CBC The National: Report on SMS this Wednesday

[CD]

Pilots: Canadian SMS Proven Aviation Safety Tool

OTTAWA, Nov. 10, 2011 /CNW/ - Safety Management Systems (SMS) continue to be a valuable tool to enhance safety in aviation and other transportation industries in Canada, according to the Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l (ALPA), the world's largest non-governmental aviation safety organization.

"SMS programs ensure continuing safety by combining the appropriate levels of incentive for front-line employee reporting, internal auditing and regulatory oversight," said Capt. Dan Adamus, president of ALPA's Canada Board. "Canada is a world leader in adopting SMS programs in its marine, rail, and aviation industries, and ALPA is proud to be part of that effort."

"ALPA has collaborated with Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, and our government and industry partners internationally to explore the most modern, effective ways of doing business," said Capt. Lee Moak, ALPA's president. "We will continue these partnerships at every opportunity to do all we can to move aviation safety programs forward."

SMS aids airlines by helping to identify and mitigate safety risks that have not been anticipated by the regulators. As a result, the SMS programs are critical to ensuring the highest safety standards are maintained and to providing a continuous means of identifying hazards before they become serious.

"ALPA supports appropriate oversight by Transport Canada and ensuring that SMS programs are effective," concluded Adamus. "We look forward to and encourage properly implemented SMS programs that will help make flying even safer for passengers and crews across Canada."

Founded in 1931, ALPA is the world's largest pilot union, representing more than 53,000 pilots at 37 airlines in the United States and Canada. Visit the ALPA website at http://www.alpa.org.

For further information:
ALPA Media, 703/481-4440 or media@alpa.org

Article here...

[Brint]

That program was horrible reporting. The TW accident was a poor example of SMS not working. Furthermore, the Air Canada Simulator example was silly and obvious.

KK7 and The Hammer have it right.

I feel that this issue of SMS is separate from the Issue of TC oversight. SMS is a great tool to help a company achieve better internal communication, transparency and continuous improvement.

The fact that TC has chosen to replace their oversight with SMS is the problem. For me and our operation, it don't care, as we are aiming for a higher standard anyways. I do worry about those operators out there that will do anything they can get away with.

I feel that this issue will not go away and that eventually TC will get burned in court for failing to provide the oversight they should have.

In the meantime, pick a company that takes your safety and that of your passengers seriously.

Fly Safe

[foxmoth]

Lots of good comments on here.
I think the CBC presentation was accurate enuff.
Many thanks to Dave Winter, especsally, and to Virgil Moshansky.
The analogies were good, (despite CID comments.

Most Inspectors agree that SMS was not introduced properly. It was rushed in by the arrogant clown who preceded Martin Eley. ( He was known to say that 9 dead did not matter.)I was embarassed for Eley backpedling on the "company line"/ The Minister of transport will one day have to resign because the Govement would not fund hiring proper people and an accident will trigger this. Why is Canada the only nation doing this?

Abandoning oversite is bad enough but doing it without SMS in place is so dangerous. Many people said that some small and nasty operators would welcom this situation. Beleive this is now proven.
If the Government wants to save money, get rid of Transport totally. No loss, no change on safety.

[Vi Air]

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST STUPIDITY OR NEGLECT

[foxmoth]

True on stupidity and negligence. but you CAN legislate rules against cheating and disregard for safety and you SHOULD make sure they are followed.

[Sasquash]

Foxmoth;

the arrogant clown was also known for telling a regional director ( west of Toronto ) to not call him until there`s blood at the end of his runways...so not much change in his thinking...but he has now bailed out of TC so somebody`s else if left holding the bag...

[OceansEdge]

That program was horrible reporting. The TW accident was a poor example of SMS not working. Furthermore, the Air Canada Simulator example was silly and obvious.

KK7 and The Hammer have it right.

I feel that this issue of SMS is separate from the Issue of TC oversight. SMS is a great tool to help a company achieve better internal communication, transparency and continuous improvement.

The fact that TC has chosen to replace their oversight with SMS is the problem. For me and our operation, it don't care, as we are aiming for a higher standard anyways. I do worry about those operators out there that will do anything they can get away with.

I feel that this issue will not go away and that eventually TC will get burned in court for failing to provide the oversight they should have.

In the meantime, pick a company that takes your safety and that of your passengers seriously.

Fly Safe

+1

What bothers me is that if the government had ANY sense they'd see where this is going....

