cgaa training bond

got2bsafe · Post by **got2bsafe** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:42 am

Hi there,

I’m looking for your input or stories.

I am a former employee of Canadian Global Air Ambulance. Had you read this board over the past year or so, you'll remember they have quite a tarnished reputation.

I signed a two-year training bond and left after about a year. My main reasons for leaving were safety concerns.
I recently received a letter from their "legal department", insisting that I pay the remainder of my bond. Given that my safety concerns were legitimate, I don't feel that I should have to reimburse them. Regular working folks aren’t required to stay on the job when their safety is threatened – why should pilots who have signed these training bonds?

I believe that the working conditions there are more or less unsafe. I left at the first opportunity that another job became available. Basically, I feel that Global did not meet their contractual obligations to provide a safe working environment. Why should I?

Since I know quite a few pilots are in the same boat, I would like us to pool our resources. I'm looking for anyone who is or has been a Global employee who can share their relevant safety concerns (preferably documented), or anyone with experience fighting a training bond due to unsafe working conditions.
This kind of thing is an industry-wide problem. Pilots haven't been standing up for themselves, and it's time that the operators who reduce safety margins for profit are accountable.

Feel free to email me at: got2bsafe@hotmail.com

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:20 pm

That's a great question for the Ministry of Labour.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:23 pm

I do not subscribe to the school of thought that training bonds are not enforceable, or can be airily dismissed the way many pilots do. But with THIS company I think you will have no problem at all showing cause as to why you left before the full term of your bond.

I know of one pilot who quit there (not under bond), due to the working conditions. This person applied for EI and was initially denied benefits due to having "quit without cause". So, they then wrote a multi-page letter to HRDC detailing the exact reasons why they quit, citing specific examples. (And the massive letter only contained a fraction of the things that could have been brought to light.)

HRDC took one horrified look and promptly awarded full benefits, starting from the time this person quit.

A different arena, I know. But I think you will have strong legal grounds to support a case that you could not meet the terms of your bond due to the company's failure to provide you with a safe working environment.

If you are in Winnipeg, I can provide you with the name of an excellent labour lawyer, who can also advise on contract law. I would also start by doing your best to document specific details of any sort of examples of safety infractions, from legal (CARS): duty times, maintenance, to company environment: bullying, pressure from management, "fairy-tale" itineraries, etc...

Bottom line: training bonds are legal documents. But any judge or arbitrator faced with the mountain of reasons why you and many others have left this company, would be hard-pressed to side against the employee. The revolving door and massive turnover there speaks volumes. Good luck.

Ex Canadian Global Pilot · Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:57 pm

Well here's my 2 cents.
I would like this thread to remain on track and not deteriorate into past threads. Although it would be easy!

This operator has failed to provide a safe working environment for it's pilots. Thus, the mass exodus of pilots over the last 2 yrs. Not alot has changed. Many good people have tried to make a change in the safety culture and failed. Most quit, some were fired as a result. This company would not have to pursue people for breaking training agreements if they provided a safe place to work and didn't expect the pilots to disregard the CARS on a daily basis.

I lasted there for about 1 yr and left. I recieved a letter today and have no intention of paying them a dime. I'll take my chances in court and most certainly not without a fight. I don't discount the validity of the contract. A letter of agreement is a contract between 2 parties, in this case employer and employee. It is not a one way street. If the employer acts as this company has, then they (the employer) have broken the contract, not the pilot who has exhausted all other forms of recourse to improve safety.

It will be interesting to hear what some of these people (Management) will say under oath.

I'll be in touch got2besafe.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:58 pm

I left at the first opportunity that another job became available

If these were legitimate safety concerns wouldn't you have quit right away?

A pilot can fly under unsafe conditions to make a buck but a company cannot? Am i missing something here?

As for actually getting taken to court, how much will it cost the company to recover and how much will they recover? How much will it cost you? What will it cost you in the future when you need another job that requires a bond?

