Inspectors: Airline safety at risk

[Widow]

I really think you should listen to the SCOTIC meeting, or wait for the transcripts, before criticizing the union reps. The Air Canada incident was far from the only incident cited - it was just the one the press picked up on most. The union reps presented a great deal of evidence, and their purpose in being there was to ensure the politicians pay attention to what Transport is, or isn't doing, and to have "intelligent debate" the issues. Solutions, or risk mitigations, were presented.

Neither Mr. Slunder, nor those he represents, "violated" the confidential SMS report. When the Emirates pilot wrote to Transport under the (who) CAIRS, he was told it was up to Air Canada to address his concerns. (Is the event even in the CADORS? - I can't find it). He then, it seems, wrote directly to Mr. Slunder.

There is no "vendetta" here. Only real concern for the direction Transport has taken in SMS implementation.

[SRV]

First of all the CFPA Chairperson did not make any "allegations" regarding the AC flight. He restated what had already been an issue as raised by the Emirates pilot. This was the source of the allegation and was appopriately followed up by the AC POI.

The fact that it became a "news item" is supplemental to the fact that AC-the company-made an ill advised decision, which they are now in damage control over.

No one is holding the AC pilot in contempt, least of all TC.

[C-FABH]

(Is the event even in the CADORS? - I can't find it)

There wouldn't have been a CADORS, because:

1) Being an American airport, NavCanada would not have been present to submit an AOR for whatever reason (presume a Fire Dept call-out)
2) The event doesn't fit under any of the TSB criteria for 'incident reportable'.

Best you might find is an AOR at YWG for the diversion or operational impact on the Skywest CRJ that slid off the end of the runway.

Sounds like the company is investigating under SMS, thus this damning testimony is really just presented to make the CFPA like they are still necessary in an SMS environment. Under SMS, are inspectors needed when you provide your own corrective action?

[neechi]

I really think you should listen to the SCOTIC meeting, or wait for the transcripts, before criticizing the union reps. The Air Canada incident was far from the only incident cited - it was just the one the press picked up on most. The union reps presented a great deal of evidence, and their purpose in being there was to ensure the politicians pay attention to what Transport is, or isn't doing, and to have "intelligent debate" the issues. Solutions, or risk mitigations, were presented.

Neither Mr. Slunder, nor those he represents, "violated" the confidential SMS report. When the Emirates pilot wrote to Transport under the (who) CAIRS, he was told it was up to Air Canada to address his concerns. (Is the event even in the CADORS? - I can't find it). He then, it seems, wrote directly to Mr. Slunder.

There is no "vendetta" here. Only real concern for the direction Transport has taken in SMS implementation.

Bollocks!

[Rotten Apple #1]

What a terrible move by the CFPA. If something is to be learned from this incident, it will certainly be lost on the public amid the press reaction. What exactly does the CFPA and Mr Slunder propose that the crew of AC271 should have done differently that night, once they were on the ground? And what exactly would have changed the decision making process for the several individuals involved (from several different departments)---the threat of sanctions?

Bad move. But I suppose the optics looked good, meaning superficially, if not substantively, in support of the organizations lined up against SMS.

[Rubberbiscuit]

Sounds like the company is investigating under SMS, thus this damning testimony is really just presented to make the CFPA like they are still necessary in an SMS environment. Under SMS, are inspectors needed when you provide your own corrective action?

I am no expert but from what I understand Inspectors are still required to audit companies and there SMS sytems. When there is serious incidents, or repeat occurences the corrective actions made by the operator in question has to be satisfactory to TC.

Widow:
Nobody is saying SMS is perfect, but accidents happened under the old systemn as well. I don't appreciate the fear mongering some people are using to draw media attention to the matter. Scaring the Canadian public out of flying does not make anything safer.

[Widow]

It is very difficult to seperate "fear-mongering" from ensuring real concerns are addressed. The information was presented to a parliamentary committee, and picked up by the press. The union reps at the SCOTIC made it very clear that they are not saying airplanes are going to start falling out of the sky. But that doesn't make good press.

Example: I had numerous calls from the media following Sunday's Beaver floatplane crash, and provided a number of interviews. Very little of my commentary actually aired, however. I refused to speculate, and I would not condemn the Beaver or the floatplane industry. I guess that didn't make for good press.

The same could be said for what the press decided to use from the SCOTIC.

[Rubberbiscuit]

Widow:

As I have said before, I respect the time and effort you put in to make Canadian aviation safer, and if anything can be done to improve safety I am all for it.

