Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 26, 1996
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 5:12 p.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, I will call this meeting to order. We have a submission from Canadian Airlines International in English only. A translated copy will be available in the morning. Do I have the permission of the committee to distribute it?
Hon Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We are pleased to have with us tonight, from Canadian Airlines International, Bob Weatherly, Vice-President, Flight Operations and Chief Pilot; Peter Howe, Director of Safety, Security and Environmental Services; Steve Markey, Vice-President, Government and Corporate Affairs; and Darryl Watkins, Manager of Flight Safety.
Please proceed, gentlemen.
Mr. Steve Markey, Vice-President, Government and Corporate Affairs: We are very pleased to be here. Safety is an important subject, one which is very important to the success of our airline.
Rather than reading the text with which we have provided you, a better approach may be to highlight some of the points which we believe will be of most interest to you. If there are issues in the text that we do not touch upon but that you would like to explore, we would be happy to do that.
I should like to introduce my colleagues as it may be helpful for you to know a little about their expertise.
Captain Bob Weatherly began his career with Canadian Airlines in 1965. He is a life-long Canadian employee and has extensive experience in the operational side of the airline as a senior instructor on the 747-400, which until recently was the most modern piece of airline equipment in the air. Prior to his appointment as Vice-President of Flight Operations, he was the Director of Safety within the airline.
Peter Howe, as Director of our Safety, Security and Environmental Services, recognizes that safety in an airline is not one-dimensional. It involves safety on the ground, in flight and in many other areas. Peter has 26 years of experience in the airline and related fields. He is responsible for the administration of all facets of our safety program within the corporation. That extends through the main corporation, Canadian Regional, and all our international operations.
Darryl Watkins is Manager of Flight Safety. Darryl joined us a few years ago after a 30-year career in the Armed Forces where he specialized in both flight operations and safety. His day-to-day function is the management of and responsibility for our direct relationship with Transport Canada with regard to safety.
Bob Petryk has 25 years experience in the airline. Mr. Bradley joined the corporation more recently.Both are happy to participate in this discussion, if necessary.
I am Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and also the Vice-Chairman of the Air Transport Security Corporation, which is the recently privatized responsibility for management of the airport security equipment. I am also the current Chairman of the Air Transport Association of Canada, ATAC.
The four of us are all pilots, to a lesser or greater degree. Bob Weatherly is the only active pilot among us. He still flies regularly on our trans-oceanic flights. The rest of us have some experience flying small planes. Darryl and Pete, of course, have experience flying military planes. We all have a strong interest in safety.
I will now give you a few highlights on Canadian Airlines. We are one of the major carriers in Canada, providing international and domestic air transportation for both passengers and cargo. In our subsidiary Canadian Regional, there are a number of smaller regional air carriers across the country which, with the exception of Air Atlantic, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the main corporation.
We now fly to more than 140 destinations in Canada and over 40 more outside of Canada in five continents. We have over 130 aircraft in our fleet. More than 100 of them are jets, from narrow bodies to the wide-body 747s. The balance are turbo props used on domestic city routes.
We have about 16,000 employees across Canada: 7,000 in Vancouver; about 5,300 in Toronto; 2,300 in Calgary; and 2,300 in the province of Quebec, mostly in Montreal and Quebec City. The balance are spread throughout the country and at international bases.
The subject of these hearings is one about which we feel very strongly. We have a commitment to safety which we believe will stand us in good stead in years to come. We do not think of safety as just part of the job. It governs everything we do. It is a commitment we make to our passengers and to ourselves as an airline.
Safety is emphasized in many of the documents of the company so that our people understand our commitment to it. I would like to read an excerpt from our Safety Policy.
The safety and health of our employees, the safety of our passengers and the protection of our aircraft and other assets are essential to our future success and the personal well being of our people.
Therefore, it is the policy of Canadian Airlines International Limited to promote and maintain a safe and healthy working environment for all of our activities and it is the responsibility of every employee to ensure that this policy is carried out effectively. This applies to all levels of managements and to all employees.
We have a mission statement in both French and English. The leading component of the mission statement is that we must be a leading global airline but that, in order to be that, we have to be a safe global airline. I would be happy to make this mission statement and the detailed safety statement available to you.
