Donating Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Vsplat last won the day on December 27 2017

Vsplat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

315 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vsplat

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,883 profile views
  1. TV Crew Out to Create News

    Hmmm. An attempt to cause terror ought to draw terrorism charges. Fake or no fake. Trump should be able to knock this one outta the park. Fake news that is actually fake and contrary to the public interest. Vs
  2. TV Crew Out to Create News

    Well. they wanted a story. I am looking forward to their expose of the complete experience. Attempt to breach security, the arrest, trial, conviction and sentence. Should be a riveting read. I would suggest wide distribution of the story. Might serve to take the glory factor away from a few. Hopefully they won't get the light touch that the Canadian journalist who pulled this stunt at one of our majors did... Vs
  3. I don't think there is too much disagreement that protection is required. Not because anyone has stuff to hide, but because of the consequences of misinterpretation or opportunistic re-interpretation of what is seen. Rant/ I'm not sure which is worse - lawyers hungry for a career case or the parade of 'experts' trying to get themselves on camera while spouting unfounded and often provably wrong speculation. I swear, at times like that, you can catch an e coli infection from the BS coming through the TV screen. /end rant As for whether protections are truly effective, it depends where on earth you are. Canada is pretty good. I think the NTSB is still pretty good, but we are seeing snippets come out with a narrative. Still better than a free for all. If speculation is a problem, then facts are the answer. I say, video might be helpful to the flight deck crew in the event of a bad day at work. Vs
  4. Seeker, that's a pretty significant statement. Are you aware of the specifics of that case? Vs
  5. Won't be TC. TSB is a separate agency entirely. And one that is not entirely happy with TC, last I checked. This is important, as TC showing up after the event to suspend the OC, if in fact any of the reasons are related to the accident, suggests SMS did not work. This, in turn, may feed the discussion about whether TC really has a viable approach to meeting their public safety obligations. SMS is supposed to provide an equal or better level of safety with quality assurance measures sufficient to alert TC that intervention is required, before things get to the point of an incident. This is one of those times when the Inspectors' union may have called it right from the get go. Too bad, this is not a case where being right makes anyone happy. FWIW Vs
  6. Agreed J.O. For those here that remember Dryden, Operations Control factored significantly in that event. Vs
  7. Air Georgian on the Hot Seat

    blues, different region (so different TC chain of command), and a response to an acute, high profile event, vice what seems to be a chronic fire behind the walls. Honestly, when I saw the OC suspension, I wondered if it wasn't kicking a company when it was already down, so the polar opposite of the Georgian case. After all, Westwind had already suspended operations, so they would hardly be able to mount a complaint. Georgian, on the other hand, seems to in a mood to fight. I know, hard to get that right either way. Vs
  8. Air Georgian on the Hot Seat

    I didn't see the snarky version of your reply, perhaps for the best. Rather than posting based on assumptions about what I do or don't know or what I can appreciate, I suggest you use fewer assumptions about my background. But, since you chose to bring this up, let me make it very clear - this is not about the individual inspector. I mentioned accountable executive on purpose. The management structure within Transport Canada is dysfunctional, the line gets murky, conflicting, politically motivated directions and next to no resources to actually inspect. Witness the recent decision to withdraw actual aircraft qualification resources. The cost savings must look great to a bureaucrat who has no idea what the true impact will be and can't understand why the inspectors' union is upset. I have a great many friends and colleagues at Transport, the stress on the line has been unbearable for some and they have lost their health as a result, while others are just counting down to retirement and hoping they are not in the whirlpool of the next accident. The Georgian article has many parallels to the current internal structure of the regulator. If you feel like this warrants a snarky response, be my guest. Vs
  9. AIP, could not agree more. Vs
  10. Air Georgian on the Hot Seat

    J.O. I should have been more clear, I guess. My statement was supposed to stress regulated OPERATIONS. Manufacturers, car OR aviation, are not regulated the way airline operations are. AFAIK there is no Transport Canada named individual in a car company who is the equivalent of an operations manager or Chief Pilot, or whose role is so specifically spelled out in the regulation. We can debate how effective a regulator can be. Transport has a long history of shrinking away from their federal mandate until caught in an enquiry and told to get back to work. Dubin, and Moshansky had similar messages. Since SMS the corrective part of the cycle has resisted several hull losses. That's not good. How effective a regulator is is largely a question of respect. If industry rejects the regulator, then, to your point, no amount of resources is going to out run the cat and mouse routine. But what is going on now doesn't even meet the threshold for disrespect. TC is insulated within their internal closed loop cycles and industry is regulated, as you note, by the insurer. TC is noise for most of the industry now. Something to deal with, but hardly a threat to ongoing operations. I don't think it is a matter of waiting to be told by the regulator. There are some operators that have no intention of doing what they are told. Their version of risk assessment is, can we make more money by cost cutting than the risks WE perceive can cost us. And, by the way, those raising the risk flag are quickly purged as negative, so what WE perceive is benign. Fool's game? On that we agree. Vs
  11. Air Georgian on the Hot Seat

    The difference here is that airlines are federally regulated operations. There is no federal standard for the chief of operations of a car company, but there is for an air operator? Why? We all know why. A federal regulator is the only honest broker there is in this business. Cash flow (and the temptation to cut same) is too high, the operations too complex, with critical facets often too far removed from the view of the consumer for simple 'buyer beware' controls. Transport Canada is as guilty of cutting safety to meet cost targets as any of the airlines in this country. Time for their 'accountable executives' to be held to account. IMO. Vs
  12. Air Georgian on the Hot Seat

    Hmmm. Not the first time these stories have made the rounds. Same source, or same problems, different source? Maybe if Transport Canada was as interested in regulating real aircraft, carrying real people, as they are drones, we would get an answer. Vs
  13. Ya, the flower petals of doom. Like a venus flytrap for travellers. One look up and your neck will never be the same again. The very best your money can buy. Vs
  14. For those who flew the DC8 - TCA, 1964

    Glad to hear it is going well. That said, last I checked, your retirement 'hobbies' included stuff that would tire out a great many of us 'less seasoned' types. I guess it's true, they don't make 'em like they used to... I think I would need to pack a spare battery to get me through your day. All the best Vs
  15. For those who flew the DC8 - TCA, 1964

    Knowing you Don, you're still going strong after the young'ns have played themselves out. Hope all is well! Vs