Investigated by TC

[Highlander99]

Touchy one here. Recently recieved a letter informing me that I am being investigated by TC for 'a possible violation of the CARS'. Should I be getting the lawyers lined up or just sit back and see where it goes? Other than that if any have been through this before any advise would be good to hear.

[Doc]

Do not respond to the letter. They will use you to gather evidence against you. Let them do their work without any help from you. Even acknowledging your presence to TC makes their job easier....they no longer have to prove you were even at the scene. Any violation, or indeed any crime is much harder to prove if the accused just keeps their mouth shut. Keep in mind, these folks are NOT on your side. They are NOT there to help you. Their job is to make sure the violation sticks. Just sit back, say nothing, and see what happens next.

[HS-748 2A]

Highlander99; You in maint. or a driver?

Keep us posted if you can. - Always interesting.

48

[Prairie Chicken]

Highlander99, see my pm.

Do not respond to the letter. They will use you to gather evidence against you. Let them do their work without any help from you. Even acknowledging your presence to TC makes their job easier....they no longer have to prove you were even at the scene. Any violation, or indeed any crime is much harder to prove if the accused just keeps their mouth shut. Just sit back, say nothing, and see what happens next.

Doc, you’re jumping to the conclusion that highlander is guilty. TC don’t. Why would you? True, the burden of proof is on TC, but if you’re not guilty, or if there was some very valid reason why he did what he did, he’ll be a whole lot better off working with the investigator.

Keep in mind, these folks are NOT on your side. They are NOT there to help you. Their job is to make sure the violation sticks.

Wrong, not-so-wrong, and double wrong! The inspector is not on anyone’s “side”. No, they’re not there to help you—or to harm you; and their job sure as heck is not to ensure a “violation sticks”! The truth is, their job is a whole lot easier if the alleged offender can provide an explanation that clears him and permits them to close the file.

[Sasquash]

Highlander99 It would be hard for anyone to wisely make a recommendation on the basis of what you’ve reported so far. For example, is it a serious safety violation (ie: reckless and negligent) or is it somewhat minor? (Ie: deviation from assigned altitude)

Doc is absolutely right in that the regulator has the onus of proving the case, however it seems to me at this stage, there is no mention whether or not actual enforcement action has been recommended.

If you check the enforcement procedure’s manual on the TC website, you’ll see the investigator has several options during the process, including an oral counseling after a comprehensive investigation. (Doc is also right in that the procedure’s manual doesn’t state the regulator has to be on your side). The regulator’s job is to assess whatever evidence is available for his investigation, and then he makes a recommendation to his manager with regards to what enforcement action is appropriate; oral counseling, fine or suspension.

The investigator’s recommendation is also based whether or not he has interviewed the alleged offender who may provide a perfectly good reason why this or that has happened. For example, if you deviated from your assigned altitude because another aircraft was coming head on, then it becomes an accepted defense of necessity, and the investigator would likely recommend no enforcement action. There could be several scenarios similar to this, however, if the investigator is not made aware of any important detail because he or she didn’t talk to you, the he can only recommend on the basis of what he has in front of him. Sometimes what he has in front of him is sufficient that he may recommend in a monetary penalty where otherwise an oral counseling might have been appropriate.

So it is tough call. I would suggest you might want to talk to someone you trust about this, maybe your chief pilot or ops manager if you’re with a commercial operator. Some of the specialized law firm might provide some free advice on an initial call. I have heard good and bad about contacting the regulator.

[Cat Driver]

Highlander99 you are under no obligation to respond in any way.

Silence both verbal and written is the safest avenue, if you did something wrong get a lawyer to handle it.

As far as thinking that by co-operating and answering their questions you have nothing to worry about don't fall for that line.

I believed that some years ago and found out that co-operating only made things worse.

Don't believe anyone who tells you that you can trust them, all it takes is one inspector who decides to make life difficult for you and you will regret being co-operative.

