Safety Management System

Living_Sky · Post by **Living_Sky** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:17 pm

Bill C-45 will make it easier to prosecute re: an Occupational Health and Safety issue.

As presented by TC, the SMS seems to encompass Employee Health and Safety as well as operational safety, for the most part, they go hand in hand.

In other industries, charges have already been laid under C-45. When the first in aviation will occur could be anyones guess. The legislation is there... and no-one is exempt.

Re: TCCA's unjustifiable concerns... a portion of that is due to guesswork (on their part) and with a good SMS in place... some of that guesswork would be eliminated.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:18 pm

Let's not confuse some govertment bonehead's thinking with safety. SMS will make us no safer because, as Doc pointed out, it is just paper and can be fudged.

Pardon me for being sceptical but everytime the goddamn government comes up with some "great" idea they end up making a mess out of everything.

Industry needs to find a way to enact a reasonable check and balance system with TC. Therefore both sides (TC and Industry) would be regulated.

It can be done.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:26 pm

" Industry needs to find a way to enact a reasonable check and balance system with TC. Therefore both sides (TC and Industry) would be regulated.

It can be done. "

Of course it can.

And that is the only way it will work.

Like Doc said paper is for wiping your ass.

Living_Sky · Post by **Living_Sky** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:57 pm

There was a time I could have agreed with you all. But experience has taught me otherwise... When I see a drilling rig go from one of the most dangerous places to work... to the safest (2005 Stats) as the result of SMS, then I have no choice but to see the validity in it.

It could be that TC is not the organization to run it/implement it... but SMS is a benefit to all, and I haven't seen any industry associations step up to the plate.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:04 pm

Cat Driver wrote:Last Thursday I E-mailed both Mr. Potter and MS. Sauve of TC with some questions about this educating the TC employees on integrity etc.

Both of them are in the department that is supposed to explain to TC employees that integrity is part of their job description.

So far I have received no reply.

On December 6, 2006 I sent an email to TSB demanding an investigation for cause, and followed up on January 19th after receiving the TCCA inspection report. I have yet to receive a response.

On January 19th, I emailed the BC Minister of Transport Kevin Falcon. On January 21st I emailed Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transportation Infrastructures and Communities, Wayne Chapin TCCA Chief Operational Certification and Standards as well as Bohdin Goyaniuk TCCA Chief Continuing Airworthiness. Not so much as an acknowledgement has been received.

I did hear from the Canadian Transportation Agency's Enforcement Division - they advised me to get a good litigation lawyer.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:19 pm

Anybody who really thinks this industry needs more paperwork, dreams about sugar plum fairies at night!
I'll go so far as to say, I don't want a "team" of people looking out for me. I'll do it myself thank you.
Pilots will continue to die because they do stupid things. This will not stop with more paperwork. What we need is less TC involvement, not more. But, we've brought it on ourselves. Because we hide behind excuses. It's never the pilot's fault. It's all about "respect for the dead"?? Bullshit! This NOT a dangerous business. A complete idiot should be able to fly without the carnage we have had of late.

neilaroberts · Post by **neilaroberts** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:49 am

Everything from how I specialize my training, how we select our new aircraft, how we hire our employees, to our non-punitive reporting policy etc etc etc. It's held right up before the light, its how we shall conduct our business. It does not replace common sense in the cockpit, all it mandates in that regard is that you do have to exercise some serious judgement, you come back and tell me about it so we can learn something about it.

I really hate to repeat myself, but it IS what you make of it. It's coming, arguing about if it is useful does nothing for you. Your best option is to accept it, get on board, and make SMS work for you. We're lucky that it is so versatile right now. I'm at a point in my career where I can't dismiss this because I am not on the verge of retirement, so I am not going to spend the rest of my days fighting and being bitter about some system that can have my best interests in mind IF I MAKE IT SO.

In the mean time, I also have to remember all the stuff my 50 year old, bald-headed instructor told me, of course, that will keep me alive too!