They essentially did the same thing within the food inspection branches; replaced inspections and oversight, with self regulation and inspectors - checking the paperwork systems. This reduction in onsite inspections was a major contributing factor in the huge listeria out break. (and a side note - from an industry insider, in the wake of that disaster.... nothing significant has changed in the way they do inspections, or the reduced number of inspectors. *sigh* )

[swordfish]

Well, after catching up on my Avcanada feeds, I can see that many of the posters here have an incomplete understanding of SMS and how it is implemented and working in a huge majority of companies in Canada. However, while you continue to debate the contentious issues of the system, that should not be the point of discussion in this topic.

Brint's post hit the nail on the head: the article was an example of very poor journalism, and the media's propensity to glom onto one aspect of a subject and follow it in a completely one-sided and biased direction, without showing the broad spectrum of the subject and the other extenuating factors. Painting the whole industry black because of the apparent failure of SMS in one company demonstrates very poor, biased reporting.

SMS is not aimed at just the crew. Everybody in the industry from the top to the bottom is a participant in this code.

Not only that, SMS is just a piece of a pie that has aimed, ever since Moshansky's Dryden report, to improve the safety of our industry. There is sophisticated, constantly-evolving training - both initial & recurrent, not only in the equipment we fly, but in a complete range of relevant and targeted disciplines of day-to-day operations; there are dramatic technological improvements in aircraft; there have been regulatory changes (including the CARs in 1997); CRM awareness & training; and numerous other initiatives. The CBC ignored all these.

The SMS does not stand alone in our safety endeavours.

Finally, the snide remark of Dave Winter about speeding vehicles demonstrates that even he does not understand the policy of SMS: it is proactively aimed at systemic failures and shortcomings of our industry. It is NOT aimed at brain farts, or deliberate, conscious, flagrant violations of regs, or an apathetic disregard for policy or procedures.

The "speeding driver", in our industry, would face immediate suspension, attend a show-cause hearing the second time, and dismissal the third - if there was a 3rd.

[swordfish]

Sorry...since reviewing the TV clip (thanks for the posted URL!) I see, unbelievably, that it was Moshanshy who made the comment about the speeding drivers, not Winter.

Although that doesn't absolve him though from some of his ludicrous statements, such as "leaving Operators to do as they please", and targeting the Yukon and by implication, the NWT.

[swordfish]

I have sent this complaint to the CBSC:

This broadcast, and a subsequent follow-up on the radio, casts aspersions on the safety of the Aviation Industry by reporting on the SMS and the reduced oversight by Transport Canada.

This issue is complex - and contentious - even in the industry, and by following the track they have, the CBC has failed to provide a balanced perspective to the viewers and listeners, further inflaming their sense of insecurity in an industry that has lately been devastated by a rash of accidents. Additionally, the broadcast focused only on the aircraft crew, when SMS is an industry-wide initiative, involving EVERYONE from the bottom to the top.

Some of the quotes from Moshansky and Winter were completely out of order, irrelevant, or demonstrably without logic or rationale (i.e. to be broadcast) as they were incomplete, insinuating, or out of context with a seriously wider picture.

They have a responsibility - as ALL broadcasters do - not to follow one direction of bias or prejudice, and to fully examine the implementation of SMS throughout the entire industry from all directions, rather than painting the whole industry and regulatory system black, because of an apparent failure of it in just one company.

This broadcast besmirches the integrity and reputation of hundreds of professional crewmembers, and thousands of other support professionals throughout the aviation infrastructure, whose everyday existence is directed at safe air travel, and literally hundreds of companies throughout Canada where the SMS is working effectively and AS INTENDED without the imperious oversight of Transport Canada.

CBC needs to research and rebroadcast many issues surrounding this matter, with elaboration on how SMS IS working in the industry. They further need to define and broadcast other initiatives the industry has already adopted in the interest of aviation safety; there are dozens of them.

This fear-mongering among the traveling public - disguised as giving the public "what they need to know" is another example of the media sensationalizing a perceived deficiency in an already-rattled sector of the transportation industry. They would do well to invest their limited resources in documenting the positive initiatives we are taking to improve safety ever since the Dryden crash.

As our National broadcaster, they additionally need to show leadership in reporting balance and integrity. We are getting so tired of some of the crap we have to suffer at the hands of the broadcast media NOT obtaining concrete, accurate, and relevant information before broadcasting it.

They have crossed the line with this one.

I have written a complaint to them, and can forward my emailed communications to you on request. At this point, insufficient time has elapsed for them to be able to respond to it, considering the long weekend. I sent it to the reporter, the producer, and the Ombudsman.

I have also had discussions with the people at our local CBC station about this matter.

