Jump to content

Industry Self-management


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For all the interested parties I agree with what Ralph said, one individual tried and was shot down in the better years of his life (retired).

 

As believer in SMS, I will be offering my service's to help companies implement it.

 

As CD pointed out and thanks to CD for that info and in site, you should take the time to read what the Captain had to say about ground crew in the industry:

 

Mr. Peter Julian:

So you haven't had any discussions about what has transpired most recently in Canada?

 

 

Capt Daniel Maurino: No.

 

 

Mr. Peter Julian:

 

 

Okay. I want to come to the report that ICAO finalized in January 2006. My colleagues have referred to it. Two elements came out of that. One was an observation:

 

 

Transport Canada's enforcement programme complies with Article 12 of the Chicago Convention by ensuring that every aircraft complies with the regulations and by providing for the prosecution of persons violating the regulations.

 

 

 

We have a bill before us that essentially takes away that element of prosecution of persons violating the regulation. Would that be a matter of some concern for ICAO, since it's very clearly stated in the audit done in 2005 that it is one of the advantages of the system that we currently have, or had at that time?

 

 

 

Capt Daniel Maurino:

I believe that's probably one of the most sensitive and contentious issues within the entire SMS concept. SMS systems, gentlemen, are data-intensive. It's essentially replacing opinions with data, so we have to acquire the data.

 

 

Nobody--nobody--knows better how a system really works, and I underline the word “really”, than the people who operate the system: the pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, cabin crew, and ground personnel. If you want to know how your system works beyond regulations, beyond what the book says, you've got to ask these individuals.

 

 

If we need data, who is in the best position to provide this data? I believe the reply is so obvious--operational personnel--but if we are asking people to report on what they see, to report on flaws in the system that are there and were not anticipated when the system was designed, if we're telling these people to come forward with this vital safety management information, we cannot expect them to do it if the only reward they are going to receive is punishment.

 

(1555)

 

 

 

Mr. Peter Julian:

But the ICAO report was very specific in saying that providing for prosecution of persons violating the regulations is an important component.

 

 

I'd like to turn to another component that is specifically mentioned. My colleagues mentioned it as well. It is the national audit program. The continuous airworthiness surveillance of commercial aircraft is performed through the national audit program, ramp checks, and the inspector assigned to the air operator. This was specifically mentioned in the audit undertaken in 2005, and as my colleagues have mentioned, in March 2006 the national audit program was essentially killed.

 

 

Is that a matter of concern? We have, again, a specific recommendation, a specific observation of the existing air safety system that subsequently has been abandoned or gutted. Is that not a source of concern, given the ICAO audit of Canadian airline and air safety operations?

 

 

 

Capt Daniel Maurino:

I'm not quite sure it's a matter of concern, sir. If you have a system of checks and balances, the audit is one more component of that system, but not the only one.

 

 

I would like to stress the fact that when we say.... The question of errors and violations is fundamental here. Unless we understand that and deploy the appropriate measures to ensure that a balanced perspective is achieved, we're not going to go anywhere with safety management systems. We need to protect our sources of safety data, and I don't mean that we should create a special kind of workforce or citizens above the law; all I'm saying is that if we want to have access to certain specific safety data, we need to deploy the necessary mechanisms to ensure we have access to that data.

 

 

 

Mr. Peter Julian:

There is a contradiction between what ICAO has said in its audit and the measures that have been taken, the national audit program, and in October 2006, where all the enforcement investigations on safety violations in place, if there was an SMS in place, were abruptly abandoned. There again, very clearly, in the audit that was undertaken, there is concern implicitly, because what is very explicit is that those are extremely important components. Having that national audit program and having the enforcement components are extremely important elements of our existing safety system.

 

 

I'll move on, then, to the next issue, which is the number of inspectors. We have data that clearly shows that the number of civil aviation inspectors has gone down, and we've had previous witnesses who have testified to that as well. In fact, within the next few years we will see a serious shortage in the number of civil aviation inspectors because of retirement. The number has gone down, and through attrition we're going to lose even more. Could that not be a source of concern to ICAO, given the report that we would have fewer inspectors in place and the functions they had seemingly have been abandoned or gutted?

 

 

 

Capt Daniel Maurino:

There are two questions there.

 

 

First of all, going back to the question of enforcement, if you were to tell me that Transport Canada or the Canadian government is considering totally discarding enforcement, my comment would be that it's a very bold measure. I'm not sure I would agree with that. If you're telling me that Transport Canada is considering somehow changing or adopting its enforcement policies to reflect a more contemporary approach to enforcement underlying SMS, that's a completely different matter. They are not the same, as I'm sure you realize.

 

 

Secondly, you might have a million inspectors and be absolutely ineffective, and you might have 100 inspectors and be absolutely effective. So I couldn't comment on numbers. To me, the safety performance of the system should be the parameter, not the number of people manning the system.

 

There is a TOTAL possiblity that HEPAC as an association could become a viable entity within the industry (helicopter) and make it better for the whole industry, not just a few.

 

An association automatically brings people together and creates communication and idea's, so in essence as in other years gone by, lets get together and _________ one another.

 

You can fill in the blank as you see fit.

 

Cheers, Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As some of you may have noticed, I have bumped forward some of the threads in regards to HEPAC, 3 more threads on page 28 that were closed also. My point to be made is very clear......to much talk and not enough action, to many (selfish) individuals out in the industry that could care less about forming an association that would be a benefit to everyone....... but alas, I'll bet this thread dies also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the interesting things about the origin of the is thread is that Mr. Jenner has not bothered to come back and offer any comments to any of the responses.

