New Underground Site
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LNAV VNAV:
Yes they do, the normal channel of complaint is to the head of the Department and if that does not resolve it you then go to the Regional Director.
If there is still not a resolution the next step is to the Director of the department i.e. Maintenance and Manufacturing in Ottawa.
Should there still be no resolution your last line of request within Civil Aviation is the Director General Civil Aviation in Ottawa.
Should you still have not received a resolution the next step is Mr. Robert Sincennes the Director of "Quality Assurance " for all of Transport Canada.
If he does not solve the problem the next step is contact your M.P and ask for his/her assistance.
If you are solvent enough to be able to afford a good Lawyer you then have the courts to appeal to.
In my case the complaint was very simple, my company was given an Inspector who had a personal dislike for me prior to my having applied for a Flight Training School Certificate. From the start it was evident I was in deep trouble with this individual as my permanent Inspector so I wrote to the Regional Manager of M&M and tried to explain my problem, well several letters later things had deteriorated to the point that my Lawyer wrote to the Regional Manager and requested the removal of this Inspector.
To make it short I was denied another Inspector which of course crippled my company and I finally went bankrupt due to not having any means of earning money.
I have taken all the steps outlined above and also filed an harassement complaint.
Going on three years later I have still not received any real resolution to this matter, except for the findings of an investigation ordered by the Regional Director General Transport Canada that came to the conclusion my complaints and requests were justified, and the Regional Manager of M&M had denied me due process which resulted in my company going out of business.
Now that they have come to that conclusion they have informed me that should I wish to receive any compensation for my losses this is their position now.
Quote:
" Should you wish to seek damages against the Crown, I suggest that your legal council commence action against the Department through a formal process that will involve contact with the Department of Justice. "
There that should clear up your question on how to resolve a complaint against Transport Canada.
By the way, any suggestions on how I should proceed from here bearing in mind I can't afford lawyers?
Chuck
Yes they do, the normal channel of complaint is to the head of the Department and if that does not resolve it you then go to the Regional Director.
If there is still not a resolution the next step is to the Director of the department i.e. Maintenance and Manufacturing in Ottawa.
Should there still be no resolution your last line of request within Civil Aviation is the Director General Civil Aviation in Ottawa.
Should you still have not received a resolution the next step is Mr. Robert Sincennes the Director of "Quality Assurance " for all of Transport Canada.
If he does not solve the problem the next step is contact your M.P and ask for his/her assistance.
If you are solvent enough to be able to afford a good Lawyer you then have the courts to appeal to.
In my case the complaint was very simple, my company was given an Inspector who had a personal dislike for me prior to my having applied for a Flight Training School Certificate. From the start it was evident I was in deep trouble with this individual as my permanent Inspector so I wrote to the Regional Manager of M&M and tried to explain my problem, well several letters later things had deteriorated to the point that my Lawyer wrote to the Regional Manager and requested the removal of this Inspector.
To make it short I was denied another Inspector which of course crippled my company and I finally went bankrupt due to not having any means of earning money.
I have taken all the steps outlined above and also filed an harassement complaint.
Going on three years later I have still not received any real resolution to this matter, except for the findings of an investigation ordered by the Regional Director General Transport Canada that came to the conclusion my complaints and requests were justified, and the Regional Manager of M&M had denied me due process which resulted in my company going out of business.
Now that they have come to that conclusion they have informed me that should I wish to receive any compensation for my losses this is their position now.
Quote:
" Should you wish to seek damages against the Crown, I suggest that your legal council commence action against the Department through a formal process that will involve contact with the Department of Justice. "
There that should clear up your question on how to resolve a complaint against Transport Canada.
By the way, any suggestions on how I should proceed from here bearing in mind I can't afford lawyers?
Chuck
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you have much to say here. You have never had a problem with TC and therefore have no idea how f*cked up some members of the TC mafia can be.
I've had an excellent 20+ years relationship with TC. I have had several disagreements that were addressed using the proper channels. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost. Either way, I picked my fights intelligently (in my opinion) and continue to have an excellent relationship. Ocassionally, you have to swallow your pride and accept the fact that you were in the wrong.
By no means did I just bend over and take it, but I also didn't resort to grand-standing, threats or insults.
Believe it or not, even though I don't always agree with TCCA policy, it is more or less evenly applied and nobody has a serious edge or advantage due to the inconsistancy of TC inspectors.
Chuck,
Regardless of the status of your identity, your comments on the "underground" site are defamatory, insulting and somewhat embarassing to us who enjoy a serious and beneficial relationship with our industry regulator. It's hard to believe that the entire TCCA staff is wrong and you are right especially with the huge gap in information regarding your beef. It's even harder to believe that TCCA will care what is posted on that site since it's intent is erroded by posts like the ones you have penned.
So far all I get from your posts is that you had an illegal prop on your 152 and it rightly got grounded. If I was the inspector involved I would have also gone after the so-called AMEs who continuously signed off the anual with the wrong prop installed.