I would get a lawyer, and have him write them a letter back explaining your thinking as to why you do not owe them.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:12 pm

I find most pilots who cry the unsafe working conditions song are often the problem themselves? I've flown for a few companies....very few "unsafe" conditions existed that wouldn't go away by turning down the trips. But, what is unsafe for you, might not be for me? My personal limitations could be different to yours? If there is a snag...park the airplane!!!!

matt foley · Post by **matt foley** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:22 pm

Exactly!!! You were not that concerned with safety untill you got yourself another job and then hold the phone! "Safety concerns" are the catch all and are so over used and abused that nobody will take them at face value. Then you tell us that you signed a contract (not as bonding as a hand shake and your word but still...) and now want to leave for(lets hope it wasn't another Lear 35 job!) greener pastures? Be a man and stick to your word. I know these guys and was there long before it was CGAA so dont use the "what do you know" shtick because I know. You knew what you were getting into but chose to ignore or think it wouldnt happen to you...well it did and now I hope you have to pay.

Matt Foley
Motivational Speaker

got2bsafe · Post by **got2bsafe** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:24 pm

ahramin wrote:
I left at the first opportunity that another job became available
If these were legitimate safety concerns wouldn't you have quit right away?

A pilot can fly under unsafe conditions to make a buck but a company cannot? Am i missing something here?

Hindsight being 20/20, quitting right away would have been a better option. My advice for anyone working there now would be to document everything you see, and get out now!

I've heard of a few pilots who quit within a shorter period of time (weeks) and I was told they're also being chased for bond money. So for me, the point is moot. These are legit safety concerns, but it's very easy to get caught up in the process. There are safety officers, company meetings, etc. Month by month during my employment there was always a promise of improvment, policy changes, whatever. In the end when the shit hit the fan it consistently came down to management asking pilots to break the law, and some of them would. I understand why too. You're a medivac operation, sick people are getting sicker, lives are at stake. It doens't matter though, after a while it becomes obvious that you're never going to win, they're not going to change. They refuse to become safe. I really don't want to get into the details of their operation, since I like the people who work there. I just don't want to pay money to leave, and I don't think anyone should have too.

got2bsafe · Post by **got2bsafe** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:46 pm

Why was the thread title changed? I'm trying to get a hold of former CGAA pilots, and "training bond jumper" doesn't get the people I'm trying to contact. At least pretend to be objective.

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:53 pm

If things are as bad and unsafe as you guys are making them out to be then why isn't Transport Canada in the picture? If you get backing from a TC ruling or finding then I'm sure you would have a legit reason to trash the bond.

I'm sure glad that the last time I flew C-FICU was prior to the CGAA takeover !

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:59 pm

" If you get backing from a TC ruling or finding then I'm sure you would have a legit reason to trash the bond. "

Hell yeh, like the backing the guys at Sonic Blue got.

Splendid solution.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:02 pm

Schlem wrote:If things are as bad and unsafe as you guys are making them out to be then why isn't Transport Canada in the picture? If you get backing from a TC ruling or finding then I'm sure you would have a legit reason to trash the bond.

If only Transport had their priority's straight, but they keep proving over and over that they do not.

Good luck with the bond.

STL

godsrcrazy · Post by **godsrcrazy** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:07 pm

Yes Guys and Gals we are witnessing another reason we are having these bonds shoved down our throats. Get the PPC wait for a better Job leave and then scream saftey concern when you are threatened to pay. It appears to me with your comment about looking for other staff that left you are trying to unite to weasel out of this bond.

Remember everyone write everything down so you can jump ship whenever a better position comes along.

Okay know that I ranted on just one quetsion. When you signed this bond were you a new hire are had you been working there awhile.

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:12 pm

Cat Driver wrote: " If you get backing from a TC ruling or finding then I'm sure you would have a legit reason to trash the bond. "

Hell yeh, like the backing the guys at Sonic Blue got.

I'm hoping they learned a thing or two from that.

got2bsafe · Post by **got2bsafe** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:25 pm

For the record, I didn't take another Lear 35 position. The PPC did me no good.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:29 pm

Did somebody actually have the balls to say.."we're in the medivac operation, sick people are getting sicker, lives are at stake"???? Did you really say that??? It makes me want to f%cken PUKE!! You have got to be kidding!!!!! These sick people are going to get a lot better real fast if you roll your airplane in a ball flying them to where...HELL????
With an attitude like that.....please take up a differnt line of work! And WHAT WAS REALLY UNSAFE???? FACTS, please....bullshit just makes flowers grow!
Name your "safety concerns" or grow up!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:31 pm

" I'm hoping they learned a thing or two from that. "

Shlem, if their past history is any indication I would not hold out to much hope for anything to change.

