Mitch Cronin Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Years ago I was a taxi driver in Toronto. Late one night, while sitting with two of my taxi driver colleagues, one of them asked the other if he might have "one of those pointed shovels" that he could borrow. Now as some of you undoubtedly know, taxi drivers can possess a sharp wit. -- Many are remarkably intelligent people, and in my opinion, for whatever reasons, I think there are more geniuses in that field of endeavor than in any other similarly common occupation. ...but I digress. -- My friend swiftly responded, "Hey, let's call a spade a spade." That tale has absolutely nothing to do with what I want to rant about, but it introduces the feeling that moves my fingers to this keyboard. S.M.S. The company I work for recently had me attend a classroom for a brief, overview presentation, of what SMS is supposed to mean to us. "Safety [in the beginning], [in the end], and [at all times]" (words changed in an attempt to avoid breach of company policy) was repeated to us as if it were a mantra we were being told to remember. It was even said that if, at some point in the future, somebody we didn't know were to approach us at work... like maybe somebody from Transport Canada, if we remember nothing else, we should remember those words. Time for another brief digression: After I gave up the good life of taxi driving, and went back to school, I worked for a small company whose top management knew something about flight safety, and we received training fairly often. Some years later I worked for another company, a larger one, whose managers followed Transport Canada's rules and may also have known something about flight safety, and we received "recurrent training" on a regular basis. Today, the company I work for gets away with calling printed words on a computer screen, "training", and the mandated "recurrent training" we receive, is to be read on the screen at times of convenience. The computer records who reads what, and when. Throughout my career in this industry (close to 24 years with big birds), all those in my line of work who actually operated the aircraft, received simulator training on a fairly regular basis. We would be taught and re-taught how to deal with all manner of failures and emergencies, much like flight crew training. Some time ago, the company I work for decided it would be sufficient to simply offer live instruction, on operating aircraft, instead. No practice in failures. Just routine engine operation and taxi instruction. In addition, the rechecking of those so "endorsed", would be done by those of us who volunteered for that function. The "training" we received, in order to become 'engine run and taxi check qualified' consisted of a few hours of chat in a classroom, which was mostly filled by an instructor reading to us the policies. Whenever I've suggested, to anyone at all in any level of management, that this is all bowschit, ...that none of this is "training" - as I believe in calling a spade a spade - I am repeatedly reminded that 'Transport Canada permits us to call it "training"'... or, 'it's in our Transport Canada approved Maintenance Control Manual'. So when I was told, during this presentation of our company's SMS policies and procedures, that "training" would be a part of it, I asked the question, "Will this "training" be real training, or bowschit [computer screen] training?" The answer I got was, I thought, rather meaningful... "This is your training." For these reasons, in my opinion, SMS - as currently "practiced", is nothing more than an extremely weak dumping of responsibility. The skills of those doing the dumping are finely honed. They've all had years of practice and oodles of advice and consultation with lawyers, and their asses are all well covered. They've posted all the required notices, laid out the framework in the required manner, provided the minimum necessary "training". ....and nothing else appears to have changed. The peons that are the recipients of the dumping are almost oblivious to the consequences. I fear this ill-advised foray into self-policing of flight safety will, at some company -- and I sincerely hope it is not mine - and even more, I do so sincerely hope this fear will prove unfounded! --, wind up contributing to the hurting of people... and I fear one or many of my colleagues in this profession will suffer a mighty, life changing, legal blow - in addition to what would be their already much suffering minds, because of it. I've perhaps never been so unsure of anything as I am about almost all things at this point in my life, but as this very brief - less than an hour - presentation drew to a close, I was damned sure that our management's commitment, and Transport Canada's commitment, to what SMS really should be, is, to call a spade a spade, absolutely pure bowschit! Otherwise, they'd never allow "training" to be replaced with such useless, ineffective excuses for training. [CYA]All of the above is only the humble opinion of this author who admits nothing about his employer or his employers name, and in no way should any of it be taken as statement of fact regarding any particular company.... all because this author does not wish to risk losing financial support for his daughter's up-coming adventures in the most expensive university she applied to. [/CYA] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Great post Mitch, I agree 100%. The Canadian low cost carrier (from what I have heard), has a wonderful recurrent training program where they send their AMEs on training to cover/review a few ATA chapters for their endorsement every year. Maybe we could get them to comment on their recurrent training? