Evidence of meeting #55 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was safety.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Aaron Speer  Vice-President, Flight Operations, Bradley Air Services Limited, First Air
Edward McKeogh  President, Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants
Greg McConnell  National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
Jean-Marie Richard  Aviation Safety Consultant, As an Individual
Dan Adamus  Canada Board President, Air Line Pilots Association, International

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Good morning, everyone.

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on aviation safety.

Dear colleagues, as you can see today we have the good fortune of having some special guests in the room. I want to welcome the grade 12 students of the École secondaire publique Gisèle-Lalonde of Orleans, who are attending this meeting of the committee for their political science class. I hope you will have a good day, a good visit of Parliament, and that this meeting of this committee will be very instructive for you. Welcome, and thank you for joining us.

We are pleased to welcome the following witnesses: Mr. Aaron Speer, vice-president of Flight Operations at Bradley Air Services Limited (First Air), as well as Mr. Edward McKeogh, president of Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants, who is with us via video conference from Montreal.

Welcome gentlemen. Thank you very much for being here with us.

Unfortunately, I must announce that Mr. Massimo Bergamini, president and chief executive officer of the National Airlines Council of Canada, had to cancel his appearance at the last minute this morning.

Because of a vote in the House of Commons, our time will be very limited. We will take the time to hear the witnesses, and we will have time for one round of questions this morning. And so I would ask the witnesses to limit their preliminary remarks insofar as possible, so that we have time to speak with them afterwards. This would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speer, if you are ready to speak first, you have five minutes to make your presentation.

11:35 a.m.

Captain Aaron Speer Vice-President, Flight Operations, Bradley Air Services Limited, First Air

Good morning. My name is Aaron Speer. I'm the vice-president of flight operations at First Air. On behalf of First Air I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear this morning to present some of the unique challenges that we face on a daily basis in our operations.

With 71 years of experience, First Air is a leading airline serving Canada's Arctic, where we provide scheduled service between 31 northern communities with connections to Ottawa, Montreal, Winnipeg, and Edmonton. Ultimately, we have more destinations north of the Arctic Circle than south of it. Most of these communities do not have road access, so reliable air transportation represents the only means of year-round access.

Given our theatre of operations, we regularly face challenges and operational issues that are not faced by traditional southern airlines. Many of the airports in northern Canada were established during the Cold War. Since then, unlike many airports in southern Canada, they have undergone very little expansion and modernization.

There are limited approach procedures. While GPS approaches are prevalent in southern airports, they have not been deployed readily across the north.

There are limited lighting systems. Many airports are served with extremely basic approach lights. Visual glide slope indicators often are not available or are configured only for smaller aircraft.

There is outdated technology. The Iqaluit ILS has been off the air since early April, with no clear solution in sight since the failed components are no longer manufactured.

There are gravel runways. The bulk of our network is served by airports with often very short gravel runways. These runways limit the selection of aircraft that can be used and significantly increase our maintenance costs.

There is limited weather information. Many stations are not served by 24-hour weather reporting systems. While some progress has been made recently to expand the areas of coverage, we are often forced to make operational decisions without the benefit of weather reporting or forecasting.

There is limited fuel access. Fuel is resupplied once per year in most communities. When the fuel supply is exhausted it cannot be replaced until late the following summer. In the case of Taloyoak this year, we were required to operate for over three months without access to fuel at that station. Coupled with the distances between communities, the lack of fuel represents a significant operational handicap.

There is a lack of viable alternate airports. Given the limited approach procedures, limited approach lights, limited weather information, potential fuel supply limitations, and the large distances between airports, we are often heavily penalized by a lack of suitable alternate airports.

Without improved infrastructure at some communities we will ultimately be faced with only two options.

One option is that we will continue to operate with older technology aircraft to support those shorter runways. While this does ensure that there is service continuing to all the communities, the older aircraft will ultimately reach a point where they are not financially viable. At the same time, the older aircraft are not able to take advantage of all technological advances, in some cases including safety-related ones.

Our other option is to cease operations to those communities with the shorter runways. In this situation, the only option that would remain would be for a smaller carrier using smaller aircraft, likely a CAR 703 air taxi or 704 commuter operator, to introduce service to those communities. While that would ensure that the communities do continue to receive the service, those operators are not bound by the same stringent CAR 705 airline regulations that govern our operations.

Air transport is a lifeline to the north. From medical travel to food supplies, the populations of the north depend on our service to live their lives to the fullest. Without external investment in the northern infrastructure, our operation is not sustainable. At some point, should this investment not occur, a reduction in the level of service that we provide is inevitable.

