Five Deaths Demand Justice Petition

[xsbank]

I don't get it - if 5 people lose their lives, by any means, shouldn't we be investigating with all of our available resources? How come one girl falls off a sailing ship and she gets the whole treatment? Has there been a rash of people falling off similar sailboats?

Oh, wait, I know, she was the daughter of a politician, or a hockey club owner, or some such thing.

How about those cops in Alberta? They are no deader than the passengers on this Beaver, but we are going nuts over that.

If that is true, 380 accidents a year, more than one per day, that is disgusting. That means that TC is ineffectual, TSB is ineffectual, and as pilots, we are not only VERY vulnerable but as a group we are not only bad at what we do but we are a serious threat to public safety. How many people do we kill or maim every year? Disgusting.

Looks to me like we all have our heads buried firmly in the sand. Serious denial.

If the TSB thinks the death of 5 men is not worth bothering with, what are they there for? If TC is not interested, what are they there for? Answer anyone?

Themselves. Just another gang of self-serving bureaucrats, waiting for their pensions while they screw the public.

How many travel by Beaver every day in this country? Is every cause of every Beaver crash that well-known? If so, why did it happen again? If that's true, that there is nothing new to learn, then TC has its head up its collective *ss and they are doing the same thing as the TSB - dick.

Safest in the world?

Edited to add - sorry Kirsten, we must have over-lapped as I did not read your last posting first. I get so angry when any government apologist gets on here and defends feckless work. I understand the concept of triage but allowing the difficulty of an investigation to enter into the matrix does everyone an injustice. Presumably if this had happened in the Bahamas there would be 10 bureaucrats down there, all senior, staring at the wreckage. This organisation is the TRANSPORTATION Safety Board, not the AIRLINE Safety Board and I, for one, think their operation stinks as much as does TC's.

[Cat Driver]

Xsbank:

As you probably already know politics quite often drive these investigations.

Having been personally involved in two TSB investigations into airplane accidents one fatal and the other non fatal I learned that politics drive their decisions in some cases.

What one needs to do is look at who could be caught in the wringer if a full disclosure of facts were made public.

Now back to the accident that widow is trying to get to the bottom of, can anyone think of who might not all want the facts made public?

TCCA Pacific Region maybe?

[swordfish]

xsbank: bang on, dude.

Cat:

What one needs to do is look at who could be caught in the wringer if a full disclosure of facts were made public.

bang on again.

The whole letter from Tadros was a glorious cya poster-child.

[Cat Driver]

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts completely.

The system is broken, the elected members of government have become puppets controlled by the powerful entrenched bureaucracy.

Sort of a Northern Banana Republic.

From one of their own internal documents:

* Written responses to client complaints enforce the requirement for full compliance and admit to no wrong doing by Inspectors or others.

The industry has gotten to this point partly because the industry has this mindset out there defending the regulator.

Didn't they shake you down for "plain brown envelopes" during questionable secret meetings where you were held incommunicato behind closed doors with TC personnel? Didn't you feel like you were a Guinea Pig in a room with a Boa Constrictor? I'll bet they said they closed the door for the protection of the privacy of your business information didn't they? Yeah, sure. I'll bet they just couldn't wait to connect electrodes to your genitals and start cranking the magneto to make you give up your corporate secrets so they could pass along your contracts to other scumbag operators who kill people regularly, but make their weekly protection payments on time.

The above was contributed by someone who believes that making ignorant statements worded in an attempt to make it look like those of us who actually do try and bring about much needed changes in how the industry is regulated are just nut cases making untrue accusations.

So you get what you are willing to accept.

Keep kneeling down and pay for your own lube and you will be A.O.K ...maybe.

[Mitch Cronin]

., no disrespect intended, but don't you think this thread could do without your diversion?

[Cat Driver]

Mitch with no disrespect intended I was of the opinion that part of widows problems in her issues with the regulator has been she has been stonewalled over and over by the authorities.

I am posting facts to point out that there is a very serious systemic lack of morals and in some cases a disregard for the law within the top management of the regulator.