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nozel Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Couldn't agree more with your reasoned thoughts Mitch. SMS starts with a known good model which is tinkered with to reduce cost until a failure occurs, at which point the last removed link, after which the failure occurred, is reinstalled as an improvement. SMS is a downloading of responsibility from our respective Employers to the Grunts doing real work Your post has given me pause for thought: I have, for years serviced the brakes on all of my cars, occasionally as a favor for extended family members too, saving thousands of dollars for me. All I have to show for this is parts receipts...I cannot show a ticket saying I am 'qualified' to do such work on any vehicle I may have laid my hands on. Should my relatives in their right minds willingly have me service the most important safety devices on their cars, which , if fail, could have dire emotional AND financial implications? Should I willingly volunteer my time for them, should I even be servicing said safety devices on my own cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Mitch, I concur completely! And if you want to imply that the other members of the union are untrained, well, we were trained initially, and it has been known, for a time period approaching 30 years, that no other training is offered. Yet, the correspondance that comes when one fails in performance of the function, comes forthwith. Makes giving the former CEO and his cronies $2BILLION feel good, don't it????? Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Mitch, I concur completely! And if you want to imply that the other members of the union are untrained, well, we were trained initially, and it has been known, for a time period approaching 30 years, that no other training is offered. Yet, the correspondance that comes when one fails in performance of the function, comes forthwith. Makes giving the former CEO and his cronies $2BILLION feel good, don't it????? Iceman I am surprised that your company does not offer any training, but I guess you mean other than on new types???? Has your union been silent on this issue? Surely something this important should / would be incorporated into your collective agreements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 They call it training, but it is powerpoint presentations, bulletins, and disciplinary letters. Nothing approaching anything hands on. While I'll agree that pilots are held to a higher standard, and are trained as such, it would be nice to have some actual hands on refresher training every few years to keep up to snuff with the SOP's. Trouble is..... The guys in the training department are there because they didn't want to work on the ramp. Kinda like Stevey Wonder taking Ray Charles for a drive with Helen Keller giving directions Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 They call it training, but it is powerpoint presentations, bulletins, and disciplinary letters. Nothing approaching anything hands on. While I'll agree that pilots are held to a higher standard, and are trained as such, it would be nice to have some actual hands on refresher training every few years to keep up to snuff with the SOP's. Trouble is..... The guys in the training department are there because they didn't want to work on the ramp. Kinda like Stevey Wonder taking Ray Charles for a drive with Helen Keller giving directions Iceman It's only a matter of time before the current training program comes back and bites the company on the a$$. It is the almighty $$$$$ that has caused it be changed to the powerpoint crap we have now. It will cost far far more when the idiocy of this move by the company is brought out into the bright lights of the public when an incident occurs. This is another one the bean counters have won over safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 They call it training, but it is powerpoint presentations, bulletins, and disciplinary letters. Nothing approaching anything hands on. While I'll agree that pilots are held to a higher standard, and are trained as such, it would be nice to have some actual hands on refresher training every few years to keep up to snuff with the SOP's. Trouble is..... The guys in the training department are there because they didn't want to work on the ramp. Kinda like Stevey Wonder taking Ray Charles for a drive with Helen Keller giving directions Iceman Not being familiar with your role at AC, what processes do you feel require "hands on" vs audio visuals / refreshers? Only reason I ask is that in my day, proficiency in performing a normal task was a given and was not subject to refresher courses as the skills were used on a daily basis, new equipment/procedure training always included some hands on. Ramp, cargo personal had to receive hands on training before receiving their licence to operate equipment types etc. Is this not the case for AC? Spot checks (observations) were done by QC types to ensure folks were following SOPs and if folks were found to be in default, they were refreshed regarding their role. At CP we had (cargo as example) a Standards & Procedures group that developed the procedures along with the standards to be applied. They also of course produced self evaluation tools for