Another article on the subject below. Seem to have got John Baird's attention anyway!

Air safety oversight is Ottawa's job, Baird affirms
After questions raised about new system, minister declares he doesn't support leaving regulation to the airlines

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009 12:00AM EST

Last updated on Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009 9:31AM EST


.Transport Minister John Baird expressed concerns yesterday about leaving aviation safety oversight to airline operators as he responded to parliamentary testimony this week that questioned the validity of the new federal aviation regulatory system.

"I do not support outsourcing safety testing or safety monitoring to the private sector. I think it is an important core responsibility of government and my department," Mr. Baird told the House of Commons.

He did not elaborate but said he wanted to hear suggestions from Transport Canada staff, who complain they no longer do enough hands-on inspections under the new regime, called Safety Management Systems.

Under SMS, rather than solely doing hands-on inspections, Transport Canada staff focus on auditing airlines' safety management systems.

"We are committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that the public is safe," Mr. Baird said.

The minister was responding to testimony union leaders representing aviation inspectors, mechanics and Transport Canada staff gave to the Commons transport committee this week outlining their concerns.

The testimony has started a row between the union representing aviation inspectors and that of Air Canada pilots, which says one of its crews was unfairly portrayed as reckless.

Daniel Slunder, national chairman of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, which represents aviation inspectors, alleged before the committee that an Air Canada flight was refuelled using an illegal procedure and took off with ice on its wings.

In an open letter, the union representing Air Canada pilots demanded that Mr. Slunder retract his remarks.

Air Canada has confirmed that, because of exceptional circumstances, it did a refuelling operation it wasn't certified to perform. But both the carrier and its pilots deny that the takeoff was endangered by ice.

"No Air Canada pilot would ever operate an aircraft that he or she believed to be unsafe," said the open letter, signed by Paul Strachan, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association.

"Instead of an intelligent debate on the pros and cons of SMS and a useful discussion on ways we can all work together to improve safety, you have undermined public confidence in Canadian pilots."

Flying an Airbus A320, the crew of Flight 271 had left Toronto for Winnipeg on Oct. 9 with a faulty auxiliary power unit. The APU provides heating and cooling while on the ground and power to start the engines.

Regulations allow flying without a working APU, Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said in an e-mail to The Globe and Mail.

Without a proper APU, the plane needed a ground-based power unit. But the flight was diverted to Grand Forks, N.D., where none was available. So the Airbus kept an engine running.

U.S. Customs wouldn't let the passengers disembark "regardless of any extenuating circumstances," Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

As a result, the Airbus was refuelled with passengers on board and a running engine on the wing opposite to the fuelling port.

Air Canada is not approved by regulators to refuel that way. The crew did so after consulting with the airline's flight dispatchers, both Mr. Strachan and Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

Mr. Slunder said he wasn't questioning the credentials of pilots at Air Canada.

Noting that the illegal refuelling was done with company approval, he said the incident underlines the dangers of leaving safety oversight in the hands of carriers.

[Rotten Apple #1]

Does anybody know what Mr Slunder was suggesting the Captain of AC271 should have ultimately decided to do differently that night?

[Widow]

From another forum:

That the crews handled a degraded, no, difficult situation with professionalism is true and I have no doubt ensured the best level of safety possible within the circumstances. This is an organizational matter, not merely a "pilot" matter - to me, the CFPA failed to make this clear in their own arguments regarding SMS.

To be fair, and since I did listen to the SCOTIC, I thought Mr. Slunder - and the other union reps - did try to make this clear. It is the press that doesn't "get it".

[The Hammer]

The CFPA are just pissed that the AC flight didn't spend 30 minutes in a compass rose in GFK doing tests and system checks (and probably making up a few more)

[bmc]

From another forum:

That the crews handled a degraded, no, difficult situation with professionalism is true and I have no doubt ensured the best level of safety possible within the circumstances. This is an organizational matter, not merely a "pilot" matter - to me, the CFPA failed to make this clear in their own arguments regarding SMS.

To be fair, and since I did listen to the SCOTIC, I thought Mr. Slunder - and the other union reps - did try to make this clear. It is the press that doesn't "get it".

+1

This isn't the first time and won't be the last time you will see the media spin a story out of context. Dan Slunder is very much focussed on process and organizational break down. It's hard to sell newspapers if there aren't any juicy bits to pick at.

[Old fella]

Does anybody know what Mr Slunder was suggesting the Captain of AC271 should have ultimately decided to do differently that night?

No...... because the majority, if not all of Mr. Slunder's membership are not qualified to sit in anything belonged to Air Canada.