As far as the airworthiness inspectors involved in the anual audits, its not their job to double check every inspection the AME signs off. They need only address a reasonable sampling. Don't blame TC for an AME's oversight. Why aren't you mad at the AME(s)? Or the guy who sold you the airplane?
Cowards? Why am I a coward just because I post to an anonymous forum without using my real name? This is an informal discussion forum and using your real name just adds an air of grand-standing. It makes this whole process formal. I don't post to PPRUNE from my office desk. I do it from home on my free time. I don't represent my company and I feel the vast majority of PPRUNE members feel the same way. If you want to formalize your posts, then feel free. Just don't attempt to degrade the rest of us for respecting the original intent of PPRUNE. An informal aviation discussion forum for aviation professonals.
I'm new to PPRUNE and don't know much about you Chuck, but many of the posts in other sections seem reasonable. What's the real story here? What evil did TCCA do to you?
By the way, if you can't afford a lawyer, just accept the situation and move on. Chaulk it all up to experience and get on with your life with your new found knowledge of how the system works, and work within the system. It appears that you're in too deep to consider apologizing, (you can catch more flys with honey than with a fly swatter) but it seems you've been around long enough to know what works for you.
I've had an excellent 20+ years relationship with TC. I have had several disagreements that were addressed using the proper channels. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost. Either way, I picked my fights intelligently (in my opinion) and continue to have an excellent relationship. Ocassionally, you have to swallow your pride and accept the fact that you were in the wrong.
By no means did I just bend over and take it, but I also didn't resort to grand-standing, threats or insults.
Believe it or not, even though I don't always agree with TCCA policy, it is more or less evenly applied and nobody has a serious edge or advantage due to the inconsistancy of TC inspectors.
Chuck,
Regardless of the status of your identity, your comments on the "underground" site are defamatory, insulting and somewhat embarassing to us who enjoy a serious and beneficial relationship with our industry regulator. It's hard to believe that the entire TCCA staff is wrong and you are right especially with the huge gap in information regarding your beef. It's even harder to believe that TCCA will care what is posted on that site since it's intent is erroded by posts like the ones you have penned.
So far all I get from your posts is that you had an illegal prop on your 152 and it rightly got grounded. If I was the inspector involved I would have also gone after the so-called AMEs who continuously signed off the anual with the wrong prop installed.
As far as the airworthiness inspectors involved in the anual audits, its not their job to double check every inspection the AME signs off. They need only address a reasonable sampling. Don't blame TC for an AME's oversight. Why aren't you mad at the AME(s)? Or the guy who sold you the airplane?
Cowards? Why am I a coward just because I post to an anonymous forum without using my real name? This is an informal discussion forum and using your real name just adds an air of grand-standing. It makes this whole process formal. I don't post to PPRUNE from my office desk. I do it from home on my free time. I don't represent my company and I feel the vast majority of PPRUNE members feel the same way. If you want to formalize your posts, then feel free. Just don't attempt to degrade the rest of us for respecting the original intent of PPRUNE. An informal aviation discussion forum for aviation professonals.
I'm new to PPRUNE and don't know much about you Chuck, but many of the posts in other sections seem reasonable. What's the real story here? What evil did TCCA do to you?
By the way, if you can't afford a lawyer, just accept the situation and move on. Chaulk it all up to experience and get on with your life with your new found knowledge of how the system works, and work within the system. It appears that you're in too deep to consider apologizing, (you can catch more flys with honey than with a fly swatter) but it seems you've been around long enough to know what works for you.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LNAV-VNAV...
There is a formal process for addressing complaints relating to TC Civil Aviation:
Civil Aviation Complaint Filing Procedures
As Chuck has indicated on other forums, this process clearly didn't work for him and his situation appeared to have spiralled out of control.
I believe (and hope) that most complaints can be resolved much more easily than that.
Wouldn't the Regions have an internal complaint-handling protocol [internal investigation] where you can file your complaint and have it looked at by other than M&M or whoever you're having trouble with?
Civil Aviation Complaint Filing Procedures
As Chuck has indicated on other forums, this process clearly didn't work for him and his situation appeared to have spiralled out of control.
I believe (and hope) that most complaints can be resolved much more easily than that.
Last edited by CD; 2nd Jun 2003 at 07:27.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CD
Thanks for the link; it spells out clearly the avenues for appeal. Trouble, as I see it, is that Robert Sincenne works for Merlin Preuss, the DGCA in Ottawa. Preuss has no real power over the regions. The department still exists as five kings with their own kingdom and be damned the directives from Disneyland-on-the-Rideau.
Maybe Sincenne's QA Branch can eventually change that...
Thanks for the link; it spells out clearly the avenues for appeal. Trouble, as I see it, is that Robert Sincenne works for Merlin Preuss, the DGCA in Ottawa. Preuss has no real power over the regions. The department still exists as five kings with their own kingdom and be damned the directives from Disneyland-on-the-Rideau.
Maybe Sincenne's QA Branch can eventually change that...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC
I nthink you are lucky to have a good relationship with TC. I normaly do also, but ran into trouble with an inspector, and he did everything in his power to screw me, and told me this to my face in a room full of other people.
