Kirsten Stevens

[drkrider]

If everything is AOK with the way TC is implementing SMS, then why are so many current and "retired" TC staff speaking out against the methodology? Why do so many industry experts disagree? Have you read the Moshansky/Van Dyke paper? Have they got it all wrong?

 

A lot of these industry experts came from the generation where Transport was the enemy and the standard procedure was any problems found were quickly fixed and hidden so TC wouldn't catch them or just ignore them. They aren't ready / willing to change.

 

Why not figure out why the problem occurred and try to find an effective solution to reduce the chance of it happening again? Kinda sounds like what TSB and the manufactures do after and accident doesn't it? I think most people would agree that it works fairly well after an accident why not do it before?

 

I do agree that cutting back the number of inspectors is wrong but that is a budgetary issue nothing to do with us as an industry improving our selves. We (the public) should be pressuring our MP's on the issue of funding levels for inspectors.

 

Read up on Dr. William Edwards Demming he was one of the forefathers of modern QA. He had some interesting ideas as to how an effective QA system actually helps management run a better more profitable company through continuous improvement of the companies processes. This is what SMS is all about.

 

DR

[Blackmac]

Grasshopper:

 

Grasshopper" is a term currently used in jest referencing a person who has much to learn. Its use originated from the television show Kung Fu (1972-1975). Caine, the young student, portrayed by Radames Pera, is receiving instruction from his Master Po (portrayed by Keye Luke) who nicknames his student "Grasshopper" as a term of endearment.

Where you get your information from, God only knows. I have been safety aware since I first stepped into a helicopter in the fifties, working search and rescue. HUP-3 and HO4S3 (S-55).

 

I was trained by the Federal Government Transport Canada Audit and Procedures Course, ISO 9000, Three (3) Safety Management Courses at the California Safety Management Institute and recently the TC Safety Management System Course, which included the present CEO of HAC.

 

I am a very strong ADVOCATE of SMS and as far as I'm concerned is long overdue.

 

And for your added info, the problem with TCCA is they don't have enough inspectors and never have. The other problem from a government standpoint is enforcement, nobody wants to rock the boat, unless there is a blatant violation that makes the headlines.

 

Unless you have been on the moon for the last little while, the problems in any company come from the ones controlling the "bucks" or other wise known as the Owner, get a few together and you have an owners club/ HAC.

 

It really makes sense to have the Pres/CEO in charge of their own Safety Management System.

I am really sorry if I offended you in any way, but I really think you have to get your "shyte" together and get with the real world.

 

Cheers, Don McDougall

 

613 258 0252, in case you want to call.

 

If you are going to further misinform people about me, please let us know who you are.

[Skids Up]

The SMS system is probably an advance as far as safety systems go, however, it must also involve very close Transport Canada oversight, and what is needed is more effective TC oversight, not less. Anyone who thinks that the owners of the companies can be trusted to maintain safety standards in difficult times is a Pollyanna living in a fools paradise. Human beings just don't operate that way. Good operators will keep up standards without anyone looking over their shoulders but we all know that there are some operators that are pretty sketchy now.

 

 

It's really not fair to paint us all with the same brush. Granted there are companies that will continue to avoid anything to do with SMS as long as they can. But this IS going to be customer driven.

 

Customers are demanding membership into 3rd party organizations that collect and compile all kinds of information that their clients (your customers) are demanding.

 

Want to play in their sandbox? Pay up to join, (cost) spend a lot of time (cost) getting it to them and hope it meets the requirements.

 

This is how we (companies) will be 'forced' into it. Then as someone earlier said, TC will come and audit you with their "sampling" procedures, and when you don't have your ducks in a row, bye bye OC!

 

I suppose there will be some that thinks that is unfair as well...

 

 

We have invested a great deal of c.h.c. (cold hard cash), time and effort, and other expenses in 2 (so far!) 3rd party info collectors, training courses, certification programs, etc and hope that it puts us ahead of those who haven't! Will it? Time will tell.

 

Has it made us safer? Someone tell me how you measure that. If we had done nothing, we might have had the same "safe result" that we had this year anyway. I have yet to come across any program that can measure that for us.