I don't have 50 years of crash-free flying to report in my defense, but I am sure some of your friends who checked out early will say the same. I don't accept that, and that is not how I want to do business. Again, it's my job to make sure I don't attend anymore aviation funerals, and I'll employ every tool possible to my benefit, thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Neil

neilaroberts · Post by **neilaroberts** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:01 am

Doc wrote:Anybody who really thinks this industry needs more paperwork, dreams about sugar plum fairies at night!
I'll go so far as to say, I don't want a "team" of people looking out for me. I'll do it myself thank you.
Pilots will continue to die because they do stupid things. This will not stop with more paperwork. What we need is less TC involvement, not more. But, we've brought it on ourselves. Because we hide behind excuses. It's never the pilot's fault. It's all about "respect for the dead"?? Bullshit! This NOT a dangerous business. A complete idiot should be able to fly without the carnage we have had of late.

Doc, you don't need supervision, the guy that replaces you will though. A good pilot will use every tool available to him. SMS' goal is to give less TC involvement. I think you may be falling slightly short here. TC knows half its workforce will retire before 2010, they're not stupid. That may be part of the reason we're a couple steps ahead of most countries in implementing SMS. Unfortunately/fortunately, it's the right time whether we like it or not.

I could write an SMS manual on what you and Cat Driver know alone, and that's the funny part with you guys arguing about this. All the lessons that were so harshly learned from the more experienced, the things that aren't probably able to be covered in CARS approved training...You can gather that up in a proper SM system and make sure people are aware. Make sure management is aware...

I'm not going to convert you, you've been going about your job successfully for XX(X?) years. I just think a better understanding of the beast needs to be had.

Kind Regards,

Neil

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:18 am

neilaroberts wrote: It's coming, arguing about if it is useful does nothing for you. Your best option is to accept it, get on board, and make SMS work for you.

To just blindly accept it is a HUGE mistake where TC is concerned. I am all for accountable executives being accountable, don't get me wrong on that one.

I would say that SMS might result in more dangerous situations and possibly even more accidents. As Doc pointed out if the paper's all there then I guess everything's hunky dory right?

Also the whole sole purpose of SMS is to relieve TC of their RESPONSIBILITY to regulate. If they're regulating less do I get a tax break? I want a reasonable regulator, someone with thousands of hours who's worked in idustry and is not a fool. Like most of the C&B guys. People that you can ask a real opinion of and get a reasonable response.

Fill out more paper. Yeah, that's going to work just great.

neilaroberts · Post by **neilaroberts** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:40 am

marktheone wrote:
neilaroberts wrote: It's coming, arguing about if it is useful does nothing for you. Your best option is to accept it, get on board, and make SMS work for you.
To just blindly accept it is a HUGE mistake where TC is concerned. I am all for accountable executives being accountable, don't get me wrong on that one.

I would say that SMS might result in more dangerous situations and possibly even more accidents. As Doc pointed out if the paper's all there then I guess everything's hunky dory right?

I appreciate your point of view, and even agree with it.

You fill out weight and balance papers the same way. If your paperwork says you're fine, but you forgot to carry the ONE, everything is hunky dory? You are 100% correct in your observation.

The idea is to make the paperwork line up with the operation, like anything else. It's not that difficult, but it doesn't afford stupidity. If we're trying to make a system that affords stupidity, we should worry about the guys getting burned by the fryers at Mcdonalds, not aviation.

I haven't blindly accepted anything, I did my homework, read every manual in Canada and Internationally that I could find. I have made my own conclusion on what SMS can do for my organization. So too, you guys have the right to do.

I just question if all have been properly educated on it before they throw out blind resistance. Which is not directed at you, Mark. Just a general thought.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:52 am

I guess on these types of issues I am of the "old school". The very phrase SMS bothers me at the deepest level. "Safety management system". To me, system does not mean a bunch of paper. System means a flap system or fuel delivery or some other cut and dried mechanism that produces a result.

The bottom line is that, like them or not, if TC leaves regualtion up to an "SMS" we will have more accidents. I'm not a fan of government intervention in any of my business's however I think they are required in aviation. Whether or not they are doing their job effectively is a another whole discussion and not relevant here.

We are trained not to do anything stupid. Still, sometimes, we do. More paper won't stop that.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:16 am

Neilaroberts, man have you considered a position with the diplomatic corps?

neilaroberts · Post by **neilaroberts** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:47 am

Doc wrote:Neilaroberts, man have you considered a position with the diplomatic corps?