However you may be correct that my constant interfering in her thread submitting these facts might be demeaning to her cause.

Lets see if she is pissed off at me.

[Widow]

I'm not pissed at you Cat The long-standing "issues" of TCCA, and especially Pacific Region remain, IMHO, part of what allowed this accident to happen in the first place.

I don't get it - if 5 people lose their lives, by any means, shouldn't we be investigating with all of our available resources? How come one girl falls off a sailing ship and she gets the whole treatment? Has there been a rash of people falling off similar sailboats?

Oh, wait, I know, she was the daughter of a politician, or a hockey club owner, or some such thing.

Actually something I pointed out in the letter Tadros was responding to:

The recent release of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s report, M06F0024, into the death of Laura Gainey, who fell overboard, only serves to highlight the different standards which the TSB seems to be applying in attempts to acheive its mandate. If our loved ones had been famous, or the children of someone famous, would the TSB have thoroughly investigated and publically reported on accident A05P0039?

Strange that she did not answer my question ... maybe because the answer is a resounding YES!

A question for the naysayers ... If it was not the responsibility of the TSB to investigate for cause and contributing factors, whose job was it? Another question that no official has ever answered, despite our asking for over three years.

[Mitch Cronin]

I'm not pissed at you Cat The long-standing "issues" of TCCA, and especially Pacific Region remain, IMHO, part of what allowed this accident to happen in the first place

I wonder what the consequences to Pacific Region people might be, if an investigation were to show maintenance was a contributing factor and TC should have known and due dilligence was not exercised? ...and then I wonder what possible influence those Pacific Region folks might have on the TSB folks... ?

[Widow]

From the document "Impasse" referred to -

The fact that Transport Canada did not perform audits and inspections in accordance with its Frequency of Inspection Policy.

In our initial assessment, we found no evidence to warrant further examination of the role regulatory oversight may have played in this occurrence.

Hmmm, in their "initial assessment"? Was there further assessment after we provided extensive information and proof of the lack of regulatory oversight???

[justplanecrazy]

I don't get it - if 5 people lose their lives, by any means, shouldn't we be investigating with all of our available resources? How come one girl falls off a sailing ship and she gets the whole treatment? Has there been a rash of people falling off similar sailboats?...

If that is true, 380 accidents a year, more than one per day, that is disgusting. That means that TC is ineffectual, TSB is ineffectual, and as pilots, we are not only VERY vulnerable but as a group we are not only bad at what we do but we are a serious threat to public safety. How many people do we kill or maim every year? Disgusting.

If the TSB thinks the death of 5 men is not worth bothering with, what are they there for? If TC is not interested, what are they there for? Answer anyone?

Themselves. Just another gang of self-serving bureaucrats, waiting for their pensions while they screw the public.

XSbank, your ignorant and blanket disregard for TSB is disgusting.

First, the investigation for the girl on the ship or the RCMP has no comparison to this case. Their was no malicious intent by the pilot or possibility of foul play discovered in this case, unlike your 2 other examples. The five people that were killed in this tragic accident, were simply riding a vehicle to work. Just like the 2,900 people that were killed in Auto accidents last year. If someone drives a 5 passenger van off a cliff, I don't believe there would be anywhere near the same amount of funding provided in the follow up investigation.

You think TSB is ineffectual because of 380 accidents??? There were 160,000 auto accidents in Canada last year!!! We moved 6.07 million aircraft out of 95 airports last year with only 380 accidents including more movements from unmonitored fields!!! 380 out of ~7 million movements!!!

I also imagine that living in your little bubble, you've never bothered to check what is defined as an accident in aviation terms. Unlike autos, an accident does not mean a bent plane. It is rather:

an accident resulting directly from the operation of an aircraft, where
(a) a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of being on board the aircraft, coming into contact with any part of the aircraft or its contents, or being directly exposed to the jet blast or rotor downwash of the aircraft;
(b) the aircraft sustains damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that requires major repair or replacement of any affected componenet part; or
(c) the aircraft is missing or inaccessible.

