? -

dash2/3 · Post by **dash2/3** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:19 pm

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

tired of the ground · Post by **tired of the ground** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:16 pm

well, technically you flew an unairworthy aircraft because it wasn't maintained according to the Maintenance Schedule Approval.

SMS means you report yourself, Figure out what happened and don't do it again, end of story. Otherwise, it could range from a fine to TC making an example out of you.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:20 pm

Technically, ... non adherence to the maintenance schedule does not make the aircraft un-airworthy. However it is an offence on it's own,
and penalties can be applied for each of the flights that took place while not in compliance. Application of such measures however, is in my opinion, a severely draconian application of the rule.

Otherwise, I agree with Tired OTG. Fix the systemic errors, maintain the aircraft, and say nothing to anyone
.

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:18 am

Gotta agree with the above, even though the thread is now censored, no need to panic. This stuff has happened a lot in the past and continues happening. The defining line is if it is a routine occurrence, or an oversight in the company's maintenance planning. If it is routine, be concerned. Otherwise, no big deal, it happens. Especially with companies that operate fleets larger than the number of employees can keep tabs on. Is it the pilots fault? In my opinion, not at all unless the flight crew accepted the aircraft at the start of the day knowing they would pass the maintenance interval. Otherwise, the maintenance dept. fucked up. Go SMS!

conehead · Post by **conehead** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:51 am

Wish I had of read this before it got censored! Sounds very interesting.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:53 pm

Sounds frightening.

And BTW, SMS isn't going to protect the pilot if he/she refuses to work or, worse still, crashes due to a maintenance @#$! up.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:28 pm

And BTW, SMS isn't going to protect the pilot if he/she refuses to work or, worse still, crashes due to a maintenance @#$! up.

You must lend me your crystal ball some time! It will probably tell me that gun control won't stop murder or traffic cameras won't stop speeders.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:06 pm

Oh, hello CID. Nice to see you. I hope you are enjoying your summer.

Back on topic, we'll agree to disagree shall we?

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:31 am

CID wrote:
And BTW, SMS isn't going to protect the pilot if he/she refuses to work or, worse still, crashes due to a maintenance @#$! up.
You must lend me your crystal ball some time! It will probably tell me that gun control won't stop murder or traffic cameras won't stop speeders.

Actually Widow is bang on with that one. As usual we see CID contributing nothing and trying to cause problems...

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:13 am

Widow, yes, we probably disagree on many things and SMS is one of them.

My point here is that SMS, like any regulatory effort won't be the magic cure-all that absolutely prevents crooked operators and their equally crooked employees (partners in crime) from starting a business and harming unwitting passengers.

It simply imposes a more formal quality system and firmly establishes the responsibilty of the people in control.

All this alarmism that predicts failure of the program helps nobody.

It's comparable to the hoopla from the anti-gun registry lobby. They look at the hard "results" based on the gun crime statistics as an indicator of the success of the registry.

The gun registry doesn't erase human nature and it wasn't intended to do so. It wasn't intended to wipe out criminal tendancies. It can't get rid of people who have a desire to use a gun in a crime. Criminal activity in general and even in aviation is due to societal failures and can only be cured long term. The gun registry is just a tool and a good one in my opinion. Not for directly reducing crime, but as an incremental improvement in the tools we give law enforcement.

In aviation, SMS is just an incremental improvement in how we apply quality control throughout the organization and establish responsibility in an effort to develop a culture of safety in the organization.

This doesn't mean that a company with SMS imposed is suddenly perfectly safe. And it doesn't mean that accidents suddenly stop. What it does mean is that people who can't responsibly carry out their SMS commitments will have their authority removed eventually. In the long term, companies should evolve into responsible safe operators or cease operations.

So if Joe Slimey wants to start a 703 charter operation, he still can. Like you, TC doesn't own a crystal ball and can't tell 100% if Joe Slimey will run a safe operation. But SMS will ensure that Mr. Slimey can't hide behind his chief pilot or DOM when the shit hits the fan. That in itself should be a good deterent that we don't have right now.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:12 am

As I stated on another thread:

I think this industry sector (air taxi small ops) is already frought with cut-throat competition, low-time/experienced pilots, poor regulatory oversight due to the remote nature of the operations and lack of concern by the regulator, more complicated weather, smaller and older aircraft subject to fewer safety regulations/standards and no effective "whistleblower" protection (and from what I can tell, those being introduced by Bill C-6 will protect the employer more than the employee). And that is just for starters.

As we have seen with trains, which have had SMS since about 2001, companies cannot be trusted to do the right/safe thing. What costs more? "Losing" an employee (for which you cannot be sued) is cheaper than fixing a problem). Larger operations have the added safety net of unions, professional associations and powerful lobby groups while small air taxi ops are basically "on their own". Small companies - will only have added paperwork. Companies that are doing "dangerous" things, will continue producing paperwork which shows everything is done "according to the book". Nothing replaces actual surprise inspections.

This is from another forum of which I am a member:

I'm not sure this applies to working conditions nowadays but in the past we were always notified of WCB making an appearance on our job sites. This would allow us to make sure we were following all safety procedures for that particular day. The following day we would all return to business as usual. Until I was injured this did not bother me or others. The point I think that I missed then, was that by having the WCB appearance on the job site known that all of the unsafe things we were doing would never be known. If WCB was really interested in job safety and were interested in catching companies using unsafe methods that WCB and the companies would not be announcing their arrival. If this practice is still being followed as in my case years ago it is obvious that placing employees in dangerous situations is proof that profit overrides safety and common sense.

Business in the pocket of WCB and WCB in the pocket of Business. The working person does what needs to be done in order to keep their jobs.

WCB provides the BS to the media and until another worker is injured and finally realizes that he/she was duped this travesty will continue.

Injured workers know this to be true. It is the future injured workers who must be informed before they are injured, that they are no more than disposable commodity. It is the working people that we need to inform because WCB, Employers and Government have know this to be true for decades.
It is the same with Transport Canada's OH&S. To add to this, the TSB seems to be taking the position that they can learn nothing new from crashes of older aircraft, such as the Beaver my husband was on.

If you are lucky enough to work for a government agency, then the regulations and standards for your travel by air taxi are much higher than those for the "average joe". Very telling, if you ask me.

Walking Zombie · Post by **Walking Zombie** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:42 am

I seen the post before it was changed and it sounded like the company he worked for contacts out the maintenance on the aircraft, but did do the maintenance planning, and the planning was passed down to him. In this case it would not be the maintenance f**k up. Its a bad situation to be in.

WZ

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:25 pm

you guys got all that from ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????....?

Lurch · Post by **Lurch** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:15 pm

niss wrote:you guys got all that from ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????....?

AMEs Niss, they are far superior then us pilot types. After all, they are engineers.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am

Don't know if anyone cares, but "AME" is somthing of a misnomer - a more correct term would be "aircraft maintenance technician".

For more info on the misuse of the term "engineer" click on:

http://www.peo.on.ca

and then "enforcement".

Keep in mind that if an AME actually attempted to "engineer" something, Transport would immediately revoke his licence.

Q.E.D.

Spinner · Post by **Spinner** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:39 am

Lurch wrote:AMEs Niss, they are far superior then us pilot types. After all, they are engineers.

and don't you guys forget it either!