Well I could certainly use the money.

fatso · Post by **fatso** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:51 am

They still don't know what they want in sms for the small 703 operators,nor do half the tc inspectors I talked to believe in it.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:01 am

marktheone wrote:I guess on these types of issues I am of the "old school". The very phrase SMS bothers me at the deepest level. "Safety management system". To me, system does not mean a bunch of paper. System means a flap system or fuel delivery or some other cut and dried mechanism that produces a result.

The bottom line is that, like them or not, if TC leaves regualtion up to an "SMS" we will have more accidents. I'm not a fan of government intervention in any of my business's however I think they are required in aviation. Whether or not they are doing their job effectively is a another whole discussion and not relevant here.

We are trained not to do anything stupid. Still, sometimes, we do. More paper won't stop that.

I've heard "old school" rig workers say things like what do you need to be attached to a lanyard for? Just hold on tighter." Or "in my day we didn't stop for coffee breaks, there will be time to rest when your dead" or "what do you need a winch line for, just put out". SMS solved alot of these old school attitudes.

Living_Sky · Post by **Living_Sky** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:09 am

They still don't know what they want in sms for the small 703 operators,nor do half the tc inspectors I talked to believe in it.

Of course they don't... and furthur to comments made earlier about inspectors... and what they've had to say about SMS... its as new to them as it is to anyone else. The following is a direct quote from the Canada Labor Code...

All of the following acts, exclusions and regulations are related to part II of the Canada Labour Code and/or Occupational Health and Safety.
- Aviation Occupational Safety and Health Regulations

In defence of Transport Canada... the Canada Labor Code is dictating what has to be done... not TC. Take the time to read through both acts completely, and you will see that the act presented by TC has actually simplified things.

An aviation operator is an employer... and under the Canada Labor Code employers are REQUIRED to...

Inspect the workplace and document their findings

Meet specific reporting requirements

Ensure training criteria is met

and so on......

The entire Labor Code is available at...http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp? ... tml&hs=oxs

TC as much as anyone else has been 'forced' to deal with the labor codes and looking through both... I find Transport Canada's version easier to follow and bring into the workplace.

If not for TC, you would have some public servant from ottawa flashing his/her badge at your doorway and trying to make a name for themselves in the name of Canada Labor Codes. I would much rather it be TC than some blue haired patronage appointee with a background in postal service.[/list]

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:35 am

Living_sky, are you an ops mngr for a small to medium size operation(eg. a couple of Navajos, and maybe a turbo prop)just starting out? Or do you work for TC? You just seem to have so much time to devote to this.

Living_Sky · Post by **Living_Sky** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:17 am

No... I haven't owned any type of Ops since 2003. Even at that, it was a small operation. (Theres much more money in oil and gas.. LOL)

I am an Occupational Health and Safety professional, experienced in program development within the oil and gas industries, and currently contracted in the Municipal Government Sector.

Its seldom that I am able to indulge two passions in the same conversation... those being aviation and OH&S. (and you are right, I am devoting a fair amount of time to this... please don't alert my boss)

The odd thing is... I've seen these exact (EXACT) arguments before in different industries exposed to the implementation of SMS. The oil patch in fact is one i'm most familiar with... when SMS was brought in... the exact words... the exact concerns... the exact arguments were voiced. Rather than Transport Canada... it was the EUB that were seen as grabbing the industry by the balls - no matter... it was the same argument.

Everyone on this thread is arguing the paperwork and the dilusion of control being placed on industry by TC. Looking back on the oil industry, I have had several Tool Pushes (rig managers) actually tell me the paperwork has become less as the result of SMS in their industry. In so far as comments re: control by TC... nothing could be furthur from the truth... Yes this is presented by TC on behalf of the industry... but the roots come from Bill C-45 (an ammendment to the Canada Labor Code)

Having read through both... I can assure you... TC has done everything possible to reduce the impact. Like I said earlier... you don't want some donut eating blue haired Canada Post retiree knocking on your door in the name of Canada Labor. Although you may have to argue with TC... at least you can argue with them!

And finally... no... don't work for, nor ever have worked for TC.

....... · Post by **.......** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:24 am

deleted