[The Old Fogducker]

True ... except for the multiple ones that have been hired by Air Canada I guess.

The good news for advocates of your position is that none of the main body of the inspectorate have anything to do with Air Canada except the so-called "7th Region" ... the Airline Inspection Division ... all of which happen to be member's of Mr Slunder's Association.

Its this type of "company procedural incident" at GFK and the subsequent fallout that must give the Air Canada Chief Pilot in YYZ more grey hair.

OFD

[TAT]

IM TOTALLY ENRAGED by the damaging statements of our "FEDERAL INSPECTORS" union made regarding this air canada flight! As far as im concerned they have totally lost my support for their cause. Lets turn the page for a minute I have personally seen how the previous system of "FEDERAL INSPECTORS" monitoring the system was bigger farce where inspectors were paid to look the other way... just some that i know about:

Jetsgo.... ( allowing pilots paying for the right to work there) (landing in toronto running out of fuel before getting to the gate)(maintenance)
a northern carrier -(count the infractions on TV... its still going on i didnt know picking ice off the prop was an approved deicing method!!)
-(pax flying in WWII aircraft??? Now thats safer)
-(has crashed 1 airplane a year since 2004)-carrot mine - diavik - norman wells - just some that i can remember...
- Flying air cadets over the mountains to YXY im sure single engine ceilings would be good enough....
- Solar deicing boots aren't good enough!!
- So a first officer here will stand up for himself if something isnt safe? (sweeping a wing no safety equip)
The new approach ban: why does it only apply below 57N? hmmm? must be way better approaches up there!!!
INSPECTORS - i have had an inspector fall asleep in the sim while doing a ride....

Im glad TC was around to keep us safe......

Air Canada has a very good SMS program set up and I would say 99.9% of the pilots don't hesitate to wright something up if they see a problem can that be said for Any other carrier in Canada? im seriously doubting that... just pointing out some things that i know about it sure seems like SMS is a good thing for Major carriers albeit mabey not for smaller carriers (non 705)... anyhow i could keep going but i think i will save some ranting for a nice letter to the Federal pilots union ....

[Go Guns]

its still going on i didnt know picking ice off the prop was an approved deicing method!!

I'm pretty sure the rule is just that you depart contamination free. The method with which you choose to remove ice is entirely up to you.

[The Old Fogducker]

"Paid to look the other way?"

Maybe you could give us a little more to go on with respect to your allegations of bribery ... and since you are totally enraged and the adrenaline is flowing, you should be able to recall some specifics quite easily.

OFD

[Rockie]

The issue here isn't what the crew should or should not have done because that is blatantly obvious. The issue is a company deciding on their own what is and isn't safe with no regard to the regulations, facilitated by a complete lack of regulatory oversight. I believe that is the point Slunder was making.

Air Canada is a good company, and their SMS probably would have caught this error after the fact (it should have never let it happen in the first place) and taken steps to ensure it never happens in the future. But we all know operators who wouldn't in all areas of this industry.

I also think ACPA's letter was a mistake. This was an error in judgement that highlights the need for robust regulatory oversight of the industry. A statement committing to the SMS process to ensure this doesn't happen again would have been more appropriate than expressing outrage while hiding behind very thin arguments that don't hold up to even casual scrutiny. Air Canada should have responded better as well.

[The Old Fogducker]

You won't hear me say this very often folks ...


Rockie, very well said and clearly expressed.

I agree completely, and greatly respect your position on this matter.

The Old Fogducker

[bmc]

The issue here isn't what the crew should or should not have done because that is blatantly obvious. The issue is a company deciding on their own what is and isn't safe with no regard to the regulations, facilitated by a complete lack of regulatory oversight. I believe that is the point Slunder was making.

I know Dan Slunder. This is exactly the point he's making. Mentioning a specific airline and flight number may not have been the best way to make the point he was trying to make. Danny has a lot of flying experience both civilian and military. He is a pilot and shares concerns for pilots and pilot safety. He, like many on this forum, would like pilots to have a comfort level flying in a consistently safe operation. Large carriers are just as capable of slipping up as are small airlines.

[Widow]

Received anonymously.

CIVIL AVIATION IN CANADA

A PLEA FOR HELP FROM THE INSPECTORS ASKED TO OVERSEE

YOUR SAFETY IN THE SKIES

RANT ON!

NO ONE IS WATCHING!

