703 safety concerns; Let's find solutions

[Airtids]

According to TCDGCA Merlin Preuss, Transport Canada is going on a "witch-hunt" of sorts in the Pacific Region to try and bring the number of accidents, especially fatal ones, in the 703 sector under control. To that end, I thought it might be time to put the question to those who think they know aviation best: The know-it-alls here at Avcanada. There's enough bitching and whining that goes on here about all that is evil, what I'm asking is for just a little bit of effort to take the next logical step and think these issues through to develop some solutions. There are no wrong answers here. Don't downplay one contributor's suggestions unless, at the very least, you can come up with a solution of your own. Keep it civil and we won't have to move this to the Known Users forum .

Marktheone among others has hit on what I feel to be one of the biggest issues at play: As long as the public thinks it makes sense to fly from Toronto to Vancouver for $120, or contractors continue to choose the low-bid for their cargo services, etc., we are done for because there will always be some company out there that thinks they can make it work, until something unforeseen happens, and then they're behind the power-curve making sacrifices like crazy in a fruitless attempt to catch up. Eventually, however, something's gotta give because with increasing competition the margins just become too tight to pay for things like safety, experience, etc., and the competition is always fierce. What gives are wages, maintenance, training... the list goes on. This scenario affects 705 just as much as it does 703, and it is happening daily right now. Question becomes, how do we change this? We are talking about the ability to manipulate market forces- no small undertaking (uhhh, sorry ).

Here's my solution: The operators are at the mercy of the market, so we can't rely on them to do what is right, for the most part (there's the odd, ethical operator that says NO and struggles along ). There is only ONE group who has the power, and the responsibilty to make sure things are right, and that group is the pilots. Unfortunately, TC has not given the pilots the tools to do their job (say NO to unsafe conditions) without risk of reprisal from their employer. Therein lies the problem: The only group who actually CAN (and is supposed to, let's not forget that boys and girls) do something about the situation, won't, and for good reason. We need to give the ability to make changes that will result in improved conditions back to those who are most affected by it. How do we do that? Bear with me here, but I think SMS may be the key, provided it is implemented properly, and includes TC (as the regulator/enforcer).

SMS (Safety Management System) is supposed to be an internal company system designed to address safety concerns in a proactive manner. One of the tenets of SMS is the Hazard Report Form. If a Pilot (or rampie, or engineer, or secretary...) sees something that they perceive to be a threat to safety, they fill out a Hazard Report form, and give it to the Company Aviation Safety Officer (CASO). That issue is then addressed at the next (bi-weekly?) Safety Meeting, and a solution to the problem is found, and then re-assessed. Very effective if done properly. Unfortunately, this is not mandated for 703 operations at this time (some like ours have instituted it anyways, because we think it's a good idea). One of the downfalls of this system, however, is that there is no TC component to ensure that the Company plays by the rules. Perhaps a Hazard Report form in triplicate (Pilot, CASO, TC) could become the tool the pilots need to take control of the situation again. Anyone see where I'm going here?

This is how it works: Pilot Johnny notices he has an unserviceable fuel quantity gauge. In the old days, you snag it, and you get fired. New system: You snag it, and file a Hazard Report form to CASO and also to TC, keeping a copy for yourself. This is to ensure that the CASO actually does his/her job. Now let's see the boss fire you!! What happens, is the snag gets fixed, the margin on the bag-run shrinks a little bit more, until eventually the operator sees the reality that they can't offer the work for that low a price, and they either get out of the business which hardens the market for the contractor (read: higher rates and therfore more money to the others who are still in the business to spend on the wages for more experienced crews/maintenance/training that their pilots are forcing them to do), or, they demand more money for their services (which pays for the wages for more experienced crews/maintenance/ training ). The same scenario plays out be it SPIFR ops into sketchy NDB airports, demands for flying over gross, whatever.

If the company tries to fire you, TC already has a record of the report you filed, and it would simply be too easy to see the connection between reports getting filed, and those filing them suddenly getting canned, whatever reason the company wants to give for dismissal. Besides, if it's a legit snag, it would have to get fixed anyways, fired or not. It would also be plain to TC when a pilot is filing mickey mouse reports that go unresolved. This all gets addressed at the annual base inspection.