It is nice to get a letter from the head of TC that admits that they or one of them had screwed up, and that you can seek compensation, but you will have to go through courts to do it. I like Chuck have been finally told that TC screwed up, and have the option of seeking compensation, but like Chuck I don't have the cash to take TC on in court.
It is stuff like this that makes me upset with TC. This is my profession, and this is what puts food on my table.
When someone goes out of their way to F*CK you, it pisses me off. This particular inspector knows that if I get a chance to screw him, it will be done.
I nthink you are lucky to have a good relationship with TC. I normaly do also, but ran into trouble with an inspector, and he did everything in his power to screw me, and told me this to my face in a room full of other people.
It is nice to get a letter from the head of TC that admits that they or one of them had screwed up, and that you can seek compensation, but you will have to go through courts to do it. I like Chuck have been finally told that TC screwed up, and have the option of seeking compensation, but like Chuck I don't have the cash to take TC on in court.
It is stuff like this that makes me upset with TC. This is my profession, and this is what puts food on my table.
When someone goes out of their way to F*CK you, it pisses me off. This particular inspector knows that if I get a chance to screw him, it will be done.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC:
Your ignorance of my complaints against " four" Transport Canada officials is obvious, the Propellor incident was well after I had ceased attempting to receive approval of a SOMCM and approval of a PRM for a one airplane FTU OC.
If only you would read my previous explination it should have given you some indication of just how much you don't know about my problems with the Pacific Region Maintenance and Manufacturing.
Please do not insult me any further about how well you have gotten along with TC for the past twenty years, hell when you started I had already been at it for thirty years. And for your information I never ran into a situation such as I have just been through, however that does not mean that I do not have the right to seek a fair resolution to my problem.
Now once again if you wish to attack me with no real knowledge of the issues please identify yourself. If you persist in your slagging me in public and not have the courage to identify yourself then you are a coward...Simple huh?
Chuck
Your ignorance of my complaints against " four" Transport Canada officials is obvious, the Propellor incident was well after I had ceased attempting to receive approval of a SOMCM and approval of a PRM for a one airplane FTU OC.
If only you would read my previous explination it should have given you some indication of just how much you don't know about my problems with the Pacific Region Maintenance and Manufacturing.
Please do not insult me any further about how well you have gotten along with TC for the past twenty years, hell when you started I had already been at it for thirty years. And for your information I never ran into a situation such as I have just been through, however that does not mean that I do not have the right to seek a fair resolution to my problem.
Now once again if you wish to attack me with no real knowledge of the issues please identify yourself. If you persist in your slagging me in public and not have the courage to identify yourself then you are a coward...Simple huh?
Chuck
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VNAV-LNAV :
Quote:
" maybe Sincennes QA branch can eventually change that...."
Robert Sincennes briefed Merlin Preuss in Feb. of 2002 on my complaints using my file TC #5015-12391.
I received a letter from Mr. Preuss on Mar. 19, 2002. the following is his answer.
" As requested, we have completed our review of all of the documentation available in the matter. Based on the lack of substantiating evidence to support your allegations, the position provided to you earlier by Mr. LaFlamme in his letter of November 23, 2001, is still valid.
In conclusion, I consider the matter closed, as we find that we are unable to take further action unless documented evidence to support your allegations is provided.
Signed by
Merlin Preuss
Director General
Civil Aviation. "
( Quote: From Art LaFlamme on November 23, 2001 )
" Concerning your continued dissatisfaction towards Messers. xxx and xxx, I find that their handling of this matter has been quite satisfactory and they have my full support.
Art LaFlamme
Director General
Civil Aviation." )
I offered Mr. Preuss sworn affidavits to support my allegations as soon as I received his decision. The affidavits support my allegation of dishonesty and abuse of power in this matter within the top level of TC.
To this date there has been no reply, even though I have on many occasions tried to receive a reply form him. As well I have on several occasions requested that they ( Merlin Preuss and Robert Sincennes. ) contact me directly to hear my side of this matter, they have never contacted me directly to hear my side of it. I do have a phone.
So what I have is the Acting Regional Director General Transport Canada paying for an investigation into my allegations, the investigation took four months, and then another meeting to correct some of the errors, my allegations were shown to be factual, the report shows that I was denied due process.
So here I am vindicated to some degree, but the Director General Civil Aviation still feels that this is " quite satisfactory and he fully supports those who denied me due process and obviously the manner in which they did it.
There is far more to this and we shall see how they react to the next steps that we will go through in this matter.
I wish to also express the resentment that I am building up when these guys just causually keep showing up at their offices and continue to collect full pay and build up their pensions regardless of how they perform.
I on the other hand have lost the retirement plans and savings I had worked toward and saved for. What makes this so frustrating is I broke no rules or laws, when there was a problem within their own system they chose to protect their own and screw me.....
Well maybe they will clue on to the fact that I may not be so easy to screw for free.
Chuck
Quote:
" maybe Sincennes QA branch can eventually change that...."
Robert Sincennes briefed Merlin Preuss in Feb. of 2002 on my complaints using my file TC #5015-12391.