- Transport Canada's (TC) Safety Management System (SMS) may now be on hold but that has created an even worse scenario in our skies as now, no one is watching the sky at all. Putting SMS on hold was the right thing to do, it gives TC a chance to sort itself out, we have to admit that we went about it all wrong by trying to replace our oversight with SMS. This was Merlin Preuss' idea, to slash our budget and look like a hero to the Minister. The reality is that inspectors have to continue to be in the field doing spot checks at airports, doing routine inspections and detailed audits along with SMS as a measuring tool. What has been created now is that is that there is no oversight being done at all.

Regional inspectors have ceased their regular inspection and auditing cycle. During the last couple of years as SMS was being introduced TC inspectors were only reviewing the operators transition to SMS. With the SMS implementation schedule now on hold for another year, there will be no-one out there and NOTHING is being reviewed. Our entire aviation industry is on its own. While a few less scrupulous operators may like the idea, the great majority of them are very concerned and so are their insurance providers. Who is minding the shop? Over the past two to three years anytime I have been identified as a TC inspector at an airport I have been asked where the hell we've (TC inspectors) been? Operators want us out there, they want TC conducting oversight along with SMS.

WHY ARE WE SO FAR OFF COURSE?

- Imagine our roads if the police introduced SMS and ceased all traffic patrols. In the new Highway Traffic Act drivers would now be obliged to report monthly on any traffic violations they committed. Traffic violations would no doubt increase and people would not likely be 100% honest with SMS reporting of their violations. Now imagine the police departments appointing their mechanics and by-law officers to all upper management positions. While you need those trades to run a police department, their background does not lead to suitable skill sets for running police operations.

This is exactly what has been done to the Civil Aviation department of TC. The plain and simple truth is that we have allowed the wrong people to get into senior management positions and we have further allowed ourselves to become overwhelmed with our reorganization project.

Our former Director Merlin Preuss surrounded himself with classic "yes" men and women. He did this because he seemed to have a personal agenda against all aviation outside of the major airlines operating under 705 (airline) regulations. His views were not shared by his peers so he chose people he knew he could control and who would do anything he said since they were just happy to be in positions of prestige and power, especially when they could now rule over pilots. Merlin was heard on more than one occasion to say that only 705 matters, big airplanes leave big holes and are page 1 news which is an embarrassment to the Minister. No one cares about small aircraft, they leave a small hole and the news coverage barely makes page 3.

Aircraft maintenance engineers (AME) and flight attendants though indispensable to an airline, are not qualified to run flight operations. Even some pilots lack the experience needed if their background is not grounded in complex flight operations. When we are faced with issues such as the flap problems with the Bombardier Regional Jet, the issues of pilot duty and rest times or NAFTA operations, it takes pilots to sort these matters out. There is no way an AME or flight attendant can comment intelligently on these issues.

[Segment removed to comply with forum rules]

TC now has several AME and Flight Attendants who have been promoted to senior management positions and are in well over their heads. Not only that but now that they can exert power over pilots, they do so by micromanaging our budgets and not allowing us to travel to do our jobs while they go all over the world embarrassing TC and Canada. Plus they get paid huge bonuses if they come within their budget, a ludicrous motivator to slash our budgets. Have no worries that they have been making their bonus without fail.

In order to appear busy and as though they know what they are doing, they have created a huge machine dealing strictly with the reorganization of Civil Aviation. As part of this endless reorganization, they have recently issued new job descriptions for aviation inspectors that do not require applicants to have flying experience. The goal is to do away with as many pilots as possible. This formerly mandatory requirement of flying experience is to become a "nice to have". Pilots would simply ruin their empire and cost too much, they just want technical inspectors who will review the "process". It is all about process, aviation safety means nothing to the second and fifth floor Vogons in Tower C so long as we are following the almighty process. Our reorganization has been ongoing for at least 10 years, yes YEARS! They have even formed an entire department called (National Organization Transition Implementation Project) NOTIP which controls everything we do.

The new system is so onerous that inspectors are currently forbidden from introducing new regulations and are also not allowed to submit any new Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) to any existing regulations. Even if inspectors try to submit an NPA, the NPA will take years to see the light of day and as one inspector was recently told after waiting 12 years for his NPA to come out, that he better go back and review if it is valid since it is so old. OMG, it is their own "process" which led to the NPA taking 12 years to get trough the system not the inspector who has been doing his due diligence. We screen calls daily from operators about changes that need to be made to regulations and our hands are completely tied.

This is taking its toll on people, good people who care and are passionate about aviation safety. We have had inspectors take weeks off work from stress, some are just quitting because they cannot be part of this dismantling of Civil Aviation. One very respected manager has just accepted a lateral transfer simply to get out from under the crushing weight of stupidity being thrust upon us.

