PDA

View Full Version : Canadian aviation workers afraid to speak out about serious safety problems


rotornut
23rd Jun 2006, 09:53
Aviation workers muzzled
No whistleblower law to protect them
Dozens want to talk but say they're afraid

Jun. 23, 2006. 05:25 AM
ROBERT CRIBB
STAFF REPORTER

More than three-dozen airline pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers and Transport Canada employees say they are afraid to speak out about serious safety concerns in Canadian skies — an industry code of silence that has triggered calls for whistleblower protection aimed at aviation workers.

While U.S. airline workers have a federal law upholding their right to speak out without fear of reprisals, their Canadian colleagues say sharing what they know would jeopardize their livelihoods and careers in aviation. With families to support, they cannot take that risk.

Four Air Canada Jazz mechanics were suspended last week when they warned of poor maintenance at the airline that threatens passengers' safety.

The widely publicized disciplinary action triggered a chill across the industry. Many contacted the Star with concerns.

In the past two weeks, an investigation by the Star, the Hamilton Spectator and The Record of Waterloo Region has revealed growing cracks in Canada's aviation industry, with close calls in the sky, growing numbers of mechanical defects and lax oversight of airlines.

Consider this from a Transport Canada inspector:

"Inspectors ... will bring to (our) management's attention a case where a company is not complying with the safety-related regulations and management then tries to find a way to make the issue go away without putting any burden on the company. Management would frankly rather not know about any safety issues. ... I can't go on the record for obvious reasons."

From a Nav Canada air traffic controller:

"This system we have in place is broken ... We are becoming increasingly tired, distracted and overworked ... I don't mind my comments being used but anonymously only. I do not want to take any chances with my employment."

From a pilot with a major Canadian airline:

"They're running the airplanes ragged. We've got airplanes going back and forth, back and forth across the Pacific with snags that need to be fixed and maintenance is chasing them but they have no chance."

Like several of his colleagues, the pilot originally agreed to share his comments on the record. But he changed his mind after four Jazz mechanics were suspended for speaking publicly about being pressured to cut corners and release planes into service with potentially serious defects.

Jazz officials said they will investigate the claims, adding that safety is their first priority.

When the pilot learned of the suspensions he told the Star: "Following the recent suspensions of the four Jazz employees, your next article will be scrutinized by my employer for anyone else who is speaking out of line. I would appreciate it if you did not use my name."

Federal Transportation Minister Lawrence Cannon defended his department yesterday, saying Canada's aviation systems are among the safest in the world and there's no evidence to suggest the allegations of the Jazz mechanics are true.

"From Transport Canada's perspective, Air Canada Jazz is conducting a safe operation."

More than a dozen Jazz mechanics — on the condition of anonymity — said they share the same concerns raised by their suspended colleagues.

"There's truth in what they said. At times, safety is compromised," said a Jazz mechanic who has worked for several airlines in Ontario. "(Pressure) to cut corners is something that all mechanics encounter in the industry. It's a known stigma."

Cannon said proposed amendments to Canada's aeronautics act would allow airline companies and individuals to report on minor regulatory violations on a confidential basis. But such reports would be kept from the public even under federal access to information rules.

"Here we're seeing an attempt to make vital safety information more secretive," says Peter Julian, NDP transportation critic. "There is no way anyone can argue that more secrecy is in the public interest. I think we need whistleblower protection so that when we learn of these allegations, the people who bring it forward are protected so we can get to the bottom of it."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`I don't think the minister should be downplaying this. I think the minister should be asking for an inquiry in his own department'

David McGuinty, Liberal transportation critic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Airline workers say they want protection when they report their concerns to employers or federal authorities or go public with the complaints.

Those who manage Canada's aviation system downplay the concerns from pilots, mechanics and controllers.

Transport Canada officials say there are sufficient measures in place to protect aviation workers with concerns to report.

Officials with Nav Canada, the private company that operates the nation's air traffic control system, say that, while there is a problem of understaffing in some facilities, it is spending $40 million a year on recruitment and training and has introduced a "fatigue management program" to ensure "maximum alertness on the job."

Air Canada officials say they welcome any initiatives that will make the aviation system safer and that the company has an internal, non-punitive reporting policy for safety concerns.

On Saturday, retired Alberta justice Virgil Moshansky, who led the country's last major inquiry into aviation safety after the crash of an Air Ontario jet in 1989 that killed 24 people, called for the federal government to launch a new public inquiry in light of what he calls "backsliding" safety standards in the industry.

"When you've got mechanics on the front lines saying you've got a problem and the guy who wrote the definitive report on aviation safety saying it's time for a public inquiry, I'd be very worried," says David McGuinty, Liberal transportation critic. "I don't think the minister should be downplaying this. I think the minister should be asking for an inquiry in his own department."

Many aviation professionals expressed support for the idea of a public inquiry to help reverse what they call a decline in safety standards that is undermining public safety.

"The cost-cutting and general laissez-faire attitude of the authorities and the major airlines (has) left some gaping holes in the public trust," says Capt. Raymond Hall, a 33-year Air Canada pilot. "We're continually being pushed to go further with fewer resources and that inevitably leads to cutting some corners."

