Poor Record Keeping.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:31 pm

O.K. kids I just saw one of TC's public relations wizzards on TV informing the public that they have had concerns about poor record keeping in sonic Blue, and now that there has been another accident they decided to suspend their OC pending a full audit of their records.

So we can all sleep more comfortably tonight knowing that TC has zeroed in on the problem.

I wonder if there might be more serious problems at Sonic Blue besides poor record keeping?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:58 pm

Geeeze Cat, must I reeducate you yet again??? It's all about the paper work, man...you know that!!!

Brewguy · Post by **Brewguy** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:59 pm

Now you see Cat, it isn't a record keeping problem ... it's a weight and balance problem.

Everybody should know that until the weight of the paperwork is equal to (or greater than) the combined weight of the passengers + baggage + fuel: an aircraft is simply unable to maintain stable flight. It's paperwork-aerodynamics 101. Aren't they teaching that in ground school anymore?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:14 pm

It is interesting to note that on the 6PM news it was revealed that the pilot who died in that accident was considered a thorn in the side of Sonic Blue and had been cut back to part time on weekends because of his attempts to bring safety concerns to TCCA.

However it seems that TCCA thought there was not enough evidence of safety concerns to shut them down, that from the TC public relations wizzard.

The foregoing is from Global TV Vancouver.

Cat

Brewguy · Post by **Brewguy** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:52 pm

Ok, I'm not saying that the programs are good, bad or otherwise here... but just purely out of curiosity - does anyone know if this operator had put the new TC required "Safety Management System" in place yet?

Again, not to debate the pros & cons of SMS - just a question of if it existed for this operator at the time of the incident.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:56 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... cared.html

Pilot killed in crash had safety worries, dad says
Last Updated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:48:17 EST
CBC News

The father of the pilot who was killed in a plane crash on Vancouver Island on Saturday says his son was seriously concerned about the safety record of the aircraft.

Three people died and five others are in hospital after a Sonicblue Airways flight from Tofino to Vancouver crashed into a clearcut near Port Alberni on Saturday.

* FROM JAN. 21, 2006: Plane carrying eight people crashes on Vancouver Island

Jonathan Huggett said his 25-year-old son Edward flew for Sonicblue for three years, but wanted to leave the airline over safety concerns.

Huggett said his son told him the Cessna 208 had major icing problems flying over the coast mountains.

Last week, the U.S. Transportation Safety Board issued an urgent advisory prohibiting Cessna 208s from flying in icing conditions. No such restriction is in place in Canada.

Thirty-three people have died in Cessna 208 crashes over the last 15 years as result of ice build-up.

"I have to be careful what I say to you," Jonathan Huggett said. "I will only say to you what I know to be fact. My son reported to me that he was frightened by flying in the last few months, that there were a number of safety issues he reported to me and we urged him to in fact leave the airline."

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:58 pm

Skys the limit...

Watching and listening to that poor guys parents on TV telling about how their son was so concerned about safety makes me sick, sad, discgusted, and angry to the point I can not sleep at night thinking about it.

His father said it all when he said these kids will do almost anything to get a good job flying, what is so heartbreaking is this guy actually wanted to try and make things better.....

Why do the wrong people always seem to be the ones to die?

Cat

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:07 pm

I hear you Cat,

But reading some of the posts on here the last 24hrs makes me worry very deeply about where we're heading. I was awake until 2am last night thinking about this - not sure why this particular incident is bothering me so much, but I KNOW that the complete lack of spine displyed by most pilots working these jobs, and TC's enforcement does.

I had guys come to my office up north a few years ago a offer to work for free, and it happened once a week in the summer!! It starts there, and with the people who hire them - where will it end, I have no idea.

Maybe CYYZ can sort it out for us....

STL

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:25 pm

TC figures that if you can take a good hard pencil whipping you must be a sound air operator. We've got an audit coming up and I already know all shit they will say. W&B, CDT's and the usual bullshit.

The only way to fix this is to stop FUCKIN flying people from YVR to YYZ for $100.00. If people don't want to pay then get in your goddamn car.

R.I.P. Ed

Juggs · Post by **Juggs** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:49 pm

TC figures that if you can take a good hard pencil whipping you must be a sound air operator.

This is one of things that frustrates me about TC. The APPEARANCE that you have a safe operation. If your paperwork is in order, everything must be kosher. However, paperwork is easy to make compliant. I'm not sure how much the inspections by TC actually do, except make sure your paper work is compliant.

Having paperwork does not contribute anything towards aviation safety. However, paperwork is something that TC can easily quantify. It is something that is a yes or no answer. Yes you were over gross weight, no you weren't over gross weight. It is something black and white. It does not matter that you are going into a strip that is hundreds-even thousands of feet under what you could do at ZFW or less. All that matters is the fact that you are under gross weight.

This concept disturbed me for a prolonged period of time. The fact that the regulator cared not about safety, but rather about the fact that paper work was in order. Having paper work in order is not the same as having a safe operation.

