SMS on CTV - March 15, 2009 - Moshansky speaks out

[Widow]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories


With video! Moshansky speaks out!!!

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/Redirect/?ClipId=150337

[HS-748 2A]

If, as Moshansky says, "safety is worse now than it was before the Dryden crash", what does that say for him, his ilk and their approach to our "problems"; stifling this industry at every turn with more red tape, beurocracy and BS regulation 'till the bushshit pile's so deep we can't see over it?

Maybe the whole trouble is the move towards eliminating judgement, making people into sheep unable to think for themselves, unquestioningly following the rules?

Moshansky's the reason my fling-wing pals have to endure 3 hours of training every year to learn how to deice a 737.

There aught to be a law...

[Changes in Latitudes]

Sit down, read the Dryden report page for page. Then rephrase your statement.

[Old fella]

The F-28 accident at Dryden was the result of the PIC not de-icing the wings of his aircraft prior to departing. No amount of TC inspection, inspector oversight/staffing,SMS or whatever is the flavour of the decade would have helpled in that situation as the PIC ignored basic airman(woman)ship on attempting to fly with contaminated surfaces!!!

[Canoehead]

The F-28 accident at Dryden was the result of the PIC not de-icing the wings of his aircraft prior to departing. No amount of TC inspection, inspector oversight/staffing,SMS or whatever is the flavour of the decade would have helpled in that situation as the PIC ignored basic airman(woman)ship on attempting to fly with contaminated surfaces!!!

...and that poor decision was helped along by lots of the 'pressure' that we still endure today. The difference is that today we'd just 'shut 'er down' and go to the hotel, and we'd do it with the support of our OCM's.

I agree that SMS would not have had any effect on that outcome.

I cannot speak for the AME's though. What is the general impression of SMS in the hangar?

[Changes in Latitudes]

The F-28 accident at Dryden was the result of the PIC not de-icing the wings of his aircraft prior to departing. No amount of TC inspection, inspector oversight/staffing,SMS or whatever is the flavour of the decade would have helpled in that situation as the PIC ignored basic airman(woman)ship on attempting to fly with contaminated surfaces!!!

I say again, read the report. It's not an accident report, it's a formal inquiry. A reader's digest version of the accident means nothing. Due to people's overwhelming upset with the CASB, the Dryden investigation offered our industry a rare opportunity for an outside party to examine the entire Canadian aviation system for organizational failures.

Moshansky did an outstanding job bringing to light many deteriorations that Transport Canada allowed and even condoned. The report on the accident wasn't the key here, it was that Moshansky went deeper. Beyond pilot error, beyond poorly designed or followed SOPs and even beyond airline cost-cutting measures. He challenged Transport Canada's role in regulation and their lack of proactivity in its creation of regulation. Something that was long overdue.

And you're correct, SMS isn't going to fix that. It does however challenge pilots to be reckless to a higher power. It is designed to have the proactivity to perhaps, have the proper support equipment stationed at aerodromes so the engines could be shut off for a deice spray. Then the aircrew isn't put in a position where reckless attitudes should have to surface.

Of course that is when SMS is applied correctly, I'm on the waiting list for that one.

[Widow]

If, as Moshansky says, "safety is worse now than it was before the Dryden crash", what does that say for him, his ilk and their approach to our "problems"; stifling this industry at every turn with more red tape, beurocracy and BS regulation 'till the bushshit pile's so deep we can't see over it?

Maybe the whole trouble is the move towards eliminating judgement, making people into sheep unable to think for themselves, unquestioningly following the rules?

Moshansky's the reason my fling-wing pals have to endure 3 hours of training every year to learn how to deice a 737.

There aught to be a law...

On top of the Dryden Inquiry, you also ought to read Moshansky's recent work before you become his critic.

http://www.russona.com/ECC-SSS/Meetings ... RolesE.pdf

[Old fella]

"Then the aircrew isn't put in a position where reckless attitudes should have to surface. "

The aircrew had an option, sir............ and that was not to go. Contaminated surfaces are quite dangerous, you will crash and burn - and that is exactly what happened!!

No inquiry, Moshansky, Coles notes version or chapter 13 exercpts in Readers Digest have or will have any meaning in a court of law. It was negligence at it's highest and no SOPs , lack thereof, airport operations, engines running or what the @#$! ever. I will repeat - that pilot had a big option - don't go. Get a ladder/tug, climb on the wing with a broom and sweep the 1/4 inch of fucking snow off. Delay the flight, deal with it after.

Me/you/Transport Canada inspectors/Air Ontario/ATC/passengers/Moshansky et al be fucked. You DON"T GO WITH SNOW/ICE on your wings - he did, paid a helluva of a price. The tort lawyers lined up after the smoke cleared away and rightfully so.

