Buffalo Joe doesn't like TC's version of SMS?

[Widow]

Didn't the modus operandi used to be oral counselling before certificate action?

You're talking apples & oranges, Widow. Oral counselling may be used at the descretion of the inspector if certain criteria are met, and typically is done by Enforcement inspectors although any inspector may use it. Oral counselling is not normally associated with audits or assessments.

Apples or oranges, it doesn't seem to be in line with the "non-punitive" nature of SMS. Shouldn't the punitive nature of a Notice of Suspension be reserved for willful non-compliance or actual safety issues, as opposed to "shortcomings in documentation"?

[godsrcrazy]

How many fatal accidents has Buffalo Airways had?

Fatal none i can think of. Accidents more then there far share.

**********************************************************************

6 accident/incidents since 1970( as far as i can tell anyway) doesnt sound all that terrible, no fatals ( 4 write offs)

did you get fired as a rampie or something godsrcrazy, you seem to have a bone to pick

no offence but just curious

I have no bones to pick with Buffalo. No i never got turfed of the ramp cause i have never worked there and never wanted to. Met Joe more then once and i can say i get a chuckle out of him. I think he is just a good old boy trying to make HIS way.

Cat you can go off about its not luck. It is amazing how 1 company can have 1 accident with loss of life and they should be banned. Joe can have 4 in 6 years but thats okay. If you don't think 3 guys riding in the back of a Dc-4 with no seats isn't luck when you splat it all over the tundra in ULu then what would you call it. Excellent TRAINING. The fact is because nobody has got hurt in these incidents MOT didn't even drag there ass up to investigate or interview people.

I am not intending to slam Joe and sorry if it is coming across like i am.

[Cat Driver]

How much time do you have flying large piston engine airplanes in the north godscrazy?

[turbo-prop]

Watching ice pilots I would say part of the reason there have been no fatalities is that they mostly fly cargo. Catdriver that is there choice to fly pistons in the arctic. As for sms I have worked at some 703,704,705 companies where it works well, but the companies have also bought into it. If the employee makes the report the company should look into it not look at that pilot as a winer or troublemaker and punish him/her.

[Shiny Side Up]

McBryan said every time there is a compliance issue, the airline has 30 days to meet Transport's standards. He said the notices haven't been issued for safety violations, but for shortcomings in documentation, an issue he said could be resolved better through direct communication.

This part I can especially sympathize with and I feel where SMS in its current incarnation isn't doing anything productive. Many of the SMS issues we've had have nothing to do with something we've been doing wrong or doing unsafe - one would like to think that we're doing things reasonably safe. SMS steps in and insists that we must come up with a satisfactory means of documenting how we are keeping safe.

Firstly, this extra step does nothing to improve actual safety, it is quite simply an extra step. In most regards it has multiplied the record keeping and paperwork task. We're still doing the same things operationally. Esentially the documentation is simply more logs showing that we're doing the same stuff we always were, if anything, the documentation has but the only use of finding out who to blame if something was done incorrectly. It might help us improve safety after the fact, but does nothing to actively improve it to prevent something from happening.

In practice though the extra documentation also means someone needs to do it which means extra staff and making extra demands of existing staff. Regardless of the monetary costs it inflicts on a company, the stress it has been putting on employees can truly be considered a safety hazard. I've already encountered instances where all the paperwork was done but the related work's quality has suffered. Quite simply people are too worried about the paperwork - they know their names are going on the paper. Given the way TC is going about implement the SMS people really feel that their jobs are at stake if they screw up the all important paperwork - as much so as if they screw up the normal work. Hell, they know if they piss of their boss they might get fired, if they piss of TC they might have to find a new career.

[dashx]

One million dollars (Is that US or Canadian)???

Wow.

Maybe he should have spent some of that money for a jack.

Just watched the episode where the tail wheel was changed using wood (leftovers) as a riser. The jack looked like it came from Princess Auto.

They sell jacks (proper A/C jacks) with risers ... Joe....

But then I again maybe I am harping.....Also I have been spoiled by using certified Tronair jacks ...

But go on and whine how expensive SMS is........It's so much easier.

[godsrcrazy]

How much time do you have flying large piston engine airplanes in the north godscrazy?

