Evidence of meeting #40 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.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
You talk a little bit about reward versus punishment and the necessity to have voluntary reporting. Especially, we've heard from other witnesses, some of the pilot associations, of the necessity of this.
Are you aware of any circumstances or instances where this has brought forward advancements within the system itself?
4:20 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
If you're talking about any specific event, no. But generally speaking, we could broadly talk about two different legal frameworks, the Anglo-Saxon or common law system, and then the Napoleonic code system, typical of Mediterranean and Latin countries. Where we see safety initiatives progressing above and beyond, it's in those countries that are under the Anglo-Saxon law because the Anglo-Saxon law or code is friendlier to the objective of protecting sources of safety information.
As a general statement, in those countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, their transportation safety or their accident investigation acts are more flexible. They allow going deeper into event investigation because they breed a degree of confidence between the investigator and the investigated. So there are definite advantages.
And I don't recall using the word “reward”. I'm not talking about rewarding people for reporting. I'm only talking about not punishing them for reporting, which I think is a big difference.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
One of the benefits, obviously, that I see to this isn't just after the accident; it's helping to prevent these accidents by people coming forward before these things happen and identifying core problems that might be happening.
4:20 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
I've been in aviation for 42 years now. You can't imagine how many times I, and I'm sure other individuals in this room, have heard this expression, “Oh yes, we knew it was an accident in the making.” Why did I know it and the system not know it? It's because I was concerned about reporting and being punished.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you to Mr. Bell, who has relinquished his time to Monsieur Bélanger.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Maurino, I wanted to see if you could help me understand this matter of the standards and whether a country is obliged or not.
When we had a presentation from Mr. Holbrook, who was representing the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, he said in his testimony that some decisions regarding the PPCs—the pilot proficiency checks—are putting Canada in violation of international standards. Then he referred us to some tabs. Essentially, some of this is highly technical, but there are some statements from Transport Canada in one of its circulars saying that Transport Canada will eliminate the current provisions for PPCs conducted by inspectors by December 31, 2007.
Then in the final report on the safety oversight of your association, there is a reference made that indeed pilot proficiency tests in Canada are only going to be every two years now.
For your organization they're every six months, I believe. Does that mean that a Canadian pilot who only has a proficiency check every two years cannot operate internationally?
4:25 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
It should not.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If, therefore, any pilot operating for Air Canada or anyone else wants to operate outside Canada, they must meet the proficiency standards, or the standards set by your association.
4:25 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
But it doesn't mean that the proficiency check has to be delivered by a Transport Canada inspector.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I understand that.
Do you know, by any chance—perhaps the question should be addressed to the pilots or someone else—whether this is a decision that belongs to the pilots themselves or to the company that hires them, or to Transport Canada, as to whether or not they can get their pilot proficiency checks done every six months or so?
4:25 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
If Transport Canada were to give waivers to any particular airline in terms of current training, Transport Canada should notify ICAO of the fact. But again, if, for example, Air Canada decides to give proficiency checks every two years, it would be perfectly legal for those pilots to fly within Canada, but it would be like driving without a licence outside Canada. That would apply even to a flight from Montreal to Halifax, because you would fly over the U.S.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
So who would make the decision to only test every two years instead of every six months? Would it be the pilots or the corporations, or is it covered in the collective agreements? Would you know?
4:25 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
It may be a question of bilateral negotiation, or whatever.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
All right. Thank you.
I understood that the ICAO required operational oversight. Let me quote once again Mr. Holbrook's testimony to the committee. He stated the following:
In the system that has delivered Canada's current high safety rate, inspectors were under the hood of companies they audited and inspected. We flew with the pilots. We were in the maintenance shops. We were in the flight operations centres. With SMS, we will no longer do regular audits and inspections. We will review SMS documents, SMS reports, and system structures only. Our focus is shifting from actual operations to paper and policy.
Could you comment on this statement by Mr. Holbrook and on the ICAO's requirement of operational oversight? What exactly does that mean?
4:25 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
I hate to say this, but I was listening to you with one ear more or less in French and the other in English, and I don't think the two versions came out equally. I'm not sure what the question is. I'm sorry to say this.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I'll try one more time.
According to my sources, the ICAO requires operational oversight. Mr. Holbrook from the Canadian Federal Pilots Association stated the following when he testified before the committee:
In the system that has delivered Canada's current high safety rate, inspectors were under the hood of companies they audited and inspected. We flew with the pilots. We were in the maintenance shops. We were in the flight operations centres. With SMS, we will no longer do regular audits and inspections. We will review SMS documents, SMS reports, and system structures only. Our focus is shifting from actual operations to paper and policy.
Would you care to comment on Mr. Holbrook's statement and can you tell me what the ICAO means by operational oversight?
4:30 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
Operational surveillance is the oversight of airline operations by the civil aviation authority in the broadest sense. I'm afraid I cannot comment on Mr. Holbrook's comment, because I don't quite understand the angle. I have to admit, and I'm terribly embarrassed for this, that I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here. I'm sorry.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Shall I perhaps try it in English? It'll be the last time. I'll summarize this.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
My sense of what he's saying is that they're going to go from actual touch and see to reading it on paper. How does that jibe with the request for operational surveillance? That is essentially my question, as well as I can summarize it.
4:30 p.m.
Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization
It's clear now. Again, with touch and see on a line check, inspectors do not capture what really goes on in unmonitored conditions.
I'm a pilot and I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid. If I have a Transport Canada inspector on my back, I'm on angel behaviour. I won't read the paper; I won't amend my Jeppeson binder; I'll go by the book.
What I get through those inspections is simply ticking the boxes. If you believe that regulatory compliance is the only way to achieve safety, then there you have your answer: do regulatory compliance. But by no means do I believe that simply complying with regulations is enough to ensure safety.
This is the crux of the matter, sir. Safety management systems aim at capturing what really goes on in the real world beyond regulatory compliance; regulatory compliance is only one part of this system, which tries to capture life as it is, not as it should be.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for coming today. I think all the good questions have been asked, but I'll see what I can do.
What you're saying in essence is that SMS and regulatory oversight can complement each other and make a safer environment. Is that correct?