[trey kule]

Without know the seriousness of it, I have to agree with Doc and
Cat..learn from the voice of experience.

What these other good folks are not telling you, is about the process....let me explain.

Unlike the court system, TC's procedure more closely approximates the inquisition. They collect what facts they want...and not necessarily relevant ones. Then, behind closed doors, without any disclosure to you, they make a decision and then, if you are found guilty...you get notification.

It is only after, and if, you file an appeal to the tribunal that you can expect to find out all the facts. And then you are in an uphill battle to get any "missed" information before the tribunal..And dont expect TC inspectors to tell the truth under oath. I think there is ample examples documented of that not being the case.

If it is very serious, TC should be proceding it before the criminal courts, but they seldom do so as it requires a much higher burden of proof on their part.

There is absolutely no onus on you to provide information. My advice is to record any conversations with TC people as I think you will find yourself exposed to promises, veiled threats, etc...you know, the kind of stuff that we are supposed to be warned about . At the very least , keep a diary of times, who you spoke to and exactly what was said.

On the other hand, if its not serious, and you are guilty, suck it up and take the hit.

[Cat Driver]

Trey Kule has outlined the problem of dealing with TCCA on enforcement matters.

They do not need to use our judicial system they have their own court.

In Canada they are allowed to be judge, jury and executioner without giving you a fair open trial process. In a democratic country it is known as a kangaroo Court.

Ask Hedley how unbiased you may find the tribunal.

There is absolutely no onus on you to provide information. My advice is to record any conversations with TC people as I think you will find yourself exposed to promises, veiled threats, etc...you know, the kind of stuff that we are supposed to be warned about . At the very least , keep a diary of times, who you spoke to and exactly what was said.

My advice is if you suspect you are being called by TCCA ask them if they are in fact TCCA and if they say yes hang up.

[prop2jet]

Did this violation occur while you were in a working capacity? If so, is either your chief pilot or operations manager in the know? If so, they would perhaps also have obtained information on this through the principle operating inspector. It might be worthwhile to find out. Aside from that, as previously mentioned there is no necessity in volunteering information to TC, however that being said, a lot of it does depend on the nature of this violation.

If you can't think of any reason why you got this letter, it is entirely possible a mistake might have been made. Not speaking up certainly would not do you any good in this regard.

If it did happen at work and you are able to approach your chief pilot on this, you might want to have a little chat with them.

[xsbank]

Listen to what these guys are saying - your livelihood and future are on the line here and you need to protect yourself. Get all the advice you can and do not talk to them alone - you have the right to be represented. If they ask you to write a letter, do not do it unless you have had it looked over by a lawyer. You might be a great pilot but you suck at writing legal letters. Don't assume that anyone is there to help you unless you have paid them.

I have no idea what your alleged offence is but you are entering the realm of the truly strange and bizarre.

[Prairie Chicken]

behind closed doors, without any disclosure to you,

That's what the letter was about. Inviting input.

It is only after, and if, you file an appeal to the tribunal that you can expect to find out all the facts.

You may ask for copies of evidence they have against you before you respond to the letter. Depending on the nature of the investigation, this is often ATC recordings or radar. Typically you wouldn’t get an entire package until you request a Tribunal, but most should be available for the asking.

If it is very serious, TC should be proceding it before the criminal courts, but they seldom do so as it requires a much higher burden of proof on their part.

No, that’s not right. S. 7.6(2) of the Act : "A person who contravenes a designated provision is guilty of an offence and liable to the punishment imposed in accordance with sections 7.7 to 8.2 and no proceedings against the person shall be taken by way of summary conviction. " As most offence creating provisions of the CARS are designated, proceeding thru the courts is only an option on a few CARS, and serious offences under the Act.

Kule is right in that there is absolutely no onus on you to provide information. He’s also right in suggesting that you record any conversations with TC people. Isn’t this true when dealing with any officials? Get their names and record the time & date that you spoke to them. In case anything goes south, you want a file with all of your information, correspondence, etc.