I received a letter from Mr. Preuss on Mar. 19, 2002. the following is his answer.
" As requested, we have completed our review of all of the documentation available in the matter. Based on the lack of substantiating evidence to support your allegations, the position provided to you earlier by Mr. LaFlamme in his letter of November 23, 2001, is still valid.
In conclusion, I consider the matter closed, as we find that we are unable to take further action unless documented evidence to support your allegations is provided.
Signed by
Merlin Preuss
Director General
Civil Aviation. "
( Quote: From Art LaFlamme on November 23, 2001 )
" Concerning your continued dissatisfaction towards Messers. xxx and xxx, I find that their handling of this matter has been quite satisfactory and they have my full support.
Art LaFlamme
Director General
Civil Aviation." )
I offered Mr. Preuss sworn affidavits to support my allegations as soon as I received his decision. The affidavits support my allegation of dishonesty and abuse of power in this matter within the top level of TC.
To this date there has been no reply, even though I have on many occasions tried to receive a reply form him. As well I have on several occasions requested that they ( Merlin Preuss and Robert Sincennes. ) contact me directly to hear my side of this matter, they have never contacted me directly to hear my side of it. I do have a phone.
So what I have is the Acting Regional Director General Transport Canada paying for an investigation into my allegations, the investigation took four months, and then another meeting to correct some of the errors, my allegations were shown to be factual, the report shows that I was denied due process.
So here I am vindicated to some degree, but the Director General Civil Aviation still feels that this is " quite satisfactory and he fully supports those who denied me due process and obviously the manner in which they did it.
There is far more to this and we shall see how they react to the next steps that we will go through in this matter.
I wish to also express the resentment that I am building up when these guys just causually keep showing up at their offices and continue to collect full pay and build up their pensions regardless of how they perform.
I on the other hand have lost the retirement plans and savings I had worked toward and saved for. What makes this so frustrating is I broke no rules or laws, when there was a problem within their own system they chose to protect their own and screw me.....
Well maybe they will clue on to the fact that I may not be so easy to screw for free.
Chuck
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 2nd Jun 2003 at 09:09.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now once again if you wish to attack me with no real knowledge of the issues please identify yourself. If you persist in your slagging me in public and not have the courage to identify yourself then you are a coward...Simple huh?
Attack you? I'm simply stating an opinion based on the information you've provided. And that information has so many holes in it, I still don't understand what your beef is besides the 152 prop. Could you provide more details? If you are so sensitive to having your name "slagged" perhaps you should have remained anonymous on this anonymous forum. Do that or grow a thicker skin.
Attack you? I'm simply stating an opinion based on the information you've provided. And that information has so many holes in it, I still don't understand what your beef is besides the 152 prop. Could you provide more details? If you are so sensitive to having your name "slagged" perhaps you should have remained anonymous on this anonymous forum. Do that or grow a thicker skin.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC
Are you that stupid that you can't see that there was, and still is a problem with M&M that goes all the way to the top. I believe Chuck has mentioned it a few times that an inspector told him that he would never give any certificates for his school. The due process was lost when M&M heads failed to look into the problem, and a buisness was ruined.
It is funny that a suposed neutral and non profit government organization is willing to spend so much time and money to protect their screw up, and in the mean time financialy ruin someone.
I'm lucky, all I lost out on was an endorsement when they still gave those out. They just draged their feet until the regulations changed, and then told me that since the regulations had changed, it was not a matter for them anylonger. Because of that I missed out on a great job that would have had me much more financialy sound. All because of a back pedaling, lying SOB.
Are you that stupid that you can't see that there was, and still is a problem with M&M that goes all the way to the top. I believe Chuck has mentioned it a few times that an inspector told him that he would never give any certificates for his school. The due process was lost when M&M heads failed to look into the problem, and a buisness was ruined.
It is funny that a suposed neutral and non profit government organization is willing to spend so much time and money to protect their screw up, and in the mean time financialy ruin someone.
I'm lucky, all I lost out on was an endorsement when they still gave those out. They just draged their feet until the regulations changed, and then told me that since the regulations had changed, it was not a matter for them anylonger. Because of that I missed out on a great job that would have had me much more financialy sound. All because of a back pedaling, lying SOB.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rvm,
Nope. I'm too smart to fall for the BS being thrown around here. I'll stop short of trading insults though, as I'm not going to be dragged down to that level. It's one thing to "say" an inspector lyed or threatened you. It's an entirely different matter to "prove" it.
I've seen no proof that Chuck has been done any wrong. Just sour grapes.
This "us against them" mentality might seem fun to you, but it's just anti-productive and a convenient way to pass the blame for our own mistakes and missed opportunities.
Nope. I'm too smart to fall for the BS being thrown around here. I'll stop short of trading insults though, as I'm not going to be dragged down to that level. It's one thing to "say" an inspector lyed or threatened you. It's an entirely different matter to "prove" it.
I've seen no proof that Chuck has been done any wrong. Just sour grapes.