Cat not sure were you are going with this. I have zero large piston a fair amount of small piston and a pile of turbine. Don't be fouled by the fact that because i asked about what deicing a Dc-3 had i don't know about aircraft. The fact that you decided to explain in a pm to me about deice boots and how they work was not what i asked.

It appears to me that you think if someone has not flown large piston they have no right to talk or ask questions. Or are you saying if you fly large piston you can forget the rules and SMS as it shouldn't apply to those that do fly these aircraft. Maybe i should go fly some large piston so i can prop people up on barrels rather then seats and if i have an incident may be MOT will not even appear to look at or investigate in any detail. All because i would be flying large piston.

[Cat Driver]

What I am saying godscrazy is considering the kind of flying Buffalo does their crews must be good at what they do, I don't buy into it being luck that they have had no fatal accidents.

Therefore if the pilots are good at what they do their training has to be part of the reason they are good at their type of flying.

[godsrcrazy]

I am not saying they are not properly trained. Flying them old girls around the north in the winter especially dealing with mags, plugs, etc i tip my hat to them. I think they are probably very well trained. But lets face it flying people around in the back of Cargo aircraft without proper restraint during a crash has zero to do with training when you look at the pictures i saw. I wish i could find them i would post them and your opinion why people didn't get hurt. There should have been people thrown around the cabin.

There must be some thing the major mines in the north don't like about Buffalo as both major mines in the North banned using Buffalo aircraft flying to there sites a few years back. They do both use different aviation auditors as well but they both came up with the same conclusion. Maybe they just don't like the big piston aircraft.

[Double Wasp]

Godsrcrazy

If you don't think 3 guys riding in the back of a Dc-4 with no seats isn't luck when you splat it all over the tundra in ULu then what would you call it.

When was the last time you were in a DC4?

It has been a while but from what I remember in addition to the 2 control seats the min number of jump seats was 3. There were a few that had 5.

Just clearing up an unfounded acusation.

Oh heres another one... it wasn't a duck (CL215) it was a PBY at Stitidgi lake near Inuvik. (pardon the spelling) That was in 2001.

By my math thats 8 years not 6.

But why let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Cheers
DW

[lost in the north]

with sms all the expirenced managers will be so busy with paper work they will have less time to spend teaching the low time pilots on the flight line,get rid of sms and the new pvi audits that they look at paper work...look at the airplanes

[Cat Driver]

I have never worked for Joe but I did fly DC3's and the DC6 in Yellowknife before Joe moved his operation there.

Most of the DC3 flying I did in the Arctic in the winter was on wheel skis which meant it was a special treat to get to use an airport with a real runway.

Before I flew in the western Arctic I flew the 3's for Austin Airways and they put skis on them every winter.

All of our maintenance on the DC3's in the North was done without a hangar everywhere except at the home base in Hamilton which we seldom ever saw.

I credit a lot of the fact that I managed to fly my career without wrecking an airplane to the training I got flying for thousands of hours on those airplanes in the North, luck may have been involved a few times but most of the reason I had a safe record was good training and knowing the limits.

You must remember the series about Buffalo is for public entertainment and they have to make it look a lot worse than it really is.

Those of you who have never had the opportunity to do that type of flying have missed some of the most challenging flying one could ever do and thus an opportunity to hone skills that you will never see in turbines under positive ATC control.

I look forward to each episode of this series because it brings back memories of an era long gone for me.

Lets not get to focused on SMS and miss the real story being told about people who still fly in a very harsh environment in old technology airplanes.

These airplanes are beautiful to watch fly and were really built tough, how many jet airliners have been flying that long before they have to scrap them?

[godsrcrazy]

Godsrcrazy

If you don't think 3 guys riding in the back of a Dc-4 with no seats isn't luck when you splat it all over the tundra in ULu then what would you call it.

When was the last time you were in a DC4?

It has been a while but from what I remember in addition to the 2 control seats the min number of jump seats was 3. There were a few that had 5.

Just clearing up an unfounded acusation.

Oh heres another one... it wasn't a duck (CL215) it was a PBY at Stitidgi lake near Inuvik. (pardon the spelling) That was in 2001.


By my math thats 8 years not 6.

