I am sure there will be lots of input from forum members

[Guest]

https://letstalktransportation.ca/lets-talk-CARs

Modernizing the Canadian Aviation Regulations

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

 

Transport Canada is conducting a regulatory review to modernize and improve how we deliver our key mission - a transportation system that is safe and secure, green and innovative, and efficient.

The review includes updating and improving the Canadian Aviation Regulations to:

• strengthen safety
• better support innovation and economic growth in Canada

The review will modernize the Canadian Aviation Regulations, and respond to the needs and priorities of the aviation industry.

We want your feedback to help inform the review process and make aviation regulations more flexible for your business while maintaining a high level of safety.

How to participate

Join the discussion forum in one of two ways:

• through the “Join the Conversion” tab below, or
• by sending a formal written submission through the “Submissions” tab

We encourage you to share your views, regarding modernizing the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Participating will help shape the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the future.

[DEFCON]

TC could start by explaining what happened to the modernization of flight / duty regs before they go off looking for other ways to let stakeholders down.

 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

TC could start by explaining what happened to the modernization of flight / duty regs before they go off looking for other ways to let stakeholders down.

 

so I guess you will be participating

[DEFCON]

No, I've been involved with TC rule creation in a past life and learned, it's not worth the time.

TC is all about smoke and mirrors.

No matter the issue, TC seems doomed to be nothing more than industry's lap-dog..

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DEFCON said:

No, I've been involved with TC rule creation in a past life and learned, it's not worth the time.

TC is all about smoke and mirrors.

No matter the issue, TC seems doomed to be nothing more than industry's lap-dog..

 

To be charitable, perhaps like me you are no longer active in the industry and thus are happy to leave replies to those who are active or ????  Of course your response brings up this question: What do you think about voting in public elections, waste of time, important, always or ???? ? 

 

[DEFCON]

Questions regarding a person's voting considerations can be a little personal Malcolm, but to respond; I vote for candidates that I find inspiring. The fact is, until fairly recently, I could never justify signing on with a political party.

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

Questions regarding a person's voting considerations can be a little personal Malcolm, but to respond; I vote for candidates that I find inspiring. The fact is, until fairly recently, I could never justify signing on with a political party.

 

 

 

 I don't care how you vote, just curious as to if you do.  I continue to vote, If no one is inspiring, I chose the lessor of the evils and vote for him/her (in other words against the ones I don't like).

[UpperDeck]

20 hours ago, DEFCON said:

No, I've been involved with TC rule creation in a past life and learned, it's not worth the time.

TC is all about smoke and mirrors.

No matter the issue, TC seems doomed to be nothing more than industry's lap-dog..

 

Would it be invasive of your privacy to ask in what capacity you were "involved" in the creation of Transport Canada rules? That certainly sounds impressive and suggests a senior position within the bureaucracy assuming of course that you did not hold elective office.

[DEFCON]

What's the matter with you?

Did you run out little animals to torture, or bugs to pull the legs off?

I worked with, but never for TC.

For example; back around the mid eighties I participated on behalf of CALPA on a TC hosted committee intended to examine flight duty regulations and prepare modernization recommendations for the Minister's consideration.

I should add, it's not the mostly great and well-intentioned people at TC that I criticize,  imo, any fault for lack of organizational performance lies with the politicians that abuse the organization in all the worst ways.

And to compare, here we are today, yet another committee concluded a like process with similar findings several years back and their work too seems to have been thrown on shelf too.

So forgive my frustration with TC's lack of performance.

Then there was the Dryden Commission, but you are already aware of my participation there.

Maybe if it's not too personal, we could begin to explore some of the highlights of your professional achievement list eh? 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Here is a goto to the official and final report from the Dryden Commission .

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/bcp-pco/CP32-55-3-1992-1-eng.pdf

[J.O.]

I'm quite confident that DEFCON was indeed a participant in the enquiry.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, J.O. said:

I'm quite confident that DEFCON was indeed a participant in the enquiry.

Not questioning that he / she was but others may be.

[Vsplat]

Hmmmmm.

First off,  DEFCON.  I received good advice some time ago regarding the benefits of the ignore feature.  Just passing it along.

Second.  Malcom.  The Dryden Commission gave way to the Dryden Commission Implementation Project where most of the real work was done.  Hundreds of individuals from across the industry, regulators and specialists from the US and Europe participated.  Their names aren't published for the most part. But the list of things that got fixed because of that Project is long and affects us every day.

'where credit is due' - this is aviation we're talking about, right?   The price of success for those who engage in the heavy lifting and actually improve things, is anonymity.   Fame is bestowed on heroes, the dead, and the occasional CEO.  Below that, not so much.

But, just my opinion...

Vs

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

Hmmmmm.

First off,  DEFCON.  I received good advice some time ago regarding the benefits of the ignore feature.  Just passing it along.

Second.  Malcom.  The Dryden Commission gave way to the Dryden Commission Implementation Project where most of the real work was done.  Hundreds of individuals from across the industry, regulators and specialists from the US and Europe participated.  Their names aren't published for the most part. But the list of things that got fixed because of that Project is long and affects us every day.

'where credit is due' - this is aviation we're talking about, right?   The price of success for those who engage in the heavy lifting and actually improve things, is anonymity.   Fame is bestowed on heroes, the dead, and the occasional CEO.  Below that, not so much.