This "us against them" mentality might seem fun to you, but it's just anti-productive and a convenient way to pass the blame for our own mistakes and missed opportunities.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWM:
Your story is typical of many in our industry who have suffered personal loss for no reason except some self serving dishonest bureaucrat knows he can get away with anything he wants to.
This open exposure of the inner workings of TC will in the end benefit all of us, both inside and outside of TC.
Having worked with Transport Canada for decades I find it truly baffling that there is this cover up mentality so ingrained within the upper management, baffling that they would not step right in and clean up their own problems.
Even the dimmest among us should be able to figure out that it is better to rid yourself of an employee who may bring shame on the whole group than to blindly cover up and defend the individual in the hope it will all just get buried.
Well this one is like a train that is running downhill without brakes, there has to be a real wreck at the bottom.
They know beyond all doubt that I can prove my allegations especially now that they have the McNeal Report to digest and when they get my re written proof of claim it should be very, very interesting to see their next move.
Mind you they have all the resources they need to bury me including hundreds of free lawyers. The only difference this time is if they do succeed in burying me there will be a whole lot of people at the funeral, to examine the cause of death, so to speak....
The hangup now is only compensation for what has been done to me.
But I guess they make the rules and it is unthinkable to allow some solitary nobody to question how they do things, and even more unthinkable to admit they were wrong.
Yes, it it is truly baffling.
Chuck
Your story is typical of many in our industry who have suffered personal loss for no reason except some self serving dishonest bureaucrat knows he can get away with anything he wants to.
This open exposure of the inner workings of TC will in the end benefit all of us, both inside and outside of TC.
Having worked with Transport Canada for decades I find it truly baffling that there is this cover up mentality so ingrained within the upper management, baffling that they would not step right in and clean up their own problems.
Even the dimmest among us should be able to figure out that it is better to rid yourself of an employee who may bring shame on the whole group than to blindly cover up and defend the individual in the hope it will all just get buried.
Well this one is like a train that is running downhill without brakes, there has to be a real wreck at the bottom.
They know beyond all doubt that I can prove my allegations especially now that they have the McNeal Report to digest and when they get my re written proof of claim it should be very, very interesting to see their next move.
Mind you they have all the resources they need to bury me including hundreds of free lawyers. The only difference this time is if they do succeed in burying me there will be a whole lot of people at the funeral, to examine the cause of death, so to speak....
The hangup now is only compensation for what has been done to me.
But I guess they make the rules and it is unthinkable to allow some solitary nobody to question how they do things, and even more unthinkable to admit they were wrong.
Yes, it it is truly baffling.
Chuck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: At the airport
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting coversation. I know only too well what a frustrating situation it can be trying to deal with the TC boys and even their delegates.
It's too bad that most of them were the rejects from the industry who could not hold a real job. Yes I know there are some good ones and I do know a few however most are self serving power hungry twits.
Unfortunatly like any other branch of government service they have themselves so covered by each other that they make it impossible for the average "JOE" (or Chuck) to prove that he/she has been done wrong that most give up before it can be proven. Those that do go the whole 9 yards end up not being able to afford the lawyers to sue because we know the government will sure use our tax dollars to keep it in the courts till you are broke.
I think a great way to get this in the open, and for people to realise that they were not the only ones, is on forums like this. Maybe if enough people come forward the media will take more notice of it and then it will really make some waves.
For those of you who have battles with TC (or the FAA or JAA or whoever) good luck, and for those who think they are whiners, grow up and open your eyes.
Phil
It's too bad that most of them were the rejects from the industry who could not hold a real job. Yes I know there are some good ones and I do know a few however most are self serving power hungry twits.
Unfortunatly like any other branch of government service they have themselves so covered by each other that they make it impossible for the average "JOE" (or Chuck) to prove that he/she has been done wrong that most give up before it can be proven. Those that do go the whole 9 yards end up not being able to afford the lawyers to sue because we know the government will sure use our tax dollars to keep it in the courts till you are broke.
I think a great way to get this in the open, and for people to realise that they were not the only ones, is on forums like this. Maybe if enough people come forward the media will take more notice of it and then it will really make some waves.
For those of you who have battles with TC (or the FAA or JAA or whoever) good luck, and for those who think they are whiners, grow up and open your eyes.
Phil
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC
I do have proof, and I do have witnesses, and I also have letters on file that prove my case, but as I stated, the regulations have since changed and I lost out. So keep your mouth shut If you don't know anything about the particular situations. This whole thread started because of a new website where people in the industry can talk to others in the industry, for the good of the industry. I never said all inspectors, or all management at TC are bud. But as has been noted here by several people, there is a problem, and it costs money we don't have to get the right thing done.
As to being too smart to drag yourself down to trading insults, what do you think you are doing by saying that just because you have never had a problem with TC, that we all must be just sour grapes?
As to this us against them attitude is so far off the mark, you must be stupid.
What this is all about is fixing our industry so we don't feel scared to come out and say "hey this happend today, and I think we should fix it." Because the way it is now, some inspector with a drive for promotion, will come out and find you neglagent, and ruin you and your buisness. So what is the end result? People just don't speak up, and safety suffers because of it. Why do you think that other countries have annonamous reporting? Because that is a way of improving safety without getting run out of buisness.
