SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Dust Devil »

Widow wrote:I think a lot of people would disagree with you D.D.
Considering there is now an even greater hole in the oversight process I don't think it is great news. Currently with TC no longer doing audits and focusing on their QC program evaluations I think this leaves a huge gap in oversight. The QC evaluation system is designed to work with an SMS system. Those two elements need to work together to be effective. This just means we will have another 5 years of a gaping hole in safety.

Everyone of us misses stuff in operations and in maintenance. Anyone who has been thru a TC audit would know that (they always find something). By not having the regulators system and the operators system in sync leaves too big of an opportunity for things to be missed and not caught.

They need to poo or get off the pot on this one.
---------- ADS -----------
 
//=S=//


A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
User avatar
The Old Fogducker
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1784
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by The Old Fogducker »

Well said DD.

However, TC are no longer equipped to quickly return to the good old days of conducting Audits, Focused Inspections, Contact Inspections, Certification Inspections, Compliance Confirmations .... or whatever today's name is as Senior Management searches for buzzwords which convey a lower level of intimidation for the same core process ... an Inspector being on-site checking functionality of the operator's system.

They've been in "Hands off mode" for several years now, and to go back to the previous way of doing business would be seen as if the "current system" hadn't worked .... and therefore would involve as they say in the orient .... "losing face."

My cynical prediction ... never happen.

Old Fogducker
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
overshoot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:45 pm
Location: You Don't Want To Know

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by overshoot »

Dust Devil,

Your viewpoint is exactly why the implementation of SMS is being delayed. We have a mentallity, or rather a culture of people in this industry who have difficulty changing and evolving with new rules and procedures. We try to buck the trend or complain at every chance we get and I would probably include myself in this culture from time to time. What we have is an industry that takes little responsibility for assuring complaince. We "need" big brother to watch over us. This is not true to the extent that we think.

You state that the hole in safety is bigger now because transport is not doing audits anymore. I suggest that rather than leaving the owness on them to find your difficiencies, why don't you audit your own department using the same system they do and find the mistakes before they have to. Surely you and I can perform the tasks that TC auditors do with the same effectiveness. Afterall we complain at how none of them can do their jobs properly and how they are all corrupt. If you have no idea how to do that, then hire a good consultant who will whip your operation into tip top shape. I know a bunch I can recommend!

I would have to fundamentally agree with everyone when they say our system is in trouble. That SMS is not ready. I have had my fare share of frustrations dealing with TC but maybe we should all agree that its not just the system that isn't ready. We ourselves, as pilots, engineers and managers are not willing to make the changes we need to change our belief and culture system so that we can embrace the changes that are coming.

I just want to remind everyone that SMS will be here to stay. This is not a only TC initiative. The whole world is making this change as well. Lets start with our attitudes and the rest will follow in due course.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Prairie Chicken
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:12 pm
Location: Gone sailing...

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Prairie Chicken »

My sense is the DGCA is starting to appreciate the fiasco occurring with the implementation of SMS and is buying himself some time to re-assess.

And, I think OFD is correct. I've always felt that aviation management had to change, but more likely aviation management will have to change.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Prairie Chicken
User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Dust Devil »

overshoot wrote:Dust Devil,

Your viewpoint is exactly why the implementation of SMS is being delayed. We have a mentallity, or rather a culture of people in this industry who have difficulty changing and evolving with new rules and procedures. We try to buck the trend or complain at every chance we get and I would probably include myself in this culture from time to time. What we have is an industry that takes little responsibility for assuring complaince. We "need" big brother to watch over us. This is not true to the extent that we think.

You state that the hole in safety is bigger now because transport is not doing audits anymore. I suggest that rather than leaving the owness on them to find your difficiencies, why don't you audit your own department using the same system they do and find the mistakes before they have to. Surely you and I can perform the tasks that TC auditors do with the same effectiveness. Afterall we complain at how none of them can do their jobs properly and how they are all corrupt. If you have no idea how to do that, then hire a good consultant who will whip your operation into tip top shape. I know a bunch I can recommend!

I would have to fundamentally agree with everyone when they say our system is in trouble. That SMS is not ready. I have had my fare share of frustrations dealing with TC but maybe we should all agree that its not just the system that isn't ready. We ourselves, as pilots, engineers and managers are not willing to make the changes we need to change our belief and culture system so that we can embrace the changes that are coming.

I just want to remind everyone that SMS will be here to stay. This is not a only TC initiative. The whole world is making this change as well. Lets start with our attitudes and the rest will follow in due course.
That is actually a good point about bringing in a third party auditor. I never thought of that. In fact I would almost think that should be incorporated into a good sms system. I don't necessarily think it needs to be TC being the extra set of eyes but I do think there does need to be an extra set of eyes somewhere be it TC or a consultant of some kind.

The problem with the way TC is inspecting 703's is their focus is on a system that is not in place yet therefor when they show up there isn't much for them to look at. They should really just save the gas and hotel money and stay home the way things are now,

I'm not sure why I'd be branded with and attitude that I'm not willing to change or adapt to new rules. That's exactly what I want to do however this delay prevents me from moving on to the new rules so I don't really get what your point is there.