So 350 of the 380 accidents reported may be a cookie cart hitting an elderly passenger in turbulence and breaking her hip, or a person walking into a turning prop at the fly in breakfast etc.

What that number also fails to mention is how many occurrences TSB is investigating that didn't result in an accident but may prevent future large scale accidents. ie. loss of control midflight in an airbus, or the incident over Ottawa years ago, where the AP was disengaged short final with full pitch up trim and an airliner proceeded to do a number of wing over stalls over the airport without injury. TSB handles all of these major occurrences and believe me, you have no idea how many are on their plate.

Are you suggesting that TSB would be more effective by dropping all of these other cases and focusing solely on the cases involving deaths? They don't have the funds to cover them all, they have to pick and choose so if you believe that they have to focus on fatalities, then many other occurrences will be dropped. Someone already mentioned that their mandate has changed to be more effective in prevention by focusing on those cases with the most effect on future prevention not those involving fatalities. Obviously if you can't understand how small a number 380 is in the big picture, you definitely have no comprehension of the constraints that TSB faces with a limited budget.

Your name calling and finger pointing would probably be limited to silence too after watching these "self-serving bureaucrats" wade through body parts looking for pieces to the wreckage. The funny thing about people like you, those that are the most vocal about people having to do their job more thouroughly, are usually the most vocal about having to provide the necessary funds out of their paycheck, for them to do their job.


Widow, thank you for summarizing your position. It definitely sounds like there is room for improvement with interdepartmental co-operation and an oversight committee and I do support that. However some of the things that you are looking to have mandated, are definitely more involved. If everyone in a float plane had to wear a life jacket, you'd probably have a lot less nervous flyers willing to step foot inside the plane to begin with. Kinda like having to wear a parachute to travel on an airliner. Nonetheless I applaud your efforts and any increase in safety is a good thing. Unfortunately there are far too many idiots like XS that spew some Michael Moore feel good crap that tends to smother your facts and issues. If it was just you talking, I'd have no problem's with this thread.

[Cat Driver]

justplanecrazy:

Unfortunately there are far too many idiots like XS that spew some Michael Moore feel good crap that tends to smother your facts and issues. If it was just you talking, I'd have no problem's with this thread.

I guess I must be one of those idiots like Xsbank, because I also am of the opinion that the system has serious systemic problems.

I will admit you do have more class than us idiots though.

XSbank, your ignorant and blanket disregard for TSB is disgusting.

[Widow]

justplanecrazy, there are a few of the members here who, I think, feel rather protective of me ... and whatever their reasons may be, they understand the frustration I feel.

So, in response, would you explain why you think "the girl on the ship" (who was at work) and the five men on our aircraft (also "at work") cannot be compared? For the life of me I cannot think what your reasoning would be.

I can understand why you do not think we can compare the officers at Mayerthorpe (also working) ... I would like to say though, that if Mayerthorpe had not happened the day after Dave's body was recovered, we would have remained national headline news and the TSB may well have upgraded the Occurrence Classification.

From the OCP:

Public Expectation
Following spectacular or particularly tragic occurrences, there is a public expectation that action will be taken by the government to prevent recurrence. The TSB must endeavour to maintain public confidence that accidents in the federally regulated, national transportation system will be independently and competently investigated -- regardless of the mode.

I'd also like to say, just how many of those 380 aviation accidents reported annually have resulted in five fatalities? Something to consider, IMHO.

In closing, there are very few things I have talked about mandating ... but life jackets on floatplanes are something I feel very strongly about. Remember, in this accident, everyone escaped but all the lifejackets remained sealed on board the aircraft. If you've ever taken a dunker course, you will know that the grabbing, donning and inflating of a life-jacket during a panic-stricken crash sequence, is virtually impossible. There are recommended life jackets for floatplane use, and it is recommended by TC themselves that a lifejacket be used during take-off and landing. The excuse of scaring off the passengers by requiring lifejackets is one I've heard before, and frankly, it just doesn't sit well with me. You have to where a lifejacket in helicopters working over water, why on earth should it be different for floatplanes???

