Sonicblue in the Toronto Star Today

safetywatch · Post by **safetywatch** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:50 am

The Sonicblue story made a lengthy article in the Toronto Star today with some amazing quotes from Transport Canada:

Transport Canada says making the decision to shut down an airline simply takes time.

"It doesn't matter which airline you're talking about, you can't go out there and say, `Well, I think this isn't safe so I'm shutting you down.' You'd be in federal court," said Merlin Preuss, head of civil aviation with Transport Canada. "You have to give them time to respond and then you have to take the appropriate action.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... =News/News

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:05 am

You'd be in federal court," said Merlin Preuss

And this would matter how to Transport?

I have a Federal Court Order "enjoining" Transport from their nutty campaign against us, and they just ignore it.

Transport thinks it doesn't have to do what Federal Court tells it to do.

Sounds like ol' Merlin's making up lame excuses at to why Transport didn't do a very good job of regulating Sonicblue.

arctic navigator · Post by **arctic navigator** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:19 am

I think maybe they're a little gunshy about just walking in and shutting someone down without giving the company a chance to get thier act together...

`Well, I think this isn't safe so I'm shutting you down.'

They did that with a certain little operator in the NWT twice within 2 months, the second time finishing them off, and from what i understand they ended up in federal court over it...

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:19 am

Ya I agree that's B.S. I had a chief pilot quit on a friday. by monday I had a notice of suspension in the mail. So I guess if you kill people the red tape to get shut down is longer then if a key employee moves on.

palmpilot · Post by **palmpilot** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:54 am

Little will change about the industry, warned Bray, until pilots themselves stand up and refuse to fly in unsafe conditions. The problem is that even if one refuses to fly, there are 10 more waiting to take the job.

"That's where the change to the pilot's attitude has to come in," Bray said. "One guy turns it down, they should all turn it down."

Well said.

loopy · Post by **loopy** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:05 pm

Good article. This stuff needs to hit the press. Maybe they can put some more inspectors in the field and spend less time pushing paper.

As for pilots standing up for themselves, I think that is where a national association of professional pilots could come in and set some standards; endorese safe operations, take action against unsafe, etc. I know talk of it has been quiet on here lately, but I think the CAAP concept is a great idea long overdue in the industry in Canada.

Switchfoot · Post by **Switchfoot** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:37 pm

palmpilot wrote:
Little will change about the industry, warned Bray, until pilots themselves stand up and refuse to fly in unsafe conditions. The problem is that even if one refuses to fly, there are 10 more waiting to take the job.

"That's where the change to the pilot's attitude has to come in," Bray said. "One guy turns it down, they should all turn it down."
Well said.

While this is all true, it's not necessarily realisitic. Some pilots/flight crew will continue operating in different conditions than others because of continued pressure from the employer or perhaps pilot skill. For example, pilot A might be better equipped to handle IFR and a short airstrip whereas pilot B isn't or won't simply due to lack of experience (even within the same company).

It is a problem that when one refuses to fly, there are ten others in line to do the job or worse yet, take the job. I agree that the safety of the flight rests with the PIC but some major changes need to come down the line if any change is going to occur.

Switchfoot.

safetywatch · Post by **safetywatch** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:56 pm

Its a long article so you might have missed the quote of the day:

Gill defended his company's safety record. Although the crash that killed Huggett was the company's third fatal accident in eight years, Gill said the number of incidents has been low considering the airline operates in an industry where both risks and the pressure to deliver is high.

"You've got lower-time pilots flying sometimes older equipment in tough weather conditions, which is challenging in that you've got customers who need the product moved or people moved," said Gill. "It's pressure."

I think that says it all!

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:49 pm

Placing pressure on the airline makes more money for the customer. If an airline says no, another airline will say yes. If the customer says..no problem, we'll pay you more money for this contract because you underbid by mistake...then that customer will go bankrupt when his competitor pushes for lower costs. Talk to a TC inspector and they'll tell you.....95% of their time is used up on 5% of the operators. Most companies want to protect their employees, themselves and have a safe record while still pleasing the customer. The best thing is to just prevent these small minority of owners from starting up a new company, time after time. If you think this is a good idea, then does it not also make sense to stop crack whores from having babies? And how about neutering rapists and molesters? So the point is that everyone knows what is required to fix things but no democratic government has the power to make it happen if we want to live in a free society.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:10 pm

Horseshit, Oh Anonymous Whining One.

Here's a novel idea. Assuming that 95% of the operators (the safe ones) are obeying the plethora of regulations ... and assuming that the other 5% of the operators (the unsafe ones) are contravening regulations ....

How about, for a goddamned change, that the regulations were applied in a professional and consistent way by Transport?

The way it is now, if someone has friends in Transport, or they are politically connected, they can literally get away with murder.

On the other hand, if someone is personally disliked by someone, anyone at Transport, their life will be made very unpleasant, regardless of their behaviour.

How about a little professionalism from Transport, for a change?

P.S. In the unlikely event that the 5% of the operators (unsafe) are not contravening regulations, TIME TO CHANGE THE REGULATIONS. Duh.

V1 · Post by V1 » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:23 pm

Very good article and perspective, and it is something everyone should know. But i am just wondering if the general public really cares? Or do they only care when someone dies?

justanotherpilot · Post by **justanotherpilot** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:25 pm

one of the problems is the customers (DHL) don't want to pay what it actually costs to do the job right. Thus leaving a market for shady airlines to operate and under bid one another.

Sonicblue in the Toronto Star Today

Sonicblue in the Toronto Star Today

Quote of the Day!!