But why let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Cheers
DW

I was only ever in 1 of Buffalo's Dc-4's years back and there were only 2 seats up front the 2 in the back were far from certified. If memory serves me correct they were Lawn chairs or old office chairs. They didn't have seat belts i know that as we joked about it.

[billy ray valintine]

the reason sms is in place is because of unsafe practices in all departments.
bo joe thinks his safety record is clean/good? then lay it out for all to see.
sms is the only thing that may save your life because if it were up to owners,
they will {ten times out of ten} send you into a situation they themselves would
not go in. sounds like bo joe is pissed off because he can't sweep it under the
carpet anymore. i'm glad to say,....the reason sms lives is because of these kind
of operators and their double standard attitude.
p.s. saw the bo joe show once,and that was enough for me!

brv

[Cat Driver]

Lets see if I clearly understand this issue.

If an operator accepts unsafe working and flying practices they will not be able to get away with doing so if they submit SMS reports to TC?

If T.C. does not have inspectors go out into the field and compare the paper work to the way the operations are really performed how will that ensure safety?

Why would an unsafe operator not just write the reports to satisfy T.C. that they are conforming to safety?

Am I to understand they will operate outside the rules when ever it suits them but they wouldn't file falsified SMS paper work?

[billy ray valintine]

Lets see if I clearly understand this issue.

If an operator accepts unsafe working and flying practices they will not be able to get away with doing so if they submit SMS reports to TC?

If T.C. does not have inspectors go out into the field and compare the paper work to the way the operations are really performed how will that ensure safety?

Why would an unsafe operator not just write the reports to satisfy T.C. that they are conforming to safety?

Am I to understand they will operate outside the rules when ever it suits them but they wouldn't file falsified SMS paper work?

cat
the answer your post is........put your name to it and follow up!
it's your right!
t.c. had people in the field and it did nothing.
documents were still falsified{THE OLD BOY'S CLUB}
we have the right to refusal in this country,[in aviation as well] and that's
were sms kicks in.
there isn't a judge in the land that would allow someone to lose their job for
refusing a dangerous job condition.
proof is the key!
brv

[shitdisturber]

There must be some thing the major mines in the north don't like about Buffalo as both major mines in the North banned using Buffalo aircraft flying to there sites a few years back. They do both use different aviation auditors as well but they both came up with the same conclusion. Maybe they just don't like the big piston aircraft.

I suspect you'll find the reason he can't fly for the mines anymore has nothing to do with his record, it's his equipment. What I'm guessing is going on is the same thing that's happening with oil patch companies; a few years ago you could do charters for them in a Ho, now, forget it. Somewhere within about the last ten years or so they decided you had to have turbines so if you didn't have a King Air you were out of luck. In more recent years they decided they wanted to move larger numbers so the King Airs are going the way of the Ho a few years prior and you need either a 1900 or a DHC-8. Give it a few more years and it'll be a 737 or nothing.

[Cat Driver]

Billy ray you are correct you have the right to refuse to do anything you feel is not safe or against the rules.

We always have had that right however the employers can and do fire you when they think you are not doing things the way they want you to do things.

I am trying to remember even one pilot who had the money to hire a lawyer and won a settlement for wrongful dismissal, there probably are a few but I don't know any.

By the way I lost several jobs for refusing to compromise safety or break the rules and I never did find a lawyer who would get me compensation that I could afford.

I did however have one employer who fired me for refusing to fly overloads, and he would not pay me my last months pay and I never did get it.

If you think you have protection from wrongful dismissal for refusing to fly things must have really changed since I was flying for a living in Canada.

You may have SMS paper work that you think will protect you but employers can and will get rid of you and you will not be able to tie it to an SMS report.

[Hot Fuel]

Let me take a poke at this, a company does not have to submit the SMS reports to Transport, their records just have to be available for audit or inspection.

The concept behind SMS is simply to have the company, not Transport Canada identify the items, things or stuff that happen in the normal course of the day that are deemed by the employees as having an unacceptable level of risk associated with the task.

When I say company I don’t mean just the owner, managers or supervisors, I mean anybody that works for said company. Workplace safety is everybody’s responsibility; anybody that thinks differently is putting their safety into somebody else’s hands.

