Transport Canada Shares Blame For Accident
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The Moon
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to delete a thread because it was originated by a new member you'll have a hard job ever getting new members! The original post was merely a link to a newspaper article. It was hardly a flame, or personal attack that might justify moderation.
I didn't see the thread on AvCanada, but if it was the same, Widow should be ashamed of herself for deleting it.
I didn't see the thread on AvCanada, but if it was the same, Widow should be ashamed of herself for deleting it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - lets be exactly like AvCanada and delete every thread that even hints at the possibility of discussion against Transport or an operator who allows their flight crew to operate outside the rules. Who cares if the OP has two posts? - maybe they're smart and they think about what to say first, deciding they have nothing of value to add to a post - unlike 80% of the people over on AvCanada and about 20% of the people here who just shoot their mouth off.
Some of you need to grow a pair, seriously. What is the point in having open forums where people can express their opinion if you are just going to delete every thread you don't agree with?
Granted you cannot be blatantly blasting people as the law still recognizes libel and slander, but come on - none of that is going on here in this thread; and as far as I am concerned, Transport Canada is outside this scope because they are a government department which uses our tax dollars to operate, therefore they work for us (in theory) and are well open to a good, harsh handling by the users.
As for this discussion - Transport, the pilot and the operator are all in the wrong.
For one, the pilot was an idiot for operating in conditions where other pilots and dispatchers were saying no - there is experience and then stupidity - stupidity is disregarding the regulations while not listening to the others around you. Experience is knowing you can do something and realizing there is another day to do it. With his previous history, as written, he should have been grounded;
Two, the operator for allowing a pilot to continue flying with this guys history and for allowing their pilots to weeve in and around the rules as it suited them; and
Three: Transport, for allowing these BC float operators to play loose with the rules. I cannot even fart the wrong way without our POI wondering if there is a safety concern which mandates removing the OC from the wall so explain to me how in the hell is Pacific Region allowing these operators to continue when they are clearly, in my opinion, surfing around the rules?
Some of you need to grow a pair, seriously. What is the point in having open forums where people can express their opinion if you are just going to delete every thread you don't agree with?
Granted you cannot be blatantly blasting people as the law still recognizes libel and slander, but come on - none of that is going on here in this thread; and as far as I am concerned, Transport Canada is outside this scope because they are a government department which uses our tax dollars to operate, therefore they work for us (in theory) and are well open to a good, harsh handling by the users.
As for this discussion - Transport, the pilot and the operator are all in the wrong.
For one, the pilot was an idiot for operating in conditions where other pilots and dispatchers were saying no - there is experience and then stupidity - stupidity is disregarding the regulations while not listening to the others around you. Experience is knowing you can do something and realizing there is another day to do it. With his previous history, as written, he should have been grounded;
Two, the operator for allowing a pilot to continue flying with this guys history and for allowing their pilots to weeve in and around the rules as it suited them; and
Three: Transport, for allowing these BC float operators to play loose with the rules. I cannot even fart the wrong way without our POI wondering if there is a safety concern which mandates removing the OC from the wall so explain to me how in the hell is Pacific Region allowing these operators to continue when they are clearly, in my opinion, surfing around the rules?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so explain to me how in the hell is Pacific Region allowing these operators to continue when they are clearly, in my opinion, surfing around the rules?
Two issues come into play here.
Each region is on their own to regulate in any manner that suits the present person in charge of the region. Ottawa may as well be on another planet as far as how any region acts.
All one needs do is some research on the person in charge of the Pacific Region and all will become clear as to why it is like it is.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 57
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After I pointed out a similar fact to DHC2 Widow in another forum, she deleted the thread, rightfully so.
I also stick by my comment. TCCA has quietly condoned the rule-skirting that goes on here in Pacific Region for many years ... it is well documented for those who care to investigate.
After Davis Inlet, and TSB Rec. A01-01, TC should have investigated ways to improve oversight of small and remote operations. "Funny" that Rec wasn't referred to in this report.
I can't help but wonder just how much information was removed when all the "interested parties" had their say over the draft report.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 70
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is my first post on this forum .
I do not wish to dis any one be it an operator ,a pilot or TC .I think we are heading in the right direction by discussing the problems that we face in every day Coastal VFR flying.Education and common sense is paramount in having a successful career.
The Operators that have suffered losses in my mind are all good operations .
Please fly safe
Beechnuts
I do not wish to dis any one be it an operator ,a pilot or TC .I think we are heading in the right direction by discussing the problems that we face in every day Coastal VFR flying.Education and common sense is paramount in having a successful career.
The Operators that have suffered losses in my mind are all good operations .
