Evidence of meeting #39 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transport.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You used the term “minor auditing”. Is that found in the legislation, or is that your term?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Thank you.
It's nice to be back. I apologize for my late arrival, but I was following through on getting some pills.
I missed the early part, but I had the opportunity to read your testimony, sir, and I appreciate your comments.
I gather there are a couple of things you've raised. One is the issue of whistle-blowing, the absence of a reference to whistle-blowing applying to this industry, and that's one of the concerns you've identified. In fact, you say the absence of whistle-blower protection compounds the problem.
The other half of your story, I guess, is the issue Mr. Fast just mentioned about regulatory oversight. Your suggestion is that the references have been to the Australian program and that the difference is that the Australian program has an SMS regime but still has regulatory oversight by the authority.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
So a safety management system does not by its implication, then, include self-regulation. That's an aspect that it sounds as though only Canada is considering. You're saying of the other countries that they all have some form of regulatory oversight by the governmental authority.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
That's right. Canada appears to be the lone wolf right now in going in this direction.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
To that, you mentioned your concern. In your statement you say, “It is extremely naïve to think that under SMS a financially strapped operator is” on its own initiative “going to place necessary safety expenditures ahead of economic survival”.
As one of the questions I wondered about, and I'm just trying to think where it was, what surprised me was the reference you had to the large airlines. I don't know where the reference was particularly, but you talked about the large airlines. I'm sure they have an interest in safety, because the lack of a safety record can very much affect their ability to market their airlines.
Do you make a distinction between the smaller airlines and the larger airlines? I noticed that somewhere in here you made a reference to the major carriers. You still see that as a problem, do you?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
What I was indicating was that the two major carriers in Canada certainly have very sophisticated safety programs in-house. I don't see any problems with their putting in any additional features that might come up through this SMS initiative. However, in the case of the other carriers--the secondary or tertiary air operators of any sort below that level--you're going to have to make some allowances, because they are not in a financial position to put in sophisticated SMS systems, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have an SMS system.
February 28th, 2007 / 4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I'm recognizing the difference between size and the ability to have the corporate infrastructure adequate to handle this. Are you concerned, from your understanding of the major carriers, that moving to the self-regulatory system proposed in Bill C-6 will create a problem and increase the risk even with the major carriers, or is that less of a concern to you?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
It certainly would not increase the risk. Major carriers already, as I've said, have very good systems.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I concur with my colleague's comments that passenger safety is obviously the number one concern. We've talked about it on this committee since we started. Whether it's rail, marine, or air safety, it is a major concern.
I appreciate your comments. Certainly the experience seems to be that you have spelled it out. You have spelled out a number of aspects of it. The thing I found intriguing for confirmation is that SMS systems doing the job effectively in other countries still have the regulatory oversight by governmental agencies.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
That's absolutely right. I think the international convention requires each member country to have in place appropriate regulatory oversight.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Your final recommendation is that you believe we need to have an inquiry under the Inquiries Act to take the current pulse of the air industry.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I feel very strongly about that. One of the world's leading accident investigators and aviation experts, Dr. W.O. Miller, who was a special expert to my commission at the conclusion of the Dryden inquiry, is, I might mention, the former chairman of the Accident Investigation Bureau of the National Transportation Safety Board of the United States. He's an aeronautical engineer, a university professor, and one of the world's most respected aviation accident investigators and aviation safety consultants. After the conclusion of our commission, he stated to me in writing that from his experience with our inquiry, he felt every nation should test the safety of its aviation system every ten years or so with a major inquiry similar to the Dryden inquiry to check its vital signs.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
It's been 18 years since that happened. You're suggesting it's time.
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Another expert is Professor James Reason of the University of Manchester in England, one of the world's leading aviation psychologists and aviation accident analysts. He is world-renowned. He also supports Dr. Miller's call for a periodic check of a nation's aviation safety system. He has written, and I quote:
Since we can never entirely eliminate accident-causing factors, the only achievable goal is to attain a maximum level of safety fitness and then stay that way. This must be done by making regular checks on the organizational 'vital signs'. Finding a way of doing this effectively should take us beyond the last great frontier in aviation.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Moshansky.
I would like to come back to your recommendation that there be a nation-wide investigation in order to determine the problems that exist at present in the aviation sector, particularly with regard to safety. I would first of all like to know why you are making such a recommendation.
I would like to tell you a little story. It is not so long ago that NAV Canada took over air traffic control. In my area, there is a regional airport. It serves as an alternate airport for the Northeast of the United States. Two or three years ago, you could do an instrument landing there. Today, the air carriers are telling us that they can no longer do instrument landings at that airport because they have modernized their equipment whereas NAV Canada has not done so. Planes can therefore no longer do instrument landings at that alternate airport serving the Northeastern region of the United States, the Maritimes, the North as well as airplanes coming from Gander.