Hall is among the few willing to speak on the record. While he has concerns about repercussions, he says public safety is more important.

"I believe that when it comes to flight safety, my professional responsibility to the public that entrusts me with their lives supersedes my fiduciary responsibility to my employer that entrusts me with their assets."

One of Hall's Air Canada pilot colleagues, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear for his "young family", said a "perfect storm" is forming around public safety thanks to an "overburdened, under-funded, somewhat inefficient government regulatory body, a privatized air traffic control system, continuing industry-wide financial crisis (and) demoralized, angry, fatigued, embittered, fearful employees within the transportation system."

On Wednesday, MPs finished debate on the federal whistleblower legislation covering public sector employees. It must still pass through the Senate before being proclaimed law. But the protections offered do not extend to employees of private companies such as airlines.

In the U.S., federal whistleblower legislation covers airline workers who report revelations about serious safety problems to independent federal authorities. The so-called Air 21 legislation directed at the airline industry prohibits employers from retaliating against employees involved in "raising concerns or reporting violations of airline safety rules and regulations."

Airline workers who are suspended, harassed, demoted, blacklisted or disciplined as a result of speaking out can receive everything from job reinstatement to costs associated with filing their complaint.

In 2001, George Gulliford, a former United Airlines mechanic, was reprimanded for reporting aircraft defects to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The U.S. Department of Labor eventually concluded the airline violated federal whistleblower protections. United was ordered to withdraw the mechanic's reprimand and pay his attorney fees.

In another case, Northwest Airlines mechanic Thomas Regner was fired after raising concerns about mechanical issues in 1998. After more than two years of legal wrangling, he won a legal decision that awarded him his job back and over a year's worth of back pay.

"My sympathies go out to those Jazz mechanics," Regner said in an interview yesterday. "It brings back a lot of memories for me. It's sad. These protections need to be in place. You need to be able to say you're not going to look the other way. You need to know you can fight."

Nick Granath, the Minnesota labour lawyer who represented Regner, says the public interest is served when aviation workers with important information are able to come forward.

"These are a class of workers that you want to have protected because they're your front-line defence," he said "There's pressure in the industry to get planes off the ground.

"The mechanic is the one guy who can stop a plane from getting off the ground under questionable circumstances."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151013012513&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

777300ER
24th Jun 2006, 10:21
Ahhh.. The Toronto Star.. Great Source of info!

sec 3
24th Jun 2006, 11:23
Yep, one of the things I don't miss about canada. All the beaurocratic and government bull****. Things like this and now the new inquiry starting on the recently finished Air India bombing trial. Everyones hard earned money out the window. Aviation is no safer in canada than it is where I work.Here at least, no tax, no government bull****:cool:

Bus429
24th Jun 2006, 13:18
More info on a Jazz Air incident...
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2002/a02o0349/a02o0349.pdf

...a Bell 206
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2000/a00q0046/a00q0046.pdf

I don't think Canada is any less safe than any other developed nation. You can find similar reports (a few about BA) on the AAIB site in the UK, as well as the NTSB site in the US.
Reports such as these serve to demonstrate the general malaise affecting our industry. This malaise is the constant pressure on costs with many managers - no doubt unwittingly - compromising safety. Unfortunately, it is up to maintenance staff to refuse to release affected aircraft and for flight crews to refuse to operate them; all easier said than done.

Jerricho
24th Jun 2006, 16:58
It's not only fear...............as sec 3 correctly identifies, it's the bureaucratic grind in attempting to get anything done that leads to indifference.

nnc0
25th Jun 2006, 17:21
I'm really ticked at hearing management being blamed for all of the problems. For the record I very infrequently run into situation where a line manager signed off an airplane or permitted a flight where safety was a factor. I have seen them grimace and suffer over the decision but in the end always choose safety over money. On the other hand I repeatedly, frequently, often, many times a month, have to step in because some pilot tries to dispatch without having fully prepared for the flight, or some mechanic signs of a temporary repair with some half baked ridiculous explanation. To my mind, I'd have those guys suspended for some retraining.

I'll admit managers do make mistakes but to blame them for all them is ridiculous. Due diligence and committment to safety is everybody's concern and I'd wager that the managers are more committed to it than many of the loudest complainers who conveniently only seem to risk making it an issue when wage negotiations are pending or failed. The hypocrisy of their actions is part of the problem and only serves to diminish their credibility in the eyes of those who must rely on their unbiased professionalism.

Heaven help us all if in the end operations come down to "Is this plane unairworthy because of this damage or is it unairworthy because the wage talks have stalled?"

yamaha
25th Jun 2006, 17:30
@nnco

what a complete load of nonsense.
Its not the engineer who invests in bringing a type of culture to a company, its the managers, FULL STOP.

Even then most engineers will fight against it but tend to get worn down with the day in day out struggles and hassles.

If managers spend more time listening to their engineers rather than finding new ways to increase their bonuses, things would be half as bad.

Dockjock
26th Jun 2006, 05:18
Safety is indirectly compromised in Canada by the high operating costs forced on domestic airlines by the tax and fee evironment created by the government.

