Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe & Mail

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Oxi
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:33 pm

Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe & Mail

Post by Oxi »

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... /comments/
Regulators threatened to ground Canada’s Porter Airlines over safety problems in 2008, according to documents reviewed by Reuters, but the matter was kept secret for years - a sign, some critics say, of how little the public is told about the safety of Canadian airlines.

The documents, prepared by staff at the federal transport regulator, show that in early October that year, Canadian government inspectors scored Porter at only two on a scale of one to five, where five is best and three indicates compliance. The threat was first reported in the Canadian media in 2011 but the score and some of the reasons for it have not been previously disclosed.

Reuters got access to the documents in June from Transport Canada, the nation’s main transport regulator, under Canada’s Access to Information Act.

Porter had fought for years to prevent Transport Canada from releasing them in the face of media applications filed under that law. And while a court ruled against Canada’s No. 3 airline in 2014, the judge still allowed the documents to be heavily redacted by Transport Canada, meaning that many details are blacked out.

Porter did not have to suspend flights, and was able to satisfy the regulator within two months that it had dealt with its most serious problems.

But the secrecy surrounding the episode has prompted safety advocates to warn that Transport Canada and Canadian airlines are keeping the public in the dark about safety questions.

Transport Canada said in response to questions from Reuters that it has to balance transparency against privacy laws. It said in a statement that it felt no need to make the warning to Porter public, and that in the end it was satisfied with the airline’s corrective measures.

“The decision to make a notice of suspension public is made on a case-by-case basis, and is not taken lightly,” it said.

MORE SECRETIVE

Porter pointed out in a statement that the assessment is nearly seven years old and said it had carried out all required maintenance work. Porter also said it has increased training and added investigators as it has expanded.

“The matter in question related to administrative paperwork and procedural issues that were subsequently addressed by Porter in a timely, proactive manner to the satisfaction of Transport Canada,” it said. “No operational safety issues were involved.”

Greg McConnell, president of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association union that represents government inspectors, reviewed the documents concerning Porter, but said it was difficult to conclude much given the redactions, which was a concern.

He said the documents show how Transport Canada’s work has changed over his career: “The documentation has become, almost, very secretive.”

Canada was the first country in the world to require that airlines each create their own safety management system (SMS), after the approach was endorsed by the United Nations’ aviation agency. The new approach put more emphasis on self-regulation by airlines, and less on inspections by the regulator. Some experts, such as McConnell, see that change as part of the reason for the lack of disclosure.

In Canada, inspectors’ reviews now draw much more heavily on internal reports and data provided by the airlines, and the regulator does not disclose a lot of that material even when it receives applications from journalists and others under the access to information law. Transport Canada staff who handle such requests will often heavily redact the information in safety-related documents that they do release, citing the section of the law that protects trade secrets.

Recent evaluations of a number of Canadian airlines, including WestJet and closely-held Arctic airline First Air, requested by Reuters under the law, have come back with all of Transport Canada’s conclusions and the evidence they were based on blacked out.

There are no indications either airline has serious problems, but the redactions make it impossible to make an independent assessment.

“WestJet requested redactions in the recent Transport Canada audit report because we believe more background and context is needed to fully understand the culture of safety at our airline,” the airline said in a statement. It said the audit found administrative issues that were quickly corrected.

First Air CEO Brock Friesen said transparency was in the public’s best interest: “We did not request these redactions from TC, especially since the document in question is showing minor findings, largely administrative in nature,” he said in an emailed statement.

Transport Canada said in a statement that it releases information under access to information “in a way that is compliant with the provisions of the law.”

Ken Rubin, a Canadian safety advocate and researcher, says the increased “self-policing” has been bad for transparency. “I can tell you that when I first applied in the early ‘80s for air inspection reports and audits, I used to get them,” he said. “They became less accessible.”

LIMITED RESOURCES

The SMS approach was designed to improve safety, ensuring that airlines find and fix problems before they cause an accident, and take broad responsibility for improving safety instead of just following the direction of regulators.

SMS, which will be mandatory for most U.S. airlines in 2018, also can keep a regulator’s inspection costs under control, an important consideration as the airline industry continues to grow rapidly across the globe. A 2013 report from Canada’s Library of Parliament, the research arm of Canada’s parliament, said the adoption of SMS was being driven partly by regulators’ “limited resources.”

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said that calling SMS self-regulation is a “basic misunderstanding.” It said the change will make airlines more proactive, giving them processes to identify and reduce risk, without relaxing existing protections.

“SMS requires compliance with technical standards but also promotes a safety culture to improve the overall performance of the organization,” the FAA said in a statement, adding that SMS will not replace FAA inspections and audits.