 

I do know that it has raised the safety awareness in our operation. And maybe that is the only thing that we can show as a result.

 

Anyone who thinks that the owners of the companies can be trusted to maintain safety standards in difficult times is a Pollyanna living in a fools paradise.

 

The life is good in our "fools paradise". Our management is behind it 100%. How do we know? Because they put their money where their mouth is.

 

And that is the greatest show of support that one can have.

 

I'm proud to work where I do, and am grateful for their willingness to step up to the plate before it is required, and long before they "have to".

 

If your company hasn't, or won't...,

 

....guess I'm glad I don't work where you do.

 

 

 

 

PS: Terry, thought your comments were right on!

 

 

 

 

[chopper_guy]

It's really not fair to paint us all with the same brush. Granted there are companies that will continue to avoid anything to do with SMS as long as they can. But this IS going to be customer driven.

 

Customers are demanding membership into 3rd party organizations that collect and compile all kinds of information that their clients (your customers) are demanding.

 

Want to play in their sandbox? Pay up to join, (cost) spend a lot of time (cost) getting it to them and hope it meets the requirements.

 

This is how we (companies) will be 'forced' into it. Then as someone earlier said, TC will come and audit you with their "sampling" procedures, and when you don't have your ducks in a row, bye bye OC!

 

I suppose there will be some that thinks that is unfair as well...

 

 

We have invested a great deal of c.h.c. (cold hard cash), time and effort, and other expenses in 2 (so far!) 3rd party info collectors, training courses, certification programs, etc and hope that it puts us ahead of those who haven't! Will it? Time will tell.

 

Has it made us safer? Someone tell me how you measure that. If we had done nothing, we might have had the same "safe result" that we had this year anyway. I have yet to come across any program that can measure that for us.

 

I do know that it has raised the safety awareness in our operation. And maybe that is the only thing that we can show as a result.

 

 

 

The life is good in our "fools paradise". Our management is behind it 100%. How do we know? Because they put their money where their mouth is.

 

And that is the greatest show of support that one can have.

 

I'm proud to work where I do, and am grateful for their willingness to step up to the plate before it is required, and long before they "have to".

 

If your company hasn't, or won't...,

 

....guess I'm glad I don't work where you do.

 

 

 

 

PS: Terry, thought your comments were right on!

I don't have anything new to add to my previous comments since I believe them to be correct, other than to say that it is nice to be immediately proven right. See the "WOW" thread!!!!!

[Grasshopper]

The SMS system is probably an advance as far as safety systems go, however, it must also involve very close Transport Canada oversight, and what is needed is more effective TC oversight, not less. Anyone who thinks that the owners of the companies can be trusted to maintain safety standards in difficult times is a Pollyanna living in a fools paradise. Human beings just don't operate that way. Good operators will keep up standards without anyone looking over their shoulders but we all know that there are some operators that are pretty sketchy now. Without anyone checking up on them there will be people dying in accidents. This move by TC has nothing to do with safety but with cutting costs. TC and the government should be ashamed that they have lost the vision of where their duty really lies and are letting expediency control policy.

 

As another 'Pollyanna' I have to take issue with some of your premises.

 

Even a cursory study of TC's intent regarding oversight following full implementation of SMS tells me that what's essentially involved is a shift of focus - checking that our systems are up to snuff, and that we're following them to the letter. Failure will result in a warning or suspension, as applicable. Clearly, the degree of such oversight and the budget to support it will be less than what would be required to effectively maintain the failed system being replaced.

 

As others have mentioned, your distasteful implication that no operator can be trusted to maintain safety standards really fails to merit a serious reply. However, I do have to comment that the looking over the shoulder that was strongest in the past was usually a matter of constantly pushing the 'good guys' harder (and gaining points 'upstairs') while the slipshod operator went his merry way and rarely had to answer to serious examination.

 

To suggest that the implementation of SMS has "nothing to do with safety" is not only farcical, but is daily being proven a lie as companies such as ours see continually mounting evidence of the development of a true 'safety culture.' In our case, the evidence includes a substantial reduction in reportable incidents, a huge increase in preventive reporting, and a large discount on this year's insurance renewal. If you think the underwriters are being fooled, shake your head.