[Old fella]

Although the topic for this particular broadcast was SMS, I do feel the CBC using the example of the BE-A100 crash in Sandy Lake didn,t read the complete TSB report, couldn't understand it or simply chose to ignore one glaring issue in that the PIC of this flight had some history himself concerning his flying skills or lack there of.............

[howzat]

Lack of flying skills is pretty relevant, there seems to be a serious decline.
Over 75% of general aviation and over 50% of airline accidents due to pilot error.
9 airliners lost in the last 10 years due to the pilots losing control, over 900 people killed.
And aviation attracts a lot of fruitcakes who shouldn't even be driving a skateboard let alone an aircraft.
Maybe authorities should be looking at some of that stuff.

[airdude]

I did see the CBC special report.
I thought that most of it was somewhat accurate. The only problem I had with it is that it only showed where SMS failed...

I have worked for a number of years with Private Fligth Departments, 702, 703 and 704 companies where SMS was a tool for improving safety. In those companies where good will exists, the system makes a huge difference. SMS did improve the safety of ground anf flight safety of most of the company I have worked with. Not only were there fewer incidents but employee feedback also improved efficiency, reduce expenses (in part by reducing incidents) and ultimatly made the company more profitable. To me this is proof that SMS does bring added value to a compagny.
But then again, the efficientcy of this systems is only assured by the management's open mind... You cannot force SMS down the throat of a company that does not adhere to a safety oriented culture (and we all know some of them!!!).

The problem lies in the use that TC makes of SMS... SMS is not an efficient SELF REGULATION tool but a SAFETY IMPROVMENT TOOL.
It does not replace a good thurought TC audit but helps all levels of the company to become safer.

Also, TC has published too few guideline documents. The small 702-703 companies cannot fond adequates examples of a good SMS implentation and each of the TC inspectors have their own way of interpreting the efficiency of the SMS in those company (most TC guys try tyo impose the 705 structure to small operatores...), making it very difficult to come-up with an SMS perfectly adapted to the small operators.

As mentionned in the report, the best approach to SMS is to consider it an additional tool and not a replacement for TC oversight.

...my 2 cents!

Airdude

[swordfish]

I have just got to the end of this report (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 7c0001.pdf) and 2 of the 3 following paragraphs pretty well confirm that the CBC did not read it fully [Old Fella], as their presentation was based on 2 assumptions:

• That it was the result of the failure of the SMS to preemptively catch the threats to this flight.
  That (by implication, suggestion, or inference) the aircraft was not being controlled by either pilot at the time it struck the trees.

3.3 Other Findings
1. TWA’s safety management system was not yet capable or expected to be capable of
detecting, analyzing, and mitigating the risks presented by the hazards underlying
this occurrence.
2. The first officer and captain met competency standards on the completion of their
initial flight training before they began employment as line pilots.
3. It is very likely that the captain became the pilot flying for the remaining 20 seconds
of the flight. The scenario that neither pilot was controlling the aircraft at that time is
considered very unlikely.

Also, it was never clear in the broadcast, but the go-around was initiated AFTER the aircraft had already touched down. My earlier impression was that the go-around was commenced from short final.

[foxmoth]

swordfish
there is no black and white (anymore) so I cant say you right or totally wrong.
Their used to be black and white but TC version of SMS makes everything gray.

Fact is, Air Taxi has highest stats on accidents. If so, why is it not under (enforced) SMS, and, why has inspections been stopped (ie black and white removed)

In perfect form SMS works but theories rarely workin human practise work zones.

airdude pretty much has it right. and Moshansky, and Winter
Those who critizize him should remember the Inspector Union objected to the way SMS was being dumped on us.

[swordfish]

I don't propose to argue the SMS, or TC monitoring (or lack of it) at all. Like many proponent and opponents here, I have opinions that are based on 40-something years in the industry, and the last 15 of them (I think) in direct association with the Safety Management System.

The point of my posts is that the CBC has taken a narrow and biased position in this broadcast, and they need to correct it by looking at the whole issue in macrocosm, not select a microscopic part of it that failed, and cast aspersions on the whole industry (particularly the 702 and 703) as a result. For example, they failed to mention that the 705s have been living (harmoniously) with SMS for over 10 years now.

By raising fears & doubts in an already-rattled public passenger segment, you dilute the confidence the public has in flying. That is the last thing we need in view of the rash of accident we have had this year.

[swordfish]

btw...the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council have replied to me and told me they have no teeth with the "Public Broadcaster" as they represent private broadcasters only....

It does say "Canadian" in there, doesn't it?

go figure.

