Airline safety among best in world, Article re NavCan

[Widow]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Airli ... story.html

Airline safety among best in world: study

Nav Canada brings critical factor in near-misses, collisions to crucial low

By Ian MacLeod, The Ottawa Citizen
April 15, 2009

Canada's airspace is one of the safest in the world based on the global benchmark for measuring air-traffic-control safety.

Nav Canada, the private corporation that manages the country's airspace, reports "loss of separation" incidents, in which specified separation distances between aircraft are breached, at a near-record low.

There were 86 such incidents in 2008, none in which pilots had to take evasive actions. That translates to a rate of 0.74 incidents per 100,000 "aircraft movements," compared with about one per 100,000 movements in fiscal 2001.

The decline may appear to be minor, until one considers that it represents the elimination of potential mid-air near-misses or collisions between radar-guided aircraft criss-crossing the country, including huge commercial passenger jets.

In 1997, a year after Nav Canada assumed air-traffic control from Transport Canada, the rate was 1.36 per 100,000 movements, believed to be the highest ever. Nav Canada says its rate is now one of the lowest in the aviation world.

Transport Canada has many separation standards for aircraft, depending, for example, on whether they're landing, taking off, or low-level or high-level flights. Generally, high-level separation for radar-controlled flights is 1,000 feet vertically and five nautical miles laterally.

The vast majority of incidents in recent years have been classified as low risk, where aircraft passed with 50 per cent or greater of the separation standard, or moderate risk.

"If you breach it to 4.3 (nautical miles laterally), it's far from a near-collision or where a pilot has to take evasive action; but we report everything, even minor breaches, because we want to see any kind of a trend, or anything that could indicate that there's something that we could do better rather than wait for a near-miss or a near-hit or, God forbid, an accident," said Ron Singer, a Nav Canada spokesman.

The last time a loss-of-separation incident in Canada was classified as "critical" (250 feet or less vertically and 500 or less feet laterally) or "serious" was in 2005.

That July, two airliners passed within 0.7 nautical miles in airspace near The Pas, Manitoba, until warnings told pilots to adjust their paths. The separation standard was five nautical miles, but an air controller at Nav Canada's Edmonton Area Control Centre gave permission to an Air Canada Airbus A319 carrying about 120 people from Halifax to Calgary to climb to 38,000 feet, near where a Northwest Airlines 747 was en-route from Tokyo to Detroit.

The worst international incident in recent years was the September 2006 collision between a small private jet and a Brazilian 737 over the Amazon that killed 154 people. Investigators blamed the pilots of the small plane and air-traffic controllers.

There were 11.63 million aircraft movements in Canada last year, including take-offs, landing and en route movement. An Ottawa-Toronto flight, for example, would involve two movements, while a London-Chicago flight might only involve a single movement transiting some Canadian territory.

Singer said Nav Canada corporate culture encourages employees to report potential safety infractions without fear of punishment under an initiative called "Just Culture."

"Our employees or controllers are encouraged to report things that they see because we're not looking for blame, we're looking to improve the system," he said.

Last year, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration came under fire after disclosures that agency officials in Texas covered up errors, including separation violations, by flight controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Widow]

I'm very curious, does anyone know where this info came from (i.e. is there a public document?) and who verified it?

[Sidebar]

Nav Canada publishes operational performance reports. Not sure whether they're independently verified. Can't get URL to hyperlink in this post. Paste the link into your browser.
http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?L ... efault.xml

TSB publishes monthly and annual stats. Their 2008 stats show 175 Risk of Collision/Loss of Separation occurrences in 2008. Their criteria as to what gets reported may be different from Nav Canada.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/aviation ... /index.asp

[Sidebar]

My hyperlink skills obviously need polishing. Go to http://www.navcanada.ca/, pick your language of choice, click on Publications at bottom of page, click on Corporate Publications on left side of page, click on Operational Performance Reports.

[Widow]

Thanks sidebar.

86 vs 175 is a pretty big discrepancy.

Would the TSB system include such incidents that were not radar-controlled aircraft? (Don't know if I'm expressing that correctly - I mean the difference between a/c that are on "flight plans" and those on "flight itineraries", i.e. uncontrolled airspace?).

[Sidebar]

TSB definitions from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr ... n?noCookie:

"reportable aviation incident" means an incident resulting directly from the operation of an airplane having a maximum certificated take-off weight greater than 5 700 kg, or from the operation of a rotorcraft having a maximum certificated take-off weight greater than 2 250 kg, where (j) a collision, a risk of collision or a loss of separation occurs,

"loss of separation" means a situation where the distance separating two aircraft is less than the minimum established in the Air Traffic Control Manual of Operations Procedures, published by the Department of Transport under the designation TP 703, as amended from time to time;

"risk of collision" means a situation where a ship, rolling stock or aircraft comes so close to being involved in a collision that a threat to the safety of any person, property or the environment exists;

Because separation standards do not apply in uncontrolled airspace, there can be no loss of separation, although a risk of collision could exist. TSB reports exist on loss of separation in procedurally controlled airspace in the arctic (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5c0153.pdf), as well as collisions in uncontrolled airspace (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 6o0206.pdf).

[Widow]

Thanks for the explanation & reference material Sidebar.

Sometimes I think my brain will explode with all the information I try to absorb.

[Sidebar]

Widow, I think you've done extremely well so far. I haven't seen too many people with your grasp of aviation safety issues who can state their concerns as well as you do. A big factor in that is your willingness to do research and ask a lot of questions. That and keeping emotions in check, which I'm sure is often a challenge.

Progress is slow, but it does occur. Keep your chin up, you're on the right side.

As to the dreaded "brain overheat" warning light, try a Slurpee.