Please fly safe
Beechnuts
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast Canada
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The pilot got what he deserved...??"
What does that mean? The penalty for having a "can do" attitude is death?
IMHO, the pilot was wrong and needed 'retraining' but where was management? Is a talking-to (three times, I might add) sufficient? Apparently management was ineffective and negligent.
What is with this Widow-bashing? Good thing she has a thick skin, at least as thick as those who bash her. I'm bored with it, it has nothing to do with this thread and it might enlighten you lot that she lost her husband in a float-plane crash on the Wet Coast so her opinion about feckless float-plane flying is informed and golden.
What does that mean? The penalty for having a "can do" attitude is death?
IMHO, the pilot was wrong and needed 'retraining' but where was management? Is a talking-to (three times, I might add) sufficient? Apparently management was ineffective and negligent.
What is with this Widow-bashing? Good thing she has a thick skin, at least as thick as those who bash her. I'm bored with it, it has nothing to do with this thread and it might enlighten you lot that she lost her husband in a float-plane crash on the Wet Coast so her opinion about feckless float-plane flying is informed and golden.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So a "Can Do" attitude is flying below VFR minima and an attitude that places you in the managers office two or three times?
Perhaps instead of slagging the management, you would care to look at both the pilot and the management in the same light, instead of viewing this as a "lost soul who was getting the job done."
You may also care to look at TC who allows this attitude to prevail in the coastal regions.
Quite a number of these smaller operators are a Type C Dispatch - in other words Pilot Self Dispatch - in some cases the management has written into their COM that there will be an authorization process to weight the risk and make sure pilots are making the right calls - I would suggest that this is not what is going on with this or other coastal operators. I would also suggest that many pilots would despise management stepping into the go/not go decision. So until such time that this happens, and should they be operating a Type C Dispatch, then the pilot gets all the blame for flying in weather below minima as far as I am concerned. You want the PIC, then act like it.
In this case, the only blame management can have (and I stress in this case) is that they did not pull this guy from the flight line and retrain (as you suggest) or amend their ops manual. Either way the final decision in the Pilot-in-Commands.
We all get the tasks given to us done in one way or another, but the safe way is to wait for the weather to pick up instead of relying on some messed up attitude that "...because I've flown in this area for 20 years, I've seen everything and, and, and..."
Perhaps instead of slagging the management, you would care to look at both the pilot and the management in the same light, instead of viewing this as a "lost soul who was getting the job done."
You may also care to look at TC who allows this attitude to prevail in the coastal regions.
Quite a number of these smaller operators are a Type C Dispatch - in other words Pilot Self Dispatch - in some cases the management has written into their COM that there will be an authorization process to weight the risk and make sure pilots are making the right calls - I would suggest that this is not what is going on with this or other coastal operators. I would also suggest that many pilots would despise management stepping into the go/not go decision. So until such time that this happens, and should they be operating a Type C Dispatch, then the pilot gets all the blame for flying in weather below minima as far as I am concerned. You want the PIC, then act like it.
In this case, the only blame management can have (and I stress in this case) is that they did not pull this guy from the flight line and retrain (as you suggest) or amend their ops manual. Either way the final decision in the Pilot-in-Commands.
We all get the tasks given to us done in one way or another, but the safe way is to wait for the weather to pick up instead of relying on some messed up attitude that "...because I've flown in this area for 20 years, I've seen everything and, and, and..."
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast Canada
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying that this pilot's actions were laudable, I just dispute the assertion that he, and by extension, every pilot who has 'cowboy' tendencies, (look around your own flight department) needs to die for it.
This guy was not self-employed, therefore what was the role of the CP and the Ops Manager here, especially as this was not their first accident? Oversight seems to be missing here.
This guy was not self-employed, therefore what was the role of the CP and the Ops Manager here, especially as this was not their first accident? Oversight seems to be missing here.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes
on
10 Posts
First, even as a lay person I'd say that the record for float operations on the West Coast is fairly dismal, though I acknowledge up front that the terrain is dangerous, the volume is enormous, and water operations, by their nature, are more dangerous statistically than land ops. If we are to blame someone, then there is plenty to go around.
TC enforcement is sporadic, but then I don't see how it can be otherwise. There can't be a TC rep to watch an operator more than a couple of times a year, it's easy enough to be a good boy while they are around! Also, most of the time they have a whole load of other concerns as well, paperwork, aircraft maintenance, ops manuals, local safety precautions, training manuals and procedures, docks, offices, staff, avgas safety, an endless list. And just how are TC to watch a pilot who himself is two hundred miles from his base? At some point they have to say " We have checked all that we can for this operation and we rely on them to continue operating as they do while we are present."
