Transport Committee on June 5th, 2014

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

The comment I have on this particular issue is that we have difficulty asserting that the credentials of the pilots are equal to ours. For example, what Transport Canada has done is to give that verification function to the company itself and say, “You tell us they have the necessary credentials and we'll issue the temporary permit.” We don't actually go.... In the United States, the individual has to present himself with his license and with a letter from the member state he comes from stating that he meets the credentials. There's a verification system that goes on that way. We don't do that at Transport Canada. If the company says they have the documentation that says they're correct, then we're good to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Toet now, you have five minutes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Slunder, I want to go back to your comments regarding the First Air incident. You talked about equipment that was not on board that aircraft that, in your opinion—and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth—would have prevented that particular incident. Is that correct?

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

In my opinion the terrain awareness system is an integral safety item on an aircraft that really would have given the picture to the pilots that there was terrain right in front of them. The equipment they have only gives them altitude directly underneath them.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Is that particular piece of equipment a regulatory requirement?

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

It has to be phased in over time. At the time, I don't believe it was absolutely required. But new aircraft coming into the system are required to have it.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

So there was no breach of regulation in that particular case.

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

No, I'm not suggesting there was.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Well, I guess, to some degree you were saying that if we would have gone back to the.... If we had gone back to the way you previously said that inspections were done, would an inspector have been able to say to them they must implement this?

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

Probably not.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Under either the regime today or the previous regime, would that particular piece of equipment have had to be placed on that plane through regulation?

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

Under the previous regime you would conceivably have had a Transport Canada inspector on the flight deck at times, doing inspections in flights, and he would have noticed—

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

He would have noticed, but would he have been able to tell them they must do that?

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

No, there's no law that specifically says you must.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

So the implication that because of the changes that incident occurred, is really unfair because they may have made.... They might make a recommendation or a suggestion, but they have absolutely no enforcement power to say, “You must place this on this particular aircraft.”

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

Well, it's not related to what I was saying. I mean the piece of equipment—

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But your implication was that the incident would have been avoided if inspections were done the way they were done before, and the reality is that this is not the case. That particular incident may well have occurred either way.

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

It is not the piece of equipment that created the crash. It is the actual series of events that led to this, in that the pilots did not get the proper crew resource management training. They did not understand how the system disengaged itself—

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But that's not what your original assertion was. Your original assertion, when you first made your statement, was that that incident was essentially avoidable with this particular equipment. Now you're saying something—

[Capt Daniel Slunder]

Well, if you understood it as you state, I'm sorry. That's not exactly what I meant to say. What I'm saying is, that piece of equipment would have saved the day but it was not installed. It was not necessarily required by the regulation on that airplane at that moment. I wasn't implying that had we been in the cockpit we would have been able to have it changed, not at all.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Ms. Collins, how many inspections of non-SMS companies have you done in the last five years?

[Christine Collins]

I don't have that specific information as to how many would have been completed in the five years. I do know that inspections continue with those companies that are non-SMS, but I don't have a specific number.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Do you have any idea? If not, could you please, through the chair, get that to the committee members?

[Christine Collins]

I'm sorry, if not, could I provide it after the fact?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If you don't have it here right now, could you supply us with that?