Phil
Thanks, you hit the nail on the head.
I do have proof, and I do have witnesses, and I also have letters on file that prove my case, but as I stated, the regulations have since changed and I lost out. So keep your mouth shut If you don't know anything about the particular situations. This whole thread started because of a new website where people in the industry can talk to others in the industry, for the good of the industry. I never said all inspectors, or all management at TC are bud. But as has been noted here by several people, there is a problem, and it costs money we don't have to get the right thing done.
As to being too smart to drag yourself down to trading insults, what do you think you are doing by saying that just because you have never had a problem with TC, that we all must be just sour grapes?
As to this us against them attitude is so far off the mark, you must be stupid.
What this is all about is fixing our industry so we don't feel scared to come out and say "hey this happend today, and I think we should fix it." Because the way it is now, some inspector with a drive for promotion, will come out and find you neglagent, and ruin you and your buisness. So what is the end result? People just don't speak up, and safety suffers because of it. Why do you think that other countries have annonamous reporting? Because that is a way of improving safety without getting run out of buisness.
Phil
Thanks, you hit the nail on the head.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confidential Reporting
rwm posted:
The TSB manages SECURITAS, a confidential program through which you can report potentially unsafe acts or conditions relating to the Canadian transportation system that would not normally be reported through other channels.
Securitas—Confidential Reporting
Securitas—Rapports confidentiels
People just don't speak up, and safety suffers because of it. Why do you think that other countries have annonamous reporting? Because that is a way of improving safety without getting run out of buisness.
Securitas—Confidential Reporting
Securitas—Rapports confidentiels
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CD,
You took the "post" right out of my mouth. Many aviation professionals in Canada are oblivious to the channels they can use to address safety concerns.
rvm,
Canada has one of the safest civil aviation systems in the world, no doubt mainly because we have one of the best civil aviation regulators in the world. There are good and bad individuals, but on the whole TC does it's job (and addresses its mandate) quite well.
Canada's civil aviation system is unsafe? I agree it can be. But I think the blame more often fails on the operator. Not the regulator.
Want examples? Its too easy. Just read some TSB reports.
You took the "post" right out of my mouth. Many aviation professionals in Canada are oblivious to the channels they can use to address safety concerns.
rvm,
Canada has one of the safest civil aviation systems in the world, no doubt mainly because we have one of the best civil aviation regulators in the world. There are good and bad individuals, but on the whole TC does it's job (and addresses its mandate) quite well.
Canada's civil aviation system is unsafe? I agree it can be. But I think the blame more often fails on the operator. Not the regulator.
Want examples? Its too easy. Just read some TSB reports.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: At the airport
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC
While agree with some of what you are saying, I think you have missed the point of the whole thread.
Of course there are operators and individuals out there who flaunt the regs. And yes there are regulators who abuse their power. Most of us on here I would think are trying to go by the regs as best we can.
When was the last time you asked two different TC inspectors for an interpretation of a section of CAR'S??? I will pretty much guarantee you that you go two different answers and they both swore up and down that they were right.
Have you ever seen an individual from TC attempt to use intimidation to get what they want??
I'll guarantee you that unless you've seen both these examples that you've led a pretty sheltered life or you are one of the ones who have a tube of KY jelly waiting and a smile on your face when TC shows up at your shop.
Phil
While agree with some of what you are saying, I think you have missed the point of the whole thread.
Of course there are operators and individuals out there who flaunt the regs. And yes there are regulators who abuse their power. Most of us on here I would think are trying to go by the regs as best we can.
When was the last time you asked two different TC inspectors for an interpretation of a section of CAR'S??? I will pretty much guarantee you that you go two different answers and they both swore up and down that they were right.
Have you ever seen an individual from TC attempt to use intimidation to get what they want??
I'll guarantee you that unless you've seen both these examples that you've led a pretty sheltered life or you are one of the ones who have a tube of KY jelly waiting and a smile on your face when TC shows up at your shop.
Phil
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last time you asked two different TC inspectors for an interpretation of a section of CAR'S??? I will pretty much guarantee you that you go two different answers and they both swore up and down that they were right.
I agree. Ask 2 different AMEs for their interpretation of the CARS and you'll get about 10 different answers as they waffle back and forth pretending to understand the intent of the regulation in question.
A good TC inspector will be honest enough to go through the proper channels in Ottawa for clarification. A bad one will shoot from the hip without checking what the other regions are doing.
No matter what, most will chastise the guy for either not knowing everything by heart or for having an answer that doesn't jive with what the operator is trying to get away with.
I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, so yes I have heard stories about intimidation. Usually followed by a story of how the operator insulted or threatened the inspector. When one of these things goes bad, there is usually an underlying important detail one of the sides fails to mention.