Where I previously worked, the statement of, "Let's make sure that TC thinks we have a safe operation," ran apparent. It should not be an appearance of having a safe operation, but rather having a safe operation that is important.

Unfortunately, safety costs money. Furthermore, there is no way to quantify safety. There is no way to say that we saved X amount of dollars by not completing a certain trip or operating in a certain manner. Business and economics (at least in a capitalist society) is centered around making money. There is no business man that I know that is involved in business to lose money.

Airplanes, unfortunately, from a business perspective cost money. There are very few ways to cut costs if you are using airplanes to make money. Salary, maintenance and fares are some of the few. Since aviation seems to be, "built by the lowest bidder," (stolen from Armageddon to the best of my recollection)

Consumers will always take the cheapest price it seems in aviation. $5 from YVR to YHZ, sign me up!!. They all get there right? It only matters if I get there in one piece, @#$! the rest of them. Consumers it seems will gladly take the cheapest price offered. We all know that an airline can't survive on $5 fares that transport the average Joe 3000+ miles or even 300+ miles for that matter.

It would seem that a regulated affair would be the way to go. A certain dollar per mile or per hour amount would be beneficial to all of us that are driving. Aloughth this would appear to be beneficial on the surface, in the long run I don't believe that it would be financially viable for the large majority of us. How many people in Northern Canada could afford a break even ticket? Half, a fifth, a tenth? How many of us would be gainfully employed if this level of service was prevalent?

What we need to realize is that aviation is not an essential service but rather a non-essential service. People don't need to go to YZF or YEG to "visit" but rather choose to go to these places. They are largely driven by the cheap price to go. Aviation is a market place where the consumer, not the buyer set the price of the fare.

Coastal Cowboy · Post by **Coastal Cowboy** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:05 am

I'm sad to hear that a good person was lost in this. I admire his attempts to bring safety to a company that has always been notorious among the aviation community for being a "Cancer" as it were.

This is a testiment to his strength of character, as a man, and as a pilot who took his role in the cockpit seriously.

My deepest condoloences to his family and those who knew him.

I can only hope that some good comes from this.

Regards,

CC

invidious · Post by **invidious** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:16 am

Maybe when TC is done at Sonic they will find it in there good hearts to check out Airsprint before the smokin' hole happens. Tic, Tic, Tic.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:33 am

Hey where's that reporter dude that wanted a story?

duplicate2 · Post by **duplicate2** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:20 am

Cat Driver wrote:O.K. kids I just saw one of TC's public relations wizzards on TV informing the public that they have had concerns about poor record keeping in sonic Blue,...

Any chance this is bureaucratic-speak for "they were using creative techniques in their logbooks to hide maintenance/other problems"?

invidious wrote:Maybe when TC is done at Sonic they will find it in there good hearts to check out Airsprint before the smokin' hole happens. Tic, Tic, Tic.

Where did that come from all of a sudden? Now you're going to get this thread yanked.

iwillflyajet · Post by **iwillflyajet** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:31 am

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:18 am

Are you people suggesting that paperwork isn't important? So you'd climb on board an airplane if there was no documented airworthiness?

You don't care if the inspections were actually carried out or if servicable parts are used?

The simple truth is that if a company doesn't keep proper records its often a sign that they aren't doing proper maintenance or operating responsibly. It gives inspectors probable cause to probe further.

The link has been proven time and time again. This cheap "paperwork" pot-shot helps nobody.

Now to the real problem. What kind of person takes the controls of an airplane he thinks is unsafe? What kind of person continues to do so and allows innocent people to board? Why "report" unsafe things to your parents and not to TC?

Why didn't the pilot and his parents speak up BEFORE the accident? Did they think TC had hidden cameras in each airplane and they would eventually get caught? Did they have absolutely no regard for the people and pilots left behind once their son moved on to a "safer" airline?

The same people that are squawking on this forum about how TC dropped the ball and should have gone in and grounded these guys are the same ones that would be screaming bloody murder if they were grounded without hard evidence or without having a poor safety record.

Give your collective heads a shake, then stop feeding the monster. If you observe unsafe practices, then "report" the incident to someone other than your parents.

If you are in fear of retaliation, you can report it confidentially:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/securitas/index.asp

Let's stop this useless circle-jerk and start making a difference where it counts.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:23 am

sky's the limit wrote:
Maybe CYYZ can sort it out for us....

I could have said something, but I'm keeping my mouth shut at this time. But you, Cat and fallen pilots family have said enough on the matter of where the industry is and is heading...

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:33 am

CID wrote:Are you people suggesting that paperwork isn't important? So you'd climb on board an airplane if there was no documented airworthiness?

You don't care if the inspections were actually carried out or if servicable parts are used?.

Sorry Sky and Cat, but @#$!, what kind of BS is that....

You can apply to Air Canada with a "log book" that says 5000 hours and you could have scribbled all the hours in the night before....

If you lose your CofA does the plane magically fall out of the sky if it's not on board?? TC thinks so, since you can't fly it without it onboard.