[hydraulic fluid]

sms is not worth the paper its written on........get rid of it.period

[Cat Driver]

Was the pilot of the Dryden crash the only person that was involved in the decision to take off with contaminated wings?

I thought I read somewhere he had been under some pressure from his employer to fly in those conditions?

Then again we should not bother changing the culture because the pilot is the only one with responsibility for safety.

[Widow]

This summarizes the whole thing pretty well. Blaming the pilot, alone, here, is a most appalling obfuscation of what actually happened.

http://www.buksa.com/halifax/docs/H5/H5 ... hansky.pdf

Profit vs Safety. I know which choice should be made. It was the same kind of profit vs safety choice that killed my husband.

[W5]

Does the FAA’s oversight of US carriers have a broken link?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... chain.html

[Widow]

Lewis agrees carriers have an obligation to conduct their operations within the regulations, and that includes auditing their own processes and developing their own changes. But, he says: "The FAA has a statutory obligation to conduct inspections to insure the carrier is doing that and not use carrier-furnished inspection data to meet this obligation."

He warns: "Unless the FAA takes back their SAI inspection responsibility, they may find themselves explaining to Congress why it's such a good idea to have the air carrier furnish inspection data."

Great article. Thanks for the link W5.

[impress]

to the question on how we see SMS in the Hangar:

I say SMS Has been in the Maintenance side of Aviation for a while, its called Quality Assurance. Same Basic root process, but if used properly SMS tries to implement QA a little more proactively. Its basically the same just a different paperwork format that will take a decade for everyone to get good at and then they will change it up again.

[flyinthebug]

Old fella.. The lawyers did indeed line up.. but most ended up going home with big fat 0 as the WSIB legislation at the time, did not allow for most of the survivors (and fatalities) to sue. Same schedule employer issues.. STILL not rectified 20 years later. It was slim pickings as for the ambulance chasers on that particular one.. and how sad for everyone involved.

impress.. to quote you "Same Basic root process, but if used properly SMS tries to implement QA a little more proactively."..Key words are bolded

IF USED properly:, and we ALL know its NOT and WONT be by a select group of operators. SMS is a joke on the 703/704 level and everyone knows it.

Cat.. The PIC made the final decision despite the many different levels of input he had.. It was his call and it was a mistake.

Fly safe all.

[foxmoth]

the Dryden accident revealed a lot of things.
some have yet to be fixed.
The interesting thing is, a very old TC veteran told me that the 'legislation' concerning flying with ice contaminationwas already in place.
TC went into a flat spin doing ass-covering spent $250,000 on fancy VHS tapes and made everyone do exams. (typical knee jerk respnse.)
No, it was not Moshansky who made helo pilots learn 737 deicing. IT was TC.
until we have some experienced oversight, this kind of stupidity will continue.

and yes, there was pressure.

[Prairie Chicken]

Widow, I read THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN AVIATION SAFETY The Inside Story and Legacy of Dryden, by Justice Moshansky, 2007, that you posted the link to. Very interesting read. If anyone is taking the time to go thru it, be sure to read the footnotes too.

[Widow]

Those footnotes are almost more revealing than the paper itself, aren't they P.C.

12 The SMS initiative touted by Transport Canada’s senior management and the Minister of Transport as a panacea for all that ails the aviation industry is driven by cost-cutting. The Director General, Civil Aviation admitted as much in a speech to the Canadian Aviation Safety Seminar in Vancouver on April 20, 2005, when he advised, quite to the contrary to what is being said for public consumption, that the number of inspectors in Transport Canada's inspection service would be cut by 46% by the year 2013. Speaking of “Goals and Objectives,” he stated: “A risk based safety oversight program will be established where targeted interventions achieve observable and measurable results within progressively stricter financial resource imperatives.” Clearly, “within progressively stricter financial resource imperatives” can only mean one thing: progressively reduced funding of the aviation regulatory directorate enabled by the predicted 46% reduction in the number of aviation inspectors by 2013. No matter what words are employed to obscure this fact, the result speaks for itself.

13 “SMS is being driven by Transport Canada's need to reduce costs, say many industry insiders. The budget for aviation safety regulation is expected to drop from $265 million in 2003-04 to $243 million by 2007-2008.”
“Transport Canada's Director of Civil Aviation, Merlin Preuss, acknowledges that resources are a factor in the adoption of SMS as 46 per cent of the department's workforce will be retired or eligible for retirement by 2013. "Replacing these employees, let alone adding to the current workforce, to continue the current oversight regime given the current and predicted workforce demographics, is not feasible," he said in Halifax.” (Cribb, Vallance-Jones & McMahon, 2006, June 17).