When a cop stops you on the road, is it better to cooperate or to be beligerent? Does the cop have a right to stop you and ask questions at the particular time? It doesn't matter. You should still act cordially. If there is an issue, deal with it in court (the proper channels). Don't try to hash it out on the spot using threats, insults or attempt intimidation. The cop won't budge and won't be so inclined to be lenient. Instead of letting you off you may end up in the back of a cruiser. Is it fair? Probably not. It's human nature. TC inspectors are from the same planet as operators. They will get mad and hold grudges. Why fret about whether or not its for a valid reason? Just treat the guy like an equal from the beginning and you won't have any problems.
I've had very little trouble with TC in my career. And no, I didn't need to purchase any special lubricants....
I agree. Ask 2 different AMEs for their interpretation of the CARS and you'll get about 10 different answers as they waffle back and forth pretending to understand the intent of the regulation in question.
A good TC inspector will be honest enough to go through the proper channels in Ottawa for clarification. A bad one will shoot from the hip without checking what the other regions are doing.
No matter what, most will chastise the guy for either not knowing everything by heart or for having an answer that doesn't jive with what the operator is trying to get away with.
I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, so yes I have heard stories about intimidation. Usually followed by a story of how the operator insulted or threatened the inspector. When one of these things goes bad, there is usually an underlying important detail one of the sides fails to mention.
When a cop stops you on the road, is it better to cooperate or to be beligerent? Does the cop have a right to stop you and ask questions at the particular time? It doesn't matter. You should still act cordially. If there is an issue, deal with it in court (the proper channels). Don't try to hash it out on the spot using threats, insults or attempt intimidation. The cop won't budge and won't be so inclined to be lenient. Instead of letting you off you may end up in the back of a cruiser. Is it fair? Probably not. It's human nature. TC inspectors are from the same planet as operators. They will get mad and hold grudges. Why fret about whether or not its for a valid reason? Just treat the guy like an equal from the beginning and you won't have any problems.
I've had very little trouble with TC in my career. And no, I didn't need to purchase any special lubricants....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: At the airport
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well STC again I do agree with the intent of your post however out in the real world things work a little different. I have on numerous occasions proven a TC inspector wrong when they were insisting quite feverishly that they were in fact correct. I for one will not roll over just because they are the regulator. I've been doing this stuff for a long time and have never had a violation. I've had absolutley wonderfull relations with some TC inspectors and have had screaming matches that one time ended with the TC inspector (male) crying in my office. I refuse to be bullied or intimidated by some fool who wants to exhibit a classic case of short man syndrome. (Or short penis as the case may be..)
For you to have had such a long career in this industry and in this country and never had a run in with TC (or the DOT as they used to be) tells me that either you haven't done much, you've never been in a named position, or you do use the appropriate lubricant.
As for your comments on AME's not being able to interpret CAR's, well let's have a look at them... They are as clear as mud and that is the problem.... If TC can't figure them out, how do they expect the average AME to do it???? Once upon a time we had an E+I manual that worked with things called Air Regs and ANO's... Things I guess were going too easy and for the beaurocracy to grow they had to change things... Then came the AWM which made things a bit more complicated, but we all figured it out after a while so they decided that to keep us under control, they'd better come out with something that even a Philadelphia lawyer couldn't interpret. That way they can keep us all under their thumbs with their own interpretations of what the written statements really mean.
Since the inception of CAR's there has been an inordinate amount of abuse administered by TC just because. No reason really, just some fool trying to push his or her weight around. I could go on and on about this but you sound like the kind of person who will never get it anyhow. If you want to hear more let me know, if you disagree, I feel pity for you.
Phil
For you to have had such a long career in this industry and in this country and never had a run in with TC (or the DOT as they used to be) tells me that either you haven't done much, you've never been in a named position, or you do use the appropriate lubricant.
As for your comments on AME's not being able to interpret CAR's, well let's have a look at them... They are as clear as mud and that is the problem.... If TC can't figure them out, how do they expect the average AME to do it???? Once upon a time we had an E+I manual that worked with things called Air Regs and ANO's... Things I guess were going too easy and for the beaurocracy to grow they had to change things... Then came the AWM which made things a bit more complicated, but we all figured it out after a while so they decided that to keep us under control, they'd better come out with something that even a Philadelphia lawyer couldn't interpret. That way they can keep us all under their thumbs with their own interpretations of what the written statements really mean.
Since the inception of CAR's there has been an inordinate amount of abuse administered by TC just because. No reason really, just some fool trying to push his or her weight around. I could go on and on about this but you sound like the kind of person who will never get it anyhow. If you want to hear more let me know, if you disagree, I feel pity for you.
Phil
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STC:
I really don't have any idea of where you get your ideas but you are really making a lot of assumptions regarding my issues with four TC employees. So I would like to point out a few of your statements and give you my position with regard to them.
You wrote on June 01 03:22
" Calling TC Inspectors terrorists. "
Yes and I was very explicit in naming them. You will also note it was in a letter to them and I told them I would feel more at risk being approached by them that being confronted by common criminals.
You wrote on June 01 16:29
I was defamatory, insulting.
Well if they think it is defamatory they have legal channels to persue a resolution to my remarks.
Then you comment that I am in to deep to apologize.