How many people on this forum would allow the Shell guy to perform the pre-flight walk around or let the check-in agents check the weather and file the flight plan?

Anyway back to SMS for dummies or perhaps SMS 101…Lets for sake of argument say we work for a company that flies 70 year aircraft that handles all kinds of big ugly stuff, often in conditions that shall we say are less than ideal. -35 degrees, 25 kts north winds and facilities unlike anything found in the south. Instead of de-icing bays, and lift trucks designed to load and unload specific aircraft types you are fortunate to have access to an IT28 loader with forks and an operator with a couple years of experience operating it, primarily clear snow. No specialized equipment to off load and tow the cargo away, its normally ½ ton trucks, quads and ski-doo’s with 10 foot boggans in tow.

For anybody that has not handled cargo on C-46 or DC-3 I’ll give you a quick mental picture. When you are loading either aircraft type you are pushing or hand bombing cargo uphill…when you are unloading its coming downhill.

Now under an SMS program a ramp person could be loading the cargo…lets assume a C-46. It’s a pallet of soft drinks, approximately 2800 lbs and he is pushing with all his might on the pallet jack working the skid uphill to the assigned forward cargo location. Halfway up he slips on the diamond plate floor that has snow tracked all over it. All 2800 lbs starts its inevitable roll back downhill into the tail squashing the ramp person in the process. Lucky the ramp person doesn’t sustain any injuries, but after the fact the light bulb comes on and the employees says to himself…”wow trying to push this heavy pallet uphill on a steel floor covered with snow is not very safe.”

Under SMS he is obligated to complete a company safety report identifying what he/she feels is a risk to safety and submit it to the safety officer or whoever is responsible for the SMS program within the company.

The report is then to be reviewed by the appropriate company committee or individuals, details of the report are entered into a file or database and corrective actions drafted to correct the situation. In this case perhaps a corrective action may consist of directing maintenance to apply a non-skid product to the diamond plate of all effected aircraft and to install a winch system to assist with moving ugly heavy things forward.

The corrective actions are recorded and filed in the same manner as the original report; they may choose to do nothing, making a determination that it was an isolated incident and unlikely to reoccur. Overtime statistics generated from the on file reports start to produce trends, when you start to identify trends the goal then becomes to tackle those trends and come up with in house corrective actions to correct the problem.

All of this can be done without Transport Canada coming and telling you what is and is not a risk. Truth be told if they didn’t see it during an audit they aren’t going to tell you to fix it.

Under SMS Transport Canada comes in and audits your SMS reporting, if the same old things keep coming up with no corrective action being taken and documented by the company, they take action against the company.

If the same old things keep coming up after corrective actions have been taken and documented but don’t seem to be working they’ll be on the company’s ass to come up with better corrective actions. Although the company itself should be able to figure that out all by themselves.

Last but not least if they audit the company’s SMS program and only find a handful of reports it’s an indication of a problem and they should be doing a little digging.

[billy ray valintine]

Billy ray you are correct you have the right to refuse to do anything you feel is not safe or against the rules.

We always have had that right however the employers can and do fire you when they think you are not doing things the way they want you to do things.

I am trying to remember even one pilot who had the money to hire a lawyer and won a settlement for wrongful dismissal, there probably are a few but I don't know any.

By the way I lost several jobs for refusing to compromise safety or break the rules and I never did find a lawyer who would get me compensation that I could afford.

I did however have one employer who fired me for refusing to fly overloads, and he would not pay me my last months pay and I never did get it.

If you think you have protection from wrongful dismissal for refusing to fly things must have really changed since I was flying for a living in Canada.

You may have SMS paper work that you think will protect you but employers can and will get rid of you and you will not be able to tie it to an SMS report.

cat
i understand the old school aviation mentality because i've been there!!!!
things have changed over the years, and that's why i said "get proof"
i worked at jobs where it was "do it ,or leave".[some still in business]

you were smart to not fly 'overload' because you
might not be here to post if you did!
i can't speak from a pilot point of view,but from a ame point of view,sms
could be the savour of this industry if done right.
my advice?........document,document,document!
come on cat,give the young guys something to look forward to! lol
after all,were living the dream.
brv

[Sidebar]

Apples or oranges, it doesn't seem to be in line with the "non-punitive" nature of SMS. Shouldn't the punitive nature of a Notice of Suspension be reserved for willful non-compliance or actual safety issues, as opposed to "shortcomings in documentation"?

