tcook052

https://www.thestar.com/news/investi...ada-found.html

Air Canada employees feared they would be punished by managers if they reported safety concerns, according to a never-before released report from a 2013 government inspection of the country’s largest airline.

The finding by Transport Canada raises questions about the strength of the airline’s internal system meant to flag risks before they become safety problems.

But the public is only learning about the five-year-old inspection results now because Air Canada had taken the federal government to court to try to block portions of the records from being released through Access to Information legislation. The airline said disclosure would be “misleading” and bad for business.

yyz_atc_qq

This shocks me actually. We have a truly amazing system of non-consequence reporting. We can report with our name, or through a confidential process if we have concerns. It doesn't matter if it was something we did, something we saw someone else do, or a systemic issue/deficiency.

Perhaps their union doesn't strongly defend the value of bringing safety concerns forward. I know ours does.

Stranger

And this dates from 2013...

The fox in charge of the chicks. Such a wonderful idea, right?

(BTW we never heard a single word on the story behind the very discrete replacement of their VP Flight operations a while back. I have been wondering if that had anything to do with the SFO near miss BTW.)

KenHamer

Really?

yyz_atc_qq

yulred

james dean

The reporting system (SMS) is supposed to be confidential, so unless the company is not adhering to the guidelines I cannot see how there would be pushback to the employee who is reporting. The system actually encourages it. You can remain confidential or if you want a response to your concern name yourself, but never never any retaliation should happen. If so then TC will investigate since SMS comes under their auspices and big penalties for violating the protocols.

Transpacificflyer

I understand the shock sentiment expressed. It was like when Pete Davidson and Ariana Grande called off their engagement yesterday.

Please. This is Canada. There are few if any sanctions or regulatory ramifications to employers who retaliate against whistle blowers. Big penalties for violating the protocols? Really. Can you cite any recent cases which featured a "big penalty"? Canadians are self deluded by their assumptions that the government is going to protect them. A big penalty is in the millions of dollars and involves operating sanctions, like the loss of landing slots, or a suspension.. It can also involve criminal penalties. If there was any oversight and a concern for the consumer, don't you think we would have passenger protections in place similar to those which apply in the EU and USA? Don't you think that the practices of Sun Wing and Air Transit would be sanctioned? There are ways to identify who has snitched. Someone always talks and government employees can have big mouths.

If there was a culture of safety at Air Canada, do you honestly believe that the airline would have allowed the aircraft implicated in the near catastrophe at SFO to keep flying so as to record over the tapes containing critical evidence?

My takeaway is that Air Canada has become the airline of sloppiness and cutting corners. We have seen it in aspects such as equipment upkeep, the lackluster F&B, the poor level of cleanliness, a decrepit IT system, and the general treatment of basic flyers.
Nothing here that we have not already seen or experienced.

The Lev

Are we really surprised? I don't think there is a company in Canada where a portion of their employees don't fear reprisal - be it for reporting safety concerns, harassment, reporting poor management or anything else. It's ingrained in our psyche even if the employer takes steps to ensure confidentiality and does not in fact ever enact any reprisal.

Stranger

Sure. But that misses the point. It looks like they were not really taking steps to ensure confidentiality.

Stranger

I would not call YHZ an incident. An accident, end of the story.

Not sure where ZUR is.

Transpacificflyer

No, not the end of the story. You call the Halifax crash an "accident". The Transport Safety Board calls it a collision and then lists the failures and deficiencies that were contributing factors.: Deficiencies and failures on the part of Air Canada, the airport and NAV Canada. I direct your attention to some important details in respect to AC which you apparently do not consider relevant. The errors and deficiencies are quite explicit and cannot be termed "accidental" because the actions were intentional and reflected deficient operating practice.
3.0 Findings
3.1 Findings as to causes and contributing factors

1. Air Canada's standard operating procedure (SOP) and practice when flying in flight path angle guidance mode was that, once the aircraft was past the final approach fix, the flight crews were not required to monitor the aircraft's altitude and distance from the threshold or to make any adjustments to the flight path angle. This practice was not in accordance with the flight crew operating manuals of Air Canada or Airbus.

2. As per Air Canada's practice, once the flight path angle was selected and the aircraft began to descend, the flight crew did not monitor the altitude and distance from the threshold, nor did they make any adjustments to the flight path angle.

3. The flight crew did not notice that the aircraft had drifted below and diverged from the planned vertical descent angle flight profile, nor were they aware that the aircraft had crossed the minimum descent altitude further back from the threshold.

4. Considering the challenging conditions to acquire and maintain the visual cues, it is likely the flight crew delayed disconnecting the autopilot until beyond the minimum descent altitude because of their reliance on the autopilot system.The flight crew's recognition that the aircraft was too low during the approach would have been delayed because of plan continuation bias.

11. The first officer sustained a head injury and serious injury to the right eye as a result of striking the glare shield because the automatic locking feature of the right-side shoulder-harness inertia reel was unserviceable.

12. A flight attendant was injured by a coffee brewer that came free of its mounting base because its locking system was not correctly engaged.

The connection to the culture of fear as expressed in the thread subject reference is relevant because it can be considered a contributing factor to the deficiencies and failures listed above. My belief is that every time an AC pilot says something about the condition of an aircraft, the pilot gets labeled as that guy/gal who "nitpicks". When a FA mentions that a galley item does not secure correctly, the FA gains a reputation as the guy/gal who complains for nothing. This is an issue in all workplaces.

Even the whistleblower hotlines and confidential TPAs who take the reports cannot effectively shield employees from management retaliation. When an employee reports an issue, usually enough details about the issue are provided in the the TPA report such that a manager can deduce who made the complaint, or at least get an idea. For example, an FA on a flight reports a chronic oven issue in forward galley. Someone checking the log book sees that the same FA has been reporting the oven issue over the past month. That person can get a good idea of who the complainant is.

The airline need not be directing the retaliation, and may even act with the best of intentions, but its reporting and operating structure can facilitate the climate of fear. That's what the report was highlighting.

Stranger

Not that I disagree.

But end of the story in the context of what I was following up on. Basically saying that was not simply an incident, but worse.

YYC009

Did I read that right? 26,000 safety issues raised in a one year period? And the report suggests that employees are afraid to write up safety concerns? 26,000 concerns were raised/brought forward. That is a strikingly high number and doesn't seem to imply people are afraid to report.

cedric

Is there a major North American airline that doesn't meet all the above criteria? Are you suggesting that all are unsafe?