[Cat Driver]

By raising fears & doubts in an already-rattled public passenger segment, you dilute the confidence the public has in flying. That is the last thing we need in view of the rash of accident we have had this year.

Heaven forbid anyone raise fears just because there has been a rash of accidents, it would be far more Canadian to just take comfort in the belief that given time SMS will lower the accident rate without any over site by the regulator except their reading all the SMS paperwork produced by the companies who operate commercial aircraft.

Yeh, for sure that is the answer.

[BEFAN5]

Off the topic of sms but... A quick read of the actual report makes me feel the captain was the problem. Any crew member calling a go-around should automatically result in a go around procedure. Perhaps the CBC can stick to the facts next time and stay on topic and avoid bashing crew members without using actual accounts and reports.

[swordfish]

+1 BEFAN5

[KK7]

By raising fears & doubts in an already-rattled public passenger segment, you dilute the confidence the public has in flying. That is the last thing we need in view of the rash of accident we have had this year.

I agree that a bigger picture could have been presented, however I don't think anything was too far off the mark, just as you said a bit of a narrow view.

But you have to remember that the general public doesn't see or understand the difference between a 703 and a 705 operation. These are the intricacies that we as members of the industry understand and work with every day. If a CPL student has enough trouble grasping these concepts, how is joe blow off the street going to get it?

The National is not necessarily an unbiased news show, it is an editorial and presents a view and an opinion, and the viewers should take it as such. I for one agree with their view in this case in principle and am glad that they presented it such a way that shows the public the road we are potentially heading down. You're right that the last thing we need is diminishing confidence from the public, but I think this SMS scheme gives the public very good reason to lose confidence in the industry. I think the only way to get things back on track is the general public getting on board as obviously to date the pilots, managers and even TC Inspectors themselves haven't been able to instill any sort of change in thought.

All this being said, the Transwest example is a very bad one and there are many others that would have been better suited.

[square]

Square, SMS is well in use at the 703 and 704 levels throughout Canada.

And its a joke in nearly everyone of them. I've been 703/704 for 5 years, people report what they want to be recorded as the real events. And only when they have to. Guess what it winds up as. The ideas a joke.

If tc wanted to provide high oversight with low staffing it would be in the form of radar, scales, ramp checks, and popup audits. You could find violations easily.

Setup the whole country as transponder airspace with MF reqs and accidents would go down without even providing oversight on it. There's no reason to allow nordo traffic with no transponders in public airspace with commuter and airline traffic who ALL have tcas. Charge the rednecks their $300 avionics upgrade and save us from the threat right there. There are so many simple solutions like that.

[Sidebar]

For example, they failed to mention that the 705s have been living (harmoniously) with SMS for over 10 years now.

I disagree. It has not been over 10 years.

Maybe some of them have, but CAR 107.03 did not come into effect until June 2005. For most of these operators, phase 4 completion occurred in 2008/2009. Therefore, they have only been living with SMS for about 6 years, and only 2-3 years since implementation was actually completed and they had fully functioning SMSs.

[foxmoth]

For those who think the CBC report was narrow, just think how terrifiying it would have been if they had covered ALL the problems in the industry. (Too long and nobody cares, eh?)

TransX has not been a good company. If they think they got singled out, it was only becose they are typical.
Far as I'm concernd, the analogy about speeding drivers is PERFECT.

People who say SMS is an added layer are right, but when you put that building block in place, you do not take away the one suporting it.

[swordfish]

It's not up to ANYONE, or any broadcaster, to state or imply that any company is a "not a good company" as has been suggested several times in this thread. And that was hardly the point of the CBC piece. It was to underscore the lower levels of enforcement by the regulator, by devolving this to the industry. And to Transport's credit, they are quite up-front with their objectives - which mirror those in several other countries in the world who adopted the SMS long before Canada did.

Then they went on to hammer the industry generally, suggesting that we can get away with anything we want to. Those snide insinuations are completely out of order for a public broadcaster who should be setting the standard for balanced and unbiased reporting - REGARDLESS OF HOW TRUE OR UNTRUE THEY MAY BE. Along with the shit in the industry (and the trucking industry is just as bad or worse) they have an obligation to our industry to show the other side of the story, (because of the recent spate of accidents in Canada). i.e. the success of SMS, and how it is ultimately saving taxpayer dollars. SMS is alive & well in many (most?) aviation companies.

The few that abuse the system doesn't mean the whole system is fucked - and that's what the CBC broadcast sounded like.

And I don't work at Transwest, but I will be quietly stunned if they HAVEN'T turned a page in their own book... after someone pissed on the floor in the loo, give them a chance to mop it up.