Petition for Judicial Inquiry Presented in the HoC

[Sidebar]

For the current fiscal year, 2009-10, they have 1876 full-time equivalents (people), and $241 million.

Does that include, or not include, the 110 or so positions vacant about a week ago?

Not sure. The numbers I quoted are taken directly from TC's web site. Check the links I posted for further details.

[Michael YVR]

Some engineering point of view:

In a few perspectives, the April 24 near-miss within the Vancouver ACC airspace can be correlated to the "Airline safety among best in world: study" that Nav Canada had published the week before (April 15).

• For instance, about human factor: The efforts controllers make to compensating system dysfunctions are going closer to human limits. Nav Canada denying reality can have increased controller stress and cause like a saturation syndrome.

Safety is not a matter of attitude. That is the result of sustained efforts and continuous improvements.
Nav Canada is not used to address safety issues until they are upon them, leaving with very little real choice on what should be done.

With risks of deficiencies looming, Canadian aviation rules and engineering must respond in the most responsible, efficient and accurate manner.

Immediate priorities are as follows:

A: In Canada, Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) must be mandatory.

• It's only US and Europe regulations that force Canadian planes flying into those countries to have the TCAS technology installed.

B: An independent CAATS safety assessment is necessary and mandatory.

• Nav Canada is continuously under estimating the safety risks which are due to the ATM operations’ constraints, limitations and deficiencies. Such reactive approach, which has already accumulated too much stress on systems, is drastically increasing delays, costs and risks.

C: Air Traffic Controllers’ resources must be increased and supports drastically improved.

• Nav Canada is negotiating CAATS operational deficiencies with the CATCA controllers union like if it were a grief. Design advices or recommendations from engineers are too often denied or misunderstood. As a result, depending on the operational context, too many manual procedures are required to handling the known dysfunctions. The risk of error these procedures implies is causing too much stress and fatigue.

One of the immediate problems is not just about the air traffic surges that Vancouver 2010 might expect. Problems are also about the addition of non-periodic flights, and the additional stress that non usual traffic scenarios would imply over the procedural routines and the CAATS deficiencies.

[mattedfred]

i think the three most important points to discuss are communication, expectation and motivation. if any of the interested parties fail to consider any of these points when they are dealing with each other then the system breaks down. more specifically, if any interested party is either disingenuous or disregards either point then the system breaks down.

are all parties able to communicate?

are all parties aware of the expectations of every other party?

what are the motivations of each party?

if one is not communicating, one party is not aware of anothers expectations and one is not motivated for the same reasons as the other parties then the system breaks down.

in other words, we all have to be on the same page and we clearly aren't.

one can not always assume that every aircraft operator in canada will be approach each point the same way. risk is a very subjective term. one persons risk could be another persons normal operations.

so the question remains; how does one deal with these three points effectively?

[Michael YVR]

Thank you Fred, as usual, that always the forth point which matters, and you make it.
The 3 first priorities are about motivations: the long overdue problems to resolve.
The 4th point is about solutions: how to make that kind of things to get the things done.
The 5th point is about taking chances if no solution is reacheable, but deficiencies.

D: Establishing communication, expectation and dertermining responsibilities
This point is not about engineering, it is about people.
Engineering is not what any one would understand but what any one would benefit.
It’s amazing how just Vancouver gets organized. People, who yesterday didn’t know what they are able to do, are realising great things. None was pretending having the solutions. But they are finding solutions. They won’t say ‘we can’ but ‘we must’. And it works… That’s not magic. They knew for a long time what is coming, what that involves, and all what they have to do is: to get ready. [/list]

E: Making bets on what the next problem will be.

• For instance: How to better bury the aviation safety: The Transport Canada’ Safety Management Systems brand new policies and regulations.

Better not to take any chance, but make engineering solutions to accurately perceive, evaluate and process variations, deviations, constraints and resilience in term of compliance, accurate or acceptable responses, sustainability, stability, non-saturation and no breakdown.

[Widow]

Yesterday, Christine Collins of the UCTE testified to the Standing Committee on Finance.

During her presentation, she stated that there are currently 130 vacancies out of the 871 funded inspector positions at Transport Canada. She stated that Transport Canada estimates indicate an expected budget reduction for safety and security of 12.5% this fiscal year and 12.3% next fiscal year. She stated that pay inequities of 25% between AOs (pilot inspectors) and TIs (non-pilot inspectors) are detrimental, especially when compounded by a TI having a supervisory role over AOs.