Prop2jet made some valid comments. Also, if you’re working for an SMS company, the whole complexion of this thing changes.

Oh, and if you are found to be in contravention and go to the TATC, yes, assuming TC did their job right, the TATC will likely find you guilty too.

[Doc]

Highlander99, see my pm.

Do not respond to the letter. They will use you to gather evidence against you. Let them do their work without any help from you. Even acknowledging your presence to TC makes their job easier....they no longer have to prove you were even at the scene. Any violation, or indeed any crime is much harder to prove if the accused just keeps their mouth shut. Just sit back, say nothing, and see what happens next.

Doc, you’re jumping to the conclusion that highlander is guilty. TC don’t. Why would you? True, the burden of proof is on TC, but if you’re not guilty, or if there was some very valid reason why he did what he did, he’ll be a whole lot better off working with the investigator.

Keep in mind, these folks are NOT on your side. They are NOT there to help you. Their job is to make sure the violation sticks.

Wrong, not-so-wrong, and double wrong! The inspector is not on anyone’s “side”. No, they’re not there to help you—or to harm you; and their job sure as heck is not to ensure a “violation sticks”! The truth is, their job is a whole lot easier if the alleged offender can provide an explanation that clears him and permits them to close the file.

Tell me how often you have dealt with TC in the past over violations. Tell me about your legal degree.
If you ever get a letter, I must urge you in the strongest manner NOT to follow your own advice.
Hint. If they didn't think you were guilty, you would never get a letter in the first place. If you weren't there, let them figure it out.
A point missed by many is that the guys from enforcement quite often have backgrounds in law enforcement. They KNOW what to ask. They know how to manipulate you in an interview situation. Unless you have a law degree, you could be at a major disadvantage.
The best initial defense, to any "probe" by TC, is silence.
"You have the right to remain silent.".....use it.

[Doc]

Listen to what these guys are saying - your livelihood and future are on the line here and you need to protect yourself. Get all the advice you can and do not talk to them alone - you have the right to be represented. If they ask you to write a letter, do not do it unless you have had it looked over by a lawyer. You might be a great pilot but you suck at writing legal letters. Don't assume that anyone is there to help you unless you have paid them.

I have no idea what your alleged offence is but you are entering the realm of the truly strange and bizarre.

I'd actually go as far as say, if they ask you to write a letter.....don't do it. Don't put anything in writing. Ever.
Go seek legal advice before you do ANYTHING!!!!!

[Cat Driver]

I have a letter from the DGCA wherein the DGCA clearly states that he supports and " fully " backs up dishonesty and disregard for the CAR's by his top management. ( The arrogant prick even signed it. )

If the DGCA supports dishonesty within his top management how can you even think of believing these supporters of TCCA who post here leaving us with the assumption they are either TC employees or ex Tc employees.

If you talk to them without your lawyer present or put anything in writing that is not approved of by your lawyer you are a fool.

[patter]

Don't say anything. And use an aviation lawyer to speak for you. And document everything, and every conversation.

[Cat Driver]

Touchy one here. Recently recieved a letter informing me that I am being investigated by TC for 'a possible violation of the CARS'.

Was the letter registered and did you sign for it?

[Cat Driver]

Don't say anything. And use an aviation lawyer to speak for you. And document everything, and every conversation.

The best method to document the conversations is to record them, make sure you have it on the recording that they are aware you are recording and they identify who they are.....I have learned a lot dealing with these people...

...I'll trust a common drug dealer more than these people.

[Cat Driver]

Engine Guy they are the same in Europe, the last year I flew in the air show circuit there they brought in a new method to try and catch us..radar to make sure we did not bust our floor.

But in the final analysis I got to out think them...that pass through the bridge was done just because they asked for one last low pass in front of the crowd and as it was not at an air show they forgot to give me a floor....everyone thought I would lose my license but I was sure they would just close their eyes because it was my last flight before I retired.