[justplanecrazy]

Cat, XS is not on here arguing that the system has flaws and showing facts and solutions, rather he is jumping up and down like a 2 year old (or michael moore) waving his arms around a number that is in fact, a very good safety record. This is why I've missed Widows very valid and meaningful arguments. Keep the baboons in the zoo and let her talk, and she'd be better off.

Widow, if I had continued on with float flying, I would have purchased a floater vest. Do I feel it needs to be mandated? no. Should companies requiring their employees to travel long distances over water on a daily basis, fork out the necessary expense for the jackets, or hire float operators that provide them, yes. Should joe blow on a flight from vancouver to vic in a DHC6 have to wear one over their suit? no. There have been many airline accidents giving enough time to allow the people to exit the airliner in the air and parachute to the ground as well, yet parachutes will never be mandated either. I think we can get over protective of the public. At some point, you have to provide education and let individuals make their own decisions. If there are many accidents involving float plane occupants surviving the crash and drowning after, then I'd agree that something has to change. Right now I believe that it's only those regularly flying over water that are at an elevated risk high enough to recommend it be required. If you can show me numbers that indicate otherwise, I'd change my current view.

The reason the girl on the ship doesn't compare, is because there is a number of unknowns. Just like any suspicious death, answers are required. They have to satisfy that their isn't something more at play than simply falling overboard. If the girl was on her way to work in a van with 4 other individuals and they ran into bad weather and went off the road, killing everyone on board. The resulting investigation would probably be significantly smaller than the one that took place in your case.

Again, as far as the TSB is concerned, it is easy to let emotion play into the triage and say why would they spend numerous man hours and funds investigating an occurrence that didn't even result in injuries and then brush aside an accident that resulted in 5 deaths. You really have to remove all emotion to see the full picture but I'm sure most people on here would agree that the incident over Ottawa demands far more attention then your scenario.

TSB had an Airbus that was completely out of control over ottawa for over 5 minutes, with the crew recovering from stall after stall until they finally discovered the trim in the full up position. It was imperative that the TSB investigate this incident fully. They had easy access to large amounts of material and the cost vs. benefit of investigating this accident was enormous. In the end they discovered that the AP doesn't allow flight control below a certain altitude so when the pilot attempted to change the approach profile by pitching nose down, the autopilot corrected with nose up. When it was disengaged the AP had full pitch up set and the pilots were on the ride of their life. It is very important that they study how this happened and how it can be prevented as they were very close to losing 100+ lives in one instance.

Now you have to remember, the public didn't hear about this incident nor were there any injuries. If they had pulled their investigators and funds off of this case to investigate the much more serious five deaths and many media reports that had occurred in your case, we would still have this possibility of 100+ deaths on numerous flights across the world. In the end a thorough investigation of your incident, only seems to have revealed that the engine was running and that the floats may not have been in proper condition. They still have no hard facts as to what caused the plane to hit the water, nor do they have any wide based findings that could prevent future accidents. I know it's very hard to see through emotions to discover this, but this is the what they are unfortunately left balancing every day.

Projected results of investigation
Cost of investigation

Your paticular scenario, didn't promise to reveal any unknown safety hazards in flying a beaver on the coast that could prevent Beavers from crashing in the future, and the cost of the investigation was going to be very expensive with very little possibility of recovering anything that would reveal the whole story.

In the case of the Airbus over Ottawa. They had a very big unknown that was likely to happen again if they couldn't figure out the cause. They also believed the cause would be easy to discover through analysis of the aircraft, black box, CVR etc. and the cost and manpower to go over this equipment was very minimal.

If 10 pilots were given the above scenarios without knowing that in the first one 5 people had died and the second, no-one was injured, then they probably would all agree that TSB would be better put to use investigating the second. Unfortunately when you add the emotion that comes with the result of the occurrence, it clouds your judgment in deciding how TSB's manpower is best put to use.