YYZ is the most expensive airport in the world to operate out of. Ottawa still collects airport rent even after selling them and privatizing their operation. Nav Canada exists as a non profit organization, but enjoys a legislated monopoly. Security tax. Fuel tax. GST. There is so little money left over for profit, that airlines develop "efficiencies" that compromise safety in the name of savings. Normalization of deviance. The industry is in a pot of hot water, where the temperature is raised by one degree every month. At what point do we realize we're boiling?

To me, there is still a very strong safety culture at the operational level in Canada; the shop floor, the flight deck, ops, ATC etc. But overall if each department compromises best practices by just slightly, this affect overall system safety in the negative in a meaningful way.

Taxes, landing fees, and airport rent HAVE to come down!

Dockjock
26th Jun 2006, 05:29
To illustrate my point.

Last year Transport increased the standard passenger weights. This reduced the effective passenger load of each aircraft by approximately 10%. On the surface, more accurate pax weights is a valid improvement. But what is an airline to do- block off 10% of formerly available seating? Not likely. Shortly after this, a company memo informed us that our fuel burn numbers had been revisited, and had been updated to "more accurately" reflect the book values. Our standard alternate fuel was therefore reduced by 17%. Net system safety benefit= zero.

Five Green
26th Jun 2006, 06:34
Couldn't agree more about the tax enviroment for aviation in Canada.

The Canadian Government used to pay for the system through the Ticket surcharge and fuel tax. Fuel tax was sort of fair as you pay more the more you burn. The more you burn means you probaly make more with that airplane.

When Canada privatised Nav Canada and airports etc. they continued to collect the fuel tax but it is put into general tax revenue to pay for other government programs. Then when improvements to the airports etc are needed (like security enhancements) they add more user fees.

It is going to cost the canadian aviation industry eventually as the skies open up and coompetition from elsewhere gets tougher.

Cheers

Glorified Donkey
26th Jun 2006, 12:07
So thats.........

A couple million for the Air India bombing trial
$100 million for the inquiry into the Air India bombing,
$150 million for the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal
$250 million lost due to the sponsorship scandal
$2 Billion for failed gun registry system

so we're at about $2.5Billion, of course the list goes on. :hmm:

And the worst part about is noone has gone to jail, not one person.

Panama Jack
27th Jun 2006, 05:11
Sadly, whistle blower protection legislation is pretty much useless in the modern business environment. Watched a program about the Alaska Airlines MD-80 accident off the coast of Southern California, and one of the FAA officials interviewed candidly explained that while they get potential whistle blowers all the time, she warns them that they better be prepared to leave aviation and pursue a career in a completely different field of work. All sad but true.

jondc9
27th Jun 2006, 05:25
Panama Jack is quite right. While there is whistle blower protection, its like trying to get the VAT back as a tourist in Canada...


I think Aviation would be much better off with the old civil aeronautics board in place and someone who has paid their dues in the airline industry as a pilot or other licensed worker heading it up.

TakeUsInJames
27th Jun 2006, 14:56
Everyone is responsible for safety, but ultimately, it's management's responsability or so it says in every airline's company safety policy. Problem is, airline management isn't trained on safety, the safety group and the pilots are. The safety group's job is to run a safety management program based normally on an anonymous reporting system and an internal evaluation program. They then work together with upper management to iron out any company culture problems that may be hindering safety. They require everyone's trust and that's done by passing around info on what's being done, normally thru a safety magazine or monthly newsletter. Still, half the pages in an accident report are dedicated to latent errors in the organization, poor company safety culture that stems down from management. If management reenforces saving fuel because costs are up or always being on time to stay ahead of the competition, then it's no surprise that in the long run this will become the company's mantra, in detriment to safety. Commercial pressures will always exist,in the end, it's up to the safety group and ultimately up to the pilots to put their foot down and not allow any monkey business. We owe it to the people who put their lives solely in our hands when they board our aircraft.

Panama Jack
16th Jul 2006, 04:10
My normal response is to snicker whenever I hear the trite battle cry "Safety First."

I formed this position years ago in university whilst working on my minor in Aviation Safety.

Whilst "Safety First" might sound cute, warm, fuzzy, etc. the fact of the matter is that it never does come first, before everything else. It never will. Moreover, it never should.

This is not to say that safety should not be a priority. However, by nature, aviation (like driving or boating or almost anything else) is an activity where calculated risks and best practices are used to acomplish objectives while reducing risk to acceptable levels.

I learned in university that there are only two reasons why safety practices are followed:

1) The Government says it must be done (a.k.a. Regulations).
2) It makes economic sense.


The first case is the more clearcut reason.

The second case, however, is harder to evaluate. Economic sense means that for every dollar spent on safety, at least a dollar will be returned in savings. This is why the aviation industry is hesitant to invest, on their own, in such safety measures as replacing inflamable materials in aircraft cabins, fuel tank inerting systems, missle-jamming systems, etc. The problem is that cost of an accident is difficult to esimate. It includes such costs as loss of hull, loss of revenue, settleing of legal suits, rise in insurance premiums, loss of reputation and future business, replacement costs, etc. etc. Very rarely is "human suffering" or emotion a part of this equation.