco. I personally never thought they were anyone special. Sure, the Smith brothers have built it into quite a decent tier 3 but at what cost? I dont believe Pasco today is the Pasco of yesterday. Thats my 2 cents.

But the question remains.. how do you look into a company that seemingly operates within the regs at all times.. but still has three crashes in one year and TWO with the same machine, same season, same results (fatalities). SMS should offer us the answers.. will it? I do believe XS is correct and there is indeed something wrong at Pasco. 1 crash=bad luck 2 crashes= really bad luck 3 crashes = someone f*cked up.

Thoughts?
Fly safe all.

[Cat Driver]

SMS should offer us the answers.. will it?

How can you examine any companies SMS records?

[xsbank]

I worked for a really good company, a long time ago, but it was a dangerous place to work. We worked it out to 1.3 crew deaths per year, on average and it got to the point where there would be no more insurance coverage if we didn't clean up our act.

Our company was sick.

First thing that happened was we introduced SOPs (I know, they are controversial) which provided a baseline for all operations - checklists became essential, even on the simpler a/c. We all started doing our thing the same way - first notch of flap downwind, gear down on base, that sort of thing. We all got stall margin indicators (which scared the crap out of us as we were shown graphically how close to the edge we had been operating!) and we modified our stall recovery procedure. All the procedures were standardized with standard calls and all of those who refused to conform were weeded out. "Cowboy" flying got you canned.

Then we hired a safety officer. The deaths stopped. We went years without an accident and our company's reputation improved, along with the driver's too! Business was never better.

No more sick company.

I think Pasco is sick too, needs some serious restructuring, a transplant or an enema or something.

Any other ideas?

[freakonature]

So, xsbank as a rider and not a driver, when considering riding on a sick airline such as the one you mentioned should I reconsider my choice of airline's?

[xsbank]

You have to make your own decision about who you ride with. In a perfect world, companies that offer their services to the public would have a standard they have to meet that is meaningful and enforceable and therefore the public would be safe travelling with them and your decision would not be a safety decision. That system is not working here.

It is my opinion that there is something wrong with Pasco, something that is not working because they are killing their clients. I think that proves that the company is somehow disfunctional. Now as to what the problem is, I'm hoping to get a discussion going, but even that may be pointless as their culture is not really possible to examine unless you work there. So despite all the rhetoric and the assurances that they are a great firm there is patently a problem. They seem to be financially successful so that should be enough to make them worth saving. Can we reverse the accident rate? Any ideas? Can we make them the best company of their sort?