[xsbank]

I am at work right now and will reply with the appropriate venom, probably tomorrow. Thanks for defending me, guys, but when you shake the trees you can't protect against ALL the monkeys that fall out.

[Cat Driver]

Interesting, did Airbus Industries have any interest in that " what's it doing now " incident over Ottawa?

I would think that Airbus would have more talent with knowledge of how their fly by wire marvel works than the TSB and they would have shared some of the cost in the investigation.

By the way Xsbank is a friend of mine and a very talented pilot with a broad background in aviation and I find your referring to him as a baboon does nothing for your credibility.

If you wish to call me a baboon fill your boots.

[justplanecrazy]

Cat, XS may be a genius in certain aspects but none of his posts on this subject hold any merit. Show me any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism that he has added.
As someone else said,

The TSB has been discredited too much on this and other threads, and indeed they cetainly dont deserve the insults some people have been throwing at them.

XS appears to be the most vocal and his, among other comments, are what prompted me to write my initial response in TSB's defense. Unlike XS, Widow is a very classy person taking the comments in stride and while acknowledging that TSB on a whole has a very positive effect on this industry, it has downfalls and she has pointed them out. Unfortunately they're being lost in all the other various verbal diarrhea being spewed on here.

I don't care what qualifications XS poses. His above comments are of a baboon mentality. How can someone take one of the safest records in the world and jump around with it, saying that 380 accidents in 7 million movements is ludicrous, and still be defended??? How can anyone feel good about themselves, lumping everyone in the TSB as a bunch of idiots out to screw us???

These guys are sorting body parts from airplane parts on a daily basis. I've witnessed two fatal aviation investigations and that was enough to turn my stomach for months. I can't imagine the fortitude, determination or mental strength that these guys have to possess, to deal with this day after day in order to make your life safer. To have the primary people that they are protecting stick up for an ass, labeling them all with the same idiot brush, is disgusting. Sorry if my comments are too harsh but someone needs to say something in their defense.

If you have an issue with TSB's process and believe that there are changes that can be made to increase the effectiveness of the board, than say so. But unless you're willing to get out from behind your keyboard and wade through some charred remains, then take a page out of Widow's book, and make your comments while showing a little respect!

You couldn't pay me enough to do this job...






I'll leave this thread to Widow now. Again, good luck with your fight and God Bless.

[xsbank]

I stand behind my opinions, I think our government agencies have a serious lack of credibility.

Standing back and cherry-picking when they have done a good job or not seems fatuous. Pointless and absurd.

Ya, I know, if I don't like it I should just leave. Who will be the first to suggest that old chestnut? But if nobody complains, then it never gets any better because the bureaucrats are entrenched and get paid whether they f*ck up or they lay golden eggs. The only way to get fired these days is to be a whistle-blower; you have annoyed some fellow bureaucrats and they get all shirty about it and as they can't kill you, you get fired.

Justplanecrazy, just because you don't wish to work for TSB doesn't make them wonderful. Yes, the guys in the field do good work, in fact I know a couple of them and have seen them work. Same for TC. I'm sure they would have done a good job on Widow's accident IF THEY HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE IT.

Surely you can't defend an accident rate that includes more than one a day and largely consists of accidents that are repeated over and over? Under your reasoning the accidents DON'T NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING NEW TO LEARN makes us, as pilots, look pretty stupid and maybe even criminal IF WE ARE REPEATING THE SAME OLD ACCIDENTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Are you saying this is an endemic rate, that nothing can be done about it so we should just swallow it? What if the next five to die in a Beaver are your family members on the way to their daily place of work? Will it still a good accident rate?

Doesn't TC look pretty stupid too if it KNOWS THAT FACT AND DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT? Seems pretty obvious to me.

I don't know, Canada is like those elementary schools where every kid gets a prize on sports day. There seems to be little incentive to make it better and we prefer to go for the lowest common denominator instead of pushing for excellence.