the bases that were complimented by visits from a couple of QA folks who performed annual (or more as needed) audits, the results were discussed with the base management who were tasked to provide training etc to bring things / individuals up to standard, complementing this was a training department who job was to conduct training based upon the accepted standards / procedures. This did not make everything rosy but it certainly helped. The costs were more than recouped in customer satisfaction and of course reduction to equipment damage. edited for typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 As a guy who believes in SMS(at the airline level) I find I get more out of the convenient computer training than I did falling asleep at 2 in the afternoon in a classroom. I think if a company(meaning everyone in it, from the top down) embraces SMS, it'll work wonderfully. Don't get me wrong, I am not blind as to TC's incentives for this to work, nor do I think it will work at the 703 level. No way in hell will it work on 703 operations, and as for 704 operations, maybe it will maybe not, and will depend on the strength of character of the people within the operation. I think 705's can work because there are sufficient levels of people and numbers of people at the company that people can believe it will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Almost off topic (surprise!) but of interest. Take a look at the training requirements for ATS folks, they pay for their initial training out of their own pocket (a little like pilots) and then qualify for salaries as follows. Perhaps there is a new job in your future. Selection ProcessHow you train to become a NAV CANADA air traffic services specialist depends on the career best suited to your skills. Our air traffic specialists receive the best training in the industry—in classroom, in simulation and on the job. Bring your game, apply yourself, and you’ll have great chances of success. Flight Service Specialist Training Flight Service Specialists receive initial training at regional training units located at our seven ACCs. This initial training may last up to six months. Tuition is $1,000. After initial instruction, you move to on-the-job training at a Flight Service Station or Flight Information Centre. This is when you start earning a training salary. It may take up to six months of on-the-job training until you fully qualify as a Flight Service Specialist. IFR Air Traffic Controller Training The IFR Controller training program is delivered at each of NAV CANADA’s seven Area Control Centres. Initial training lasts seven to 14 months, and is followed by paid on-the-job training of six to 12 months. The tuition for the IFR Controller training program is $3,500. Students usually complete their initial and on-the-job training at the Area Control Centre in their region. VFR Air Traffic Controller Training VFR Air Traffic Controllers receive initial instruction at regional training units located at our seven ACCs. Lasting four to six months, it is followed by paid on-the-job training of another four to 12 months at an air traffic control tower. Tuition for the VFR Controller training program is $2,500. IFR and VFR Air Traffic Controllers Air Traffic Controllers are a skilled and knowledgeable group of professionals. The salaries and benefits we pay reflect this. As an Air Traffic Controller, you can earn between $57,000 and $123,000 per year depending on your position, facility type and location, and your level of experience. You’ll also enjoy comprehensive health coverage and excellent pension benefits. We also pay for on-the-job training following the initial training program. Your on-the-job training salary is approximately $33,000 per year. Flight Service Specialists Flight Service Specialists are professionals providing an important information service to pilots across the country. As a NAV CANADA Flight Service Specialist, you’ll receive a competitive salary with a range that offers room for growth—between $42,000 and $86,000 per year depending on your facility, location and years of experience on the job. You’ll also enjoy comprehensive health coverage and excellent pension benefits. We also pay for on-the-job training after initial classroom instruction. Your training salary is approximately $30,000 per year. http://takecharge.navcanada.ca/en/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I agree with Canus on this one. The system CAN work so long as it is embraced at all levels. No one likes change and this is a fundamental change in the way we do business. CBT training has been around for quite some time, has anyone done the Airbus VACBE training. For some people it works for some it does not. Same goes for class room training I was always refreshed after my classroom training because I got so much sleep. I preferred to study the material on my own. Once upon a timme you could self study for an endorsement as well. Same thin only now the computer is the training aid and not large books and overheads. We in the aviation game need to assimilate more information than ever before and trying to find a way to install all that data into ones brain that works for all is difficult. Personally self guided CBT works for me. But then so does reading the material. But lectures suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JW Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Well done Mitch. I'd given up the rant on that years ago, but the feeling has not changed. Let's see