If someone stole all the tools that you need to work would you apologize to the thief for having being robbed?
You wrote on June 02 21:10
That my problem with TC is " Just sour grapes.
Please re think your comments they are unimformed assumptions and you are dead wrong.
By your own admission you have only been in this game for twenty years, well like I told you I was at it for thirty years before you started. And once again my friend I also have had a very good relation with the regulator, until I ran into these four.
Chuck
I really don't have any idea of where you get your ideas but you are really making a lot of assumptions regarding my issues with four TC employees. So I would like to point out a few of your statements and give you my position with regard to them.
You wrote on June 01 03:22
" Calling TC Inspectors terrorists. "
Yes and I was very explicit in naming them. You will also note it was in a letter to them and I told them I would feel more at risk being approached by them that being confronted by common criminals.
You wrote on June 01 16:29
I was defamatory, insulting.
Well if they think it is defamatory they have legal channels to persue a resolution to my remarks.
Then you comment that I am in to deep to apologize.
If someone stole all the tools that you need to work would you apologize to the thief for having being robbed?
You wrote on June 02 21:10
That my problem with TC is " Just sour grapes.
Please re think your comments they are unimformed assumptions and you are dead wrong.
By your own admission you have only been in this game for twenty years, well like I told you I was at it for thirty years before you started. And once again my friend I also have had a very good relation with the regulator, until I ran into these four.
Chuck
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Mr. Phil Lister:
When you posted your last comment it hit a chord with me.
On a previous occasion, on another forum I read the same thing.
The phrase "short man syndrome" was uttered a few times.
The same guy wrote it each time. I wonder if it's you?
Either that or it's a strange coincidence wouldn't you think?
Really though It doesn't matter.
Its not like I disect posts letter by letter looking for
some hidden meaning.
Anyway, I don't expect you or Charles to agree with me. Chuck
never seems to see things my way and that's OK with me.
All I can hope for is that a few people read my posts and
see that all this underground site isn't the way to resolve
stuff that TCCA and operators have fought over for years. I
have no regrets and feel no obligation to change my mind
or retract any statments I've made. I further won't let these
little petty insults drag me down to the level of the "pity"
expressed in your post. Everyone has an opinion....
I just realized one more thing. I think Phil insulted Chuck. I wouldn't normally bring it up, because it is a little convoluted. Then I read Chucks synopsis of my comments and realized he took several out of context and made assumptions.
Oh well....
Phil said:
For you to have had such a long career in this industry and in this country and never had a run in with TC (or the DOT as they used to be) tells me that either you haven't done much, you've never been in a named position, or you do use the appropriate lubricant.
Then Chuck said:
By your own admission you have only been in this game for twenty years, well like I told you I was at it for thirty years before you started. And once again my friend I also have had a very good relation with the regulator, until I ran into these four.
Sounds to me that Phil is accusing Chuck of stocking up on special "Aeroshell 6" for about 50 years, or that he "hasn't done much".
Is that what you're telling us Phil? By the way, I never said I had no run-ins with TC in my career. I just indicated that I have been able to resolve things through the existing proper channels and that I have an excellent relationship with them. Chuck seems to have had a long career with a good relationship with TC up until recently. So why go on a rampage and condemn the whole organisation?
When you posted your last comment it hit a chord with me.
On a previous occasion, on another forum I read the same thing.
The phrase "short man syndrome" was uttered a few times.
The same guy wrote it each time. I wonder if it's you?
Either that or it's a strange coincidence wouldn't you think?
Really though It doesn't matter.
Its not like I disect posts letter by letter looking for
some hidden meaning.
Anyway, I don't expect you or Charles to agree with me. Chuck
never seems to see things my way and that's OK with me.
All I can hope for is that a few people read my posts and
see that all this underground site isn't the way to resolve
stuff that TCCA and operators have fought over for years. I
have no regrets and feel no obligation to change my mind
or retract any statments I've made. I further won't let these
little petty insults drag me down to the level of the "pity"
expressed in your post. Everyone has an opinion....
I just realized one more thing. I think Phil insulted Chuck. I wouldn't normally bring it up, because it is a little convoluted. Then I read Chucks synopsis of my comments and realized he took several out of context and made assumptions.
Oh well....
Phil said:
For you to have had such a long career in this industry and in this country and never had a run in with TC (or the DOT as they used to be) tells me that either you haven't done much, you've never been in a named position, or you do use the appropriate lubricant.
Then Chuck said:
By your own admission you have only been in this game for twenty years, well like I told you I was at it for thirty years before you started. And once again my friend I also have had a very good relation with the regulator, until I ran into these four.
Sounds to me that Phil is accusing Chuck of stocking up on special "Aeroshell 6" for about 50 years, or that he "hasn't done much".
Is that what you're telling us Phil? By the way, I never said I had no run-ins with TC in my career. I just indicated that I have been able to resolve things through the existing proper channels and that I have an excellent relationship with them. Chuck seems to have had a long career with a good relationship with TC up until recently. So why go on a rampage and condemn the whole organisation?
Last edited by STC; 6th Jun 2003 at 09:11.