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.

Maintenance Positions


Recommended Posts



Thanks for the input, but just clarify a few things and maybe explain better. I didn't hear back from Lunchbox, so I guess he is happy or I confused him even more.


My background maybe goes back further than some of you guys, maybe that's why I become frustrated. I think offering the helicopter industry an opportunity to become their own auditors is the best thing since pusser rum.


Prior to de-regulation (1987) the industry was basically self-regulating, I'm talking about the domain of the small operators which is now referred to as "Air Taxi",which includes the helicopter industry. Up until till recently TCCA has basically let the helicopter industry look after itself and it has concerned itself with the airlines and the smaller feeders. I do believe if TCCA could get somebody else to look after us they would be happier.


We don't have the lobby group that the airlines have and the MP's don't fly with us.


After 35yrs in the actual industry as an AME/Pilot doing DOM, Chief Pilot, Operations Mgr, CEO and Marketing and janitor at times. I became deregulated in 87 after breaking my back in an accident.


I joined PWGSC in 1998 as a Technical Inspector and Senior Contracting Officer in the Air Charter Services Section.

In, I believe it was 93, after the Air Arrow accident in Gander that the US Congress passed a bill that the US Department Of Defence (DOD) had to inspect all air carrier's world wide doing business with the DOD. The USAF was designated to carry out these inspections. They were called the Survey and Analysis Team. The survey team (USAF) was having a hard time convincing the carrier's to allow them to be inspected. So, they went to their embassy in Ottawa and a meeting was held between the Air Carrier Section, Transport Canada and PWGSC Air Charter Section as the contracting authority along with Canadian Commercial Corporation, I was there as the tech. rep. and contracting officer with the airlines involved.


It was resolved by Transport Canada Air Carrier Chief Inspector (Neil MacGregor R.I.P.) that I would take a Transport Canada Audit and Procedures Course and represent Transport Canada in any Audits carried out on Canadian Carrier's with the Survey and Analysis Team based out of Scott Air Force Base.


After taking the TC Audit Course I had an opportunity to take an ISO 9000 course and found out that the TC audit course was copied from ISO.


After doing audits with USAF and audits for our own section and finding numerous errors after TC inspectors had been their, I got basically the same answer from TC, not enough inspectors.


So, I wrote a paper which I sent to TC and stated the following:: As you are having problems hiring and keeping inspectors, why not contract out to the private sector. As the TC audit system mirrors ISO 9000, why not have all commercial operators become ISO Certified and attach the ISO certification to their TC Operating Certificate. Lose their ISO Certification, lose their OC.


Incidentally "Skullie" maybe I'm reading this wrong but I have no animosity towards any company or individual.

"As long as things are "better" for all. In recent months have had numerous people tell me that am crazy to be an operator as there are better ways to make a living in helicopters. My answer was " you know what? You can sell/lease helicopters, sell parts and make all the money you want, but if there are no operators, YOU will not be in business" so I ask that you keep that in mind when going about evening some scores"


On most of the companies that I audited with the USAF, there was no nit-picking. Some observations that were made were welcome.


In all the audits that I carried out over the years we were welcomed and thanked for checking the companies self auditing for irregularities. It cost them nothing.


The only company that does not like to be audited is the one that is trying to hide something.


The SMS will be put in place even if HEPAC is not awarded the contract. You have a choice to make you are going to be audited once you have your own system in place by TCCA inspectors or join HEPAC and be audited by the Helicopter Industry.




TCCA has also accepted ISO as being similar in nature to SMS.


Should a non-profit aviation organisation not be found, TCCA can always go the ISO route and then the individual operator will be responsible for all costs.


Under the Audit and Procedures system you were audited for adherence to your MCM and Ops Manual.


Under the SMS you will be audited against a check list that is available to all operators and there is no reason for not complying. If the system is set up according to requirements 7/8 of the work is accomplished in house and will overtime see a reduction in costs all around. The SMS is no different than ISO except SMS is strictly for aviation.


Are you aware that most oil companies have there own auditors that regularly inspect the companies they have on contract and require the aviation companies to be ISO certified.


So, Carlhome you are entitled to your opinion, but I believe you are living in the past and still have somebody (TC) to look over your shoulder. You decided to become an operator, one of the requirements is to live by the rules set out by Transport, these rules are enforced under the SMS.

The only thing being discussed is who is going to be the enforcer.