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear today before the committee. Given the number of witnesses who have appeared to date, I believe the committee does have a fairly good understanding of the issues facing the industry as a whole. I have limited my discussion primarily to the issues facing our unique operation in the north. Despite that focus, I would be pleased to answer any questions you have, whether they relate to the industry as a whole, the airline industry, or our operations in the north.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Thank you very much, Mr. Speer.

Mr. McKeogh, you have five minutes to make your presentation.

11:40 a.m.

Edward McKeogh President, Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants

Thank you.

Good morning everyone.

Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to appear before your committee.

My name is Edward McKeogh. I'm the president of Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants. As the name would imply, the emphasis of our group is aviation safety. That will be the theme of what I will talk about right now.

Findings of investigations into recent high-profile catastrophic aircraft accidents have pointed to a serious inability of many aircrew to competently handle their aircraft in the case of autopilot failure or unsuitability. The evolution of the autopilot in recent decades has been very impressive, to the point where pilots are now using it a minute or so after takeoff. They fly the aircraft off the ground and engage the autopilot a minute or so after takeoff. It does the work in working them out of the departure pattern, en route, and in the arrival. Then they take over and hand fly the aircraft for only a minute or so before arriving at their destination.

The result is that we have people with thousands and tens of thousands of hours in their logbooks, but only a very small amount of hand flying of aircraft. This has resulted in recent catastrophes.

Air France flight 447 crashed into the South Atlantic a short while ago. Here, there was an aircraft at 35,000 feet, with both engines working fine and controls working properly, and when the autopilot went off air because two of the three pitot tubes giving it airspeed information had iced up, it said to the aircrew, “alternate law”, meaning that now you have control and you're going to fly the aircraft. Four and a half minutes later, the aircraft crashed into the South Atlantic, killing everyone on board, the reason being that pilots do not have enough experience in handling an aircraft, in hand flying it.

It might seem to some to be a bit boring or inefficient to fly the aircraft at high altitudes, but it gives you a feel for what it's like up there in thin air when the aircraft must be maintained in that narrow window between stall speed and critical Mach.

Similarly, another one was the Asiana arriving in San Francisco. There was a NOTAM: in other words, they were told in advance the instrument landing system would not be available to them. In that case, what you have to do is think ahead of what you're going to do to set up a visual circuit. A landing isn't made in the hash marks at the end of the runway. It's set up miles back, at 300 feet for each mile, so at 1,000 feet of altitude, at the proper alignment with the runway and at the proper referenced air speed, that is where you start.

They had none of that going for them, because they were not used to hand flying their aircraft. The autopilot had been flying the aircraft for them too long. With three people in the cockpit, what happened was that both airspeed and altitude deteriorated markedly and amazingly, and the aircraft, with a very nose-high attitude, had the tail hit the seawall at the San Francisco airport. It broke off, a lot of people were killed, and the aircraft was destroyed.

The thrust of what I'm saying is that we have to introduce this into the training system of airlines and have airlines allow their people, when conditions are suitable at destinations, to cancel an IFR flight plan and ask the control agency if they could do a VFR approach and learn to fly the airplane that way.

Now, we have a long list of things we would like to see introduced into aviation training, things that we would like to see upgraded, but what I've done here is limit it to two of the more serious ones. One you've just heard, and another one—I'll be brief here—has to do with aviation safety lectures. Just as doctors, dentists, stockbrokers, and what have you are required to conduct and attend continuation training lectures to keep them up to speed on their profession, we feel that there isn't enough of this done in aviation.

Some of the larger airlines have an in-house program of this kind. We would like to see it work all the way down to the earliest level of training, even at the flying clubs, and that—

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Mr. McKeogh, I apologize for interrupting you. Unfortunately, you are at the end of your five minutes of presentation time, but my colleagues will be able to ask questions on this second recommendation.

If I may, I will immediately yield the floor to my colleagues, who no doubt have many questions for you.

Mr. Rayes, you have six minutes.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here, and for sharing their experiences with us.

My first question is quite simple and is addressed to you, Mr. Speer. If you had any recommendations to make to Transport Canada to improve the situation, whether concerning the fatigue-related risk management system or any other improvement that could be made to ensure the safety of flights, passengers and material resources, what would they be?

11:45 a.m.

