Concern about Transport Canada’s Safety Management System

[boeing_dude]

Interesting study....What do you guys think?

Concern deepens about Transport Canada’s Safety Management Systems (SMS) among Canada’s aviation
safety inspectorate
Soon after the introduction of aviation SMS in Canada, an online study in 2007 found Transport Canada’s licenced pilot inspectors of two minds. They expressed broad hope that SMS could theoretically improve aviation safety but were equally concerned that Transport Canada’s version of SMS would actually do more harm than good.

Today, 85% of respondents believe air travellers have been exposed to higher risk as a result of Transport Canada’s aviation SMS, up significantly from 2007 when 67% forecast this outcome.

Nine-in-ten aviation inspectors report that Transport Canada’s SMS prevents the correction of safety problems in a timely fashion, up from 80% who worried this would be the case in the early days of SMS.

Today, 84% of aviation inspectors expect a major aviation accident or incident in the near future after working in an SMS environment for the past seven years, up from 74% who held this view in 2007.

Two-thirds (67%) believe Transport Canada’s SMS will actually increase the chances of a major aviation accident or incident, up slightly from 2007 when 61% held this view.

[snoopy]

Here's the English version for those that are language challenged...

[Brint]

Without having read the article:

If this is about the idea that SMS is replacing proper oversight from TC, then these stats are interesting and worth talking about. Most of the negative press regarding SMS takes this angle. "TC is short staffed, they don't do proper inspections, and SMS is self regulation".

However, I would be interested in a study which asks operators who have embraced SMS if they would go back to not having it. If you really understand what SMS is and how it fits into running an organization, there is no going back and you wouldn't give it up.

[snoopy]

@Brint
"If this is about the idea that SMS is replacing proper oversight from TC, then these stats are interesting and worth talking about. Most of the negative press regarding SMS takes this angle. "TC is short staffed, they don't do proper inspections, and SMS is self regulation".

That is precisely the intent that the powers-that-be at TC had when they tried to slide SMS under everyone's noses without due process. The Canadian Federal government has been decimating budgets across departments without mercy and Transport Canada is no exception to the axe. For years TC has been planning the implementation of SMS as a replacement for regulatory oversight in order to mitigate their declining resources to regulate, instead of finding ways to recover and increase available budget. This "damage control' strategy is one of the reasons they delegated oversight of 604 to the CBAA - again without proper due process. These and other damage control measures taken by TC have come back to bite them in the ass and now they are even more short-staffed and under-budgeted than before.

And then there's the time when the then Auditor General Sheila Fraser conducted a national investigation and found Transport Canada woefully lacking in return on value for money spent.... but that's another story.

What's going to make things really challenging for Transport Canada is the explosive growth of the UAV industry - everything from small 2kg quad copters to full sized Beyond Line of Sight aircraft - both of which are already mingling with us in our airspace, without any regulations or plans for regulatory oversight in place as of yet.

Transport Canada is in dire need of resources and a major overhaul if it is going to be able to dig itself out before something implodes. Of course, as long as nothing really bad happens, or, at least anything bad stays out of the media, probably nobody will notice.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with SMS as a company adopted system. When properly implemented and embraced by an organization from top to bottom SMS can be an excellent tool. SMS is not designed to be a replacement for federal oversight of the Canadian aviation industry, or any other industry for that matter - plenty of examples exist in the Canadian rail industry of what happens when you let corporate enterprise self-regulate.

Cheers,
snoopy

[boeing_dude]

Sorry Snoopy, I was sure I had attached the english version.

Here`s the Powerpoint that comes with it.

cheers

[boeing_dude]

What, pilots don't have professional opinion now???

