Jump to content

Notice: Effective July 1, 2024, Vertical Forums will be officially shut down. As a result, all forum activity will be permanently removed. We understand that this news may come as a disappointment, but we would like to thank everyone for being a part of our community for so many years.

If you are interested in taking over this Forum, please contact us prior to July 1.

Industry Self-management

Recommended Posts

Because the members of this forum represent many facets of the helicopters industry HAC will be interested to know what you have to say about Industry Self-management. So we invite you to take a look at the Report that you will find at the address below and we will take a look at what you have to say about it.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



A few thoughts:


1. Not sure if this analogy stands up, but is HAC looking to be industry cop, judge, jury, AND advocate? Sounds a bit conflicted...


2. What is the overall goal? TC saving $$$? Better safety? IMHO there needs to be a clear IMPERATIVE.


3. Not sure if this is the case, but if TC can't afford to field a bureaucracy to oversee the industry, why should HAC be able to?


Thanks for giving us the opportunity to comment!



Link to comment
Share on other sites



I have copied this from the AvCanada site where we are carrying on quite a fight to be heard at the meetings in Ottawa. My position and that of many others is that SMS is just another layer of supposed safety, laid on top of a regulatory system that is not working. SMS is not a creation of TC as they like to claim, it is an outgrowth of the Risk Management systems of the 1990s oil and other industries.

SMS is a great system that can and does function for many existing law abiding companies but it is wide open for abuse by those companies who are not. That is the main reason why we need strong regulatory oversight of SMS. TC must be made to do its job. If HAC were so effecient at running our industry, where were they in years past, fighting TC to create a level playing field in the industry, to get rid of the shoddy operators.


We have regulatory system in this country which should be doing its job, not divesting itself of their mandate. Where was HAC when CARs were given to us, a handown from 705 where we had to learn to make do with a hand me down system? Where is HAC today as a fighter against TCs system of regional and individual inspector interpretation of CARs.


We don't need another self serving organization to run our industry under so called "self regulation"


We are the people who operate this industry and for once it is time to take back that authority and force TC to do its job. Then SMS will work.


If you do visit AvCanada, have a look at "Qeust for Justice" under General Comments. A lot of our fight stemmed from a Beaver accident on the West Coast which claimed several lives and goes directly to the "shoddy operator"














Carly Weeks, CanWest News Service

Published: Thursday, March 15, 2007


OTTAWA — Justice Virgil Moshansky, the head of an inquiry into a 1989 airplane crash near Dryden, Ont., in which 24 people died, says Transport Minister Lawrence is misrepresenting his views on planned changes to how the safety of Canada’s aviation industry is monitored and enforced.


At issue is a government proposal under which government safety inspections and audits would be slashed and the responsibility for oversight and enforcement of safety protocols would be transferred to the airline industry.


Several countries already have such systems and Moshansky has expressed support for that part of the plan.


“This expert’s testimony could not have been clearer,” Cannon said during During Question Period earlier this month, “(Moshansky) said that the proposed system, the system that is now in place, will improve transportation safety.”


“I was surprised and a little disappointed because I thought I had made my position very clear,” Moshansky said in an interview Thursday. “To see these statements, both in the House of Commons and in letters to various newspapers quoting half of my statement, it made me wonder about it.”


Moshansky sent a critical letter to Cannon this week that says he took the former air inquiry commissioner’s comments out of context and excluded the numerous concerns he expressed regarding the government’s planned changes to aviation safety regulations.


“These statements about my testimony were taken out of context and do not correctly reflect my position as expressed before the committee,” Moshansky’s letter says.


Moshansky told the transport committee earlier this month that Canada’s air safety system is seriously flawed and recent budget cuts and abandonment of regulatory oversight are reminiscent of the conditions that led to the Dryden crash. Moshansky also called on the federal government to launch a major inquiry before an air disaster occurs.