[Widow]

Why thanks Sidebar!

Although, to cool the heat of fried brain, I prefer the all natural contents of Häagen-Dazs to the dreaded sugar water!!

Oh, and welcome to the site!

[Cat Driver]

As to the dreaded "brain overheat" warning light, try a Slurpee.

Yeh , I find Slurpee's drive them wild.

[crazy_aviator]

When a party gets into power ( like the conservative party) the opposing leading party plays the role of Opposition ,,,opposing EVERYTHING and ANYTHING and exposing all the evil and waste and corruption and foolishness of the ruling party! At some point it becomes foolishness and BOTH parties shrink to a lower and lower level, never to be trusted and BOTH wasting citizens $$$ and time ! Im behind Widow 100% HOWEVER, im concerned that the advocate of safety and official opposition may get caught up in the same bullcrap that is happening in federal political circles and belittles herself and her cause. In addition to advocating safety and exposing obvious crucial concerns in the aviation industry, i believe a strong and believeable advocate of what is right aught to recognize both what is wrong AND what is RIGHT within our industry,, not letting either side "figure her out" thereby empowering her to continue her goals!!!

[looproll]

There were 86 such incidents in 2008, none in which pilots had to take evasive actions. That translates to a rate of 0.74 incidents per 100,000 "aircraft movements," compared with about one per 100,000 movements in fiscal 2001...

The last time a loss-of-separation incident in Canada was classified as "critical" (250 feet or less vertically and 500 or less feet laterally) or "serious" was in 2005.

O RLY!?


CADORS Number: 2008C2672
User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2008/07/31
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: An ATC Operating Irregularity occurred at Edmonton ACC when vertical separation was discontinued for WJA 255 and AM 304, an Air Mikisew BAe 31, while both aircraft were deviating around weather while inbound to Fort McMurray. What appeared to the Controller to be similar tracks turned into crossing tracks. Separation decreased to 1 NM and 200 feet in an area where the minimum is 5 miles and 1,000 feet.

User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2008/08/07
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: UPDATE A08W0151: The Air Mikisew Jetstream 3100 flight AM304, had departed the Edmonton City Centre airport and was en route to Ft McMurray (YMM). The WestJet Boeing 737 flight WJA255, had departed Edmonton International airport also en route to Ft McMurray. Due to a line of thunderstorm activity, several aircraft including AM304 & WJA255 were diverted to the northeast. Vertical separation was discontinued, and about 30 NM from YMM the initial similar tracks of AM304 & WJA255 converged, resulting in a decrease of separation to 1 NM & 200 feet where 5 NM or 1000 feet is specified. WJA255 received a TCAS RA to climb as the controller noticed the irregularity, & instructed AM304 to climb & WJA255 to turn right 40°.




There are two things wrong with this CADORS Narrative. 1. the aircraft were diverting to the Northwest of CYMM, not the Northeast. 2. AM304 was instructed to climb THEN WJA255 reacted to the RA with the right turn

[jeta1]

Crazy world we live in...

[snoopy]

jeta1

How does Widow asking if anyone had verified statistics quoted in a newspaper article "push the envelope of her credibility"??? I would rather think that it is smart and good common sense for anyone to question the "facts" they are handed.

Unrestrained advocacy? Fanatacism? Evil? Hardly.

And why the heck should she drop the "Widow" moniker? Did she suddenly cease being a widow? I hate to be the one to tell you, but once your spouse dies, you're a widow until you re-marry. Does it make you feel uncomfortable? How the heck do you think she feels?

I don't know who you think is on any kind of elevated platform, but Widow certainly doesn't strike me as someone out for personal gain or self aggrandizement. Do you have any kind of idea how much effort it takes to get people like you to listen? Perhaps you should thank her for being so persistent.

Or would you have us all stay quiet so as not to offend you with reality? What happens when the next person dies? Shall we stay silent then? Will you?

[Clearwater]

.

[crazy_aviator]

The reason why i stuck my neck out and posted in the first place is because i believe in mature and wise advocacy and i also very much appreciate Kirstens work in this aviation field !!!!

[Widow]

I asked a question. What is the harm in questioning?

Everyone here complains about the inaccuracies of news coverage on aviation issues. Why do some of you expect that those inaccuracies are only related to negative issues?

Besides, it seems in asking the question, a few people have pointed out that the article is, in fact, inaccurate ... or are those two CADORs supplied by looproll false? What is the explanation for the differences is what NavCan states (86) and what the TSB states (175)? I see the same issues when comparing TC stats to TSB stats. How can that be a good thing? Shouldn't everyone be using the same methods? Shouldn't those methods be independantly validated?

Asking questions for the purpose of understanding should be lauded, not condemned. How can recommendations for improvement be made without understanding?

If the governing agencies had treated me fairly during the course of investigating my husband's death, I would never have come here in the first place. If I had not received overwhelming support for my concerns from people in the industry, I wouldn't have stayed. I didn't haul myself onto this elevated platform. People here, and elsewhere, asked me to represent their interests because they were afraid to speak up. For the record, I often feel overwhelmed by the hopes that have been pinned on me.

I am not political by nature, but am fully aware of the follies associated with politicians. Not just politicians. Everyone has their own agenda, and I am also aware that some may try to use my efforts for their own gain. But my objectives are associated with the safety of workers transported by air, and so they shall remain.

If you don't like what I'm doing or saying, put me on ignore. You know, make me "foe" on your friends list. Then you'll never have to know what I'm doing, thinking or saying again.

With respect to the comment about Mr. Tayfel, I will refer you to this post: http://www.avcanada.ca//forums2/viewtop ... da#p513142

And one last thing. Even if I were to remarry, I would still have been widowed. I am "Widow".