Why is that? Why do we settle for it? Why don't we vote? Why are we so apathetic about the government but jump all over someone who criticises it (me)? More than half of the people who read this site didn't bother to vote in the last election - We are a democracy and not a republic yet half of us don't give a sh*t.

Constructive criticism? I don't know why these agencies are broken, I don't know how to fix them except as . says to fire a bunch of the higher-ups who obviously have lost the way and have turned their agencies inward, keeping them going merely to be self-serving comfortable places to work.

If I smell something that stinks, I complain and try and do something about it instead of trying to convince everyone that the smell is really not that bad.

"And so to bed." (Pepys)

p.s. Thank you, those who have supported my right to express my thoughts here. If nothing else, occasionally, sometimes, there is some good debate here.... I can take it though - bring it on. Just not tonight!

[Cat Driver]

How can someone take one of the safest records in the world and jump around with it,

Can you post a comparison of accident rates around the world where we can examine the number of accidents per aircraft flown justplanecrazy?

Every time I read that statement I see Preuss's face and somehow I take that claim with a mine full of salt.

[Widow]

Cat, this thread included some statistical comparisons ... viewtopic.php?f=54&t=29843&p=292732&hil ... ia#p292732

justplanecrazy: You didn't answer this question:

If it was not the responsibility of the TSB to investigate for cause and contributing factors, whose job was it?

It may SEEM irrelevant to you, but there were 5 working men, the breadwinners for their families, who between them left 10 children to be raised without a father figure. Somebody MUST be responsible for explaining WHY this happened.

If you don't investigate, how do you know what you will or will not find? After the families went to the expense of raising the wreckage, and knowing that there had been reports of an aircraft in distress at the time of the accident, why didn't they examine the parts that came up with the fuselage? That would not have cost such a huge amount of money, and it IS possible that had they done so WHEN IT WAS RECOVERED, there would have been valuable evidence therein contained - evidence that is now lost forever to corrosion and other damage that didn't originally exist. I will continue to contend that had the floats been in airworthy condition, this accident would have been much less serious – both in human and aircraft “damage”.

On top of that, the TSB’s failure to write any Safety Letters to TC after the wreckage was recovered and it was discovered that all five passengers had managed to egress WITHOUT lifejackets meant that when TC did their “Floatplane Safety Review” in 2005/06, information on our accident was not included in the concerns.

Here is a link to that review. http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/i ... Review.pdf

Please note on Page 15 that the Risk Control Option “Amend Part 7 to require life vests be worn during takeoff and landing, ops specs and enhanced flight crew training on submerged egress issues. Identify organizations that conduct egress training and communicate to industry”. A little further on Page 17 you will note that the wearing of life vests is given the highest weighted score in terms of benefit. How difficult/costly would it have been to adopt the amendment? I don’t have time to look for the stats now, but it is accepted knowledge (just read the review) that the risk of drowning after a floatplane accident remains a HUGE hazard.

We all know accidents will happen, nothing we can do will make the skies 100% safe. And so, it does become about “mitigating risk”. Our accident is an extreme example of how risk mitigators have been recommended over and over, and not acted upon. That IS something to learn from in itself. There was no need to know the cause of the accident when the contributing factors lend so much information to why, what should have been an incident, became a fatal accident.

We aren’t talking about airliners here, we are talking about floatplanes. Again, I don’t have time to look for stats now, but I am 100% certain that if you were to compare the number of floatplane movements to the number of accidents, you would find there is a much greater risk. For goodness sake, float ops are where many “greenies” get their start – and the requirements for training, etc. (from Transport, not insurance companies) are abysmal compared to countries like Australia and the US.

On a final note, I wonder how much it has cost them to continue fighting with me for almost four years, rather than simply satisfying some of my demands (Safety Letter????).

[xsbank]

Here is an example of a Canadian government service that operates the way it should, despite being 2-bitted and messed about with by the politicians. This is one group I have nothing but praise for. Satisfied, JPC?