In fact, the government’s current path means Canada “will risk being found in violation of international civil aviation law and that the safety of Canadian air travellers will be compromised” Moshansky wrote in his letter, which was also distributed to members of the Commons transport committee.


A spokeswoman for Cannon declined to comment Thursday because the office had just received the letter.

© CanWest News Service 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the members of this forum represent many facets of the helicopters industry HAC will be interested to know what you have to say about Industry Self-management. So we invite you to take a look at the Report that you will find at the address below and we will take a look at what you have to say about it.




The proposal for Industry Self-Management is ill-advised and potentially disastrous. Here is why.


1. The analogy with the CBAA is inappropriate. CBAA members are not in competition with each other.


2. There is a very limited level of expertise and experience within the industry on regulatory and compliance administration and enforcement. Responsibilities conducted on behalf of the Canadian Government will require a high level of accountability and professionalism. How many professional full-time staff would be required, and at what cost?


3. How many of us will have the time to attend the many committee meetings which would be necessary to properly deliberate the issues? Who pays for this?


4. There is a danger of power being consolidated in self-serving interest groups, to the detriment of the public interest. Recently I witnessed a small clique led by the President of HAC conduct a determined attack against a long-standing member of HAC and, astonishingly, against a major client of the helicopter industry. Power corrupts, particularly when there is a lack of accountability. What assurances will the public at large and individual operators have, that every issue is given fair, equitable and coherent treatment? Regulatory powers in the hands of people who are not directly accountable to the Canadian public could be very dangerous.


5. What court of appeal exists for an operator who feels that he has not been treated fairly, equitably, and judiciously?


6. What examples exist of other countries that have tried this with success?


7. Has anyone asked our clients whether they think this is a good idea? Has anyone asked the general public?


8. Our industry does not have a sterling record on safety, to the point where our clients are taking things into their own hands. What possible benefit could this move have for improving our safety record? This, to me, is a far more important issue.


9. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to serve the common good. We hear stories about a shortage of personnel in TC, budget cuts, and lack of resources. Handing the problem off to HAC will not solve the problem. We are all trying to run our own businesses. The reality is that operating a helicopter company successfully is a huge challenge, and furthermore, we are all in competition with each other. To survive, we need to look at our own interests first. A previous comment about having a level playing field is very relevant. We all agree that we need high and consistent standards. We will never achieve that as an industry as long as we are in competition against each other. That is just a fact of life. It is the Minister, and not ourselves, who is responsible and accountable to the industry and to the public to establish and enforce standards.


10. Despite our competitive nature, there are some areas where we can work collectively to improve the industry. Two examples are safety, and the growing shortage of experienced pilots, engineers, and management. Some time ago I wrote the President of HAC with a proposal to develop training standards for inexperienced pilots that would prepare them for operational roles. The Canadian Trucking Association implemented this type of program in the face of growing shortages of experienced drivers. Unfortunately the President did not give me the courtesy of a reply.


In summary:


1. We do not need this burden. Most of us are overworked as it is.

2. We have no idea of the resources required, and the costs involved.

3. We should not be undertaking responsibilities and accountabilities to the general public which properly belong with the Minister and his civil servants.


Conclusion: This looks like a veiled attempt to legitimize a claim to “The Corridors of Power.”




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on my experience with one or two companies, it would be far too tempting for them to backdate check rides, etc at their convenience, if they did them at all. Based on my experience with certain provincial governments, it would also be too tempting for the backhander rule to apply once people get a sniff of power. I also take JW's point about the mountain course.


It looks like the SMS stuff is what in Europe would be called a Quality system, which can work well if there is proper oversight and if the basics are there in the first place, as carholme points out. There also needs to be the culture of acceptance of "the duty of care to your neighbour". The paper makes a good point about most of the customers, in that many of them are helicopter savvy, and that the market does not really include the general public, but when you have the buying person from a large organisation with hardly any any helicoper experience listening to an equally well qualified "consultant", then you have a problem.


Pilots & Engineers need a voice..... Oh no, we've done that one to death already.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...