[flyinthebug]

Prairie Chicken & Widow.. Thanks for drawing my attention to the Moshansky report. I was grossly misinformed about the Dryden F28 crash if that article is indeed accurate.. and therefore would withdraw my comment to Cat about it being the PIC`s ultimate decision to go/nogo. There is obviously much more to the Dryden incident then I had ever been told. I do know one user on this board whos opinion would be very valid as he worked with this Captain. Ill be interested to see if he wades in.

Fly Safe all.

[Widow]

Should be required reading for anyone interested in Aviation Safety. Moshansky is highly respected the world over for his work.

[xsbank]

That exerpt was an eye-opener for me, especially considering that it revealed that the fly-by-night processes and pressures and basic bullsh*t that is still being perpetrated on the public by the smaller operators, notably those who seem to grow like the mildew or moss in Vancouver, rose as high as Air Ontario. To think that we are still having to deal with those kinds of pressures today, despite 'some' progress forward, is disgusting.

I remember an episode not long ago while driving 40-odd SLFs from the east (Thunder Bay) to Vancouver, my crew was going to expire which would have meant grounding the plane in Calgary or Cranbrook. Needless to say the cost and the inconvenience of putting those 40 up in a hotel and feeding them ensured that "unforeseen circumstances" would make us press on and only do a 17-hour duty day (not including putting the junk to bed when we got home). Those pressures on a crew are criminal and the trip should never have been dispatched. If I had stopped, I guarantee that I would have immediately lost my job, even though the outfit I worked for and the management team are still there and are highly regarded in the industry.

What crap.

We still have a long way to go, Kirsten. I wish you every success with your trip into the dark side, just don't be disappointed if you get stonewalled. How's that for a cynical comment? Wonder why I'm thinking that way?

What happened to Preuss? Early retirement? At least we knew him for what he was, now we will get some other platitude-spouting dork to continue piloting TC's voyage onto the rocks.

[xsbank]

ps - in the footnotes, it says that TC has no intention of replacing inspectors, so why all that blather about recruiting new ones just before Xmas? Can't have it both ways - are they hiring, or not?

[Greg87]

So is everybody dead set against SMS? Just my humble opinion, but instead of automatically condemning it and wishing to have it scrapped, wouldn't it be a better idea to accept it, but at the same time push for changes in how it's administered? What I mean is when sending letters to TC regarding SMS, rather than tell them that they did a poor job before when they were directly inspecting, and that they are doing a poor job now by allowing companies to carry out safety management, why not say that they should do both? I know I sound naive in thinking that it will make a difference, I know that somebody will reply to me saying that writing to Transport is useless. What I'm suggesting is that rather than always shooting down the latest fad, why not show that the workers in the aviation industry are willing to work with TC when it comes to safety? Would it hurt?

Just background for those who care to know where I'm coming from... I'm in 4th semester of Aircraft Maintenance school, I've been around aircraft since age 10, and worked as a fueler from age 17 until starting college, got my ppl 2 years ago and I worked in a Maintenance department between 1st and 2nd year. I realize I'm a newbie to the industry and have a lot to learn, but I consider safety to be the top priority in any aviation work environment, and I like to think that someday there will be a system in place that most people can agree on, and that works.

Please don't yell at me

[Widow]

Considering that the ICAO has mandated SMS, it would be rather fruitless to fight it ...

I think the overall consensus is that SMS is good, but not without real - hands on - oversight (not just auditing paperwork).

If you read Moshansky's paper, he doesn't suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but rather cleaning the tub periodically to make sure the rime has been removed before the baby is put back in. The regulatory authorities need to be tested for the efficacy of their own safety management systems. He doesn't just suggest it for Canada either, but that it should be an ICAO regulation in respect of the importance of SMS.

[CD]

ps - in the footnotes, it says that TC has no intention of replacing inspectors, so why all that blather about recruiting new ones just before Xmas? Can't have it both ways - are they hiring, or not?

I suspect that the truth is, as usual, somewhere in between. Certainly, the "workforce demographics" issue is one that all professions are going to be struggling with as more and more of the baby-boomers retire... how do you recruit and retain qualified individuals? For the government, there certainly has been (and continues to be) reductions in operating budgets for the various Departments (with the possible exception of Defence, which is still under financed imo).

So, does the 46% number represent a reduction in the number of inspectors (as suggested by footnote 12) or does it represent the number of employees eligible to retire by that time (as suggested by footnote 13). Based on the job postings that continue to be published, I suspect that the number represents those who are able to retire. The question, then, is whether it is possible to replace those who are leaving? Will there be enough qualified candidates available to replace the boomers when they are gone or will those with the qualifications stay working on the shop floor / flight deck / tower cab?

In the meantime, positions that become available are posted here:

Job Opportunities: Department of Transport