Ultimately, what this will result in is a tool for pilots to use to force the operators to do what is right, and demand the customers to pay a rate that is realistic. Granted, there are a whole lot of issues that would need to be ironed out, but I think it might be a start. We can all (owners included) fly better equipment, and get paid a real wage to do it.

Whattaya think?

[Bede]

cpl_atc,

Keep in mind that restricting the market always will the industry. If pries do go up, less people will fly and reduce revenue, further reducing companies. Like Airtids said, I believe pilots must ensure that they continually fly safey and refuse to fly in dangerous conditions.

[W0X0F]

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:43 pm    Post subject: 703 safety concerns; Let's find solutions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to TCDGCA Merlin Preuss, Transport Canada is going on a "witch-hunt" of sorts in the Pacific Region to try and bring the number of accidents, especially fatal ones, in the 703 sector under control.

Witch Brooms are single seat craft and therefore if used in a commercial service would likely fall under 702. Have you ever seen a witch with a passanger?

Seriously, for our industry to improve it will have to come from within. To try to legislate or regulate away poor operations is doomed to fail. Until there is a fundemental change in aviation, there will always be operators that try to do the minimum required to keep an OC and they will have young pilots climbing all over themselves for that first break into the industry.

The only way out of this cycle that I can see is if we dump the Feds (Transport Canada) and self regulate like other professions. Implement a code of ethics and allow only those who strive for the highest standards in. This would level the playing field for all and promote greater safety.

Doing things right is not achieved by having a regulation and an enforcer for every task. It begins with an attitude and those that seek to get by by the lowest standards need to be weeded out. They do not have the moral or ethical fortitude to be in the industry. Only the industry itself can enforce such behaviour onto itself. A code of conduct and/or ethics is all encompassing. To comply one would need to be proactive in all areas of operations.

The current system promotes a reactive course. More and more regulation, another form to complete so that on audit, compliance can be proven, and the TC minions can cover their backsides. It's endless, creates a huge bureaucracy, and is weak at promoting safety and even-footed competition.

[CID]

As long as the public thinks it makes sense to fly from Toronto to Vancouver for $120, or contractors continue to choose the low-bid for their cargo services, etc., we are done for because there will always be some company out there that thinks they can make it work, until something unforeseen happens…

It certainly DOES make sense to fly from Toronto to Vancouver for $120. You can’t open a discussion up about 703 by referring to a 705 practice. Airlines have long used a complex fare system that reserves portions of the available seats for discount prices. The closer to flight time you book, the more expensive the fare. Airlines can do this because of volume. 703 operators really can’t do it so if you consider the new “discount” airline structure, it will usually cost you more to fly between Vancouver and Victoria than it will to fly between Vancouver and Winnipeg. (Toronto is a bit more)

This scenario affects 705 just as much as it does 703, and it is happening daily right now

I agree that 705 is sick too. But not from the same source as the 703 illness. In the Canadian 705 world, all the problems come from one place: Air Canada. They have had the upper hand in this industry for decades and they use it to full advantage to screw over anyone who threatens their monopoly.

There is only ONE group who has the power, and the responsibility to make sure things are right, and that group is the pilots.

Wrong. How many pilots actually know if their airplane is not airworthy? Do they know that the C of A is valid? Do they know if there are any outstanding Airworthiness Directives? Did those PA-31 pilots know that the oil filter gasket was not airworthy? The pilot group is only a link in the chain.

Pilot Johnny notices he has an unserviceable fuel quantity gauge. In the old days, you snag it, and you get fired. New system: You snag it, and file a Hazard Report form to CASO and also to TC, keeping a copy for yourself. This is to ensure that the CASO actually does his/her job. Now let's see the boss fire you!!

And what exactly do you think this incredible flood of paperwork will do? And who will manage it and where will it end up? The key is not more paperwork. The key is to root out the slimy operators. Unfortunately, when an operator fires someone for trying to be safe, there are a dozen idiots in line to take over. The answer is not more bureaucracy . The answer is education. The PRM, DOM, CP and the rest of the executives should be assessed from an SMS and HR perspective BEFORE they are allowed to operate.

In my opinion, the average slimy operator is a victim of poor education. I don’t think there are many people out there who wish harm on their pilots and passengers. They don’t bypass the rules because they think a fatal accident once in awhile is OK. They do it because they think they know better than the people who wrote the rules.

