Riding on Risk - Fifth Estate to air Sept. 25th
 

In its many years of bringing investigative reports to Canadians, the Fifth Estate has had its share of alarming stories. This season debuts with startling and disturbing allegations about the people we depend on to ensure our safety when we fly. The story begins with an urgent e-mail to the Fifth Estate.

The writer says she has “come across interesting, internal information from Transport Canada.” The sender: a journalism student who has found a USB key/computer memory stick in a coffee shop. The student’s discovery contains interesting information indeed. There are warnings from a security inspector at Canada’s biggest airport alleging public safety is being compromised because security and safety regulations are being circumvented in favour of profit and convenience.

In Riding on Risk, airing Friday, Sept. 25, at 9 p.m. (9:30 NT), on CBC-TV, reporter Hana Gartner talks to whistle blowers who have risked their livelihoods to try to change a system that they believe is putting passengers and airline employees in grave and needless danger—at the airports and in the air.

We’ll also meet Kirsten Stevens of British Columbia, a woman whose logger husband boarded a routine flight one day, promising to be home in time for dinner with her and their three children. But, the small floatplane carrying him crashed and all aboard were killed. Stevens assumed Transport Canada would investigate. She was shocked when she realized they had closed their file on the crash. She did her own meticulous investigation and pinpointed a mechanical failure that may have led to her husband’s death. Since then, she has become a crusader, and a magnet, for whistle blowers inside the industry desperate to share their concerns about aviation security and safety.

Finally, the Fifth Estate takes the investigation to federal Minister of Transport, John Baird. Hana Gartner gives the Minister the opportunity to respond to the allegations and asks the question that should be on the minds of anyone in Canada who flies: should industry, concerned about saving money and cutting corners, be the same people to worry about safety?

Acting executive producer of the Fifth Estate is Sally Reardon. CBC Newsworld rebroadcasts the fifth estate on Sundays, at 7 p.m. ET, and Tuesdays, at 10 p.m. ET/PT. Programs are also archived at www.cbc.ca/fifth.

Hi dhc2widow

Thanks for the heads up.

As you say, Fifth Estate has done a mighty good job in the past. I am desperately (but not optimistically) hoping that somebody soon blows the lid off the abandonment of safety oversight responsibility by TC. The philosophy of "SMS is the answer" will result in an increase in accidents.

grizz

Im sorry, but this whole bashing the SMS thing is getting a little boring now. I've bit my tounge with you for long enough.

Personally, I've seen the benifit of SMS within our own company, whose corporate culture has changed quite dramatically over the past two years.

Having just gone through the final audit with Transport within the last 6 months, they seem to take this pretty damned serious and from what I've been told and have seen, this whole "let the companies have full oversight" is a crock of s*it. You think for one second Transport would allow a company to continue operating unsafely? Wrong answer. The POI, PMIs and CSOs will all still be required to do routine audits, during which time they will assess the operators SMS, whether they tell you about it or not. As for me, if I walked into an operator as a POI and saw unsafe acts which were not being dealt with in a reasonable manner, you can bet your ass I'd be serving up NOS' on silver platers; and they will be too.

And dont think for a second that the major operators like Air Canada, West Jet, Canadian North, Morningstar and the lot dont have a first rate SMS. While not an employee, I have seen bits of the WestJet one and Im impressed. It works, and they see the benefit because it saves them money on all this proactive reporting - something which they thought was going to cost them money.

Oh god, but they dont have to report to Transport! Youre right, and because they dont have the cousin of the taxman breathing down their backs they can come up with solutions which are tailored to their company, rather than one made for a two plane operator who knows nothing of operating a fleet of of 100 aircraft or more.

But you will naturally counter with the fact that this means they may cut corners. Why? Cutting corners now may cost them triple the amount of money three years down the road, and seeing as most operators have some form of shareholder, corporation or owner Im pretty sure they will go with the "cheap" option which would be to pay out the safe way now rather than pay out the millions later.

You know, its going to certain "mom-and-pop" operators trying to compete in markets who are so saturated with other companies, managed by Chief Pilots and Executives who were around way back before whatever preceeded the ANOs who think this is all Ottawa bulls*it and do nothing with SMS that we will have the problem with; but then, was that not the case before SMS. Is that not what SMS is trying to weed out??? hmmm...

SMS wont save people who go into it thinking its a bad thing, and frankly DHC2Widow youre not even giving this a chance. Lets just all jump on the bandwaggon now and call it a failure shall we.

As for those people who grab a thumb drive, read it and see "...circumvented for profit...". or the like, these are still companies who have to make a profit. What you see as "...circumventing for profit..." may simply be nothing less than the SMS requirement for "Risk Management" and the company, airport authority or other institution may be saying that the likelihood and severity of an event happening is, in their opinion, worth the risk.

Just because someone does not agree with that Risk Assessment does not mean its wrong or unsafe. Would you call landing a fully loaded 727 or 737 onto an ice runway safe? Probably not, but guess what...it happens all the time in Canada's north and to people used to seeing them land on 11,000 feet of straight pavement, it may not sound like the safest thing in the world, yet talk to people who know what the hell they are doing and you may just find that its just fine.

See heres the problem with most of the SMS naysayers. They are - mostly - people with just enough information, but with no experience that are making the complaints.