I am so happy to be out of aviation I can't even fully describe the feeling....thankfully most of my career was in the days where common sense ruled.

P.S :::

When you get tired of your Sukhoi you can give it to me.

[Lost Lake]

I have only had one run in with enforcement. Quite an eye opener. They have only one goal. To convict you of something. Many years back, I had a commercial pilot's license and an ultralight permit. When my medical came due, I did everything as usual. Shortly there after, I received a letter from transport saying they did not get my ECG (yeh I'm over 40), so I paid and had another one done. This all transpired over a 3 month period. They then sent me another letter saying my medical was over 90 days and I would need another. At the time, I was only flying recreational with mu UL permit, so I said piss on it and flew off my UL medical validity period.

A year goes by and I do my medical again. Of course, they ask how many hours I flew last year. The sirens go off in someone's head. I have to send in my logbook. An enforcement lady tells me they are investigating my flying without a current medical. The UL permit states "This permit is valid only for the period specified in the medical certificate, which must accompany this permit"

On the back of the medical certificate, it shows the validity Period for each class of permit or license. A UL is 60 months.

I explained this to the "nice" lady that I had only flew an ultra light for the last year under the privileges of my UL permit and valid medical. Veiled threats, further threat letters. I am laughing at this the whole time. The final answer from her was that she had talked to her "superior" and that they were going to let me off because I had used a loophole!!!
WTF??? She sounded so pissed off that she hadn't gotten a conviction.

They are not there to get information, they are there to convict you!! If you have the slightest doubt about their ability to convict, which you should have since they are pursuing you, don't say a word, get a lawyer and keep your ducks in a row!! Like someone said, they are usually ex enforcement people, who probably were fired from their last job and applied at the only place in the world who would want to hire them for their total ineptitude and uselessness.

[Lost Lake]

To put things in a different perspective: In civil enforcement, a person makes a "complaint". The police investigate it to determine if there is any validity to that complaint. After careful investigation, including usually talking to the complainant, they talk to the judicial system and determine if a "charge" should be laid based on ALL the evidence available. It is either laid or the complaint is dropped. If the charge is laid, the complainant is formally charged and read his rights. Then off to a trail by a jury of his peers.

In transport, an employee working for any number of departments talks to his superior about a possible infraction. They check the regs and decide there is an infraction. They contact enforcement, whose job it is to gather additional evidence against the complainant.

Ergo, when enforcement is talking to you, unlike the police who are deciding if a charge should be laid, the charge has already been laid against you and they are now, not deciding if there is a case, since this has already been determined, but are trying to get enough evidence to hang you. You are already at the trial part of the case, and you may not even know what infraction you have committed. Any evidence given by you is part of the trial, not the investigation!!

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY OR DO!!

[Cat Driver]

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY OR DO!!

Even more important lost lake, say nothing do nothing.

Your story is just like what happened to me, got a call from enforcement about a report FSS filed.

The issue had nothing to do with anything I had done wrong and I knew who was phoning me by name and figured he was just doing his job and making a call to check the facts.

W R O N G ......he was making the call to find a way to violate me.

By even talking to him I started a process that lasted for weeks involving two separate offices.

The only way I stopped him was when I finally had enough of his intimidation I told him that if he contacted me again I was filing an harassment charge against him...that ended it.

N E V E R......N E V E R ever talk to them on any level at any time as they are not to be trusted E V E R .

[Liquid Charlie]

I assume the letter was not double registered so it's an "unofficial" enquiry -- it's a fishing trip -- ignore it - if you know what it's all about "circle your wagons" if you have no clue then it can't be a major thing.

[Hedley]

... and on that note, see you all at the Tribunal on Friday,
where we will be discussing my family being rather
curiously "banned for life" from ever performing at
another airshow in Canada. We fly at airshows in
the USA, Mexico, Carribbean, Central America, etc
but never, ever in the country of which we are
citizens, and pay exhorbitant taxes. Funny, eh?