I advised the minister of the situation. We have a serious problem. I believe that with regard to safety, this is the type of problem that must be looked at. On top of the issues you have mentioned, there is the safety of the airplanes themselves.
If I understood you correctly, each airport and each air carrier will be equipping itself with a different system. There will therefore be no standard safety management system. If Transport Canada does not carry out the necessary inspections to ensure consistency amongst all airports and the same type of auditing by all air carriers, then the type of problem I have just told you about will spread.
I would like to know, beyond the implementation of safety management systems, what motivates you today to recommend a nation-wide investigation into the safety of air transportation.
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
What is motivating me is that I have been contacted by many people in the aviation industry—pilots, others—and members of the public who are concerned with the state of aviation safety in Canada, particularly following the exposé that resulted from the “Dangerous Skies” series of articles, which three investigative reporters of the Toronto Star and the other newspapers conducted. Some have taken to dismissing these articles, but in my view, if you look at some of the people who were prepared to make statements on the public record as to what was occurring, I don't think it's entirely smart to just dismiss them out of hand.
You have 25,000- and 30,000-hour very senior airline captains who are expressing concerns. It's dangerous to ignore this sort of information that is coming forward. At the very least, the possibility should be considered of maybe calling some of these people who are prepared to talk and getting their views.
Don't take it from me at second hand; call them, and then you can make up your own minds from their evidence.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
You have been following the evolution of the air transportation system for years. In your view, what is the main problem at the present time? Is it the insufficient number of inspections on the part of Transport Canada or the fact that we can no longer trust the private sector, and in particular small businesses, that explains why not much is invested in safety? It remains that, for the carrier, it is a risky enterprise. Indeed, if one or two of its aircraft crash, then people will tend to no longer use their services.
I am convinced that, for their part, major carriers will do their utmost to ensure that the safety system works. It is not in their interest to see their airplanes fall to the ground.
You are telling us that the smaller carriers, who face financial difficulties, will neglect safety. In fact, based upon what you are saying, this is already the case. If you are asking for an inquiry, it is because, in your opinion, there is some negligence at the present time, is that not correct?
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
That's a very good question, but I think I've covered that in previous answers to some of the questions.
That particular area of the industry is especially in need of oversight. It seems to me that the situation, as it was exposed at Dryden, indicated that the basic problem was lack of funding of Transport by the government. For example, David Wightman, who was the ADM of aviation at that time, testified that he went before the program control board with a request for funding that they thought was extremely limited for the aviation directorate. That request was cut by 70%. They cut 70% of a request that, for all practical purposes, was a basic minimum of what was required.
What happened was that the aviation oversight program took a nosedive. They lost 400 inspectors. They weren't replaced. They weren't able to do the job at the time of the Dryden crash. As I mentioned earlier in my presentation, only a cursory audit of the F28 implementation program by Air Ontario was conducted, and they never looked into the actual F28 program itself. There were major flaws.
I'll give you an example of cost-cutting by an airline coming into the picture. At the time they acquired the F28, Air Ontario decided to fly it on a route that included Dryden. They thought ground-start equipment was mandatory at the airport. That meant that if the aircraft engines were stopped to de-ice, for example, and if the auxiliary power unit on the aircraft could not restart the engines, they would have ground-start equipment to do it. They budgeted $25,000 to purchase ground-start equipment for the Dryden Regional Airport. What happened was that they found out it was not a regulatory requirement, so they cancelled the order.
If there had been ground-start equipment at Dryden airport, that crash would not have occurred, because the pilot realized he had wings that were contaminated. His auxiliary power unit was not operating at the time, and had not been operating for about a week. This was one of the maintenance problems with their aircraft. There were many defects in the aircraft, but that was the major one.
If he had shut his engines down, he would not have been able to restart them. That would have had the effect of grounding the aircraft at Dryden and he would have had to answer to Air Ontario management for having done so and run up the expense of putting 70 passengers up in a hotel. So he decided to go without de-icing, because he could not shut the engines down.
What I'm saying is that if they had gone ahead with the purchase of the ground-start equipment—only a mere $25,000—that crash would not have happened. That's only one example, but I could cite dozens.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Moshansky, thank you very much for coming forward today. You've obviously spent a great deal of time helping to make our aeronautics industry a safer place.
The first question I want to ask you is about the system-wide test that you talked about, the system-wide inquiry to test the aeronautics industry every ten years. Is this an idea that you got from other countries that do this, such as the United Kingdom or Australia?