A blanket offer to take over regulation of the helicopter industry with as little explanation as offered by Mr. Jenner is self serving to say the least.

 

 

 

Because HAC is indeed, self serving to the interests of the owners of the companies in the helicopter industry, it will be a moot point down the line if Bill C-6 is allowed to pass as it will change the face of the industry. How many of us have given any real thought to what that face may be?

 

At present in the helicopter business or any aviation for that matter, if ten operators get together to try and raise rates, they will all agree but when they walk out the door, one or two of the weasels will immediately break ranks and lowball as usual to try and get the volume of work. And it will get worse under self regulation as those weasels will now have less to worry about as far as regulatory oversight is concerned and everything will suffer. The pay rates for crews, the pressures on crews to fly in pissy wx, overgross, with poor maintenance, abuses of duty times, engineers pressured to get the job done or we'll get some other low paid guy to do the work. etc. etc. etc.

 

For those of you who feel that Transport Canada should be the determining agency in how our business is run in the future, have at it.

 

For the others, it is sad to say but like every other great change in our business, when are you going to do something about it? If history is correct, I am only happy that I am on the back side of my career.

Regards

 

carholme

I wish that I was on the back side of my career, but unfortunately I am destined to be in this for awhile yet. What you have said about the operators and their low-balling to get the volume of work is what holds us all back. The operators that work on cashflow business models and especially those that work on a deficit cashflow model are the ones holding the industry in the dark ages. The only way they can make money is to pay less, take shortcuts on maintenance, reduce rotations (make shifts longer), fewer benefits, etc. They make their profit margin on what they don't pay or give their employees. We need operators that are in business to make money.

 

The customer is not without blame either. The largest customers with the bulk of the work greedily pit the operators against each other to get the cost of helicopters down to a level that increases their bonuses. Oil companies especially are making record profits yet hire helicopters in Canada at prices reflecting back at least 10 years. The cost of heli-portable seismic is ridiculous. The trickle down of the profit leaves the seismic companies to grind the helicopter companies to levels that I don't know how they expect companies to stay in business and supply the experience and expertise needed. Yet they demand the best machines and pilots for the lowest cost. That's how they make their money.

 

Forestry expects companies to ferry all over the country for free. They also want aircrew to have a certain level of experience before they can work. Training costs money.

 

Maybe a standard minimum rate for each type of helicopter needs to be implemented so at least maintenance standards aren't compromised.

 

If HAC does take over the H-AOC there has to be some representation from the front line; The pilots AND engineers!

 

The pilots and engineers are forced to make professional and operational decisions that are constrained by the lack of management support to do the job safely. Management's attitude is to get the job done as we need the work, if not we'll get someone to do it that won't complain. We get forced to do long tours with no rotations or very little time off. The crews would do better with representation in this process, which is looming large in all our futures. In Canada we have a hard working pool of very talented engineers and pilots. They all deserve to have some say in how operational environment develops. If left to the HAC(operators), say hello to what we have now and maybe worse. They will have their own interests at heart because they aren't out in the north country swatting at bugs and eating fire line food for 42 days at a time.

 

There I said my mind. We as pilots and engineers need a voice and if HEPAC is to be that voice, I'm in!

 

Cheers

d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the big problems in introducing any new systems, is to get the people to buy into it.

 

What better way to have Safety Management System accepted than to have oversight by the people that it effects.

 

Capt Daniel Maurino:

I believe that's probably one of the most sensitive and contentious issues within the entire SMS concept. SMS systems, gentlemen, are data-intensive. It's essentially replacing opinions with data, so we have to acquire the data.

 

 

Nobody--nobody--knows better how a system really works, and I underline the word “really”, than the people who operate the system: the pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, cabin crew, and ground personnel. If you want to know how your system works beyond regulations, beyond what the book says, you've got to ask these individuals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the big problems in introducing any new systems, is to get the people to buy into it.

 

What better way to have Safety Management System accepted than to have oversight by the people that it effects.

 

 

I'll buy in to having the people affected to be able to voice their concerns. Let me know when and where HEPA needs the cheque for membership.

 

Cheers

hd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Hookdangler.

 

However,

Management's attitude is to get the job done as we need the work, if not we'll get someone to do it that won't complain. We get forced to do long tours with no rotations or very little time off.

 

doesn't apply everywhere.

 

PM me if you need some info...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Gentlemen, thank you for your input on the subject of Industry Self-management. I read every comment and replied privately to several queries. Your input was, on the whole, of considerable value to advancing the interests of the Canadian Helicopter Industry.

 

In the process many of you had rather harsh comments in regard to HAC. Although some of you find my analogies to be less than brilliant, I venture to say that not sharing the same religion does not mean we don’t share a common faith in God.

 

As a very experienced association manager I can only suggest that building on the positive is more productive than emphasising the negative.

 

Thanks again for your comments on our preliminary assessment of Industry Self-management. It is far from a done deed and will most certainly be the subject of further discussion which I hope you will all participate in with the same vigour and candour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Jenner;

 

Your faith in God analogy sounds more like a George Bush assumption that we all follow blindly. I don't know who you are emailing but I still wonder where you were for the engineers and pilots all of these many past years. That the HAC dared to assume their control of this industry without any prior discussion with us is beyond me.

 

I have watched attempts at organization of the workers of the industry since the early sixties and many of them have failed due to the wanderlust nature of the workers. This is not a GM or Steelworkers type of business and many of you have tried to gather us collectively for our own good as you see it, not as we see it. Until the real maturity comes to the industry and we are seen as partners in its daily operation, an entrance like yours will only be viewed as self serving.

 

Regards

 

carholme

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...