She indicated Transport Canada's method of SMS implementation is at the root of these issues, which are seriously affecting public safety.

She recommends that the 130 already funded positions be filled immediately and that the air safety and security budget be increased by 10%, at a cost of about 60M annually.

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/Content ... ityId=5207

Ms. Collins presentation starts at about 1hr. 44. minutes in.

[CD]

It was an interesting presentation... However, as this was a presentation to the Finance Committee, I suspect that it has more to do with the classification for the occupational groups of government employees than an overriding concern for safety. The difference in pay between the two groups, Aircraft Operations (AO) and Technical Inspection Group (TI), has been a contentious issue for many, many years.

The government has recently indicated that they are going to once again attempt a reform of the classification system and occupational grouping of its employees, which is still utilizing a structure put in place back in the 1960's. There was an attempt to modernize the classification system in 1999 through the Universal Classification System. However, that program died a quiet death (like so many other government programs) and so today, across the government, there are still approximately 30 different occupational groups with more than 60 different classification plans in bargaining units represented by 15 different unions. More information on this issue is available from the PSAC website PSAC defends members' rights in Treasury Board classification review. (By the way, the UCTE is part of PSAC while the CFPA is a separate union.)

Sooooo... one must be careful to sort out what is a safety issue and what is a bargaining issue. Clearly, a shortage of inspectors can impact the ability to provide effective services to the industry, including safety oversight (to what degree is not known, although if they're not meeting their published service standards and various service levels (Air Operations, General Aviation, Aircraft Certification, etc.), I suppose it can be measured that way). However, the rates of pay for particular employee groups and the reporting structure is an industrial issue, and one that the employer will need to sort out. If the employer does decide to put the employees performing like work together, there will then be an issue of who will represent this "new" group -- the UCTE (PSAC), CFPA or another union?

[Widow]

On October 13th, the UCTE made a submission on the FAA's proposed SMS rulemaking. Included in their submission was an attachment, "Implementation of the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Management System (TCASMS): What's Not Right and Why Change is Necessary". Among other evidence, the document includes comparison of TCCA's approach to that of Australia, the UK and the US, as well as to what the ICAO directs. The document is now available, along with all other public submissions on docket FAA-2009-0671 Notice No.09-06 AC120-92, at http://regulations.gov.

It concludes:

The Aviation Safety Directorate of Transport Canada is leading the world in its approach and its implementation of Aviation Safety Management Systems. The question is; is it leading the world in the right direction or the wrong direction? Is it leading aviation safety in Canada down the wrong path and to a place where the travelling public may be at risk?

The conclusions in this report are that the TCASMS goes significantly beyond the framework and recommendations of ICAO. The conclusions reached in this report are that no jurisdiction in the world appears to be copying Canada - in its application of SMS delegations to trade associations and in its roll-back of direct inspections and audits. With the ever-developing ethos of increasing regulatory oversight and re-regulation, in the public interest, one has to question whether TCASMS is completely out of synch and needs to be reined in by Canadian political decision-makers. Perhaps this needs to happen very quickly before serious accidents occur.

UCTE believes that Transport Canada needs to engage stakeholders on these issues now. UCTE believes that a consensus for change should be something that Transport Canada strives for and achieves. For its part, UCTE is recommending the following changes in TC Aviation Safety today:

• It is wrong for TC to view aviation safety as an area to save money and cut jobs. This is a core area of federal responsibility and it is in the public interest to invest in air transportation safety. There are over 130 inspector vacancies in the Aviation Safety and Security Branch. These positions should be filled immediately. An additional 50 new inspector positions should be created. Transport Canada should also change the classification and pay structure to ensure inspectors are paid fairly and that wage inequities are eliminated.
• There must be a clear and unambiguous policy of direct and unscheduled inspections and audits for all Canadian air carriers - whether SMS certified or not. Effective risk management principles would clearly suggest that non-SMS certified carriers should be the subject of regular and random audits and inspections.
• There should be no delegations to associations.
• As recommended in the Aeronautics Act revisions suggested by the Parliamentary Committee on Transport, the Minister of Transport should, in a detailed way, define the "highest level of safety" and the Inspectorate should inspect to the standard generated by this definition.
• Transport Canada should clearly follow the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration lead in clearly articulating a detailed plan and commitment that defines its service and accountability to the public and not to the airlines. This includes complete whistleblower protections and safety accountability to agencies independent of the FAA. ^*

Read the whole document here. (Opens a .pdf)

[AEROBAT]

Petitioning TC for more regulation/oversight is a signal to them to increase their staff. We already have 1 TC employee for every 34 pilots in Canada. If people feel they cannot do their job at a ratio of 34/1 just what is the magic number?