Before the new system, there were examples of greater disclosure. In 1996, Transport Canada issued a notice of suspension to then-new WestJet, threatening to ground the airline unless it fixed problems with its maintenance system. The department put out a news release, and the airline, now Canada’s No. 2 carrier, chose to briefly suspend flights, though it disputed the findings.

Some support SMS in principle, but criticize its implementation. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB), a federal watchdog agency, has praised SMS, saying it can help companies manage risk.

But the TSB has also cited major concerns, highlighting crashes and near-misses that came after Transport Canada failed to identify problems with companies’ safety processes. One case it cited was a 2011 First Air crash in northern Canada, which killed 12 people. Upon investigation, the TSB found problems with First Air’s safety management system.

Transport Canada said it takes the TSB’s recommendations very seriously, and has made “significant progress” to address the board’s concerns, but did not offer any detail on what it has changed.

In Porter’s case, Transport Canada inspectors said the airline was taking too long to address potential safety problems flagged by its employees. Inspectors issued a notice of suspension, warning the airline that its operating certificate could be revoked if it did not fulfill several conditions.

“Your organization has demonstrated that your maintenance program and maintenance system does not meet the minimum regulatory requirements,” said Transport Canada in 2008 in a letter to Porter CEO Robert Deluce that has not been previously disclosed.

Porter said its most recent Transport Canada evaluation in 2014 had no negative findings. But it declined to share that report, saying public disclosure can lead to misunderstandings.

“We believe that overall passenger safety is best served by ensuring that our team members freely report safety matters without worrying about repercussions of being associated with public reports,” it said.
ALLISON MARTELL
TORONTO — Reuters
Published Thursday, Aug. 20, 2015 1:20AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Aug. 20, 2015 7:14AM EDT
---------- ADS -----------
 
leftoftrack
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by leftoftrack »

Anyone remember WS got shut down.

It seems like the system worked here, There was a problem it got fixed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
justwork
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:59 am
Location: East Coast

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by justwork »

leftoftrack wrote:Anyone remember WS got shut down.

It seems like the system worked here, There was a problem it got fixed.
If I remember correct Westjet volentarily suspended operations... My memory isn't what it used to be, I could be wrong.

Still I agree, there was a couple issues, they were fixed KCCO.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by goingnowherefast »

I'm only concerned with why they tried so hard to hide it. A good PR team can turn anything into a positive. "Thanks to Transport Canada inspectors, we found an unknown error in our system. The issue has since been addressed and we are now among the best in the industry"

Hiding stuff only makes it more embarrassing when it does eventually come out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AirMail
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:48 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by AirMail »

I'm surprised this is even news.
goingnowherefast wrote:I'm only concerned with why they tried so hard to hide it. A good PR team can turn anything into a positive. "Thanks to Transport Canada inspectors, we found an unknown error in our system. The issue has since been addressed and we are now among the best in the industry"

Hiding stuff only makes it more embarrassing when it does eventually come out.
Because as quoted in the article
Porter said its most recent Transport Canada evaluation in 2014 had no negative findings. But it declined to share that report, saying public disclosure can lead to misunderstandings.
Let's not forget the media is bad enough on a good day at getting things right.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Rockie »

What is disturbing here is unclassified public safety documents being redacted to the point of uselessness under the guise of privacy. This culture of government secrecy has gone too far.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Giggidy
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Giggidy »

Rockie wrote:What is disturbing here is unclassified public safety documents being redacted to the point of uselessness under the guise of privacy. This culture of government secrecy has gone too far.
Someone made an interesting comment addressing this.

I'm paraphrasing....... Basically, a Safety Management System relies on self-reporting and non-punitive measures in order to be effective. If there is no guarantee of privacy / immunity for the individuals, departments and companies that self-report, an SMS becomes useless. Think about what happens if certain SMS reports become public-domain (and then blown out of proportion by the frustratingly ignorant media)...no one will ever use the system again.

I'm not taking a stance for or against SMS, but it's easy to see why some information would be redacted to preserve the integrity of the system.

Also, it's impossible to know what information was redacted, so my point could well be moot...but were the faults corrected? Was the regulator satisfied that safety is no longer compromised? If the answer is yes, then I'm content. I don't care how they fix their problems, just that they get fixed.

Now.....can the regulator be trusted to ensure proper safety oversight? I'm not opening that can of worms.....


Giggidy
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Rockie »

Giggidy wrote: Basically, a Safety Management System relies on self-reporting and non-punitive measures in order to be effective. If there is no guarantee of privacy / immunity for the individuals, departments and companies that self-report, an SMS becomes useless.
Non-punitive self-reporting pertains to individuals, not companies. This is a matter of public safety and public records pertaining to that safety should be freely available unredacted (with the exception of individual identities). Anything less kicks the door wide open for abuse of an already abused system by corporations which must not be protected by privacy where public safety is concerned.

