Kirsten Stevens

[chopper_guy]

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.

Every person involved in aviation in Canada should read the above document. Finally some sanity on this subject, and it comes from rank and file TC inspectors. Congratulations to them for their courage and common sense. Clearly, this program comes from on high and not from the front lines. In my opinion the higher-ups and political types pushing this stupid and irresponsible method of implementation on us should be fired or resign their posts. They obviously don't have a clue that they are emasculating the safety system in Canada. Again, shame on them!!!!!!!!

[Grasshopper]

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.

 

 

Having read the document to which you refer, I agree that it has points of merit. If one was unaware of the source, however, one would quickly conclude it originated with a union. Not that this is inherently bad, just that it so typically takes a very subjective approach, one in which it 'spins' facts in its interest, rather than looking at them objectively. I'll only address one example, that "It is wrong for TC to view aviation safety as an area to save money and cut jobs." Almost a motherhood statement on the face, but how valid? Surely, if the goal of safety can be achieved while money is saved and positions are reduced, this is to the common good and not inherently wrong.

 

The debate obviously won't end here or now but, perhaps, the less open-minded and the perennial nay-sayers will tire and pursue other targets while the rest of us get on with implementing and improving SMS. Of course there are flaws but, in our typical Canadian fashion, we'll work to reduce or eliminate them, and end up with something of which we'll have every right to be proud. Don't forget, the marketplace will allow nothing less.