Like I've said before they either need to do it or don't do it. Leaving this sector in limbo however isn't a good idea at all.
---------- ADS -----------
 
//=S=//


A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
User avatar
Hot Fuel
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:16 pm

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Hot Fuel »

Overshoot said
I suggest that rather than leaving the owness on them to find your difficiencies, why don't you audit your own department using the same system they do and find the mistakes before they have to. Surely you and I can perform the tasks that TC auditors do with the same effectiveness. Afterall we complain at how none of them can do their jobs properly and how they are all corrupt.
You have summed up the nuts and bolts of what SMS is intended to be in (3) three sentences!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Widow »

Dust Devil wrote:The problem with the way TC is inspecting 703's is their focus is on a system that is not in place yet therefor when they show up there isn't much for them to look at. They should really just save the gas and hotel money and stay home the way things are now,

I'm not sure why I'd be branded with and attitude that I'm not willing to change or adapt to new rules. That's exactly what I want to do however this delay prevents me from moving on to the new rules so I don't really get what your point is there.

Like I've said before they either need to do it or don't do it. Leaving this sector in limbo however isn't a good idea at all.
D.D. This sector has been subject to a lack of effective oversight since long before SMS implementation began. Please remember TSB Rec. A01-01, which called for TC to review their oversight of small and remote operators. Their answer to this was, for all intents and purposes, SMS. Adherence to the Frequency of Inspection Policy (FOIP) was inconsistent at best, before it was cancelled - which was months before the originally planned NPA date for 703/704s.

There is nothing to prevent you from moving on to the new rules. In fact, at the SMS Info Session this week, TC officials encouraged attendees to do so. All they are doing is delaying final implentation - the mandatory adoption of your SMS - in order to provide better training to their inspectors, strengthen oversight and increase the assistance available to operators in developing and implementing their SMS. How can this be anything but good?

I am sure the SCOTIC meeting on Monday will provide plenty of information as to the concerns that have led to the delay and TC's plans for addressing those concerns.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
torquey401
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by torquey401 »

I agree totally with overshoot. I think it all comes down to the will of each organization. The Sandy Bay report is an interesting read about the use of SMS within 703 operations.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Widow »

Transport Canada delays new airline-safety system

Sarah Schmidt, Canwest News Service
Published: Sunday, November 29, 2009


OTTAWA -- Transport Canada is delaying the introduction of a controversial safety-inspection system at smaller commercial airlines after being inundated with concerns from its own staff about problems with the oversight regime, according to an internal memorandum.

The approach, called safety management systems (SMS), puts more onus on carriers by requiring them to develop and oversee an in-house system of safety checks tailored to their operations. This regulatory system is a shift away from traditional oversight where government inspectors had a much more hands-on role in monitoring the safety operations.

SMS has already been fully phased in at Canada's large commercial carriers, and was supposed to be in place at smaller operations within months. These include commuter planes carrying fewer than 50 passengers, regional airlines serving smaller communities and air ambulances.

Now, Transport Canada's civil aviation division has decided to postpone the system's implementation at these smaller operations until at least 2011 after departmental experts expressed "common concerns."

"Although I am only part way through my program of meeting staff in the regions and headquarters, it soon became clear that there were some common concerns coming up in the discussions," Martin Eley, Transport Canada's director general of civil aviation, wrote to staff on Nov. 13, 2009.

As a result, "the management team has agreed to make adjustments to the safety management systems regulatory roll out schedule and refine the project plan accordingly. This will allow more time for the industry to prepare for SMS implementation, and for Civil Aviation to refine oversight tools and provide more training for front-line employees.

"For air taxi and commuter operations, that means that the regulation will come into effect, at the earliest, in January 2011," Mr. Eley advised staff.

The correspondence was obtained by the Canadian Federal Pilots Association. The union, which represent pilots working at Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board and Nav Canada, has been raising red flags about SMS since it was fully phased in at major carriers in 2005.

The association says the implementation delay is good news, but raises "troubling questions" about the safety of major commercial airlines.

"Transport Canada is to be commended for recognizing there are serious problems with its aviation SMS program. This postponement is absolutely the right thing to do. However, this decision acknowledges that SMS problems are undermining safety of the big airlines. We no longer have confidence the major carriers are compliant with safety regulations," said Daniel Slunder, head of the federal government's pilots union.

After instituting SMS for rail transportation in 2001, the Liberal government at the time expanded the oversight system to civil aviation, to be phased in over time. Both Liberal and Conservative transport ministers have consistently argued SMS doesn't reduce government oversight but rather serves as a proactive tool to compliment the government's inspection regime.

Government officials refer to SMS as an "extra layer of protection to help save lives," one that "expects the company to measure how well the system works."

The transition to SMS in civil aviation has already resulted in the elimination of Transport Canada's national and regional auditing programs of air operations.

