Evidence of meeting #3 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No fatalities. That's right.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Well, let me now respond as to why that is the case. That's because we are continuously looking at improving not only our certification standards and our validation standards, but also our safety standards overall.
That's why we propose additional regulations. We've moved forward most recently on flight and duty time regulations to ensure that aircrews are getting adequate rest in order to operate those aircraft. That was a safety....
We're looking at moving forward in improving the runway and safety area—that's the area at the top of and bottom of a runway—to ensure that if by chance an aircraft, because of weather, because of an operational incident, has to exit the runway, there is a certain level of ground that is pre-prepared to allow that aircraft to exit so it doesn't end up in a ravine and we have a horrible tragedy there. We're continuing to look at that.
It's not only the 705 operations, our large commercial operations, we're also very proud of our general aviation safety campaign. We've worked with the recreational operator and those associations that represent the recreational operator: What are the risks to those operators? What are the risks to those people who go down to their local airport on a Saturday to fly their aircraft for pleasure? What do they have to keep in mind in order to keep safe?
We take very seriously the Transportation Safety Board recommendations that it puts forward after air accidents. We make sure that we try to act on them as appropriately and in as timely a way as possible to ensure, and to continue to ensure, safe Canadian aviation.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
I know that having to ground so many planes presents operational challenges. Where do you store all these planes, especially at the airports? Were there any safety concerns that had to be considered before deciding to ground the Canadian fleet, the Boeing?
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Chair, just to clarify the question, do you mean as a result of the grounding did we have to consider other...? Okay.
Thank you for that question. In part to what I just responded to, once these aircraft are grounded, should there be a return to service of these aircraft, they do have to be ready and be maintained well enough to resume flight. We worked with the three Canadian operators to devise a very clear mitigation strategy and a procedure, so that if an operator wanted to move that aircraft—for routine maintenance reasons or from storage to a warmer, more appropriate climate—first of all, when they were moving it, there was absolutely no passenger content in it. As well, additional aircrew were available on the aircraft should an incident occur. Also, when they were operating these aircraft, it was in appropriate conditions. We weren't going to operate these aircraft in bad storms or weather conditions. The routes we chose were the appropriate routes and not high-traffic routes in case of an accident. Those were some of the measures we had put in place.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to keep going on that line of questioning, do we know where all the Canadian registered airplanes are? Are they all now in a warmer climate? I think some are still here, being pulled in and out of hangars in the middle of the winter. I'm just saying that different airplanes are going to have different challenges due to where they've been stored.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I could provide that information to you, but I don't have it with me, and I wouldn't want to say anything without assurance, because there are continual movements that we approve. A company will either move an aircraft to one of its maintenance facilities or go back—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
No, I've seen them pulled out of a hangar in a snowstorm and put back in.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
That's right, but we do have knowledge in view of where all the aircraft are, absolutely. We approve every single ferry flight, which is what we call them, in Canada.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
No, I'm saying, will there be guidelines, Canadian guidelines, for an airplane that's been kept in Arizona as opposed to one that's been kept in Toronto, outside, when it's recertified, so they're stringent?
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Absolutely, and that's also something the manufacturer has committed to. We're talking about the certification, the validation and the training portion of this. There will be another portion that we will be looking at prior to a return to service. There will have to be inspections and reviews. We will ensure that the aircrews of those operators are trained, that they've received whatever training we determine—the simulator training we determine and the other training—and that the additional software is uploaded onto the aircraft. We will see, if there are any physical changes with the aircraft, that the minimum equipment lists are up to date, and that the aircraft themselves are inspected around operations. As we said, aircraft aren't meant to be idle, so there will be a full procedure to assure—
4:50 p.m.
Director, National Aircraft Certification, Department of Transport
It's my understanding that Boeing has developed an additional maintenance program specifically as a result of this situation that was not there otherwise.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Just quickly, going back—and I don't remember exactly what you said—only because I'm looking at the cockpit design, the Max has four screens and the 800 has five screens. They are significantly different.
I'm just wondering, in training prior to these accidents, if Transport Canada picked up on any of these differences. The HSI is in a different spot. The flight tracker is in a different spot. We have emergency warning horns in a different spot. We have trim that responds differently when I'm hand-flying it. The landing gear clicks on a.... You know, an airplane feels different to every pilot. You don't hear the landing gear on the Max. There are a lot of significant differences.
I'm back to why no one asked for it to have a type rating, and why no one would want an extra rating for it now. Are they asking for that? I'm just wondering where that's going.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Also, though, to your point, that goes back to—and I know we continue to come back to this—the operational evaluation board. When we had those aircrews, those regular line pilots who were in there and they were evaluating, they had received their computer-based training. They took that and they went into the simulator. They weren't identifying, “Oh, gee, there are five screens here”, or “I'm used to five screens and now there are four.” We took them through the procedures, and that joint operational evaluation board came back and said that this training was sufficient.
That's what we expect. That's why we have the line pilots involved in that sort of training, to get first-hand their reaction. If we saw instances of their saying, “Listen, I don't know what screen I'm going to look at right now because it's entirely different from what I'm used to”, then that would have been a different conclusion of that JOEB.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
I'm confident in the FAA. I'm just saying that...for the general public to have the ultimate trust in the system, would Transport Canada recommend a type certificate on the 737 Max 8 when it comes back into service? Would that be something Transport Canada would suggest to the FAA, as a bare minimum to restore confidence in the aircraft?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that point. That's one of the pieces for why we have, on a bit of an exceptional basis in this case, involved Canadian operators and the associations of the flight crews in Canada more in this process. If we are—and there is an “if” here—to come into a return to service of this aircraft, we've involved our Canadian operators and those associations so that we may go in force to the Canadian public saying, “This was my participation. This is why I'm confident, but I have an association next to me and this is why I'm confident”—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Just to add to that, Air Canada only has the 737 Max 8, correct? It wouldn't affect them, like it would WestJet.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It wouldn't, but the other two fly different ones.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
How does Canada benefit from the current international system of air certification?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Canada benefits in so far as we are able to have a certain degree of confidence in various parts of the certification process by our three other key CMT members. We benefit in a reduced need. The certification system isn't a Canadian benefit; the benefit is at large.
To a degree, we benefit because we aren't certifying every single aeronautical product or aircraft that's being used in Canada. Those are numerous. That's a benefit that all of the system appreciates.
We spoke to safety being the number one priority for Transport Canada. The other benefit is that our very strong and safe aeronautical products and aircraft that we produce have greater access to global markets because people look at Canada as a certification leader. They look at our national aircraft certification groups as leaders in certification. When we say we certified an aircraft, like the Airbus 220, which we've just certified, they know the rigour and the standards that we apply to that. That's why it can access markets in a greater fashion.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I've heard some suggest that we should certify all planes for the Canadian market. I look to constituents of mine who work, for example, at Airbus Helicopters in Fort Erie, and I looked across to colleagues from Quebec who represent constituents who work at Bombardier.
What does that mean for those companies, in the theoretical construct, that Canada or other countries certify each aircraft as they're being put out?