I see examples of this behavior every day and its rampant on this forum. If you want a better industry, then find ways to work WITH the regulator, not AROUND the regulator. Educate yourself, don’t isolate yourself. If the glove does not fit, you must acquit. (Strike that last one)

[55+]

Heard the other day that direction has come down from the adults at TC-CYOW effective 2007, they(TC) will be out of the "ride" business period and everything will be conducted by the industry, that also goes for all auditing as well

[marktheone]

WOW, CID, I agree with you. The 705 sickness trickles down though and I believe that it originates at the same place as 703. I just (5 minutes) finished a meeting with one the biggest courier companies. They are now willing to pay for service here on the west coast. I told him that we are not here to subsidize his business and we WILL make money or we will stop. In return for us doing OK he will get on time excellent service, everytime. That is the second large courier company that has bought into this business model. If we want someone to blame it on blame it on ourselves. TC is not making us fly to lose money. We choose to do that. It's simple. Pay the drivers, fix the airplanes, figure out what that costs and add 20% for your investment. There's the price to go from A to B. It's no more difficult to understand than any other business. If the pilots are happy and feel that they are part of something suddenly the snag lists go down and small things can wait until maintenance.

People will pay to fly. CID if seat revenues go down because of a hike in prices to reach profitability then you don't want those seats filled anyways. Reduce the number of flights to make the airplane full at a profit margin. Why pay to fly people around? It's supposed to be the other way around.

My 0.00002Cents US.

[mduffy]

Like others have said, I believe that pilots are the last check in the safety line. It really is up to us to say No - and that's what we get paid for (Both monkeys and autopilots can fly).

What we need to do is reduce the pressures that make good pilots make bad decisions. What are those pressures? Ultimately only one thing - too many pilots. We need to reduce pilot supply. As soon as you can turn down a shady operator - and know a good job will soon come - things will get safer. When you can turn down a flight, or a heavy load of cargo, and know you won't be penalized - our passengers will be safer.

And yes... prices will go up. Fewer people will fly. Fewer jobs will be available. BUT - they'll be good jobs in a safe industry. SUSTAINABILITY is what is important. Let's make a LIVING, not a pay cheque!

[trey kule]

WOXOF wrote:

Have you ever seen a witch with a passanger?

Have you seen my ex-wife with anyone?

[oldtimer]

Ihave to agree with most that the problem is deep within the industry and more bureaucracy, more regulations, more monitoring and more paperwork will do little to solve the problem.
I almost want to bite my tongue for saying it but just look at the American (and Asian and European) auto industry. Autos in the '60's and '70's were unsafe. Auto manufacturers said safety does not sell. Along came Ralph Nader and everyone was thinking safety, including the tort lawyers. All of a sudden, it became economical and a financial necessity to make autos safer, which is what we have today.
To get pilot involvement is a totally useless exercise. Just look at how many young and virtually indestructable young hamburger flippers there are out there with $50,000 student loans outstanding, just ready to jump at the first chance to get a flying job.
Now, if the likes of Mr. Gill were to face the posibility of a multi million dollar lawsuit, would he think differently. If the courier company and the banks were also held culpable, do you think they might want to protect their deep pockets?
It worked for automobiles, it works for large organizations who are now very safety concious, it works for many people who are putting peoples lives in jeopardy.
What about the pizza company who said the pizza in 30 minutes or it's free, which caused the poor delivery boy, the one held financially responsible for the cold pizza, to drive excessivly fast, involving him in a fatal accident. Sue the young lad and you get nothing because he had nothing, but sue the deep pockets of the pizza chain and the CEO takes notice. Now, you wait more than 30 minutes and all you get is cold pizza.
If the CEO of the Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, the Royal Bank, CIBC, Toronto Dominion and the Credit Unions had to bankroll Mr. Air Operators lawsuit, do you think they might be more careful in their selection of a contractor.
IMHO.

[Bede]

I totally agree with WOXOF, pilots should start thinking about self-regulation. Similar to a PEng, or a member of the College of Teachers. If you do something dumb, you're own will make sure you change your ways.