HOWEVER we might certainly be concerned about the current SMS push. SMS might be a good philosophy in principle but if the idea is that it should largely take the place of regular and irregular inspections etc, it looks like just another way of saving money and I suspect, human nature being what it is, companies will compromise unsupervised safety to the bottom line.
It is not difficult to see how a company might have a word with a pilot about minima while quietly admiring him for 'getting the job done.' Then again, "a word" in hindsight might have been just about anything. I fly passenger occasionally on this coast and it worries me that any company allows a pilot to fly one of their almost irreplaceable aircraft and just as irreplaceable passengers after he has been 'spoken to' more than once. Today we visited a two room schoolhouse a hundred and fifty kms from our administrative centre and I was thinking about how the teachers were operating almost like those of a hundred years ago, responsible on the spot for all immediate decisions. Well pilots around here are in the same position and I suspect it is only accident when head office learns of potential incidents or close calls.
Then there are pilots. Of course they are ultimately responsible but how do we hold them accountable on a daily basis? If you were a passenger and the aircraft flew too close to cloud, did a scud run for the last two kms perhaps, would you report it or just say "Well he must have known what he was doing because we're here safely." If the cloud is six or seven hundred feet down the valley would you get on the plane? Would you watch other passengers get on the plane? You've got four passengers expecting to make a connection at YVR and the route out is a 'maybe.' Do you go?
It is interesting how many on here seem to have just one entity to blame. If progress is to be made then we need to be very realistic and dispassionate about who should do what and how we ensure they do it. If you want more enforcement someone is going to have to pay for it. Yes, TC is pretty inefficient, (and I am a guy who thinks they are idiots often enough too!) but they are not the only ones, just a different kind of inefficiency.
TC enforcement is sporadic, but then I don't see how it can be otherwise. There can't be a TC rep to watch an operator more than a couple of times a year, it's easy enough to be a good boy while they are around! Also, most of the time they have a whole load of other concerns as well, paperwork, aircraft maintenance, ops manuals, local safety precautions, training manuals and procedures, docks, offices, staff, avgas safety, an endless list. And just how are TC to watch a pilot who himself is two hundred miles from his base? At some point they have to say " We have checked all that we can for this operation and we rely on them to continue operating as they do while we are present."
HOWEVER we might certainly be concerned about the current SMS push. SMS might be a good philosophy in principle but if the idea is that it should largely take the place of regular and irregular inspections etc, it looks like just another way of saving money and I suspect, human nature being what it is, companies will compromise unsupervised safety to the bottom line.
It is not difficult to see how a company might have a word with a pilot about minima while quietly admiring him for 'getting the job done.' Then again, "a word" in hindsight might have been just about anything. I fly passenger occasionally on this coast and it worries me that any company allows a pilot to fly one of their almost irreplaceable aircraft and just as irreplaceable passengers after he has been 'spoken to' more than once. Today we visited a two room schoolhouse a hundred and fifty kms from our administrative centre and I was thinking about how the teachers were operating almost like those of a hundred years ago, responsible on the spot for all immediate decisions. Well pilots around here are in the same position and I suspect it is only accident when head office learns of potential incidents or close calls.
Then there are pilots. Of course they are ultimately responsible but how do we hold them accountable on a daily basis? If you were a passenger and the aircraft flew too close to cloud, did a scud run for the last two kms perhaps, would you report it or just say "Well he must have known what he was doing because we're here safely." If the cloud is six or seven hundred feet down the valley would you get on the plane? Would you watch other passengers get on the plane? You've got four passengers expecting to make a connection at YVR and the route out is a 'maybe.' Do you go?
It is interesting how many on here seem to have just one entity to blame. If progress is to be made then we need to be very realistic and dispassionate about who should do what and how we ensure they do it. If you want more enforcement someone is going to have to pay for it. Yes, TC is pretty inefficient, (and I am a guy who thinks they are idiots often enough too!) but they are not the only ones, just a different kind of inefficiency.
Too sensible for here
Chris, a very sensible post that will probably get you shelled then deleted.
The mantra is it is all TC’s fault. A particular Lord Voldemer controls an evil empire and leads innocents to their doom . In fact it is much more complicated and involves a lot of dynamics and social interaction that is hard to understand let alone quantify. It is easier just to blame the evil empire.
As an example. Many years ago, before I learned to fly, I was at a small strip in Manitoba trying to hitch a ride. 3 big guys showed up, with bags and tool boxes and squeezed themselves into a hired Cessna for a short hop to start the week at a power dam.