Despite having never dinged an aircraft in my
decades of flying some pretty weird airplanes
in some pretty weird places doing some pretty
weird things, I have had to represent myself
many, many times at the Tribunal Review, Tribunal
Appeal, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeals.

Like checking the oil, pumping gas and cleaning the
windshield, if you want to fly airplanes in Canada, you'd
better learn to represent yourself in Court. Sure, you'll
make some mistakes the first time or two, but it's a
learning experience, and a very valuable skill.

You'll get pretty good at it after a while. Main
thing to remember is that when you file your
appeal to Federal Court, they have an obscure
regulation as to the maximum number of typewritten
lines you can have, on one page. Guess how I
learned that one?

[xsbank]

Its sad, isn't it? This is our government and its regulator we are talking about here. They are just one step away from showing up at your door with guns and doing a Mugabe on you. The process is so flawed that it becomes impossible to distinguish the difference between those who deserve to be sanctioned and those who could solve their misunderstanding with a meeting.

Throughout the past year or so, we have been trying to come to some sort of understanding with TC and their employees, trying to mitigate the bad feelings. Something like this happens and all the paranoia rises up again and we circle the wagons. There will never be a healthy relationship with the workers and the regulator if this sort of kangaroo court/hang 'em mentality endures.

Once upon a time, when I was flying a Beav part-time into Nanaimo Harbour, I was sitting in the office waiting for my next flight and 2 plain-clothes RCMP arrived and announced loudly that they wanted to speak to me. They cleared out the pilot lounge and told me that someone had laid a complaint about me, claiming I had nearly hit a boat upon landing, and the had had to swerve to avoid being hit. That was an offense against the Air Rags and an offense against the rules of the road, because on the water you are considered a boat. Not knowing any better I cooperated with them. I asked if I needed a lawyer and they, naturally, said no (remember whose side they are on - not yours!). They made me write a statement and sign it. Anyway, they came AGAIN at work, some weeks later, and hauled me out of the office, in front of my passengers, and delayed the flight. Same process again, me not talking now.

About 3 months later, all this time I am wondering what was going to happen, I get a letter in the mail saying they were "declining to seek a prosecution" and the matter would be dropped! There never was a cause! *ssholes! I started asking around and it turns out that the guy who laid the complaint lived on Newcastle Island and hated floatplanes, noise etc. He commuted to the Nanaimo hospital in his little speedboat (16') where he worked as an orderly. The son-of-a-bitch would shoot out of his dock at full speed and go straight across the harbour, targeting float planes, to lay a spurious complaint. He had laid numerous charges and he had been cautioned! That's all, cautioned! AAArghh! I had been humiliated, the suspicion put out there that somehow I was incompetent in front of my peers my chief pilot and my passengers, possibly to lose my livelihood; he gets a caution.

They didn't want the boater because with him, they would have had to charge him and take him to court and they would have got $50 out of him. Me, I would have gotten the tribunal and they could have squeezed thousands out of me and a suspension, had the allegations been provable.

Don't say DICK to them and if you are forced, use a lawyer. Its your ass on the line - they are merely doing a day's work and another mark in the 'conviction' column, they get attaboys, you get screwed.

[Hedley]

just one step away from showing up at your door with guns and doing a Mugabe on you

That step has already been taken. Last year, a good friend of mine,
who was a founding judge of the Tribunal, had his house broken into
by a Transport Inspector and FOUR armed RCMP ... with an invalid
warrant!

They knew the warrant was invalid, but decided to go ahead anyways,
because what the heck, this is only Canada, and citizens don't have
any rights in Canada.

So they held the founding judge at gunpoint for SIX HOURS while
they performed an illegal search and seizure. Amazingly, a rather
forgiving Tribunal admitted the documents seized as admissible
evidence, which is a truly horrible precedent. The incredible irony is
that they already had photcopies of all of the original documents
that they seized!

Until you are on the receiving end of one of these "campaigns"
it is difficult to fully comprehend what few rights you have in
Canada.