 

Quoting Blackmac:

 

"This is very important to this industry "helicopters" as to fixed wing (sic). If you are not aware, the present SMS will become a regulation and gives the "Owners Club" the right to regulate themselves and you."

 

Don, as I said in the post to which you've replied, my problem has always been with the fixed attitude of negativity you continually demonstrate on these forums, particularly as it applies to the 'sin' of owning or managing a helicopter operating company. I've always respected your qualifications and experience and wish I could say the same about what you express before those less able to adequately evaluate your pronouncements or advice.

 

Terry Jones

 

P.S. Thanks, 'Skids.'

[chopper_guy]

Ch_G; The SMS system is probably an advance as far as safety systems go, however, it must also involve very close Transport Canada oversight, and what is needed is more effective TC oversight, not less. Anyone who thinks that the owners of the companies can be trusted to maintain safety standards in difficult times is a Pollyanna living in a fools paradise. Human beings just don't operate that way. Good operators will keep up standards without anyone looking over their shoulders but we all know that there are some operators that are pretty sketchy now. Without anyone checking up on them there will be people dying in accidents. This move by TC has nothing to do with safety but with cutting costs. TC and the government should be ashamed that they have lost the vision of where their duty really lies and are letting expediency control policy.

 

As another 'Pollyanna' I have to take issue with some of your premises.

 

Even a cursory study of TC's intent regarding oversight following full implementation of SMS tells me that what's essentially involved is a shift of focus - checking that our systems are up to snuff, and that we're following them to the letter. Failure will result in a warning or suspension, as applicable. Clearly, the degree of such oversight and the budget to support it will be less than what would be required to effectively maintain the failed system being replaced.

 

Ch_G; Exactly! It is a way to save money.

 

As others have mentioned, your distasteful implication that no operator can be trusted to maintain safety standards really fails to merit a serious reply.

 

Ch_G; I never said “no” operator. “Anyone who thinks that the owners of the companies can be trusted to maintain safety standards in difficult times is a Pollyanna living in a fools paradise. Human beings just don't operate that way. Good operators will keep up standards without anyone looking over their shoulders but we all know that there are some operators that are pretty sketchy now.”

 

However, I do have to comment that the looking over the shoulder that was strongest in the past was usually a matter of constantly pushing the 'good guys' harder (and gaining points 'upstairs') while the slipshod operator went his merry way and rarely had to answer to serious examination.

 

Ch_G; I partially agree with the statement above. I know that some of the good operators I worked for definitely thought that, and one would have to believe it given that the sketchy operators always seemed to survive, at least until a fatal accident occurred, when the full weight of TC fell on them. However, is this a reason to be cutting back on oversight? Where was TC before these accidents? Clearly, more, not less company inspections are needed.

 

To suggest that the implementation of SMS has "nothing to do with safety" is not only farcical, but is daily being proven a lie as companies such as ours see continually mounting evidence of the development of a true 'safety culture.' In our case, the evidence includes a substantial reduction in reportable incidents, a huge increase in preventive reporting, and a large discount on this year's insurance renewal. If you think the underwriters are being fooled, shake your head.

 

Ch_G; I’m sorry but it is well known that TC is drastically short of inspectors, and has been for years. They apparently cannot get the money to do their job properly and have decided that the combination of SMS and operator self regulation, combined with a minimal paper chase inspection will be cheaper. You have already admitted that this is true. “Clearly, the degree of such oversight and the budget to support it will be less than what would be required to effectively maintain the failed system being replaced.” You are looking at things from the elevated heights of a well operated company. Take off the rose coloured glasses and realize that some operators are not as honest as you. It is these weak links that must be looked after by lots of oversight.

 

Ch_G; I have been accused of being a pessimist. Not true. I am a realist, witness the ‘WOW’ reference, and any number of accidents caused by poor flying company operations. A cursory read of the bush operations section of the AvCanada forum will reveal that those that push the weather, and get away with it, will continue to have jobs while the more cautious will lose their jobs. Apparently some of the bush operators haven’t learned anything in the last 40 years. In 37 years of commercial flying I have worked for ‘good’ companies for more then 26 years, bad companies for 5 years, with the others being of average quality, or outside the country and not part of this discussion. Also, I have never said I don't support the SMS system. I just don't agree with the other 2 parts of the system that we are being forced to swallow.