SMS is not a "get out of jail free" card that protects a company from punitive action or exposure to the public.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Troubleshot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 12:00 pm

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Troubleshot »

justwork wrote:
leftoftrack wrote:Anyone remember WS got shut down.

It seems like the system worked here, There was a problem it got fixed.
If I remember correct Westjet volentarily suspended operations... My memory isn't what it used to be, I could be wrong.

Still I agree, there was a couple issues, they were fixed KCCO.

Close...it was more like Transport saying you go public with this or we will. WestJet had no choice but to shut down at that point due to AD's being accidently over flown and not tracked properly...that sort of thing. I'm pretty sure the inspections were getting done but the tracking system was a complete goat show.


As for Porter I didn't see any red flags when I was there, they seemed to want to do things the right way for the most part. On the Hangar floor in YTZ they lacked experience, but the supervisors/leads were pretty experienced so there was good guidance.
I don't get the feeling Porter was/is trying to hide anything, as mentioned in the article they didn't want to release info like this due to media and the like sensationalizing it.


I think any company carrying paying passengers would not want their TC audits released to the public. The public is just not educated enough to know the difference in paperwork error and a shady operator and will most likely draw the wrong conclusions.

TS
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Rockie »

Troubleshot wrote:I think any company carrying paying passengers would not want their TC audits released to the public.
No kidding - restaurants aren't keen on their health violations becoming public knowledge either. But I'll bet either one would gladly trot out a clean audit/inspection for all to see.
Troubleshot wrote:The public is just not educated enough to know the difference in paperwork error and a shady operator and will most likely draw the wrong conclusions.
You underestimate the intelligence of the public. Besides, any company being exposed for such things would have every right to answer media questions about it if they don't want the public to get the wrong idea.
---------- ADS -----------
 
True North
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by True North »

Rockie wrote:You underestimate the intelligence of the public.
Good one! :lol: :prayer: :smt038
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Rockie »

True North wrote:
Rockie wrote:You underestimate the intelligence of the public.
Good one! :lol: :prayer: :smt038
What's lacking is the ability to explain the simple differences between paperwork and shady operators which reflects poorly on us - not the public. Keeping information like this from them because we think they're too stupid to understand it smacks of arrogance.

Are we too stupid to understand rail or marine safety violations? How about construction industrial safety issues or restaurant health procedures? What makes us smarter than the rest of the public?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Mig29 »

Rockie wrote:
Giggidy wrote: Basically, a Safety Management System relies on self-reporting and non-punitive measures in order to be effective. If there is no guarantee of privacy / immunity for the individuals, departments and companies that self-report, an SMS becomes useless.
Non-punitive self-reporting pertains to individuals, not companies. This is a matter of public safety and public records pertaining to that safety should be freely available unredacted (with the exception of individual identities). Anything less kicks the door wide open for abuse of an already abused system by corporations which must not be protected by privacy where public safety is concerned.

SMS is not a "get out of jail free" card that protects a company from punitive action or exposure to the public.
I agree with you on this one 100% !
---------- ADS -----------
 
Valhalla
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Valhalla »

Rockie, you've missed the point. Regardless of what your opinion is of the effectiveness of SMS, it is mandated by Transport Canada, so that's the safety system that Porter must use. SMS will NEVER work if the individual SMS reports become public, as you seem to suggest aught to happen.

Rockie, maybe you can explain how, with public access to all airlines' SMS reports, an individual within that company can use SMS, as it was intended, to openly admit a personal error, or feel inclined to challenge an SOP or other policy without fear of turning the well intended SMS report into a company destroying media frenzy. For the individuals within a company to read and learn from each others mistakes, or challenge the system to improve the process, there needs to be a degree of confidentiality and trust.

Transport Canada does regularly audit Porter's SMS system, and it is full compliant with Transport Canada's standards of safety. That's really all anybody needs to know. If you don't trust Transport Canada's audits or oversight, then that is a different discussion than this news story about an SMS audit finding from 7 years ago.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Rockie »

Valhalla wrote:Rockie, you've missed the point. Regardless of what your opinion is of the effectiveness of SMS, it is mandated by Transport Canada, so that's the safety system that Porter must use. SMS will NEVER work if the individual SMS reports become public, as you seem to suggest aught to happen.
Valhalla wrote:Rockie, maybe you can explain how, with public access to all airlines' SMS reports, an individual within that company can use SMS, as it was intended, to openly admit a personal error, or feel inclined to challenge an SOP or other policy without fear of turning the well intended SMS report into a company destroying media frenzy.
To repeat, non-punitive self-reporting pertains to individuals reporting safety infractions or hazards to their company - it does not pertain to a company's safety record. Companies do not enjoy anonymity and are not entitled to privacy when it comes to public safety. The accountable executive is answerable to Transport Canada, who is in turn answerable to us - the public. TC is wildly overstepping their mandate by withholding non-personal, relevant safety information from the public they are charged with protecting and who ultimately are their boss.

