SMS in Canada
 

It's all getting a bit messy...

MPs hear conflicting versions of air-safety protocol

On one side, Transport Canada say that their oversight practices allows for an individual airline's SMS to go deeper and farther to assess their safety culture.

On the other, the Canadian Pilot's Association who say that traditional monitoring and audit tools that have worked well are no longer being used and that TC are pushing paper rather than inspecting aircraft.

As TC were the forerunners of SMS oversight implementaion, can we expect this kind of debate worlwide as other states catch up?

As in many arenas of activity, sub-Industries spring up. Safety and QA is no exception. It's just a bit sad when, on occasion, the baby gets lost with the bathwater ...

No audit, no safety.

SMS
 

Hi Flann1gan,
'Traditional monitoring' through 'operational surveillance',as well as the 'yearly audit schedule' and when required through 'special or additional audits' will continue.There will always remain a need to combine outcome based legislation with compliance based legislation,due to the regulatory and legal laws and rule sets that surrounding aviation.To my knowledge, no Regulator has canned audits completely,but the SMS does put more accountability for safety back onto the operator,and rightly so.
Any comments by any pilots or pilot associations stating that traditional auditing has been abandoned is a load of crap.

In actual reality,TC made mistakes initially with the implementation process of SMS by jumping the gun and implementing SMS without adequately trained Inspectors/resourcing.The Auditor Generals report gave TC a bit of a hiding for this,but as with any new process or act of legislation,there is always a few teething issues.
In New Zealand,SMS is embedded pretty well,and has been in place for some time.
In Australia,SMS is currently being implemented as we speak.Australia learned from TC's mistake and employed Safety Systems experts into their regulatory Inspectorate well ahead of time,and are leaders in the implementation process. However some issues are arising down there due to a change in CEO who initially did not understand or support the Safety Systems people,and in the meantime around 35% of these Safety Systems people have since resigned and moved on,leaving a large gap within the Regulator.
The FAA,well,they feel they have the best knowledge and processes of all nations,but in reality they are miles behind the eight ball,well behind New Zealand,Canada,Australia and even one or two third world countries in some aspects of the SMS.They have been actively consulting everywhere so as to put together an implementation program,and to their defence,taking things a little slower and more methodically,after all,the USA has a huge industry to oversight.

As for SMS and the scare mongering going on,it is quite interesting that so many within aviation have given SMS a complete bollocking and act as if it is some huge monster that will send their organisation broke,not to mention how evil it is.Strange considering the mining and petroleum industries,large in size of their own accord,adopted SMS into their structures decades ago,and they remain some of the safest industries on the planet.....

gobbledock,

Why do you think that is?

Because they don't understand it mostly.

Almost everyone who has done the study or training for SMS can see how it helps. The only ones I ever hear complain are the ones that don't understand.

I include myself in that, I thought it was bollocks and complicated too until I went out of my way to get a full understanding. Now I got the jist and its easy and effective to use.

Yep it takes a few days to implement but after that probably less than an hour a month and it does improve safety.

Thanks for taking the time to help, I really apprciate it.

--------------------------------------------
Auditing Tools

Flann1gan
Karl Bamforth pretty much sums up the reason perfectly -
People often fear what they dont know. Most organisations simply think $$$ when they are told they are going to have doing something new or different as part of their business.Some people revert to scare mongering simply because they dont like 'change'.
SMS saves an organisation a lot of money long term.

As an "SMSologist" can I sum up by saying

1. SMS will cost you money, time and effort.
2. SMS will save you money, time and effort.
3. An SMS manual does not mean that you have an SMS.
4. Start simple and get simpler.
5. The principles are the same whether you are a 'Mom and Pop' or Air Canada.

Good luck with your SMS, by the way, I can help.

Why would the inspectors be saying it if it was not true? Nor have the reports of abandonement of traditional oversight been limited to inspectors, pilots and pilot groups, but have also been heard from our AMEs/AMOs, smaller operators - and others.

And yet, they cancelled the Frequency of Inspection Policy AFTER the AG's report and prior to implementing SMS in all sectors (now delayed) ... It may have been replaced with the Surveillance Policy, but that applies to companies with an SMS - so what instruction for the inspectors of non-SMS companies? The rush to implement SMS in Canada has had serious results - witness at least three known TSB reports that implicate TC's version of SMS.

IMHO, this was/is more than teething issues. While I agree that there has been a lot of fear and misinterpretation of what SMS is supposed to be (a good thing - also agreed - especially the appointing of an accountable executive bringing aviation more in line with the Canada Labour Code Part 2 and related amendments to the Criminal Code in 2005), that in itself can be attributed, at least in part, to the errors TCCA made in implementation (think lack of information and industry consultation). The new DGCA has a great deal of work to do to fix the system.

One more thing, if I may. Through delegation of authority to industry (as TCCA is encouraging through the Safety Partnership Program), SMS in Canada is also about transfer of costs and liability.

One can hope that other states will take heed of the errors made by Canada, so that debate will take place before implementation rather than after.

Interesting
 

Hi dhc2widow,
This is the problem, not all Inspectors and AMO`s are saying that the traditional auditing has stopped, only some are saying that. As to their reasons for such comments, that is debateable I guess but there are many reasons for such comments, some reasons are as simple as downright stupidity and ignorance, stirring, fear of change and their own lack of understanding safety systems.
Also,
Yep. I agree entirely.It's called Government interference, anot to mention a level of incompetence within the upper echelon's of TC. Governemnts are the causal factor in almost every bungled, knee jerk, self preservation process ever to be introduced to any industry.
Also,
Absolutely agree upon the 'accountability' issue. It is about time some of the grubs who run commercial companies fell on their own sword when a serious occurence occurs. For too long they have had the pleasure of passing the blame on to Safety Managers and Safety Departments, or on to other Managers of some form. These individuals are finally realizing that you can't traverse through life doing as you please without reaping the consequences. Now if only that would also extend to Politicians !!!
As for the new DGCA I again agree, a lot of work is required. One day Regulators will learn to communciate more effectively with industry,this would go a long way to alleviating the systemic 'lack of communication' issue that affects Reulators world wide.

Sadly,
This is true. Governments will stop at nothing to ensure they are distanced from any adverse or negative scrutiny, and they are particularly happy to throw accountability and liability anywhere but on themselves - they simply obey their political instincts to obfuscate, spin, evade, deny, blame someone else, and/or create a distraction to deflect attention from the real issue.
Is SMS a good thing ? Yes. Is Safety the true objective in the mind of a government that supports SMS ? No.The saving of money and passing of accountability is the motive of governments, it is just fortunate that a system like SMS does actually work, regardless of the implementor's true motive.

Finally,
Sadly this is not quite the case.Their are still mistakes being made worldwide with implementation, but this is always going to happen when governments and beaurocracy are involved, that's how they work sadly, it's always been the same throughout history and will unlikely change into the future.

Lastly, dhc2widow,I like your courage to speak the facts, your willingness to question processes and motivation when questions are warranted. On the downside however, and no offence intended, you would never make a good Politician because it appears through some of your posts that you have integrity and honesty !!!!

Well, it's a good thing I have no political aspirations! Thank you for the compliment gobbledock.