I have been through this stuff from the chief pilot side of the equasion. My experience was not very encouraging when I went to TC with proven documentation of non compliance by the OC holder.

Last time was in 1995 with a C117 operator here in the rain forest. When things started to get out of hand I went to TC and explained what was happening, all they did was listen and did sweet f.ck all to back me up.

I did the only thing that I could, I resigned in writing to TC stating why.

Anyhow they never missed a beat and just got a new chief pilot who did not find anything wrong, at least there was no indication he did as they stayed in business for about a year after I left.

That was only one instance where I got sweet f.ck all in the way of back up from TC, so I wouldnt go to bed tonight believing things will change if I were you.

Any news about the big meeting the DGCA was beating the drums about a couple of weeks ago looking into how the Pacific Region TCCA operates?

Cat

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:07 pm

got2bsafe wrote: I signed a two-year training bond and left after about a year. My main reasons for leaving were safety concerns.
I recently received a letter from their "legal department", insisting that I pay the remainder of my bond. Given that my safety concerns were legitimate, I don't feel that I should have to reimburse them. Regular working folks aren’t required to stay on the job when their safety is threatened – why should pilots who have signed these training bonds?

Your real problem is the 'left after about a year'. Did something happen after a year to change safety considerations at that time, or were you flying around unsafely for a year before you left? The bottom line is, as the pilot on the airplane, you are making an implicit declaration when you start the engines and taxi out. You have accepted the airplane, weather, and itinerary as 'safe'.

If I had to argue this one in front of a judge, that would be my first question. What changed after a year to make you suddenly feel the need to leave? If there was no drastic change at that time, then one of two things happened. In the first case, you have been flying around unsafely for a year, in which case this whole episode should be referred to TC enforcement. If there was no major and sudden change after a year, then you are going to be stuck paying the bond, because the only visible change is you left.

If I had to arbitrate this case, I'd be very clear on the requirements. In order to rule in favor of the bond jumper, I'd want a very specifically detailed report of the potential safety violations. Dates, times, locations, problems. I would then talk to the other crew members on those airplanes at the specific incident locations/times, information that can be had from the aircraft journey log. Safety accusations are very serious, so, these discussions would NOT be without consequence. If the accusations are indeed valid, and warrant the forgiving a training bond, they also warrant the pulling of an OC, and potential criminal charges against company management and flight crews.

This is the absolute crux of the entire training bond/pay for ppc debate, one which pilots just dont seem to understand. There are far to many pilots out there that are more than willing to sign on initially, get the type endorsement, then fly long enough to be employable elsewhere. At that point, suddenly they get 'converted' to 'safety conscious' pilots, and suddenly everything they were doing on a daily basis for the last year becomes 'unsafe'. What amazes me, is that pilots cannot see the hypocracy of thier statements. It's not possible to have an unsafe operation without pilots acting as willing participants. Management cannot dispatch an airplane without a crew. The flight cannot be unsafe if the crew didn't participate in the making of an unsafe operation.

The bottom line is, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you want to keep the money from the training bond, go to TC enforcement, fess up your sins, and pay the licensing piper. If you are not prepared to face the consequences of safety allegations, then break out the chequebook and pay up.

I have the utmost respect for a pilot that ups and quits a job for 'safety concerns', if that person does it the moment those concerns arise. I have zero respect for the one that quietly goes job hunting on the side, then screams 'safety issues' the moment they find another job, but in the interim, they quietly continue to be a willing participant in an operation they deem to be unsafe. If it's 'safe enough' while you are hunting down the new job, then it's 'safe enough' to finish the contract period.

