Transport Committee on March 21st, 2007

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

If you are going to replace the hands-on inspection and all you're going to do is check papers, we're not going to be any better off; we're going to be worse off, actually.

If you're going to somehow complement, reinforce, and replace to a certain extent the visual personal inspection with a system that clearly gives you a reading of system performance, it's an entirely different question.

But I'm talking about real system performance; I'm not talking about reading a piece of paper and saying, it's okay, we have a reporting system. It wouldn't do any good to change one system of ticking boxes for another system of ticking boxes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witness for appearing.

You called SMS a structured process to capture lessons. What kind of information does SMS pick up that touch and feel inspection alone doesn't? Can you elaborate on some of that for us?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

In line checks, in training, what you see are perfect behaviours, because you know you're being checked; you know your licence is on the line. Furthermore, there is a very important component: there is a misperception that in aviation, safety is first, and that is not true. Safety is the result of a compromise between trying to achieve protection goals, safety, and production goals, because this is an industry.

The true professional in aviation is the person who has managed to accomplish this balanced compromise between producing—that is, achieving the organizational goals—while protecting. In training, and to a large extent in checking situations, you're only interested in protecting, in the safety component. There is no production pressure. That is why training behaviours are only an indication of what real life behaviours are about.

By deploying systems that capture real time performance, you are capturing realistic operational behaviours, not idealistic behaviours, because then you're capturing how people manage this compromise between producing and protecting.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So you catch the people who may be trying to cut the corners, or you can anticipate those types of behaviours and avoid them in the future.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Not only avoid them, but sometimes cutting corners represents.... It's a representation of the collective expertise of a profession.

We've both been in this situation. You show up for your first flight and what do they tell you? They tell you, forget everything they taught you in training; I'm going to teach you how to fly this airplane, how this system really works. You know what that is? That is the collective expertise of the situation; that is, making systems that do not work like they're supposed to work, really work.

Imagine if we could capture that through formal systems instead of the rumour mill. That's what SMS does.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

And that will allow us to reinforce the idea of, don't forget what you were trained or what you were taught in the manual. Very good.

You talked about unlocking the potential of SMS, and there are some keys to unlocking it. It has to build on a regulatory framework. Is that correct?

We've heard testimony before this committee that in fact we have more regulations than we did before. And SMS is a reality, though not a formalized reality, in Canada already.

One of the other keys for unlocking the potential of SMS is adding those who run the system at the operational or ground level to the inspectorate. We have written evidence from the assistant deputy minister that there are in fact more safety inspectors than there were five years ago.

So we are achieving some of the keys to unlocking the potential of SMS. Is that correct?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

In as much as what you have mentioned, yes, sir.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We're going to do one more round of three minutes each. I would ask that if you have any questions to please keep them brief. Because of time limits, I will restrict you to three minutes.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maurino, contrary to what you seem to be telling us, safety management systems aren't new to Canada. ICAO officials told us that the members of the association have been using SMS for four years now, and that these systems have resulted in fewer procedures and lower administrative costs. This association, which manages safety systems for 270 carriers and 500 corporate aircraft, believes that the both the paper burden and costs have been reduced as a result of SMS.

The fact is that Transport Canada has audited this association only once in four years. Another audit is scheduled to be done in the near future. Moreover, Transport Canada has not audited association members, whether airline owners or companies, since the SMS was implemented for this type of corporate aircraft.

That situation worries me, because the bill that was introduced does not guarantee any independent regulatory oversight. Could that give you cause for concern one day?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

The absence of independent regulatory oversight is a concern. There is no question about that. But again, I don't know the internal Canadian situation to the extent of commenting beyond that, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming here today.

We've had, basically, two types of witnesses. We've had witnesses who've spoken largely to the theory of SMS, like you--and we appreciate your presence here--but every single witness who spoke in detail about how this is actually being implemented has very clearly come out against what Transport Canada is doing.

We have the Federal Pilots Association, the inspectors, and 90% of them, who have 40 years' experience or more, have indicated that this proposal from the government would actually prevent them from addressing and correcting certificate holder safety problems. And 86% of all inspectors are very worried about the implementation of this system.

So I have to ask you this, and then I'll ask a second question as well.

First, do you simply disregard what those who are closest to the aviation industry and aviation inspectors are actually saying regarding their concerns about the system?

Second, we have these clear violations. You mentioned one of them, driving without a licence, where we're not in conformity with ICAO regulations. The second is around flight times, flight duty periods, and rest periods for cabin crews, something that was a violation that was raised in the safety audit in 2005 and not corrected. In fact, Bill C-6 actually stops the implementation of what ICAO has clearly indicated is required.

My second question is, are violations of the ICAO standards important, yes or no?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

To the first question, I am not disregarding anyone's opinion; I am only explaining what I believe are the incredible benefits of a sensible deployment of SMS--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

In theory, as opposed to what is actually happening, because you can't comment on that.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Yes, and again, I do not live the realities of the day-to-day implementation of SMS within Transport Canada, so I wouldn't know about the testimony of others. I can only reiterate that from the perspective of a safety practitioner, SMS holds the potential to take aviation to the next level of safety. There is absolutely zero question in my mind about that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

On violations.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Are violations important? They may or may not be. The example I gave in terms of the Federal Aviation Administration's advanced qualification program, which is a violation to ICAO standards, but it's a violation in excess, I think pretty much sums it up.

If we're talking abut some country in the middle of nowhere, then you can't come down and say you've got to follow regulations because this system really does not exist. The only way to build this system is through enforcement of regulations.

When you have an ultra-safe system like you have in the U.S., Canada, and in western Europe, regulatory compliance to the exact letter of the law is a matter that is not really a black and white safety situation, but greyish. In many cases, again, like the example of the advanced qualification program, the violation underlies superior performance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to correct something.

Mr. Julian referred to the union that represents the inspectors. In fact, they did testify before this committee that their primary purpose is to represent the interests of their members and not aviation safety. They were pretty clear about that.

I'd like to focus on another statement that was made at this table, and that is the suggestion that the SMS that is being proposed under Bill C-6 is intended to replace regulatory measures.

I don't understand the bill to suggest that. I haven't heard any Transport Canada members suggest that. Is that your understanding of what this bill intends to do, that SMS would simply replace an existing regulatory structure, or is it more typically an integration of SMS with the current regulatory structure?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Do you really want to drag me into that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's an important question.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I know it is.