[Louis]

Hello,

I looked into this whole concept of self-regulation some time ago, and one of the problems was that it seemed all the laws relating to professionnal corporations under provincial jurisdiction, while our job is covered by the federal Canadian Labor Code. Any legal counsel here able to give us more precise information?

So we're pretty much stuck in a huge legal void and would have to pass some law enabling the creation of a nationwide, mandatory-membership professionnal corporation... Which is no small tasks to begin with, and then we have do the actual set up.

I like the idea nonetheless, but it will take some very dedicated and selfless people to see such a corporation appear.

Goodbye,

Louis

[Cat Driver]

The power already exists in the chief pilots.

Bring the chief pilots into a organization where they self regulate the industry by ensuring the rules are followed and there is the answer.

Rouge chief pilots would be brought before a tribunal of their peers and if found incompetent kicked out of the organization.

Without a chief pilot a company is hooped.

And I'm betting not many companies would want to be identified as having a rouge chief pilot.

Cat

[...]

The power already exists in the chief pilots.

Bring the chief pilots into a organization where they self regulate the industry by ensuring the rules are followed and there is the answer.

Rouge chief pilots would be brought before a tribunal of their peers and if found incompetent kicked out of the organization.

Without a chief pilot a company is hooped.

And I'm betting not many companies would want to be identified as having a rouge chief pilot.

Cat

What he said.

Seems like anyone in management are not being able exercise independent thought based on good judgment and morals. Seems like the trend of past has been to have a pansy to fall back on. When the shit hits the fan everyone walks away from this person.

[Dockjock]

1.
I agree with WOXOF, we need to self regulate, as pilots. The "college of pilots" or "pilots bar association" should become the commercial and ATPL granting entity in Canada. TC and local flight schools and what have you can issue all the recreational and private licenses they wish, but to become a professional and therefore work in the industry you should have to abide by a professional code of ethics as set out by a professional organization.

2.
The job of operations manager and chief pilot should be arms length positions. No owners or part owners should be able to hold this position. Not permanently, not temporarily until "someone suitable" is found. It is the ultimate conflict of interest, in my opinion, to have the person accountable for safety also be the person most concerned with the bottom line. If this means the end of the 1 or 2 plane charter outfit where the owner is the ops man, chief pilot, line pilot, csa, charter saleman, crew scheduler, rampie, fueller, and accountant so be it. Perhaps this type of operation wasn't meant to be anyway, if safety is to be the first and foremost consideration for an air operator.

[tailgunner]

This is a very interesting topic, but one that is only scratching the surface of the issues. If one were to examine other industries and professions one would quickly see the difference between aviation and other professions. That difference is the basic level of education/standards and admittance into the profession. That is, as pilots we can earn our AA's with little study, and some time in the log book, while other professions only allow you to work after passing the requisite standards. Law, Engineering, Teaching, Dentistry, Pharmacy Accounting, etc.....all require the candidate to prove their level of knowledge, ethics, standards, and commitment before being allowed to work independently, or at least to charge the top rates for their work. I see this as an issue because, quite frankly, aviation is full of people who really have no business being in the front end of any fast moving vehicle, nor with people's lives in their hands. I strongly advocate that we change the way we do things in aviation. First , I believe that in order to earn the AA's one should be required to have courses in Management, Physics, Mathematics, Met. , etc. If this takes a year or more, so be it. These courses probably have nothing to do with making you a better "hands and feet" pilot, but rather a more well educated and well rounded individual . The outcome of having a high education standard for the AA's means that there now a basic standard for any pilot earning their AA's. With this exclusivity comes the ability to call ourselves a true professional career, like an engineer, or accountant. Earning your AA's means to others that indeed you have jumped through the hoops, you have a real base of knowledge and have joined into the professional ranks.
Secondly, I think that the senior commercial license should be created. This would represent a high level of skill, without the requisite education/testing of the newly created AA license. A senior commercial would allow for experienced crews to fly aircraft , and perhaps applications that the AA would not be needed. For example, to crew an A340 the AA license is required, but a C215 doing summer bombing work needs the senior commercial to act as captain. No Management, accounting courses for them, only the hands on experience necessary to keep doing the fine job that these crews do. Anyways, just my 2 cents.

[Cat Driver]

There was a senior Comercial license back up until around 1970.