3 cheers for SAR! (I know, there were others involved, kudos to them too - there certainly wasn't any discussion, they just got to 'er and at 'er!). That's how all our organisations should work. Despite the flack dumped on the RCMP these days, this is how they are supposed to behave! And the STAR guys! You can't help but feel all warm and fuzzy as you motor about that there are people like this willing to help you out even if you have crashed just exactly the same way 50 others have done before you (no reflection on this particular pilot - NONE).

"Narrative: UPDATE A1 - 310253Z. CRASH C-FOBX (540956N 1191614W - GRAND CACHE, ALBERTA). SARVAIR AVIATION COMPANY REPORTED O/D R-44 ENROUTE FROM GRAND PRAIRIE TO GRAND CACHE, ALBERTA. AFTER DETERMINING THAT ENTIRE ROUTE WAS OUTSIDE OF VICTORIA'S SRR, CASE TURNED OVER TO JRCC TRENTON. THE CREW WAS CARRYING A (SPOT) BECON, IT WAS ACITVATED PROVIDEDING RCC WITH A LOCATION. ADDITIONALLY SARSAT FORMED A COMPOSITE.A C-130 HERCULES AND STARS HELO WERE TASKED. STAR HELO WAS ABLE TO LAND ABOUT 1KM FORM CRASH SITE CONFIRMING SURVIVORS. THE PILOT WAS LEFT AT THE SITE BECAUSE OF INJURIES. HELO WAS UNABLE TO GET TO CRASH SITE DUE TO WEATHER, IT RETURNED TO GRANDE PRAIRIE FOR FUEL.417SQN GRIFFON TASKED ALSO. MEDICAL PERSONNEL REACHED THE INJURED PILOT BY GROUND AND WAITED FOR HELO TO RETURN. STARS HELO RETURNED ON SCENE AT FIRST LIGHT, HOWEVWR IT COULD NOT LAND AT THE IMEDIATE CRASH LOCATION. PATIENT WAS TRANSPORTED TO HELO BY GROUND PERSONEL, THEN EVACUATED TO GRANDE PRAIRIE. THE HERC PROVIDED TOP COVER, ILLUMINATION AND COMM PLATFORM. 417 GRIFFON TOLD TO RTB WHILE ENROUTE TO GRANDE PRAIRIE. CASE CLOSED. HERC 342 435 - 12.5, STARS 5 - 0.0, RCMP GRANDE CACHE LAND UNIT - 0.0, GRIF 415 417 - 3.3 [V2009-00185] G."

[Cat Driver]

On a final note, I wonder how much it has cost them to continue fighting with me for almost four years, rather than simply satisfying some of my demands (Safety Letter????).

Unfortunately widow the cost factor means nothing to that group, the only time money has any meaning is when they collect their pay cheques and of course their " Peformance bonuses ".

The bottom line is if we have to pay them we should be able to demand accountability from them.

[Widow]

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:29 PM
Subject: Quadra Island floatplane crash

Ms. Kirsten Stevens

Dear Ms. Stevens:

Thank you for your correspondence of November 7, 2008, regarding the Quadra Island floatplane crash, which occurred on February 28, 2005.

As you know, an aviation occupational health and safety investigation was initiated following this accident, but the investigation was terminated due to insufficient evidence and information. Moreover, the investigation cannot be reopened at this time due to the limitation period of one year to institute proceedings under subsection 149(4) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II.

I should note that recommendations contained in the R.J. Waldron & Co. report will be forwarded to the Civil Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council Secretariat, on your behalf, for consideration. Should you be aware of any criminal activity relating to this case, appropriate law enforcement agencies should be contacted.

I trust that the foregoing has been helpful in clarifying my position with respect to this matter. Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,



John Baird, P.C., M.P.


c.c. The Honourable Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P.
Mr. Iain Black, M.L.A.

Seems to be proof that the TSB's failure in this case has resulted in TC being unable to investigate for infringements of the CLC.

[Cat Driver]

AAAhhhh the old shell game, no matter which one you turn over there is nothing there.