When the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) comes out with an accident report and states that a specific regulation must change, inspectors are told to do a risk assessment and analyze the recommended change to see if is valid. That is insane, of course it is valid, the TSB accident report is telling us so after an accident and possibly fatalities. TC should be reacting to TSB recommendations with immediate changes to regulations, the risk assessment has already been done by TSB because of an accident. But wait, we have to begin the "process" again and have the lawyers review regulations and have the NOTIP office look at how the change might affect the end state of our re-org and on and on and on and nothing gets done. One only needs to look at the most recent accident of a float plane in BC to know this is true.

We cannot continue on this path. The numerous light aircraft and helicopter crashes in the last couple of years have been a precursor to what is waiting for us all. These accidents and incidents simply should not be happening. We are poised for another Dryden accident or worse.

WHAT NOW?

- How do we get out of this tailspin? Recently Australia was headed in the same direction and they did an abrupt turn to rectify the matter. Canada must follow suit. We must reinstate inspections and audits as well as spot checks with SMS. Our inspectors must be out there. SMS should be a must for 705 (airline) operations and encouraged for 704 (commuter) operations but not required for 703 (air taxi) or 702 (aerial work) operations.

Finally we desperately have to change leadership. Police departments could not be run by cruiser mechanics, maritime operations are not being run by deck hands and so we must put the pilots back in charge. If you were to start up an airline who would you put in charge of flight operations, the AME who inspects the aircraft, the flight attendant who replenishes the meals or Captain Sully? Just think of the police analogy, would you allow you 16 year old to drive or your spouse and children to be on the roads if you knew no one at all was enforcing traffic regulations?

RANT OFF

[CD]

Received anonymously...

I did mention earlier that this might include an industrial (bargaining and representation) issue too...

AvCanada - Petition for Judicial Inquiry Presented in the HoC

[Widow]

I hate the way the issues get confused. Although they overlap, the "industrial issue" isn't the key issue.

Anyway, Justice Moshansky was on CBC Radio's "The Current" on Wednesday.

http://safeskies.ca/news/current_air_safety

[snaproll20]

Boy, there are some strange opinions on here and like Cat Driver, I have just about had it.

There is a pretty much universal opinion that SMS should be a good thing, but TCCA has gone totally off the track putting it into legislation. It reasonably fits 705 operations, but gets very tangled with 703 and 704. Only the efforts of Widow and Daniel Slunder (et al) have resulted in a pause on implementation while better heads try to figure out how it should be done.

It is a mess and every TC Inspector I have talked to does not like the way SMS has been shoved into every orifice we have. So what do we do about it when we protest, write etc and get a stonewall? If it takes hoisting some flight crews up a pole, then so be it. It also proves that SMS does NOT provide confidentiality (who ever believed that?) Anyway, I doubt the flight crew will be in serious trouble, but the media, having used the juicy part of the story have finally given a platform for sensible opinions to get a foothold.

Tailgunner...you use the expressions "political gain" and "public gain". What on earth do you think the inspectors have to "gain" both publicly and politically? Most of them are professionals who want the system to work for everyone.

Rubberbiscuit.....you use the word 'vendetta'. That is over the top. You also say "required to audit companies". Do you not know that the National Audit Program was suspended months ago? In other words, there is virtually no auditing going on, unless it is provoked. Obviously, you do not understand the ramifications of SMS in as much as it pretty much does away with audits altogether. It also does away with "Inspecting".
I have never been a fan of TCCA and have met some nasty Inspectors. However, the good people I have met always had some inkling of how it should be done. These are the ones that some of you are putting down.

I don't believe Slunder intended to pillory the AC crew, but like I said, if that's what it takes to get the attention required, then that's what we all have to do. Maybe we should ALL turn ourselves in for the bad things that have happened and scare the Canadian public into wanting a Government department that actually does its job.

And, TAT.... you start out "enraged about damaging statements" from TC people, but then contradict yourself by criticizing lack of action by them in the past. You cannot have it both ways.

This is all the result of too few people in the Aviation Industry standing up for what is right. It is YOUR industry, and you should fight for it. Write to John Baird and influence him as to how you want your industry to operate. You are getting what you deserve for being such a bunch of sheep.

Now, Jose, my tequila if you please.

Sharp pilots conduct dull flights.

[LousyFisherman]

and so we must put the pilots back in charge.

Beg your pardon? What in a pilots training qualifies them for management? It certainly isn't the minimum education requirement.

LF