[Over the Horn]

The real problem in regards to wages is the glut of 200hr wonder pilots willing to work for free, my solution is to increase the minimum time required before you are allowed to instruct if the hrs required for the instructor licence were raised to 1500-2000min hrs it would drive wages up for instructors then driving the price of the pilots licence up then driving the cost of the licence up this in turn would slow the puppy mill flight schools that promise a 747 to every idiot that will believe them, increasing wages for all sectors of aviation and a by product of this would be better trained pilots by people that have experiance in the industry, a 500hr pilot really has little to offer a student as for real world experiance.

I believe that in order to earn the AA's one should be required to have courses in Management, Physics, Mathematics, Met. , etc. If this takes a year or more, so be it. These courses probably have nothing to do with making you a better "hands and feet" pilot, but rather a more well educated and well rounded individual . The outcome of having a high education standard for the AA's means that there now a basic standard for any pilot earning their AA's. With this exclusivity comes the ability to call ourselves a true professional career, like an engineer, or accountant

.


Before we get high on ourselves (not that I want to get into a pissing mach with tailgunner, thats not what this is about)I think we have to remember aviation is a blue collar career, pre requsites for a licence of college courses would limit alot of great pilots ( I know alot that don't have post sec. education that would never work for the like of rxx air or other scab labor companys), decision making is not based on education in the normal sense but more on the experiance and pressure the pilot has (I've seen pilots educated and un-educated make poor decisions) a pilot making less than minimum wage and working at McDonalds part time trying to get ahead is less likely to refuse a flight into poor weather or in a unsafe aircraft, when the rent is due and your faced with the street or fly, unfortunately to many people try to live the dream even if it kills them, the aviation dream is the biggest problem with the industry, all the puppy mills sell the dream job airline capt. making $150000 a year working 3 day's a month, when facing eviction from you apartment that dream will cause you to do alot of stupid things, maybe the solution doesn't lie with T.C. but the labor board, minimum monthly wages should be set for pilots as per type of operation along with out-lawing paying for training or to work. Another solution would be to bring WCB into the loop if an aircraft is unsafe or an operator pushes unsafe work practices it would be a workplace hazard in my mind ( a few good stiff fines to the employer might make them think twice about pushing shitty weather and crappy equip.), thats my 2 cents take it for what its worth but something has to be done to many people have died in this industry for us to continue and sit by with our thumbs up are asses!

[CD]

Another solution would be to bring WCB into the loop if an aircraft is unsafe or an operator pushes unsafe work practices it would be a workplace hazard in my mind ( a few good stiff fines to the employer might make them think twice about pushing shitty weather and crappy equip.)

TP 13537 - Right to Refuse Dangerous Work on Board Aircraft While in Operation

[Bede]

1.
I agree with WOXOF, we need to self regulate, as pilots. The "college of pilots" or "pilots bar association"

Pilot's Bar Association? WOuld that be like a drinking club for aviators?? Do we need more of that??

I agree with Dockjock. It is important to have CP's that actually have power, rather than just another pilot.

It is tough though to always have a CP/Ops Man with no financial interest. In a small company (5 pilots perhaps), this would simiply be unfeasable.

[Dockjock]

Nice

I think education must be a part of it, too. There would be resistence from those who did it "their way" without going to college or uni, and I agree there are many who are fine pilots, great pilots. All current commercial and ATPL license holders would have to be grandfathered in. But you can't raise standards without actually making the hard decisions to raise standards! Higher standards, by default, mean more people would be excluded from the profession. Too bad. You can't have your professional cake and eat it too (ie. no education). There should also be a continuing education component to keeping your license current, above and beyond annual sim.
As opposed to bringing back the 'senior commercial' license, I propose eliminating the commercial license altogether. There would be ATPL, and the fATPL (frozen ATPL) like in Europe. fATPL holders are essentially those who have met all the educational, exam, and training requirements for the license, but have yet to gain the practical experience necessary- the hours.
To raise standards, we have to make those tough, unpopular decisions that end up excluding a lot of people. Not by socio-economic status, but by skill, knowledge, and competency. You should have to have at least 2-3 yrs of post secondary education to hold an ATPL. That's my view.

[Flying Low]

To raise standards, we have to make those tough, unpopular decisions that end up excluding a lot of people. Not by socio-economic status, but by skill, knowledge, and competency. You should have to have at least 2-3 yrs of post secondary education to hold an ATPL.