what industries have benefited from SMS (aka letting the fox loose in the hen house)... Propane... Sunrise Explosion I think that explosion is still being investigated as a failure of SMS? Water quality...How did the risk management water quality program work as discussed in the Walkerton inquiry? Next, next and next risk management failure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimBoy Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 SIMBOY's RANT... If SMS is SO good, then why is it not a product that one could buy off the shelf, like 6-Sigma? Why didn't Canadian airlines do this voluntarily? Why is SMS so muddled in Australia? And, why is Canada the only country in the world to embrace this Government throw-off, just to save money on oversight expenses? Where does the FAA stand on SMS? The Canadian Government is liable for oversight, as the Crown authorizes airlines through various deligations of authority, and issues AOC's. SMS is NOT a bad thing, but has NOT been implemented correctly. It is supposed to be another layer of protection, not a replacement of oversight. If one were foolish enough to believe that if the RCMP took the ghost cars off the highways, and stopped setting speed traps, then the populace would all voluntarily slow-down so as not to have an accident and save on their insurance policies. Human nature has not evolved enough for this yet. An Operator should have a rooted QA program, before implementing SMS... TC opted to do this backwards. That's my rant... WHEW!!! SimBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 That is painting with a pretty broad brush. Our implementation is working quite nicely thus far. It is the buy in from the PEOPLE that make it either work or fail. TC cannot be solely blamed for a faulty adaptation of SMS since in the end it is the company that operates it. If every person says it wont work for whatever reason at the outset then it is doomed to failure, it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 5, 2009 Author Share Posted September 5, 2009 Boestar, I certainly can't argue with your last sentence, but .... When one sees clearly that their company is merely going through the motions, with no more serious commitment to that mantra than has been evident in any other effort to comply with government regulations.... What do you suppose would entice that one to "believe" in the concept? I'm reminded of the answer I once heard to a tongue-in-cheek crack I made to a TC inspector as I let him in the door: "I'll let you in if you promise to be nice to us" (or words like that)... the answer was undoubtedly also similarly tongue-in-cheek, but it was absolutely rooted in a bizarre truth: "We always do what [your company] tells us to do." All those comments above about training may have missed a point I was trying to make. When I complain about our "recurrent training" (which I'm sure you know is also mandatory for those of us with a licence), I'm not talking about VACBI, or the like, ...I'm telling you we simply don't get ANY recurrent training! All we get is difficulty reports and various reminders of procedure when things have gone wrong, and corrections to procedure, etc.... Things like that, which we undoubtedly need, but it's not anything like real recurrent training. It's presented to us as words on a screen, which we're to read, as I said, at times of convenience. To my mind.... Recurrent training would include instruction on various aircraft systems. Things like focusing on common snags that occur and proper trouble-shooting to find the faults (could be driven by tracking of most common erroneous parts changes, or the like)... Or delving deep into understanding relationships of various systems, so that we can all simply recognize better the most probable causes and effects of various failures.... Understanding the machinery doesn't come readily to many of us by simply reading words on a screen. And, to me, that the company I work for is allowed by TC to call these 'words on a screen' "recurrent training", and does so, ...that says neither TC nor the company I work for are very serious about complying with the spirit of the regulation.... which in turn tells me they're not very serious about SMS either. A good safety culture doesn't come through sticking to minimum legal requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Well Mitch, I'm happy to report SMS is alive and well at my company, and it as far as I can tell embraced by the top->down. Doesn't TC audit you guys for holes in your system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Doesn't TC audit you guys for holes in your system? It's been discussed in other threads but TC doesn't "audit" anymore. There are "assessments" and "validations" though... SI SUR-001 - Safety Management System Assessment and Program Validation Inspection Procedures CAD SUR-008 - Surveillance Policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 5, 2009 Author Share Posted September 5, 2009 ...and it's not considered a "hole" apparently. It's allowed to be as it is. There are many where I work, including many managers, who indeed are "commited" to SMS and it's intent. But the folks in control... ? ... I really don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JW Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Any program has to be able to withstand regime changes in management and of the regulator with continuity of understanding, intent, and goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.