Do you honestly believe the industry itself cannot do a better job than TCCA has been doing??


That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


Cheers, Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



I think you are being a bit condescending and disrespectful with a general statement that I am living in the past. The gafflebab about ISO/SMS is a smokescreen to deflect the issue of what I was talking about.


I have stated clearly before that I have worked with risk management systems since the early '80s and it is nothing new. What is new is the regulator's reason for imposing it, which in my opinion has nothing to do with enhancing safety as the TC bigwigs and politicians would have you believe. Safety is only a minor potion of SMS because it is a data point of productivity, which real SMS is all about, as you well know.


The Canadian Airline Pilots Association and other major players are an active voice in Ottawa, fighting Bill C-7 and we are working constantly with them. Believe me, they are not living in the past, they are in the front end of every aircraft that is about to feel the ramifications of the bill.


I am not here to argue the point, the operators are the ones with a vested interest and I see from the few who have posted here that they seem to have valid questions and concerns.


Statements such as "you are living in the past" are not a good starting point for dialogue, so I defer to your wisdom and leave it to you to explain to them. If Bill C-7 passes, they will find out soon enough anyway.





Link to comment
Share on other sites


Living in the past was in the Audit system that transport was using and was not being applied effectively. If it so happens that you are up to date (living in the present). What is your answer? Are you running for office somewhere, you seem to have more of a political agenda??


If you haven't got anything more to contribute other than have more inspectors that don't know which end is up, well my friend it's not going to happen. That's whats called living in the past, it didn't work then and it won't work now. Would you want to be audited by somebody who has ten or more years (the team of auditors) or by the new transport auditors fresh out of school, because that is all that is available.


If you knew anything about risk management, you would also know that most people live with it all their lives, only they don't know it.


The only thing that has changed in risk management in today's age is it's called risk management, not taking a risk without quantifying the what ifs on paper. That is what is referred to as progress.


My suggestion to you is if you cant get with it, that is your problem not the SMS, because I think you are confusing it with Industry Self Management (ISM), which is not even in the same category as Safety Management System.


Industry Self Management would be a function of owners and if they also had control of Safety Management System, I would personally never get in a helicopter.

As this is applicable only to the Helicopter Industry and everybody joins HEPAC and is audited by HEPAC experienced engineer and pilots, will this not keep all companies on the same level. No secrets, every company will be operating their helicopters in the same fashion.


I am giving you a realistic answer to today's problem without the government constantly looking over my shoulder.


As you are no longer a member (active) of the helicopter industry and are primarily concerned with fixed wing, why are you harassing us with fixed wing problems.


As far as I'm concerned the membership at HEPAC keeps growing. I have had very few questions about SMS for the helicopter industry. The largest helicopter operator in the world is implementing SMS and already has ISO.


Maybe you should take a trip to the CHC Safety Conference and find out what life is all about. Some of the speakers are outstanding and would you believe I've heard most of them, except Igor.

Also attending is the Southern California Safety Institute, good school, I've taken three of their safety courses.

Should you wish to intervene along with the ex flight attendant now an NDP MP and your fixed wing buddies, HEPAC will be there on behalf of the engineers and pilots of the helicopter industry.

The only political party against this is the NDP, not political you say.



Link to comment
Share on other sites













Please find attached links which should give you some perception of the discussuions taking place against Bill C-7. As well the CFPA links should give you an idea of where our Federally employed fixed and rotary wing pilots stand on the issue. Scrolling down in the media.html file you will also find an interesting survey of the pilots themselves. These are the pilots employed by TC. What HEPAC, HAC or any other organization do after the implementation of Bill C-7 is not our primary concern, stopping the passing of the Bill and implementing SMS is our concern.




If you feel an need to belittle me personally in defense of your position, have at it. I am not here to engage you about who's right or wrong but to provide information to people to allow them to form their own thoughts on the matter. I state clearly that I am against the introduction of SMS under Bill C-7 and we initiated our battle as you will read in the CTV link above. Our presentation to the committee is a matter of public record. I certainly do not understand your talk about ISM vs SMS as this is something you have brought up and has nothing to do with the discussion, more importantly, I know nothing about ISM as I have never seen a discussion about it.

However, we feel that we are fully conversant with the subject of SMS from our own studies and in discussions with the various parties who are presently opposing Bill C-7. As stated before, SMS is a valuable business tool but certainly not one which will provide adequate oversight of a deregulated industry.