"Non-punitive" is applicable to a company's internal reporting system, to encourage people to report so the company better understands what's going on in its operation.

A notice of suspension is applicable to the organization itself to encourage it to comply with the regulations, in this case the SMS regs in the CARs. Usually a grace period (ie 30 days or something like that) is granted to provide the company sufficient time to bring itself into compliance. AOC suspension notices are frequently used by TCCA, and are usually revoked before they come into effect if the company rectifies the non-compliance issue.

See the Sandy Bay report for an example. In that case, the company was going to be without an operations manager for an extended period, a non-compliance with the regulatory conditions of its AOC which requires employment of specified managers. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... #s1.17.1.9

[Prairie Chicken]

Apples or oranges, it doesn't seem to be in line with the "non-punitive" nature of SMS. Shouldn't the punitive nature of a Notice of Suspension be reserved for willful non-compliance or actual safety issues, as opposed to "shortcomings in documentation"?

Sidebar is correct. It is not a punitive suspension.

To go a bit further, there are various types of Notices of Suspension. A Notice of Suspension may be issued for punitive reasons by the Enforcement Division under s. 6.9(1) of the AA. That one gives you 30 days in which to appeal, negotiate the penalty, or prepare for the suspension. Or, a Notice of Suspension may be issued under s. 7(1) when an immediate threat to aviation safety or security is identified. That one goes into effect upon service. The one Joe would have been referring to would have been a Notice issued under s. 7.1(1) for failing to meet the conditions for which the certificate was issued.

Hot Fuel, that's a good explanation. Thanks for taking the time to hammer that out.

[godsrcrazy]

There must be some thing the major mines in the north don't like about Buffalo as both major mines in the North banned using Buffalo aircraft flying to there sites a few years back. They do both use different aviation auditors as well but they both came up with the same conclusion. Maybe they just don't like the big piston aircraft.

I suspect you'll find the reason he can't fly for the mines anymore has nothing to do with his record, it's his equipment. What I'm guessing is going on is the same thing that's happening with oil patch companies; a few years ago you could do charters for them in a Ho, now, forget it. Somewhere within about the last ten years or so they decided you had to have turbines so if you didn't have a King Air you were out of luck. In more recent years they decided they wanted to move larger numbers so the King Airs are going the way of the Ho a few years prior and you need either a 1900 or a DHC-8. Give it a few more years and it'll be a 737 or nothing.

Okay if thats what you want to believe no problem. I guess it was just bad timing for Buffalo that some of the mines decided to ban Buffalo within i would like to say day's but lets go with weeks of the Ulu incident. YOU WIN

[Fox 3]

Lets see if I clearly understand this issue.

If an operator accepts unsafe working and flying practices they will not be able to get away with doing so if they submit SMS reports to TC?

If T.C. does not have inspectors go out into the field and compare the paper work to the way the operations are really performed how will that ensure safety?

Why would an unsafe operator not just write the reports to satisfy T.C. that they are conforming to safety?

Am I to understand they will operate outside the rules when ever it suits them but they wouldn't file falsified SMS paper work?

This about sums up my view of the SMS system. I think having TC Inspectors perform random audits would have much bigger impact on safety then putting the trust in operators to file reports. I've been directly involved in implementing the SMS system into a company, and it didn't take me long to realize that the system would work great for honest operators, but very poorly for everyone else.
I honestly think the whole SMS system was started because of the lack of available man power at Transport. A couple years prior to the new system the annual audits turned into a "risk assessment" which was performed by TC Inspectors. If they felt your company was not playing by the rules they would come and audit you, otherwise it was basically a phone call. This was told to me directly by a TC Inspector.

On a side note, I would love to see where Joe spent the million dollars on SMS. If that number isn't exaggerated, which I expect it is, I would respectfully say he is very poor at money management. No pun intended.

~FOX~

[Cat Driver]

Maybe the news media misquoted Joe and he actually said he was planning on making a million dollars for writing a good novel?