Transport Committee on April 6th, 2017

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You say that the SMS is a good system, that you have recommended it yourself, but that it needs to be accompanied by an inspection follow-up. In your brief, you indicate that Transport Canada inspections are increasingly paper checks and not hands-on inspections. Should both the number of inspections be increased and the hands-on inspections restored?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

I think you need to increase the number of inspectors, for one thing, make sure they're fully trained, and that they return to traditional oversight inspections.

SMS itself is not a safety program; it's a way of doing things. That's the problem with SMS. It's a good program, but without regulatory oversight you're going to have the difficulties we're experiencing now. I think the basic problem is the funding provided for this specific area of Transport Canada.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'd like to know if, in addition to increasing the number of Transport Canada inspectors, if that is even possible, their inspection mandate will need to be reviewed.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

At the moment, the way the mandate operates is that they become, in effect, paper shufflers. They go out and they inspect the airline's paper documents. They don't inspect the operational end of it at all, and that's where the downfall is, because the airlines, in effect, are now reporting on themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Make it a very short question; you have 40 seconds left.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

My question is very simple. One of your recommendations deals with funding, in particular. You also recommend that there be a commission of inquiry. Could you please tell us, if possible, what specific aspects of aviation safety you think should be the subject of this inquiry?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

I think it should be a general inquiry, the way I conducted one in 1989, looking into all aspects of aviation safety in Canada across the board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Justice Moshansky. You can probably add some more, in answer to some of the other questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll start with Mr. Moshansky. You mentioned during your comments that there needed to be proper oversight by a trained inspectorate. The quality of the training is something that I've got some concerns about because I understand that a lot of the training is happening on simulators as opposed to actual flights where you're subject to the emotional stress that comes with an actual risk.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

That's right.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Could you, perhaps, elaborate on whether this is a problem and the extent to which it would make a difference to have training take place on actual flights?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

It is a problem because they're reduced now to strictly simulator training. While that's fine, it's not the end result that we expected. I had a telephone call yesterday from an inspector who is very concerned about the number of inspectors that are now available. They seem to be going down in numbers; it's been drastically reduced since Dryden and since the mid-2000s. The inspector force now is instructed not to do any actual oversight or surveillance. They are told to only examine the paper that the airlines are producing in response to the SMS requirements.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Perhaps I'll give an opportunity for some of the other witnesses to chime in as well, Mr. Toering or Mr. McKenna, whoever thinks they're in a better position to offer a comment.

[Rudy Toering]

We're talking about simulators?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes.

[Rudy Toering]

Basically, my career, actually, was with FlightSafety International and CAE and I'm very familiar with the simulator training world. I can tell you that only about 20% of the issues that you want to practise to become very proficient at flying an airplane can be done in an actual airplane. The other 80%, you would never want to do in an airplane; you'd put yourself at risk. This is the reason that simulation training became an extremely important aspect of training for all of us in the industry. The level C and D simulations are phenomenal in reality. Yes, as you might say, there's the emotional aspect of having the customers in the back. Now, the training takes that into account in the sense of repetitiveness, in competency-based training, and in the fidelity that is created within those simulators.

Within business aviation, it is a requirement for us to train in C and D simulations. We train to proficiency; we have a different way that we do it within our group. To date, we are still the safest sector worldwide in corporate aviation. We do two things differently. One, we have a fully proactive SMS program, and two, what we try to do is a safety culture. The other part of the number two item is that we actually train to proficiency. We don't do check rides. That is proving to be an extremely reliable method of showing true competency rather than a snapshot check ride.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

You mention you could benefit if 20% of the test was in a real flight. I have to admit that I'm a little bit out of my league, not being an aviation expert like our panel, but it suggests to me that there might be an opportunity to have a dual training component, including both simulators and real flying time.

[Rudy Toering]

Those are things that actually do go on. There is an effort for upset and recovery, for example. Some things you cannot cover in simulators because they cannot do the upside-down flights or the manoeuvres you need for an upset recovery. Those upset recovery training elements are actually part and parcel of a separate element on aircraft training that takes place with simulation.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'll go back to Mr. Moshansky. Feel free to offer comment on the testimony you just heard, but I also want you to comment on the methodology you suggested in making up any shortfall in Transport Canada's services by putting a fee on every flight for every passenger. Why is that the best model to ensure that Transport Canada is providing the level of oversight it needs?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

It seems to me that probably that's the route to go. I pointed out in my brief that, if you impose a $5 fee per ticket, you're going to raise a lot of money. If it were a $10 fee, you'd double it. I don't think any passenger in the world will object to paying $5 or $10 to be assured of aviation safety. I know I wouldn't.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Very quickly, then, I'll go back. I forget which of the other two witnesses suggested that a “net lens of profitability needed to be applied". Do you have a comment on the appropriateness of a user fee, essentially, for safety?

[John McKenna]

Our industry is ridden with user fees already. The government collects about $1 billion a year in different fees from our industry, and very little of it actually goes back to Transport Canada. We certainly don't need an additional fee in our industry, and there's no guarantee that money would be reinvested in Transport.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

What I am suggesting is a fee that would be dedicated directly to the oversight inspectorate directorate and no other purpose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is addressed to Mr. McKenna. I would like to know a little more about fatigue management. When I met with associations representing pilots, it was an issue for them to make sure Canada has a regulation about fatigue that is based on science and updated studies. You say the one-size-fits-all approach is not the right one. Could you share with our committee what you think would be the best approach for Canada?