New Underground Site
 

Check out an interesting new site that should grab your attention.

www.underground.tc.ca

Don't be intimidated, it is as anonymous as you want it to be.

Be nice and play safe kiddies.

Sounds like a reasonably good idea. The reason I am interested is because I'll end up in Canada eventually, and I did my pilot training there, so I'm more up with convos in the Canada region, than here in the UK where I do not fly, quite simply because the cost is diabolical.

Smooth skies,

Dan

I visited the site. It's nothing but a bunch of shysters complaining about some percieved TC abuse.

Obviously, TC isn't perfect, but the posts are 99% drivel so far.

STC:

Drivel?

How long you been working for TC?

Chuck E.

I like it. From what I haved read it hits the nail on the head. I'm getting in on the ground floor. It will help keep me attached to Canadian aviation, since there isn't much promising on the horizon right now. Now back to the sand and sun for me.

How long you been working for TC?

I don't. Is that an appropriate question? I wouldn't ask you how long you've been a shyster Charles.

:O :O :O

Hmmmm... you wouldn't be Airplay would you?

First I work for TC, now I'm Airplay. What is the point of all this? Maybe we should stick to the topic.

OK STC :

I will stick to the topic.

You are calling me a shyster on a public forum.

I am one of the people who are posting on the underground site, and you are stating that I am a shyster and my posts are drivel.

So lets allow the readers of pprune to form their own opinion, based of course on the simple fact that I post under my own name.

I do not post anonymously and denigrate identifiable people, but if I did I would have the facts to back up my allegations.

Only cowards denigrade others behind the safety of anonymity. :O

Chuck Ellsworth

I do not post anonymously. Only cowards do that!

Would you care to explain that statement to the vast majority of PPRUNE forum contributors who remain anonymous?

Mr. Ellsworth, this exhange is slowly degenerating into a discussion that falls outside of the PPRUNE guidelines and gets farther and farther from the subject matter.

I refuse to continue to debate with you in this manner. I further suggest you retract or clarify your "coward" comment.

STC :

Thank you for pointing out that I was in error in the wording of my post.

I have edited it, hope it meets with your approval now. :O

Chuck Ellsworth

Perhaps I am being virginally naive here, but while the site serves as good entertainment value for some and a welcome break from sticking pins in voodoo dolls for others, I really wonder whether there are any Civil Aviation Authorities, or for that matter Government Bureaucracies anywhere that are models.

I hear folks in Europe compaining about the JAR's and their regulatory agencies. In the USA, the FAA and TSA is a modern day Frankenstein and civil aviation directorates in the "Banana Republics" of the world are hindered by economical, political, and technical limitations. Many of them practice "Schadenfreude"-- a German word which roughly translates to "We're not happy, till you're not happy."

Or perhaps bureaucracy's common motto is "Nobody gets out of here alive"?

Shysters?
 

I am also one of those "shysters" you refer to in your less than intelligent post. I am one of the concerned operators who feel it is time to resolve some of the problems between operators and the Regulator.

If you feel it is "drivel" no problem, you don't have to get involved.
Obviously this will be no loss to the forum. People like Chuck and others are trying to bring attention to a number of incidents that cause considerable grief to operators, large and small in this country.

Is Transport all bad? I don't think so. There are some good people who like us think there is a better way to conduct business.They just can't speak their minds in public. Maybe they will through the Underground and this may help the operators and T.C. in their relationships in the future.

If by trying to improve the aviation industry even just a little, I am considered a "shyster", then I am a proud one.

Thanks for jumping in here Shamus.

Judging from the style of STC's posts I believe he is the same troll windup artist that posts from Winnipeg.

The Underground site was a masterful stroke and a great idea that I believe you will see imitated in other Countries with disfunctional civil servants that seem to inbreed within our regulatory bodys.

I have the benefit of working with many different Government regulators around the world in my flying business and I find it shameful that Transport Canada is rushing to the bottom of the pile in the public service arena. Aided and abetted by their top management.

Chuck Ellsworth:

I wonder if TC has a similar site that features operators that are less than "perfect"?

Oh yah they do. It's called the TSB incident and accident database.

If you want to uncover incompetence in aviation, don't concentrate on TC exclusively. TC recruits many of it's people from the industry and is therefore a reflection of the industry. I've seen plenty of complaints about TC come from various people. The vast majority of the complaints come from being caught operating outside the rules, or not being aware of them in the first place.

Of course there are the philosophical complaints that I always hear about things like security charges and Nav Canada, but there are avenues to address these sorts of things too.

Shamus, when I said "shyster" it was not meant to imply that participants in the "underground" forum don't have legitimate complaints. It's the silly "underground" mentality that is implied. Going underground means attempting to go outside the visibility of the law. It implies covert operation.

If a person can't work within the law to resolve issues with TC and further actively participates in an anonymous, one sided "underground" attempt to circumvent the civil airworthiness authority, then yes. Such a person is a shyster, and I don't want to be a passenger on their air service.

I do not disagree that there are some operators who may skirt the regulations for their own benefit. This group of operators, who started the forum, and know each other well have some legitimate concerns with the Regulator. We are not trying to circumvent the Civil Aviation authority at all, but can't seem to get our voice heard any other way.

The "underground" was set up as a means to discuss the issues anonymously without intimidation. We would hope T.C. will read the forums and the good guys, of which there are many will make changes that benefit us all.

This is being done on a positive note by most, with the hopes of an improvement between the Industry and the Regulator.

shamus,

Sounds reasonable, but when you have someone calling TC inspectors "terrorists" and defying them to shut him down, I would guess the site may do more harm than good.

STC :

The Underground site will not be in any trouble with my posts for the simple reason that I use my true name. If Transport Canada needs to find me that would be no problem, the Regional Director General of Transport Canada has even spent a day at my house discussing the very subject I was referring to, so he wouldn't even have to look up the address. :D

Now if I were a coward that hides behind some made up name that would be a different matter. :D

For all the rest of you who read STC's comments, he failed to mention that before Transport Canada can "shut me down" they would have to have a reason to do so. I operate a legal business and there has never, ever been any suggestion that I operate outside the law.

Chuck Ellsworth

STC

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 take pride in my career, and do things to improve my profesion.

I had a quick read through this "underground" website and noted right away that most of the complaints concern M&M treatment of its clients. 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?

:confused:

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

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.

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.

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...:hmm:

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.

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? :D

Chuck

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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. :ooh:

Phil

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....

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

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

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".

:yuk:

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?

:\