This is not a fixed wing problem, it is an aviation problem which will affect every airplane, helicopter, operator, owner, pilot, engineer and anyone else associated with aviation in Canada.







Link to comment
Share on other sites



"So, I wrote a paper which I sent to TC and stated the following:: As you are having problems hiring and keeping inspectors, why not contract out to the private sector."

Given our present aviation industry, where the government cannot seem to be held accountable for their own actions/inactions, who do you propose will hold the "contracted organizations accountable for their failings?"


HAC is vying for this type of designated role, yet the recent conviction of the Association's President - Brian Jenner - for poaching is an embarrasment to the Association and all that it proposes to represent. Is this the type of organization we want in charge of "Self-Management" if the Association condones ethically and legally irresponsible behaviour?




If you read throught the various parliamentary meeting notes and legislative debate on Bill C-6/Bill C-7, the idea of designating various authorities outside of TC has been discussed on several occasions, with some interesting results.


Who will oversee these people? Who will enforce the law? Who will ensure that these designated organization(s) are acting in the best interest of safety, and not the vested interest in the bottom line? How will transparency be maintained? Who will strip these agencies of their authority when they break the rules themselves or their leadership flagrantly breaks the law?


More importantly, who will oversee you?


"Everybody has their own idea including HEPAC.

HEPAC just submitted a proposal to look after the Safety Management System (SMS) on a national scale."


Our industry was not ready for de-regulation, and it is most certainly not ready for self-regulation. Safety is not something you can package into a "Management System".



tin lizzie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlhome: In response to your response and you seem to take everything at a personal level.


Did you hear me advocating SMS for the Airline Industry or the Fixed Wing portion of the so called "Air Taxi" section??????


I am proposing SMS for the HELICOPTER INDUSTRY only. OK


If you bothered getting your head out of the sand and implying that the Helicopter Industry is part of the Air Taxi, you are wrong. At the time we were put in the same boat with you guys we have had nothing but problems. Since then due to HAC lobbying we have been recognized by Transport as a viable industry, praise the Lord.


For your added info we were asked to implement the SMS in our own industry.

Under HEPAC we would still come under TCCA for the application of the SMS, only we would be doing it with a more knowledgeable base. The companies would be audited by there own employees. There are more employees than owners.

Do you honestly think the majority of Ame's or Pilots would continue to work for a company when their safety or License is at stake.

You also forget that the insurance companies have a big stake in what goes on and they will be invited to take part. Should we have a problem with a company that is an AMO we can always take them to court.


Back to my days auditing with the USAF in Canada all we would do if the operator gave us a hard time, would put him on non hire basis till he cleaned up his act.

When it begins to effect the dollars coming in, people start to smarten up.


The SMS is the answer to the HELICOPTER INDUSTRY, in the fashion HEPAC proposes.


Do all the inquiries you want, it's called progress.


Remember what the ICAO rep said at the inquiry "It starts from the BOTTOM up".


You can't get any more bottom up than HEPAC as an enforcement arm of TCCA.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the SMS or Licensing was given to an association to look after, they would be doing it in accordance with TC regs. Transport will always be making the regs in conjunction with the industry, but through the representing association.


If I understand this correctly, TCCA will continue to set standards and regulations for maintenance training and licencing, but TCCA wants the process to be administered by a third party?


I have always advocated to Transport that the Helicopter Industry could do a better job of monitoring itself.


So, it's not so much that divesting licencing to a third party will cause things to fall apart, but that it provides an opportunity for a helicopter association to prehaps do a better job? In a nutshell, how might training/licencing of engineers change under such a scheme, from what we currently have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



In one instance you state that you have submitted a proposal to TC and on the other hand that they have asked you to.


Of this I can assure you, every aspect of Canadian Aviation will be under the ramifications of Bill C-7 regardless of how you try to portray what your oganization may be doing.


For the rest of your ramblings, I find your answers completely incoherent and anyone with a basic knowledge of CARs would not be uttering the rubbish which you put forth, concerning Canadian registered aircraft or helicopters.


Your self importance comes through quite strongly in your posts only to cleverly evade the issue we are trying to discuss.


If this is your method of attracting people to your organization or your cause, I leave it up to the readers to determine.


To other forum members, I apologize for this seeming schoolboy spat, but I will not let it go further.

My only hope is that you find a suitable way to embrace what is coming.






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...