With regards to SMS, not being a total idiot I was vaguely aware that operators in Canada are required to operate in accordance with it. However SMS without robust oversight (TC provides no oversight beyond paperwork) is not a safety system - it is a license for discreditable operators to get away with murder. Even good operators aren't above not reporting something they'd prefer not be known.
Valhalla wrote:Transport Canada does regularly audit Porter's SMS system, and it is full compliant with Transport Canada's standards of safety. That's really all anybody needs to know.
Sorry, YOU don't get to decide what the public does or does not need to know. Neither does Transport Canada when it comes to public safety. Unless something is classified for security reasons or cannot be released due to Canadian privacy laws then the government has no right to redact access to information requested documents.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by photofly »

Rockie wrote: Sorry, YOU don't get to decide what the public does or does not need to know. Neither does Transport Canada when it comes to public safety. Unless something is classified for security reasons or cannot be released due to Canadian privacy laws then the government has no right to redact access to information requested documents.
There are lots of reasons in law why the government can and sometimes must refuse to release information under the A2I act. Really - lots.

Section 20 of the Access to Information Act (my emphasis):
20. (1) Subject to this section, the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(a) trade secrets of a third party;
(b) financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party;
Exceptions to that prohibition on disclosure are as follows: (my emphasis, again)
(6) The head of a government institution may disclose all or part of a record requested under this Act that contains information described in any of paragraphs (1)(b) to (d)
(a)if the disclosure would be in the public interest as it relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment; and
(b) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain to a third party, any prejudice to the security of its structures, networks or systems, any prejudice to its competitive position or any interference with its contractual or other negotiations.
There's a balance between the public interest in public safety, and the financial loss and the prejudice to the competitive position of the airline. But note the balance must fall "clearly" on the side of the public interest outweighing the commercial interests of the third party. Whereas the government would argue that public disclosure of SMS reports will adversely affect public safety by destroying the utility of the SMS system.

Personally I think they'd be right.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
midwingcrisis
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:54 pm

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by midwingcrisis »

The CTA has no problem releasing information with need to redact. May not be in regards to public safety, but perhaps more to do with internal morals and ethics

https://forms.otc-cta.gc.ca/adjudicatio ... -03657.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
How do you go 205 kts TAS on 32 gal/hr without turbos!
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by photofly »

That's a link to a letter from a third party to the CTA. Nothing about it suggests it was written in confidence, nor does it appear to contain any confidential information. I don't see how publishing it violates the A2I Act in any way, if that's what you're suggesting. What is the relevance of that document?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by Rockie »

Photofly

Public safety trumps the commercial interests or privacy concerns of any company. Violations of government regulations by a private corporation involving the safety of the public cannot be held private for the financial interests of any company. I doubt you disagree with that.

Any company that has anything to hide in the safety end does not belong in a self-reporting system and should be subject to direct scrutiny by the civil servants charged with protecting the public.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Porter's past secret problems spark concerns... Globe &

Post by photofly »

Rockie wrote:Photofly

Public safety trumps the commercial interests or privacy concerns of any company. Violations of government regulations by a private corporation involving the safety of the public cannot be held private for the financial interests of any company. I doubt you disagree with that.
That's a nice try at putting words into my mouth, but, I'll pass over it.

The law says there's a balance between the public interest in public safety, and the commercial and competitive interests of a company. Where the public interest clearly favours disclosure, the relevant minister may disclose. Where it doesn't clearly favour - he or she may not. I think that's a very clear and sensible thing for the law to say.

Where the violations of government regulations are minor, have had no lasting impact on the safety of the public, steps have been taken to prevent repeats, and the public interest is deemed to be served best by a confidential reporting system which would be undermined by their disclosure - I don't think any right thinking individual would claim that the law permits that disclosure to take place.

If you don't like the law as it stands, it's your duty as a citizen to campaign against it and to try to elect a government that will change it.

Let me ask you this: in this instance how would public disclosure lead to improved public safety? What is the precise nexus between those two concepts? If you knew exactly which regulation Porter had violated in 2008 or whenever, how exactly would your safety be improved?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”