As it taxied out the front wheel of the Cessna was just bouncing along the ground. I was not flying at that point but it was clear that plane was grossly overloaded and out of C of G.
Think of all the players involved. The pilot clearly knew. His employer must have known. It wasn’t about money. Manitoba Hydro has buckets of it and was not going to order people fly in overloaded planes. The pilot cost his employer money as there should have being two trips with more revenue and more hours in the log book to boot.
The people at the airport and the dam site would have known the plane was overloaded but did anyone drop a dime and call TC or inform Manitoba Hydro? I doubt it because no one gave it a second look. The passengers in the plane would have known but rather than wait for second trip it was, I’ll just squeeze in. There was no crash that day and the same scenario plays out every day all over the north. Someday you get unlucky and then the hand wringing starts.
The pilot who always gets it in is lionized, “he’s a real pilot”. The pilot who sits and waits is often shunned by customers and employers and ends up down the road. Pilots get the message pretty quickly.
It’s not a simple issue. A new regulation isn’t going to change things when the existing rules are being broken. A new dynamic is needed and that will only start to happen when the customers start demanding it.
There are a lot of players involved but ultimately cash rules and the customers control the cash. When they can differentiate service providers based on quality and safety things will change.
The mantra is it is all TC’s fault. A particular Lord Voldemer controls an evil empire and leads innocents to their doom . In fact it is much more complicated and involves a lot of dynamics and social interaction that is hard to understand let alone quantify. It is easier just to blame the evil empire.
As an example. Many years ago, before I learned to fly, I was at a small strip in Manitoba trying to hitch a ride. 3 big guys showed up, with bags and tool boxes and squeezed themselves into a hired Cessna for a short hop to start the week at a power dam.
As it taxied out the front wheel of the Cessna was just bouncing along the ground. I was not flying at that point but it was clear that plane was grossly overloaded and out of C of G.
Think of all the players involved. The pilot clearly knew. His employer must have known. It wasn’t about money. Manitoba Hydro has buckets of it and was not going to order people fly in overloaded planes. The pilot cost his employer money as there should have being two trips with more revenue and more hours in the log book to boot.
The people at the airport and the dam site would have known the plane was overloaded but did anyone drop a dime and call TC or inform Manitoba Hydro? I doubt it because no one gave it a second look. The passengers in the plane would have known but rather than wait for second trip it was, I’ll just squeeze in. There was no crash that day and the same scenario plays out every day all over the north. Someday you get unlucky and then the hand wringing starts.
The pilot who always gets it in is lionized, “he’s a real pilot”. The pilot who sits and waits is often shunned by customers and employers and ends up down the road. Pilots get the message pretty quickly.
It’s not a simple issue. A new regulation isn’t going to change things when the existing rules are being broken. A new dynamic is needed and that will only start to happen when the customers start demanding it.
There are a lot of players involved but ultimately cash rules and the customers control the cash. When they can differentiate service providers based on quality and safety things will change.
Last edited by 20driver; 30th Sep 2010 at 14:44.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 57
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I had more time to respond.
I agree there is plenty of blame to go around, but wasn't everyone on board this aircraft working (or travelling to work at the behest of their employer)?
If that is indeed the case, the only suable party is Transport Canada, thanks to the Meredith Exchange. No employee/employer can sue anyone else who is covered by (provincial) Worker's Compensation, either employee or employer, anywhere in Canada.
The way it was explained to me, even if I had declined my WorksafeBC Pension, I would not have been able to sue, for example, my husband's employer, the air operator or its employees (including the pilot or his estate), the AMO or its employees, a Canadian aircraft or parts manufacturer or its employees, etc. Because my husband was deemed to have been working and was covered by Worker's Comp.
If I had declined my pension, I could, however, have gone after TCCA. But five and a half years ago, when I had to make that decision on the heals of my husband's death, I had no idea the truth of this industry or I would have made a quite different decision.
Further, the "Little Crown" (or Provincial Crown) seldom goes after the "Big Crown" (Federal Crown), so there is little or no chance that WorkSafeBC would go after TCCA for the, say, 1/3 liability (my opinion, reference Wapiti).
You have to try to understand, lawsuits aren't always about money. Sometimes they are about making a point, so that the truth comes out, and people care and government acts.
I agree there is plenty of blame to go around, but wasn't everyone on board this aircraft working (or travelling to work at the behest of their employer)?
If that is indeed the case, the only suable party is Transport Canada, thanks to the Meredith Exchange. No employee/employer can sue anyone else who is covered by (provincial) Worker's Compensation, either employee or employer, anywhere in Canada.