This is getting pathetic.

[bezerker]

I believe very little time is spent with the 38,000 licensed pilots in Canada by TC (asides from the mountains of paperwork that each pilot can potentially generate).

I would think that the majority spend their time involved in some of the following:


Elements of the aviation industry regulated by Transport Canada Civil Aviation

Air operators certified to fly in Canada - 2,324
Registered aircraft - 29,686
Aviation personnel and industry delegates - 84,117
Approved maintenance companies - 985
Aeronautical manufacturers - 115
Certified airports and aerodromes (smaller facilities such as water airports, heliports, and airfields) - 1,709
Flight training units - 442
Air traffic services facilities - 116

Source: Transport Canada Flight 2010—Strategic Plan for Civil Aviation; 2007 Clientele Database.

When I read the Transwest King Air 100 crash at Sandy Bay report, I have to say that one of the items that really struck me was the fact that the POI was responsible for 17 companies. How in the hell can he know what is going on? And how in the hell could a single guy be expected to know what was going on?

[Sidebar]

When I read the Transwest King Air 100 crash at Sandy Bay report, I have to say that one of the items that really struck me was the fact that the POI was responsible for 17 companies. How in the hell can he know what is going on? And how in the hell could a single guy be expected to know what was going on?

I think that's an important point. He didn't know what was going on, and because he didn't, neither did his superiors.

[jeta1]

deleted

[CD]

It most certainly is a complex issue and one cannot simply limit the view to TCCA, as TCCA is not the employer and employees of both these groups work for other Departments throughout the government. Members of the TI group receive terminable allowances in an attempt to retain those qualified employees and encourage them to consider it a career. The aviation TI group is such a small percentage of the total number of employees covered by that designation that their interests really aren't taken into consideration by their union or the employer. There has been rumblings by the aviation TIs that they are trying to find a way to leave the UCTE and secure new representation so that their skills and education can be adequately compensated for the work they do.

[Widow]

UCTE Recommends SMS Changes to Transport Minister
November 4, 2009

OTTAWA – Today the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees (UCTE) released a report that is critical of the way in which Transport Canada is implementing its Aviation Safety Management System. In a report entitled, “Implementation of the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Management System – What’s Not Right and Why Change is Necessary” , UCTE shows how Transport Canada’s brand of SMS goes beyond that of other industrialized countries and beyond what the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) considers to be recommended practices.

UCTE has requested a meeting with the Minister of Transport, John Baird, to discuss the report and its recommendations. UCTE National President, Christine Collins, says, “SMS implementation has a direct impact on aviation safety in this country. For years now we have been voicing our concern with how Transport Canada has been implementing SMS. We hope this report can serve to renew a much needed dialogue with both the department and this Government. The time to have this dialogue is now.”

http://www.ucte.com/

[Widow]

On November 19th, the petition was tabled for the first time. The government now has 45 days to respond.

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present the first in what will be many petitions coming to this House of Commons from several hundred representatives, citizens of southern Ontario, the region of Toronto, eastern Ontario, Orléans, Montreal, Quebec, indeed, right across central Canada. These petitioners will be added to the hundreds and hundreds of names coming in from all over the country.

The petitioners are concerned about the issue of privatizing or outsourcing of transportation safety standards. The self-serve safety that was pushed forward by the government was stopped cold by the NDP opposition, and so the legislation was never adopted. However, the government is trying to go through the back door and adopt the same kind of standards.

These petitioners call on the Government of Canada to initiate a commission of inquiry to conduct a judicial review and examine the state of national aviation safety.

Link to original transcript.

On November 20th, MP's Alex Atamenko, Bill Siksay and Jim Maloway tabled more signed petitions.

Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):

Madam Speaker, the final petition asks the Government of Canada to initiate a commission of inquiry headed by a Superior Court judge to conduct a judicial review into Canada's state of national aviation safety and government oversight of the aviation industry to be followed by further reviews at defined intervals.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition with 16 pages of signatures from Canadian workers who are deeply concerned by the fact that Transport Canada is reducing its overall traditional oversight and on-site inspection of airplanes.