 

 

Quoting Blackmac:

 

"This is very important to this industry "helicopters" as to fixed wing (sic). If you are not aware, the present SMS will become a regulation and gives the "Owners Club" the right to regulate themselves and you."

 

Don, as I said in the post to which you've replied, my problem has always been with the fixed attitude of negativity you continually demonstrate on these forums, particularly as it applies to the 'sin' of owning or managing a helicopter operating company.

 

Ch_G; “fixed attitude of negativity”!!! Is everyone who disagrees with you “negative”?

 

I've always respected your qualifications and experience and wish I could say the same about what you express before those less able to adequately evaluate your pronouncements or advice.

 

Terry Jones

 

P.S. Thanks, 'Skids.'

 

[Grasshopper]

Well, 'Chopper Guy' (aren't we all?) we seem to at least be in the same book, if not exactly on the same page. I'm not going to bother with picking flys**t out of pepper for the moment, but rather prefer to acknowledge the benefit to be derived from positive dialogue aimed at what I think the majority of us want - a safer industry of which we can be proud to say we're a part.

 

I suppose a socialist society, or a totalitarian regime, might mandate the provision of the funds necessary to provide the degree of oversight you seem to think necessary. However, in free societies such as ours, they're hard to come by lacking constant public outcry, and I don't think we've seen that, or are likely to. Important users of our wares have understood that for some time, and have taken their own steps to push safety systems on us and to nudge us, gently or otherwise, into a place where we'll take safety seriously, and even the reluctant will come to realize it's the only way they'll be able to exist in the markeplace.

[Critic]

To replace a failing regulatory system with an untested regulatory system while reducing cost/liability by putting the burdens on the "consumer" ... a recent TSB report discussed this transfer of liability to the CBAA.

 

Eley seems to be accepting that they need to slow down and modify their plans.

[Grasshopper]

To replace a failing regulatory system with an untested regulatory system while reducing cost/liability by putting the burdens on the "consumer" ... a recent TSB report discussed this transfer of liability to the CBAA.

 

Eley seems to be accepting that they need to slow down and modify their plans.

 

 

Safety management systems are hardly "untested." They've been successfully used for decades in industries such as chemical, nuclear and shipping, to name a few. No, none of them are perfect. After all humans are involved. But they've made enormous strides in their industries and continue to do so, setting outstanding examples of what's attainable.

 

Considering the relative youth of aviation in general, and the helicopter industry in particular, it's no wonder our safety records have been so slow in acheiving substantial fruition. While human knowledge and technology have grown exponentially in the last few decades, maturing industries and, where they exist, their regulatory bodies, have been totally unsuccessful in maintaining similar paces of development.

 

However, we need to stop blaming the regulator and the government and put the blame where the buck stops, with we the voter, who has either contributed to the rush for progress without getting the due diligence done, and/or assisted, through failure to effectively use the ballot, in the perpetuation of government and an electoral system that fails the basic tests of democracy.

 

Transport Canada and, dare I say, Merlin Preuss, assisted indirectly by the stronger industries we serve, have recently done more for the advancement of aviation safety in Canada than anyone else in evidence. Having been directly involved in matters of flight safety, including accident investigation, flight safety programs and safety instruction with operators and associations since 1963 I feel sufficiently qualified to so state.

[Critic]

Safety management systems are hardly "untested." They've been successfully used for decades in industries such as chemical, nuclear and shipping, to name a few.

 

I was not referring to SMS as untested. I was referring to Transport Canada's dismantling of traditional oversight during the switchover. The "Surveillance"/validation program and the cancellation of the National Audit Program and Frequency of Inspection Policy. That "new regulatory system" is untested.

 

I suggest, if you have not read it, that the UCTE's document, "Implementation of the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Management System: What’s Not Right and Why Change is Necessary", might better explain that opposition is not to SMS, but to TC's method of implementation.