You think if the techs sign off in the log book "work completed" that the plane will now function 100% and not fall out of the sky, because the book is signed??

The simple truth is that if a company doesn't keep proper records its often a sign that they aren't doing proper maintenance or operating responsibly. It gives inspectors probable cause to probe further.

The link has been proven time and time again. This cheap "paperwork" pot-shot helps nobody.

You're right if the operator has crappy Paper-work he might not be 100% on the up and up, but a company that has meticulous paper work is also in the same boat and might be trying to hide something.

Why didn't the pilot and his parents speak up BEFORE the accident? Did they think TC had hidden cameras in each airplane and they would eventually get caught? Did they have absolutely no regard for the people and pilots left behind once their son moved on to a "safer" airline?

Sky and Cat covered that, pilots will do anything to fly... Like I said, you might as well get rid of TC, because CARs will be broken.. And the only people who will save the pilots are the pilots themselves, but we're idiots that hop into the plane and "pray we make it home and have a letter of acceptance to a new airline" and as you pointed out, "leave it for the next guy to pray and worry about."

Oh, and sometimes you have the other guys that did survive, who will come on here with their wisdom "oh I worked their and the maintenance was crap back then too" who didn't bother calling and complaing...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:40 am

Quote CID:

" Now to the real problem. What kind of person takes the controls of an airplane he thinks is unsafe? What kind of person continues to do so and allows innocent people to board? Why "report" unsafe things to your parents and not to TC?

Why didn't the pilot and his parents speak up BEFORE the accident? Did they think TC had hidden cameras in each airplane and they would eventually get caught? Did they have absolutely no regard for the people and pilots left behind once their son moved on to a "safer" airline? "

I would have to say this is one of the most insensitive statements I have ever read on a aviation forum considering what these parents are going through at the moment.

My guess CID is you had better hope some of the people who knew that pilot do not find out who you really are.

Cat

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:50 am

ranCID carefully keeps it's identity secret, which allows it to make asinine statements in public without retribution.

What ranCID knows about aviation could be written with a grease pencil in large capital letters inside a matchbook cover

Personally, I've never met an airplane that could read.

CLguy · Post by **CLguy** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:18 am

Iwillflyajet, your suggestion has one serious flaw. Under a system like that it would make TC accountable for something and we certainly couldn't have that!

CID you sir are an idiot! Employee's of TC make in excess of $100K a year and their jobs are to ensure safety. Now obviously there has been a lot of ball dropping when it comes to Canadian Aviation. This just didn't happen last week or last month, this has been a disease within TC for decades!

As long as the compass correction card is up to date and the last inspection is signed out properly, then all must be well.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:29 am

CL Guy, TC has to restructure their agenda from their ramp check mentality nailing easy targets with chicken shit infractions to doing what the f.ck they are meant to do, go after real infractions.

But it is not going to happen without push from our elected representatives, maybe with new people in Parliament we can do something to force TC to change their methods?

Cat

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:40 am

TC accountable for something and we certainly couldn't have that!

Indeed. Everyone at Transport seem eager to grab for the Authority, which is of course accompanied by power, prestige, status, pay and pensions .... but they all seem to leave the room when Responsibility is assigned.

When you de-couple Authority from Responsibility, you get a Monty Python sketch. Look at Transport, or ranCID for that matter.

Q.E.D.

aileron · Post by **aileron** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:42 am

In a previous life I was involved with the construction of a major expansion at YVR. I surmized that all the paperwork between engineers, architects, clients, subtrades, contractors, consultants and officials would fill two shipping containers to the maximum interior dimensions from three years of work.

Paperwork is only a record. A record is a recognized legal document. A legal document can prove due-dilligence. All in anticipated reactionary readiness for the moment someone accuses another.

So if their paperwork wasn't in order, then there is no record. If there is no record then due-dilligence cannot be proven.

But I also think there is an inherent flaw to all this because paperwork does not replace the core attitude that cultures our actions. Only attitude will substantiate the reactionary paperwork toward due-dilligence.

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:18 am

I would have to say this is one of the most insensitive statements I have ever read on a aviation forum considering what these parents are going through at the moment.

Thats awesome! I'm getting sensitivity training from Cat!

Sometimes the truth hurts and if my statement causes even one pilot to speak up and avoid another tragedy I'd risk upsetting anybody.

CID you sir are an idiot! Employee's of TC make in excess of $100K a year and their jobs are to ensure safety.

Thanks for clearing that up CLguy. I always thought the PIC might have a role too. Now that I know its all TC's fault when an airplane crashes, it changes everything!

So tell me. Where did you get the information about TC employee salaries? Here's a link defining the salary of a TC civil aviation inspector (M and M):

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpub ... c532693767

Tell me how many of those people make in excess of $100K then reconsider who you call an idiot.

You think if the techs sign off in the log book "work completed" that the plane will now function 100% and not fall out of the sky, because the book is signed??

If an operator doesn't take the care to properly document a repair, it is quite indicative of the care he took in doing the work.

There is no excuse, there is no argument. If the paperwork isn't done, the work isn't done.