Transport Canada has been virtually outsourcing and privatizing its responsibilities to aviation companies via the so-called SMS system, safety management systems.

The petitioners are concerned by the fact that Transport Canada is trying to reduce Canadian safety standards through the back door by changing Canadian aviation regulations after the Conservative government failed to pass enabling legislation in the House.

The petitioners call upon the government to initiate a commission of enquiry to assess the state of our national aviation safety and to look into government oversight of the aviation industry.

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 100 Canadians from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, who are very concerned about aviation safety and the need for better government oversight of the airline industry in Canada.

The petitioners are particularly concerned about allowing aviation companies to be responsible for their own safety inspections through safety management systems, or SMS. They point out that this will lead to situations where financial considerations will trump appropriate attention to passenger and worker safety.

The petitioners are seeking a commission of enquiry, headed by a superior court judge, into the state of aviation safety in Canada.

Link to transcript.

More petitions are expected to be tabled next week.

[Aug]

For those of us who are unaware of all this...

Can someone outline what this is about in a nutshell?

Thx

[Widow]

Threads merged, sorry about that.

[CD]

For those who have missed the discussion on the other threads, here are some links to the NOTIP:

National Organization Transition Implementation Project (NOTIP)
National Organization Transition Implementation Project (NOTIP) - Frequently Asked Questions
Fact Sheet - Civil Aviation Organization

What you won't find in those nice links are the resulting issues that luckyboy and Check Pilot have described...

[Prairie Chicken]

Luckyboy, perhaps one thread of hope is that TC can not/may not revise employee classifications (and therefore salary). That is the responsibility of another government department, Treasury Board, if I recall correctly, and they are not at all inclined to make wholesale changes to suit TCCA.

[CD]

Unfortunately, as was posted in another thread, Treasury Board is already in the process of taking another crack at "fixing" the government classification system. So the changes occuring within Civil Aviation are likely a snapshot of what is/will be occuring throughout the government as Treasury Board goes about its appointed task.

The government has recently indicated that they are going to once again attempt a reform of the classification system and occupational grouping of its employees, which is still utilizing a structure put in place back in the 1960's. There was an attempt to modernize the classification system in 1999 through the Universal Classification System. However, that program died a quiet death (like so many other government programs) and so today, across the government, there are still approximately 30 different occupational groups with more than 60 different classification plans in bargaining units represented by 15 different unions. More information on this issue is available from the PSAC website PSAC defends members' rights in Treasury Board classification review.

[Widow]

For those interested in the petition tablings, further signed copies were presented by:

*MP's Dennis Bevington and Jean Crowder on November 25th
*Dennis Bevington on November 26th
*Chris Charlton on November 30th
*Peter Julian, Carol Hughes and Niki Ashton on December 6th
*Judy Wasylycia-Leis on December 10th

More info here: http://safeskies.ca/news/Petition_tabled

Tablings are expected to continue when Parliament reconvenes in the new year.

[Widow]

The rules of the House require that the government reply to a petition within 45 calendar days of its presentation. If such a petition remains without a response at the expiration of this time, a committee of the House, designated by the Member presenting the petition, is required to look into the Ministry's failure to respond.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-co ... ions-e.htm

I note that 45 calendar days since the first tabling on November 19th has expired. Since Parliament has now been prorogued until March 3rd, I suppose this means "the government" (TC) is essentially "off the hook" in responding officially ... at least for now.

I wonder if a response was prepared.

[Brewguy]

... at least for now.

The proroguing of Parliament effectively kills all legislation, etc that was in process. The petition would have to be re-tabled in the next session, starting the clock over again.

[jeta1]

[snoopy]

So what's wrong with the NDP?

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Widow]

... at least for now.

The proroguing of Parliament effectively kills all legislation, etc that was in process. The petition would have to be re-tabled in the next session, starting the clock over again.

Are you sure? I know that is true with respect to pending Bills and Committees, so if the SCOTIC is to further consider the issue, a new motion will have to be tabled. But, to my understanding, if documents, or responses to questions or petitions requested through an Order of the House have not been tabled at the time of prorogation, the requests carry over from session to session, within the same Parliament. They are considered to have been readopted at the start of the new session. Requests for government responses to committee reports and petitions survive in the same manner. So, given that Parliament is now suspended, the clock would start ticking again on March 3rd and we should get a response to these petitions a few days later. I'm trying to get this confirmed.