Raising standards is one thing...raising standards arbitrarily is just silly. Why on earth would you require post secondary education for a pilots licence? I would understand if you wanted to increase the required knowledge level by making our ATPL more like the European version (I think they have 14 exams). At least this would be applicable knowledge.

I have seen way too many graduates of University and College programs that can't write a literate or grammatically correct report without the help of a computer or do basic math without a calculator.

Yes...you may consider this resistance from a pilot who did it "his way". I have my Grade 12 and half of my Grade 13 credits from Ontario (back when Grade 13 still existed). I did all my flying at private clubs and still got marks in the 90's on my INRAT and ATPL's. During my flying career I have been selective about who I worked for and as such it has taken me longer than most to get where I am. While not flying I have managed to learn enough applied knowledge that I can frame walls and wire and plumb a house on my own (no I don't have the papers but I can pretty much renovate my own house from the stud walls up). I have also taught myself some basic computer skills so I can set up a home network, etc.

The requirement for a piece of paper (diploma, degree) on the wall that is not distinctly aviation related is strictly a status symbol and really means nothing at all except to make a "class" distinction.

I have no arguement with those that decide to get a degree or diploma in a non aviation subject, in fact, I think expanding your knowledge is a great thing. Just remember that there are more ways to expand your knowledge and learning capabilities.

[carholme]

Gentlemen;

After 40 years in aviation, both helicopters and fixed wing I know that I have tried to do my best in my job as a mechanic and a person in terms of safety and it's application. I believe in a regulatory system but certainly one that is designed for the end user. 703 operators are subject to a hand me down version of 705 which has been cut, chopped and wordified to make it suit 703. I don't believe any thought was given to 703 as a separate operation from 705, yet despite the opinion of some, it does form a very large part of Canadian Aviation. It generally does not have the shareholder support of 705, is in many cases in remote operating areas, is difficult to attract people to many of these areas and yet is a large supplier of the people who gravitate to the 705 ops. It is here that they learn their various skillsets and experiences to take them forward.
In that 703 is burdened with a chopped version of 705CARS, we have done our best to learn and exist within the framework. The existing system can be construed as quite logical and my hope is that TC would accept the fact that you either meet the standard or you don't. All of the independent interpretations of policy manuals, CBACs etc., should be given no consideration. CARS is the system and until policy and other changes to be are embodied in CARS, I for one do not want to hear 4 different inspectors interpretation of what something may or may not mean. In our operation, we have pared our manuals down to the logic of CARS so that we can answer if we do or do not meet the standard. You simply do or do not, there is no interpretation.

The old story of "Put your Money Where Your Mouth Is" applies to us. We, my partner (pilot) and I (mechanic) had both seen shabby operations and aircraft and felt that there was a better way to do things. So we set out to do that and bought an aircraft to fit the market we were going after. We spent the first 7 months overhauling the aircraft, new panel and overhauled instruments, new interior, engines, wiring, exterior, etc., etc.

The first summer was a financial disaster as we had to pay for our sins of daring to enter the market but for the flying we did, we rec'd many very good responses about the aircraft and our service, enough to make us stay in for the second season. In that season, we were fortunate to be asked to provide a pax/freight service to one of the lodge/camp operators in our area. He was also the owner of a privately registered aircraft.
We went to great lengths to lay out our operational control what we could and would not do. This of course focused a great deal on the gross weight of the aircraft. We tell everybody up front what we will be able to carry under given conditions and that we will not overload the aircraft.
We no sooner started flying and the whining started, mainly that we were not carrying the same loads as the other operators. We weighed everything that was loaded onto the a/c and it was reduced as neccessary for CofG, Detc., to stay within the limits. We were informed that this a/c had carried overloads for thirty years without a problem. Mind you, he would have been ten years old, thirty years ago.
We tried diplomatically over the summer to keep things going but we were allowed to do mainly the short haul flights. The lucrative, long flights to the north were given to another operator, who willingly loaded anything that was lying on the dock with little effort given to weighing anything.
Our season finally ended when preparing to depart his dock with a legal load, he informed us that if we did not start to carry extra, we were through. It only took us the time to start the engines to make up our minds. It was very difficult to see our revenue disappear like that but we were not going to sacrifice our standard and hurt the a/c or the pax.