Capt Aaron Speer

To begin, your first comment concerned the fatigue regulations. Fundamentally, I wholeheartedly support any improvements we can make in terms of fatigue regulation to improve safety. That being said, I think it's important that we do look very carefully at those regulations to ensure we are reflecting science and actually addressing the fatigue issues. We also need to recognize that there are very different aspects to all the operations across the country, and a one-size-fits-all solution may not be it.

One example that I will look at in the current set of regulations is that looking at science, you generally need to sleep eight hours a night. There are periods of time in the evening where it's really important that we're sleeping, the window of circadian low. I agree we should recognize and respect those times. The current regulations that we're discussing also generated very firmly that 10:30 at night to 7:30 in the morning is a period when you get your rest. If, for example, an operation runs into 10:45 at night, I don't see any science that supports their now needing two full days off.

There are some bases in science there, but it's important to sit back and study the entire thing, understand all of the science, ensure it applies to the operation and that we are basing it on science and the operation and that safety is there. But I think additional study is required to get to that point.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Could you point to other elements aside from fatigue that should be taken into account to ensure safety? Could you list the points we should prioritize, or make recommendations the committee could include in its report?

11:50 a.m.

Capt Aaron Speer

I would focus very heavily on some infrastructure upgrades, particularly in the north where I'm operating. A great deal of emphasis has been put on advancing technology deployed throughout the southern sector—Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver. In the area I operate in, there's been really nothing done in a large number of years. In the TSB watch-list, unsafe approaches and runway overruns are two of the big factors in aviation. I argue that in regard to runway overruns, the position many take is that we can't do much more to mitigate the risk of an overrun. I think we can in the north. We have very limited approaches, very little guidance on approach to touch down at any specific point. If I can't touch down at a specific point on a very short runway, the best way to avoid going off the end is to touch down at the right point. Building approach lighting and improving approach lights and approaches gets me to a far better, more stable approach to a better touchdown point. I think a benefit of that is that we can accomplish it relatively cheaply compared to many other changes.

My big push would be on approach information, guidance, and lighting.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you.

I am going to give the rest of my speaking time to my colleague, Mr. Clement.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Fine.

With your permission, I would like to put a question to Mr. McKeogh before giving Mr. Clement the floor.

Mr. McKeogh, you said that pilots are not trained to pilot planes without automatic pilot systems. Did I understand that correctly?

11:50 a.m.

President, Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants

Edward McKeogh

Well, they have. I generalized there. I was talking about two specific cases where they did not have sufficient hands-on flying experience. The vast majority of pilots out there could handle situations, but we want everyone to be able to handle an autopilot failure situation and fly the aircraft properly. We've seen two very high-profile cases where that was not so. We want to make sure the airlines and the regulatory authorities implement procedures to ensure there is a lot of hands-on, visual circuit flying on the part of the aircrew.

Does that answer your question, sir?

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

That's perfect. Thank you. I simply wanted to make sure I had understood properly. I was both surprised and worried. We will surely have the opportunity to come back to this.

Mr. Clement, you have one minute and 20 seconds. I am sorry for taking some of your speaking time.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is an honour for me to be here with you this afternoon.

I have a notice of motion that I'd like to present at this time. I'd like to read it into the record, if I may.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

I think the notice of motion is about to be distributed.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Yes.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

You may read it. That way, we can ensure that it is the proper notice.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

It reads:

That the Committee invite Ms. Jennifer Stebbing to appear for one hour prior to Friday, June 16, 2017.

I would like to put that to a vote.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Perfect.

Do you want us to debate the motion, or are you asking that the vote be held immediately, Mr. Clement?

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I can say a few words. Certainly, there has been public commentary about Madam Stebbing and her appointment to the Hamilton Port Authority. Certainly, with respect to GIC appointments, it is expected that a person have a skill set and some experience in the area. Madam Stebbing, I'm sure, is undoubtedly an excellent estate planning administration and accounting lawyer, but of course has no direct experience or authority with issues pertaining to the Hamilton Port Authority. Her only experience seems to be that she was a Liberal candidate.

I think we should invite her here so we can have a discussion with her and maybe ask her some questions and delve deeper into her experience and her expertise.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Thank you very much, Mr. Clement.

Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I find it quite interesting that this is being introduced now, when we're actually discussing aviation safety. Quite frankly, it shows a total lack of respect for the witnesses that we have before us, especially given today's shortened time frame.

I would put a motion forward, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourn debate and get right to the motion.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Do we have unanimous agreement to vote on the motion?

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

That is agreement.

Call the question, please.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold

Very well.

The motion reads as follows:

That the committee invite Ms. Jennifer Stebbing to appear for one hour prior to Friday, June 16, 2017.