I think I am somewhat of an expert and I have 35 years of aviation experience
 

TRSA

I disagree with you, check for a private message from me and an offer to discuss this topic.

I have some experience in Maintenance and as a pilot with my own aircraft. I worked in manufacturing and in the military, now in commercial aviation.

I am afraid that I have had personal experience that contradicts what you say. Officially, the company does not endorse what happens at remote locations in the middle of the night in a roaring snow storm, but I think we should work to the same standards as those that work under the executive's windows in broad daylight inside the hangar from 9 to 5. SMS is a disaster waiting to happen. For me the end of my career is near, I am glad that I will not be a victim of this program for much longer.

+TSRA

I did not say that SMS is a bad idea. Coincidentally, I am presently engaged in producing an SMS for a medium sized (Canadian based) operator -- then introducing it and training to it.

As with the previous poster I'm an "old fart" (slightly more than 38 years in the aviation business). Most of that time was in operational positions, some in management and some in instructing. And guess what -- 25 years of that was with Transport Canada.

Of course SMS (as a philosophy and a template for mitigating risk) can be effective. But one of the lessons learned -- in aviation, in banking, in marine safety, in correctional services, in hospital services, and on and on -- is that even the most well-intended and well-aimed regulations are worse than useless without a well-funded, strongly mandated, diligent independent regulator. I say "worse than useless" because the resulting misplaced sense of safety, and confidence in the system, has historically led people, companies, and even whole countries into disaster.

Let me make the point simply and clearly: A philosophy of "SMS will increase safety levels" when combined with an under-resourced regulator, and a weak statutory mandate for that regulator, WILL result in a degradation of safety levels.

I too am happy to engage further in this discussion for anyone who wishes to start a new thread under safety. Or feel free to PM.

grizz

Hana Gartner is interviewed about the upcoming program by CBC NewsWorld. Click here ...

Being many years but never really thought much of the fifth estate show.

Widow
I looked through a lot of material on your site including reading the report by the engineers you hired. What was the mechanical failure you refer to above?

Thanks
20driver

20driver, please check your PMs.

The program is now online at Riding on Risk | CBC News: the fifth estate

Interesting.
But it's been going on for years.
I remember after 9/11 at C3, we were doing a flight to Florida and due to the strick measures put in place by the US, all luggage had to be inspected, were they all inspected? no !
We were supposed to of had security doing the search and by 5.30am only one security agent to search 400 plus bags, 2 flights to MCO depart 06.25.
It became a random search, 1 out of 5 maybe if that and back then the bags went straight down the belt onto a cart, no xray!
Terrible airport. terrible authorities.

That was about 40 minutes wasted. Typical fifth estate mish mash that has not improved in 20 years. What was the point of the show? Airline safety or airport security? A missing bag at Pearson there, a lost flash drive here, a non standard fitting on a carb, how does it all come together?

Any chance of some actual data of safety trends? Are things getting better, worse or about the same. What questions should the public ask?

Widow I do feel for your loss and applaud what you are trying to do. But if you want to get something changed you are going to need to start dealing in real facts and offer concrete actions.
20driver

She did her own meticulous investigation and pinpointed a mechanical failure that may
 

Widow, the Waldron report, which you paid for, does not mention any mechanical failure at all. A mechanical failure means something broke (failed). What part was broken? The report tries to infer there pilot may have being trying to land based on the prop pitch control position. That is not a mechanical failure but it is a stretch.

20driver

I did not create the program. I did not choose the way in which words would be woven together for effect. I'll have to listen again, but I don't think anyone said there was a mechanical failure. We *thought* we had found "the smoking gun" in that fitting. Hana Gartner asked if "negligence" was found and that fitting should not have been there, and that is negligence as far as I'm concerned. As is not resealing float hatches, and a variety of other proofs of extremely poor maintenance on the aircraft.

Besides which, there was no way to test whether the carb, fuel or ignition systems were functioning at the time of the accident because they sat corroding with the fuselage for three years before they were examined.

The point of "my" segment was that the neither TC nor the TSB investigated this accident of a commercial aircraft with five working fatalities for causes, contributing factors or regulatory infractions including the Canada Labour Code. Moreover - no one learned anything. The damned TSB file A05P0039 doesn't even exist on the TSB website.

If you want to rehash the rest of the accident "story", there's already a thread that exists which you participated in. You should know well enough there is much more to the "accident" than maintenance problems. Dave's death was all about swiss cheese.

Pretty obvious to almost everyone I talked to. Transport isn't enforcing the regulations, they're "trusting" the operators, and John Q. Public doesn't like that.

"Trusting the operators" has been part of the aviation scene since it began. How could it be otherwise, unless there was a requirement for a TC inspector to sign off on every takeoff, or perhaps to be on board?

The world of flying pre-SMS looked a lot like it does today. Certain position holders signed off on syllabuses and on procedures that TC approved. The company said it would operate that way, and if it failed to do so, TC stepped in and investigated and applied sanctions if required.

What exactly is so amazingly different about the industry under SMS now?

I think grizzled answered that in post #5.
The ICAO does not recommend a reduction of traditional oversight. SMS is supposed to be an additional layer. But that is not how Transport Canada has gone about implementation.