Air Georgian on the Hot Seat

[47north]

http://business.financialpost.com/feature/cabin-pressure-are-airline-contractors-cutting-corners-on-safety-to-earn-business

 

[Vsplat]

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

[blues deville]

.....but the airline said it is one of the country’s most audited airlines........

To me that sounds like they are getting their share of attention from TC. 

[Guest]

It will be interesting to see where this goes.  Reading the story , one could wonder "disgruntled x employee or airline mtce in trouble" So sitting on the outside looking in will be interesting.

[wizard]

Who provides lime maintenance ? I think the heavy maintenance is contracted out to Jazz for the RJ's

[conehead]

Georgian has their own people for line maintenance.

[blues deville]

17 hours ago, Malcolm said:

It will be interesting to see where this goes.  Reading the story , one could wonder "disgruntled x employee or airline mtce in trouble" So sitting on the outside looking in will be interesting.

I don’t doubt some of these incidents are true but they are definitely two disgruntled ex-pilots  with no upgrade and therefore no AC future. 

[GTFA]

Cabin Pressure?

This story provokes me to respond for several reasons. Firstly there are too many assumptions and misrepresentations of the true nature of what is going on, on a daily basis, at responsible, safe flight operations. Secondly, presenting their grievances to the media in this way wreaks of frustration and spite and will only lead to further angst and personal grief. Finally, while a particular operator may have difficulties between departments that effect safety, there is an underlying issue that cuts to my core.

To me this sad story represents not a failing of Transport Canada, Air Canada, or even Air Georgian, this story represents a failing of the profession of airline pilot. The pilots who have chosen to take on this role are the gatekeepers of safety in this industry. To hear the pleas of desperation from pilots saying they have been forced to operate unsafely undermines the very foundation of what it means to be a professional pilot. You can legislate all the regulations you like and publish all the bulletins and memos in the world but it is the Pilot in Command and his crew who hold ultimate responsibility. If it has truly come to this where a professional pilot cannot manage the challenges of his career but seeks satisfaction through the media then I take it personally.

My profession has failed the industry, the public and these pilots by not providing the right training, experience, guidance and support to use the tools at their disposal to remediate an insidious threat to safety. We have come too far and learned so much from our collective experience, both success and failures, to allow the next generation of professionals to feel so helpless. To the professional pilots or any other “professional” who read the article and share my discomfort; We do not need the media, corporate sympathies, or Government intervention. What we need is each other.

 GTFA

20K+ hours flight time

37 years professional pilot

Training Captain and HF specialist

[Johnny]

I didn't read it at all that way, maybe (we) forget what it was like being new in this insane business. I started in the 70's when we were told point blank, if you don't like it there are a hundred guys that will happily do it.  The tide has changed overnight on the demand for Pilots, even a year ago a job a Georgian would have been considered a good one.

Not any longer, they are actively petitioning the federal government for foreign Pilots.  Word is out that they are a terrible operation.

This falls squarely on TC, in my opinion.

 

 

[J.O.]

4 hours ago, Johnny said:

This falls squarely on TC, in my opinion.

When Volkswagen got caught playing tricks with software to fudge emission figures on the TDI engines, did anyone suggest it was the EPA or NHTSA who were to blame? Of course they didn’t. The blame went squarely where it belonged, to the management of VW who were implicated at the highest levels. I fail to see how this is any different. I’ve worked in a place where some people felt it was okay to cut corners. Those of us who were charged with fixing it didn’t sit in the office blaming the regulator. We rolled up our sleeves and did a lot of hard work to make changes and build a safety culture.

If the management at Georgian doesn’t see this as a sign, they’re fools. And if AC doesn’t expect them to answer for it, well same applies IMO.

[Vsplat]

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

[J.O.]

I guess you don't know that car manufacturers are federally regulated too.

I've been involved in this business for 40 years and during that whole time it's been extremely rare that TC's had the capability of meaningfully addressing internal problems at a company. It usually took a disaster (or a near one) for things to get shaken up. Having said that, there will be heightened scrutiny at Georgian with this story hitting the news. It's too bad those pilots didn't use the CAIRS system to report their concerns. It isn't perfect but having done investigations into two of them, I've seen it work very well.

But back to responsibility, the regulator, no matter how well resourced, can only ever take a snapshot of an operation when they monitor and audit. The industry's safety record is exemplary, meaning that it's damned difficult to find very many violations during those activities. Believe me, I've tried! 

Having gone back to industry, the one thing I carried with me is the realization that waiting for a regulator to tell you to fulfill your responsibilities is a fool's game. History is dotted with accidents involving operators who rolled that dice. Safety and compliance costs money but accidents are an order of magnitude more expensive. When you've had to explain to insurers why they should continue to cover you, you'll find them unsympathetic if your explanation doesn't describe what you've done to fix your problems. The regulator's name barely even comes up.

[boestar]

if you think safety is expensive...Try having an accident

 

[Vsplat]

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

[rudder]

SMS. FRMS. Self monitoring. This is the new TC direction for Part 705 operators. Others can comment on its effectiveness.

Air Georgian was historically a B1900 operator. Part 704.

In November 2013 Air Georgian entered in to a joint venture agreement with Regional 1 Airlines, an experienced CRJ operator. This facilitated the entry in to service of the CRJ at Air Georgian in May 2014 as part of the Air Canada Express network. Part 705.

The joint venture agreement with Regional 1 Airlines was terminated prematurely in February 2016. Regional 1/AVMAX no longer supports the Air Georgian CRJ operation.

All public information. Press releases. Wikipedia.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/air-georgian-and-regional-1-airlines-sign-mou-to-merge-1830018.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Georgian

[JL]

You cannot fundamentally change the human condition but you can change the conditions in which they work.....James Reason

[Johnny]

We should be thanking this guy, became a Pilot late in life.  Well educated, Engineering Degree and saw "the light."  B*ll S&*t business driven by money.

Be thankful you don't have a kid flying for Georgian and hell will freeze over before myself (or any member of my family) would be on their Airplanes.

[J.O.]

6 hours ago, Vsplat said:

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

I’m letting discretion be the better part of valour. My snarky reply was going to get us nowhere so I’ve deleted it. Clearly the only way you could possibly appreciate what I’m talking about is to walk a mile in an inspector’s shoes. It’s not nearly as clear cut as you claim.

[Vsplat]

9 hours ago, J.O. said:

Clearly the only way you could possibly appreciate what I’m talking about is to walk a mile in an inspector’s shoes

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

[blues deville]

Over on another thread TC has revoked an OC. Sounds to me like they are doing their job. 

[Vsplat]

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

[blues deville]

1 hour ago, Vsplat said:

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

Different region. Same regulator. TC must have found something serious enough to stop their operation.

[Johnny]

Westwind had (has) a solid reputation as a good operation.  I also wonder if "the paint scheme" isn't a factor in Georgian being treated differently?

 

[Bobcaygeon]

Westwind got a surprise visit from TC thanks to the accident. When companies get that surprise things often don’t go well.

Westwind stopped operating likely to avoid getting in more regulatory trouble.....

Note to self, never leave the tripod set up in the bedroom when your in laws live close to you. The unexpected “drop in” often doesn’t go well.