Was anybody out there to help us level the playing field and assure a competitive market where we all abided by the rules? Yes. Was anything done about it? No. Do I feel it will improve? No, not in the near future.
However, we were villified in the streets of the community by pilots who did inform us that they knew our a/c could carry more than the legal load.
After 40 plus years in this business, we know that but that is still not the way we want to operate.

Who knows, some of you writing and expounding in these forums may be some of the same ones who were flying those overgross a/c in competition to us, while the regulatory agency stood and watched. Is it worth trying to do it the right way, investing your money and effort to do it properly and be undercut by the slimey operators as CID puts it?
Can we afford to acquire another aircraft, increase the crew requirements and pay them a decent wage. Try it and see. In a perfect world, service and good equipment should be your mainstay but it is not a perfect world and it definitely has imperfect enforcement.

We belong to an association of operators in our area and when we presented topics for discussion at the annual meeting, we were met with a blank stare. After all, the other members are operators and in many cases are not at all interested in any discussions which may show just how they are operating.

So we can assure you CID that not all 703 operators are slimey and it has proven a lot more difficult to abide than not but that is our choice. Will we survive, we don't know but would like to get to a position where we have a few good clients who understand safety and it's costs and are willing to pay for it. But there will always be the guy who comes along and offers to carry greater loads, doesn't record engine operating hours and many other ways to defeat the goal of a safe and reliable industry.

Regards

carholme

[Dockjock]

carholme, you have your integrity intact, and (I hope) a perfect safety record to match.

In a self regulated industry, the competition's pilots would have felt ethically bound to the professional standards set out by the organization they (and we all) would, theoretically, be a part of. If one witnesses an ethical breach on the part of another pilot, it could be reported and investigated. Financial battles should be fought in the boardroom between owners. Not by line pilots out on the dock, competing to show who can cram the most 2-4's into their Beaver to impress the customer. That is BS, it's unsafe, and everyone who has done it and still does it knows it, regardless of the number of times they've gotten away with it.

In response to Flying Low,
There is no doubt the job can be done by just about anyone with good hand-eye coordination. Learning integrals or balance sheets or kinematic equations doesn't directly relate to physically pushing and pulling a stick in an airplane. But education is time well spent, as well as an organic way of limiting the supply of pilots on the market. Raising flight training rates, legislating the number of pilot licenses, or otherwise artificially restricting supply is unnecessary and not market driven.

Using your line of thought, the perfect way of addressing our doctor shortage would be to reduce medical school from 8 yrs down to high school, 200 hrs of practical experience, and 2 exams. Bingo, shortage solved. Do you see the problem with this??!?!

[carholme]

Dockjock and other pilots supporting the organization proposal.

Where were all of you and your ethical reporting standards when we had our difficulties? Why do you need a new organization to do the right thing?How many of you are doing the right thing this very day?

If as some of you seem to be, so damned concerned about what is happening, what are you doing about it today? There is a regulatory agency you can talk to. Of course that may put your name out there for all to see but does that matter if you feel so strongly about 703 Safety and what you claim to see happening in the industry? If you want to have good operators you can fly for and make some decent money, what are you doing to see that it can happen?

I apologize if this may seem arrogant in any way but if you "talk the talk", you have to "walk the walk".

As well, in reference to Dockjock's hope for our perfect safety record, we are not supportive of the word "perfect". God willing that we all have one but it must be the investment and company culture that promotes an attitude of education, trying daily to do the right thing, and an in-house openess that allows for people to feel that admitting a mistake is not for personal blame, rather for the good of us all.

carholme

[wrenchingirl]

Transport made a presentation at the Ontario AME conference in Thunderbay, about a Safety Management System that would be implemented in the next couple of years. The plan is to ditch the old audit system. Each year they would require air operators to submit a report of all incidents or staff safety complaints and a description of what the company did to rectify the situation and prevent future mishaps. The company would be responsible to make sure all employees adhered to and understood procedures. This would be backed up by a TC inspecter interviewing employees at random. There would be no fines if the company took the required steps to rectify the situation. Im not sure if this is still in the works.. But here is a link to a SMS guide by TC, it has many interesting points. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... script.htm