The way it was explained to me, even if I had declined my WorksafeBC Pension, I would not have been able to sue, for example, my husband's employer, the air operator or its employees (including the pilot or his estate), the AMO or its employees, a Canadian aircraft or parts manufacturer or its employees, etc. Because my husband was deemed to have been working and was covered by Worker's Comp.
If I had declined my pension, I could, however, have gone after TCCA. But five and a half years ago, when I had to make that decision on the heals of my husband's death, I had no idea the truth of this industry or I would have made a quite different decision.
Further, the "Little Crown" (or Provincial Crown) seldom goes after the "Big Crown" (Federal Crown), so there is little or no chance that WorkSafeBC would go after TCCA for the, say, 1/3 liability (my opinion, reference Wapiti).
You have to try to understand, lawsuits aren't always about money. Sometimes they are about making a point, so that the truth comes out, and people care and government acts.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dhc2widow
You have to try to understand, lawsuits aren't always about money. Sometimes they are about making a point, so that the truth comes out, and people care...
A few pilots, a very few, have actually been known to start legal proceedings because that is the only way to effect change. In many situations, initiating legal proceedings is the only way to make the existing laws applicable and enforceable.
Doing so, however, almost inevitably comes at an incredible price, in far more than monetary terms. None of their (former) friends will ever accuse them of being altruistic. At least not around here, anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widow has seen the documentation of my legal battle with T.C.
Widow also knows I won and was promised a settlement of $250,000 tax free from the top bureaucrat in Transport Canada.
The finding of wrongdoing by TCCA was in my favor and was made about four years ago, to this day I have not seen one penny of the money they owe me.
But I did get to publicly name several of T.C.'s top management and describe them as morally corrupt.
As widow stated, money is not everything.
However I could sure use what they owe me.
Widow also knows I won and was promised a settlement of $250,000 tax free from the top bureaucrat in Transport Canada.
The finding of wrongdoing by TCCA was in my favor and was made about four years ago, to this day I have not seen one penny of the money they owe me.
But I did get to publicly name several of T.C.'s top management and describe them as morally corrupt.
As widow stated, money is not everything.
However I could sure use what they owe me.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for his actions and the safety of his passengers. Using this incident and the TSB report to place blame on the regulator will get nowhere.
Are we any more lenient on a bank robber because he found a breech in security? Are we any more lenient on a murderer because he was able to get away with it the first five times?
This pilot knowingly broke the rules repeatedly. He gambled with his passenger's lives. Not TC.
Stop trying to blame your shortcomings or indiscretions on the regulator.
Are we any more lenient on a bank robber because he found a breech in security? Are we any more lenient on a murderer because he was able to get away with it the first five times?
This pilot knowingly broke the rules repeatedly. He gambled with his passenger's lives. Not TC.
Stop trying to blame your shortcomings or indiscretions on the regulator.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He deserved what he got as a result of his own stupidity.
His passengers didn't.
This guy ignored the rules, not TC.
If this guy was known to behave like this, breaking the rules on a regular basis, then how is that TCs fault?
Couldn't his colleagues have done more to protect him from himself?
Does that mean all operators who knowingly turn a blind eye are not at fault either?
Three parties here, TC, the operator, and the pilot. All three sound like they're negligent in their duties and responsibilities. Flying has always been an inverted pyramid of responsibility with ultimate responsibility falling to the PIC.
This guy was negligent and fully responsible for the outcome of this flight.
Ignoring the rules is just stupid in my opinion. That's what he did. Ignored the rules and put his passengers lives at risk. That was stupid and we can't fix stupid.
If you ever give your passengers the option of going with you or staying behind due to the risk, then you already have your answer.
If you're flying with someone who takes these kinds of risks, don't pass it off as "Can Do". Turn them in.
At least doing so might save some lives.
Willie
His passengers didn't.
This guy ignored the rules, not TC.
If this guy was known to behave like this, breaking the rules on a regular basis, then how is that TCs fault?
Couldn't his colleagues have done more to protect him from himself?
Does that mean all operators who knowingly turn a blind eye are not at fault either?
Three parties here, TC, the operator, and the pilot. All three sound like they're negligent in their duties and responsibilities. Flying has always been an inverted pyramid of responsibility with ultimate responsibility falling to the PIC.
This guy was negligent and fully responsible for the outcome of this flight.
Ignoring the rules is just stupid in my opinion. That's what he did. Ignored the rules and put his passengers lives at risk. That was stupid and we can't fix stupid.
If you ever give your passengers the option of going with you or staying behind due to the risk, then you already have your answer.
If you're flying with someone who takes these kinds of risks, don't pass it off as "Can Do". Turn them in.
At least doing so might save some lives.
Willie