If you quit the job, then publicly make the safety allegations while unemployed and beginning the job hunt, my hat is off to you. If on the other hand, you 'stuck it out' till another job showed up, then make the allegations after the fact, you sir, are the ROOT CAUSE of safety problems in this industry. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that needs to be weeded out before this industry can be fixed.

got2bsafe · Post by **got2bsafe** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:32 pm

goldeneagle wrote:

If you quit the job, then publicly make the safety allegations while unemployed and beginning the job hunt, my hat is off to you. If on the other hand, you 'stuck it out' till another job showed up, then make the allegations after the fact, you sir, are the ROOT CAUSE of safety problems in this industry. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that needs to be weeded out before this industry can be fixed.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure the root cause starts with the employer, not the employee. Other than a year's employment, I had nothing to gain from working there. They're the ones making big money breaking the law. My opinion is that once I was asked to break the law, my contract was voided. The timing of my departure shouldn't factor in at all. Why should I have sit in a broken airplane, butt heads with the director of maitnence every day and try work inside of fantasy itineries a day longer than it suits me?

got2bsafe · Post by **got2bsafe** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:41 pm

Doc wrote:Did somebody actually have the balls to say.."we're in the medivac operation, sick people are getting sicker, lives are at stake"???? Did you really say that??? It makes me want to f%cken PUKE!! You have got to be kidding!!!!! These sick people are going to get a lot better real fast if you roll your airplane in a ball flying them to where...HELL????
With an attitude like that.....please take up a differnt line of work! And WHAT WAS REALLY UNSAFE???? FACTS, please....bullshit just makes flowers grow!
Name your "safety concerns" or grow up!

I find it hard to read "grow up" from you. I agree, lets stick to the facts, and not make this personal. What part did you find "bullshit" exactly?

Safety Concerns at Canadian Global have been long since documented on this very website previously. If you're not familier with the operation, you're really no help to me. I'm looking for other people who KNOW SOMETHING.

55+ · Post by **55+** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:53 pm

TC's SMS will cure all

AntiNakedMan · Post by **AntiNakedMan** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:06 pm

got2bsafe wrote:Other than a year's employment, I had nothing to gain from working there. They're the ones making big money breaking the law.

By being employed, doesn't that mean you are making money? And if flying in unsafe conditions, then you too were making big money breaking the law.

How much money does an operator make when they fork out training to people who don't live up to their contracts? What's the insurance deductable on a medivac if you turn it into a crater?

If I owned a business and had 900 other things to do, which did not include flying the plane, and I saw one of my pilots hop in and take off, later coming back, how do I assume that the operation is anything but safe? Why would I imagine that the pilot would risk his life for a day's pay?

Anti

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:10 pm

Have to add my two cents.

The question that I think will be posed to you will be "what changed during the period you were employed?" the point being if you were hired by an unsafe company you should have,upon discovering that, immediately quit, If it became unsafe while you were there, you will have to be able to demonstrate that, and that you made some effort to resolve the deteriorating situation. I am not sure how bringing others into will help you a great deal, and, as a matter of fact, they may be detrimental to you if it is shown you knew what you were getting into.
Otherwise, I am afraid that it will look like you just saw an opportunity to build some hours until you could find another job and now are trying to weasel out of your financial obligations.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:31 pm

Got2besafe:
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your outlook) I don’t know anything about your previous employer, but I will assume by most of the comments on here that they are perhaps not the most fantastic operator in the world.
It would DEFFINTALLY be a wise idea to talk to a REAL layer about this, specifically one who specializes in labor law; but I will give you my not so professional opinion coming from a prelaw student. If you had a signed contract with them you are liable. With the exceptions:
1) Does the contract have an “out” for you?
2) Were the safety concerns in violation of the CARS (hence a violation of the law) Hence any contract having you perform something illegal becomes void.
3) State you were drunk at the time of signing and thus had diminished capacity and thus the contract is not binding.

Other than that you are probably on the hook for every penny… BUT you WOULD have the ability to launch a suite against them; either privately or through the labor board of where ever they are based. If your allegations could be proven to the labor board I suspect the operator would be on the hook for a LOT more money than what ever they are trying to get out of you; so it may well be possible that the threat of you taking it to the next level may have the bond disappear…

OR you could “invest” all you assets ($$, car, house) into a trust and no one could ever touch them… “No REALLY you honor I have $8.50 to my name… honest….” “Well what about that M5 in the parking lot?” “Oh that’s not mine, that belongs to the trust…”

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:39 pm

The real question you need to ask, what year did you graduate from Seneca?

cgaa training bond

cgaa training bond

Thread Change?

Get the PPC and leave?

Re: training bond jumper

Re: training bond jumper