[Meatservo]

Wow, did Snoopy ever hit the nail on the head. With regards to Brint's points, what the operators WANT isn't necessarily relevant, considering that there have always been a proportion of operators at any given time who would thrive under no oversight whatsoever. I agree that the principles of SMS, in a healthy, responsible and profitable organization, are principles that always should have been in place regardless of the degree of oversight, all they have really done is replace oversight with a paint-by-numbers approach to what amounts to remedial management guidelines for recalcitrant management teams. I have always maintained that anyone in a leadership position who has any aptitude for it probably understands the principles of SMS intrinsically, and I don't really believe that people who formerly weren't able to figure it out on their own are going to get any better at it just as a result of T.C.'s weird half-assed attempt to instil leadership qualities in management teams who formerly didn't have any. It's just like every other thing these days that has the word "safety" in it- a token paperwork-based approach to solving imaginary paperwork-based problems.

[CID]

I like what Snoopy has stated here. I disagree a bit with the notion that TC tried to "sneak" anything in for any purpose other than progress. SMS basically embodies the evolution of qualify control AND the demands from operators over the years.

I've heard plenty of operators back in the day squeal about too much hassle from TC. They wanted to be left alone and be accountable for their actions without constant "harassment". SMS does that but has some pretty serious consequences when a company fails to fall in line.

In my opinion, SMS is good but only for 705 ops and maybe 704. Its the smaller operators that need a much higher level of surveillance and guidance from TC.

[Nephilim]

Is SMS even required for 703 operators? Haven't the small operators been abandoned in regards mandatory SMS and yet the old TC regulatory system is no longer in existence? Or am I wrong?

[boeing_dude]

I know a guy who owns a banner towing company and he has been required to come up with an SMS by TC. Pretty sure he operates under 703.

[snoopy]

There is no requirement for SMS in 703/704. That is local/regional policy talking.

[switchflicker]

There are times that TC will tell a 703/4 operator that if they embrace a SMS program, they will back off on the heavy oversight. Read 'we don't have the people we need to keep an eye on you, so you must hang it over the edge so we can see it from afar'

[Brint]

Wow, did Snoopy ever hit the nail on the head. With regards to Brint's points, what the operators WANT isn't necessarily relevant, considering that there have always been a proportion of operators at any given time who would thrive under no oversight whatsoever. I agree that the principles of SMS, in a healthy, responsible and profitable organization, are principles that always should have been in place regardless of the degree of oversight, all they have really done is replace oversight with a paint-by-numbers approach to what amounts to remedial management guidelines for recalcitrant management teams. I have always maintained that anyone in a leadership position who has any aptitude for it probably understands the principles of SMS intrinsically, and I don't really believe that people who formerly weren't able to figure it out on their own are going to get any better at it just as a result of T.C.'s weird half-assed attempt to instil leadership qualities in management teams who formerly didn't have any. It's just like every other thing these days that has the word "safety" in it- a token paperwork-based approach to solving imaginary paperwork-based problems.

I completely agree. And while we in the industry can pick those operators who thrive without oversight, unfortunately the travelling public can't. They are counting on the regulator to keep them safe.

[snoopy]

@switchflicker

Annoyingly, this does happen and it is up to the affected operator to put a stop to it by not accepting it. Quite frankly, if an operator is operating correctly, whether Transport stops in once a year, once a month or once a day shouldn't matter. Transport personnel are not allowed to disrupt a company's day to day operations without due cause just to prove a point, so were TC to actually carry out the implied threat it would come back to bite them. Besides, it's kind of an empty threat because in most cases Transport simply doesn't have the resources anymore.

If you take your voluntary, subjective (SMS) system, which has no applicable regulatory standard by which to measure it, and allow Transport Canada to evaluate and require changes to this area over which they have no jurisdiction, does this make good business sense? And now you've permanently opened the door to further waste of time and resources in the future, in this area which they had no jurisdiction over in the first place. Which makes for even less oversight.

TC needs more resources to do the job they are supposed to be doing - regulatory oversight, not making business decisions for operators. And they need regular audits - where's Sheila Fraser? And we need an Ombudsman or independent legal body to act as an intermediary when disagreements over points of law arise between any license holder (pilot, ame, operator, AMO etc.) and Transport Canada. That would be a proper system.

Anyways....

[Meatservo]

Hear, hear.