But, just my opinion...

Vs

Good to see you and J.O. coming to his defence but I guess we will need to await any response from UpperDeck. Re Dryden, I have deleted my post as the response from you and J.O. has made it redundant.

[Guest]

Re the Dryden Report, of interest to me are the recommendations from that report. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended :

MCR 11 0

MCR 11 1

MCR 112

That the Aviation Regulation Directorate focus adequate

resources on surveillance and monitoring of the air carrier

industry, with emphasis on in-flight inspections and unannounced

spot checks .

That Transport Canada establish a policy that identifies

surveillance of existing air carriers as a non-discretionary

task .

That Transport Canada establish a contingency policy in

order to meet unusual resource demands without jeopardizing

adequate staffing of inspection and surveillance

functions.

Effects of Deregulation and Downsizing on Aviation Safety 91 5

MCR 11 3

MCR 11 4

MCR 11 5

MCR 11 6

MCR 117

That Transport Canada pursue extension of the delegation of

authority to industry in accordance with the recommendations

of Transport Canada's Management Consultant

Branch studies completed in 1990 on this subject . Where

additional delegation of authority to industry can be achieved

safely, such delegation should be authorized in order to

allow more effective use of Transport Canada inspectors .

That Transport Canada establish a policy to ensure that

required support staff will be provided so that inspector staff

will not be misdirected from their operational safetyoriented

surveillance duties in order to perform tasks more

appropriately conductedo'/ by support staff.

That Transport Canada establish an air carrier inspector

training policy to be put into force without further delay, and

that the policy ensure the following :

(a) A clear statement of the requisite competencies for each

inspector position in the Airworthiness and Flight

Standards directorates of Transport Canada .

(b) A statement of the training courses required to be

completed successfully by inspectors before they are

delegated authority and before their probationary

periods end.

(c) Successful completion of training to be required before

air carrier inspectors are delegated their authority

credentials .

(d) Establishment of a recurrent training program for each

discipline of inspection to ensure continued competence.

That Transport Canada improve staffing and recruiting

programs to enable aviation regulation requirements to be

filled on a high-priority basis . The capability to fast-track

such staffing requirements should be achieved as soon as

reasonably possible .

That Transport Canada, in consultation with the air carriers,

work out an arrangement to accommodate the requirement

of no-notice in-flight cabin safety inspections and surveillance

on charter flights .

[UpperDeck]

16 hours ago, J.O. said:

I'm quite confident that DEFCON was indeed a participant in the enquiry.

Just a second here, fun lovers.

When did the subject of the Dryden Inquiry come up? I have known Defcon for donkey's years and know that he was the pilot rep in that inquiry.

Defcon takes pleasure in yanking my chain from time to time and I reciprocate. He KNOWS I don't torture small animals.

I know he never worked for TC. I think the thread between participation in a process ( no matter how valuable) and the "creation of TC rules" is both long and thin so as I am wont to do, I gave a little tug on his coat.

[DEFCON]

I guess I'm going to have to respond to the missive of his honour upper deck.

 

Back in the early mid-eighties I became a cog in CALPA's Technical & Air Safety division; I was a 'pilot rep'. 

As such, I participated with TC personnel on more than one occasion over a number of years.

Somewhere above in this thread I attempted to use my experience with government and 'rule making' as it pertained to FD issues to illustrate my frustration with 'process'.

During my experience as I recall, I put in approximately two days a month of my own time over the course of a year participating on a multi party committee on behalf of CALPA.

A report of some sort was eventually produced and forwarded, but in the end analysis, it all added up to a pile of nothing; I don't think the Minister of the day ever laid eyes on the recommendations?

Many years later a friend was invited to repeat the experience. Being negative me I let him know the drill would probably prove to be a waste of time too. He was a little more optimistic.

The new committee went on to submit the product of their work to the system and now about 8 years later, we're still nowhere on the matter.

 

Dryden is the second issue that needs addressing.

On March 10th, 1989 I was a member of the above mentioned group and a pilot rep.

On March 11th 1989, on scene in Dryden, I was granted 'Observer' status; full 'Participant' status followed very soon thereafter when I was invited to join Mr. Justice Moshansky's team as an 'investigator'.

This was quite an honour and a heap of responsibility to place on a relatively young guy that was something of a babe in the woods politically.

It didn't take long to realize how far beyond my pay grade I was actually operating.

 Politics aside, and they represented one monsterous snake pit of competing interests, the technical investigation was facing a number of problems as both brand spanking new state of the art data recorders had been completely destroyed in the post crash fire.

As sad and tragic as the entire event was, for anyone with an investigators instincts this crash represented a once in a lifetime opportunity to participate in a fantastically interesting piece of aviation detective work.

To say the Commissioner was thorough would be an understatement; the Hearings provided an absolutely exhaustive review of almost every aspect of the air carrier industry and recommendations for change to address its many deficiencies.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and regard for Justice Moshansky.

 

And contrary to Vsplat's feelings about sharing the load; I think I'd have to respectfully disagree. (lol)

 

 

    

   

 

 

[UpperDeck]

As you know, Defcon ( or at least should) I have nothing but the greatest of respect for your accomplishments and for your contributions to the airline industry.

Now...about that "his honour" line....