[Widow]

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 3:10 PM
Subject: 53088 - Response letter from the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

Ref: 53088

Ms. Kirsten Stevens

Dear Ms. Stevens:

Thank you for your emails of December 2, 2008 and January 6, 2009 regarding the tragic death of your husband on February 28, 2005.

Upon the receipt of your January 6, 2009 email, which also contained a forwarded copy of the email to you from the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Federal Minister of Labour, staff from my ministry contacted Ms. Roberta Ellis, WorkSafeBC Vice-President of Policy, Investigations and Review Divisions. Ms. Ellis was asked to contact the Federal Ministry of Labour to clarify the jurisdictional issues that you raised.

Ms. Ellis was advised by the Federal Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour that the December 23, 2008 email from the Honourable Rona Ambrose to you was framed from the perspective of claims management issues, as opposed to crash investigation matters. It was not their intention to suggest that the jurisdiction to investigate the crash itself was WorkSafeBC’s. They confirm that the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) is the proper authority to investigate the cause or causes of the crash. I also understand that all claim issues relating to your husband’s regrettable death have been finalized.

I have been advised that WorkSafeBC’s Board of Directors has asked Ms. Ellis to contact the Chair of the TSB and the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada and to share with them the results of the investigation which you and the families undertook privately, through retaining R.J. Waldron and Company, and to make clear that you remain dissatisfied with the TSB’s investigation into this tragic event.

Mr. John Panusa, Director-Governance to the Board of Directors of WorkSafeBC, will be contacting you to provide you with any further assistance on this important matter and the issues you have raised with the Board of Directors. If you wish to meet Mr. Panusa and discuss any concerns or questions you may still have, he can be reached by calling 1-604-233-4043.

Ms. Stevens, I am so very sorry for your loss and the loss of the other families whose loved ones died in this tragedy. Thank you for taking the time to write and express your continued concern.

Yours truly,

Iain Black
Minister

[Widow]

----- Original Message -----
From: min.labour-travail@hrsdc-rhdsc.gc.ca
To: Kirsten Stevens
Cc: IMCEAEX-_O=HRDC-DRHC_OU=ENTERPRISE+20ADMIN+20GROUP_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BAIRD+2EJOHN+5FX400+5FPARL+5F001@hrdc-drhc.net
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Demand for Canada labour code Investigation


Dear Ms. Stevens:


This is in response to your electronic message of January 7, 2009, expressing your continuing concerns related to the investigation into the tragic aviation accident that resulted in several deaths.

Labour Program officials have discussed this incident with Transport Canada and confirmed that their investigation did not reveal any infractions of the Canada Labour Code. Furthermore, Transport Canada has also assured Labour Program officials that neither the results of the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) investigation nor the findings of the R.J. Waldron & Co. report brought to light any issue of non-compliance with the Canada Labour Code. As a result, Labour Program officials will take no further action in this matter.

Concerning your request for me to cause a review of TSB policies, I regret that this is not possible within my mandate as Minister of Labour. The TSB is an independent agency that operates at arm’s length from the government . However, you should know that Labour Program officials work with other agencies on an ongoing basis to promote worker safety and compliance with the Canada Labour Code.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me.


Yours sincerely,

Rona Ambrose
Minister of Labour

c.c. The Honourable John Baird, P.C, M.P.
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Of course, I beg to differ:

Specific duties of employer

125. (1) Without restricting the generality of section 124, every employer shall, in respect of every work place controlled by the employer and, in respect of every work activity carried out by an employee in a work place that is not controlled by the employer, to the extent that the employer controls the activity,

• (k) ensure that the vehicles and mobile equipment used by the employees in the course of their employment meet prescribed standards;
  (o) comply with prescribed standards relating to fire safety and emergency measures;
  (q) provide, in the prescribed manner, each employee with the information, instruction, training and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety at work;
  (z) ensure that employees who have supervisory or managerial responsibilities are adequately trained in health and safety and are informed of the responsibilities they have under this Part where they act on behalf of their employer;

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs ... bo-ga:l_II

There's more, but damn I get tired of doing everyone else's job.