"Aviation inspectors spend more time reviewing paper than airplanes under Transport Canada's SMS," said Mr. Slunder, adding surprise audits and inspections must be brought back immediately to ensure proper government oversight and "ensure safety of the major carriers."

News of the postponement of SMS implementation at smaller air operations comes as the House of Commons transport committee on Monday holds hearings to examine Transport Canada's enforcement of air-safety regulations and the implementation of SMS for the aviation industry. NDP transport critic Dennis Bevington called for the review, to which the other parties agreed.

The revelation also comes on the eve of a new regulation coming into effect Tuesday that critics say lays the foundation to extend SMS to Transport Canada's aircraft certification.

Transport Canada in the past had to sign off on any aircraft design, repair or modification. The new regulation introduces the concept of third-party liability.

A group of independent aeronautical engineers say such a step could be disastrous for aviation safety.

"Transport Canada has said in the past, ‘The only people who ever say that this modification or repair meets the regulation is Transport Canada.' What they want to do now is they want somebody else besides Transport Canada to sign a declaration that says, ‘Yes, it does meet the regulatory requirements,'" said John Roberts, an engineer and member the Vancouver Design Approval Representatives.

"This (regulation), from our perspective, is now the foundation for the next program, which will be Aircraft Certification Accountability Framework, otherwise known as ACAF, and ACAF is the next round of regulatory changes where they will be bringing in SMS to aircraft certification."
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Old fella
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Old fella »

Don't think anybody has difficulty with Air Canada, WestJet et al being in a SMS (or whatever the flavor of the day/month decade is) environment, after all those major operations have been doing that for years with favorable safety records to boot.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rubberbiscuit
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Rubberbiscuit »

I like the sound of this:
As a result, "the management team has agreed to make adjustments to the safety management systems regulatory roll out schedule and refine the project plan accordingly. This will allow more time for the industry to prepare for SMS implementation, and for Civil Aviation to refine oversight tools and provide more training for front-line employees.
I can't say the same about this idea....
The revelation also comes on the eve of a new regulation coming into effect Tuesday that critics say lays the foundation to extend SMS to Transport Canada's aircraft certification.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nearly all safety regulations are based upon lessons which have been paid for in blood by those who attempted what you are contemplating" Tony Kern
User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Dust Devil »

Deleted
---------- ADS -----------
 
//=S=//


A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by 2R »

I have a sugestion ,since they want to replace DFU
Why not CAS
you all know what DFU is but i will not make it easy for you ,any guess's as to what CAS would be ?
Hint it works for donkies :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Hot Fuel
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:16 pm

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Hot Fuel »

Looks like ALPA is reaffirming its stance on SMS, they stand behind both Transport and SMS.
---------- ADS -----------
 
human garbage
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:58 am

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by human garbage »

I believe the delay in implementation to be the result of one major factor, namely the approval of operators SMS programs.

I don't think that TC appreciates how much work their 'non-cookie cutter' approach to development is going to create for the department. The man power simply isn't there. In Richmond for example, they are already a dozen inspectors short. Even if they assigned every one there to analyze SMS programs there would still not be enough bodies to go around. That is also predicated on nothing else that goes on day to day getting done.

I'm committed to SMS. Hell I already do what they want (hazard analysis, corrective action planning, follow up) as part of QA, so to expand and properly label these to their satisfaction won't be a hardship for me. What will be a hardship is for TC to approve it for the above reason.

I think we should follow the Australians lead and TC should provide an online program development tool. Eley and Nowzek don't seem to want to go that direction, but I think it will be the only effective way for them to approve systems as it stands. Who knows, maybe they have a plan that I haven't been able to figure out to get it done with the resources they have... I really doubt it though. I think they are hoping voluntary implementation will take place during the interim and spread the workload out a bit. Still doesn't seem manageable from what I understand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"...flying airplanes is really not all that difficult so it attracts some of the most mentally challenged people in society." - . .

"Baby, stick out your can... 'cause I'm the garbageman"
User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Dust Devil »

I'm not sure how a system can be implemented in the interim. One of the things that makes SMS work is non punitive reporting. The system we are currently under does not support that. At least that is my understanding of it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. But if a pilot for example does something inadvertently that violates CARs then under SMS as long as the problem is identified, corrected and followed up the pilot should not have to worry about a violation. Under the current system however wouldn't a pilot be worried about a violation?
---------- ADS -----------
 
//=S=//


A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: SMS Implementation Delayed - confirmed

Post by Widow »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the amendments to the CARS, which have been delayed, implement the requirement for the company to have a non-punitive reporting system. They do not/would not refer to Transport Canada's policies. Aren't the stalled amendments to the Aeronautics Act those which would further provide for Transport's policies? And doesn't the SUR (which replaced the FOIP) already cover this?

I think the problems that are being found by the TSB, in terms of SMS in the business sector (most recently the release of the March '08 A.D. Willliams crash report), can easily be extrapolated to highlight the kinds of issues that have and will be faced implenting to the remaining sectors. I think TC is right to try to address those issues before going forward.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”