Canadian Airlines has a strong interest in safety. Frankly, we believe that safety is good business. The travelling public will not extend its confidence to any airline that is not perceived to be safe. We work very hard to maintain our standards so that we can be entitled to enjoy a safe image, because we believe that with that image will come confidence. That is a standard which Canadian Airlines and other airlines in Canada have taken around the world.
There are four specific areas within the company in which we think safety is a dominant and governing manifestation of our commitment. Those areas are standards and training, program control and monitoring, industry contact and cooperation, and security. In this day and age, security is becoming much more important on the ground and in the air.
Mr. Robert Weatherly, Vice-President, Flight Operations, and Chief Pilot: It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss safety. It is my intention to provide detail to the programs and procedures outlined in this submission.
Our standards and training area is headed up by a Director of Standards and Training who is a current management pilot. He reports directly to myself. Assisting him are five management pilots, one for each aircraft type that we operate in Canadian Airlines. Working for them is a total of 50 instructor check captains and about a dozen simulator instructors. It is through their work that we attempt to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place. In addition to this, we have a very stringent alcohol and drug regulation program in Canadian Airlines.
With regard to inflight cabin safety, all aspects of cabin safety are controlled by regulations and standards set forth by Transport Canada through the Canadian Aviation Regulations and Commercial Air Service Standards. Heading up this group is a Manager of Inflight who reports directly to myself. Under his direction are the 2,800 inflight personnel, or flight attendants, who work on our aircraft throughout the system.
The Director of Standards and Training, myself, and the Manager of Inflight Cabin Safety are responsible for design, coordination, implementation and administration of all aspects of safety performance standards in the back of our aircraft, as well as what goes on in the cockpit. Although pilots and flight attendants spend more than half a day in emergency procedures training, a joint training exercise is undergone for a half day of each recurrent training session to enable a seamless process in the promotion of our "one crew" performance concept for both front end and back end.
On page 4 of our brief we talk about our maintenance and engineering programs. The document is quite detailed on this.
On the following page we address the subject of cargo and dangerous goods. Again, we do annual training on cargo and dangerous goods for our pilots, as well as the ground personnel who handle them. This is done through the emergency procedures training program which takes place once a year with the pilots.
Pete Howe will give you a more in depth definition of what is taking place there.
The Chairman: That is a very important subject which we will want to explore in some depth.
Mr. Weatherly: We will be pleased to address that.
Also on page 5 we talk about program control and monitoring. This is done primarily through our Systems Operations Centre, or SOC. We have about 120 personnel in our Systems Operation Control Centre who work on this. We have 35 dispatchers, all operating under a dispatch certification received from Transport Canada. They compile the flight plan that is in place before the pilots even show up for their briefing, which is, at minimum, one hour prior to the operation of a trip.
Dispatchers build a flight plan based on the number of passengers on board, the weight of the baggage, the weight of the cargo, the destination airport, the weather at departure airport and destination airport, the planned temperature for the departure and the weather conditions that are expected en route. They have all this documentation prepared for the pilots who peruse the documents to make sure they are satisfied and check everything out themselves as a second check. If everyone is satisfied, the pilots sign the documents and depart.
Once en route, we do a continual flight watch, a monitoring of the operation. It is required that there be contact between the pilots and dispatch at least every two hours to verify that the minimum fuel required is on board. We check this at every way point. The furthest way point would be one hour in the oceanic operations and every 20 to 25 minutes in domestic operations.
As well, dispatch and the pilots monitor the en route and destination weather conditions. They update one another to ensure that everyone is satisfied that we have a good operation.
Pete Howe will take you through security in more detail as he is directly responsible for that function.
With regard to industry contacts and cooperation, we have extensive partnerships throughout our entire operation with many carriers and interested parties such as ICAO, IATA and so on.
I am involved with the international advisory committee of the Flight Safety Committee. Over 600 parties belong to this organization; mostly airlines and military transportation groups. Government departments such as Transport Canada and the FAA are members. Of that group, 30 members are elected to sit on the international advisory committee where we exchange information and talk about procedures and so on.
As well, I chair the operations committee of IATA. Reporting to that committee are the Flight Operations Committee, the Engineering and Maintenance Committee, the Security Committee and the SAFAC committee, which is involved directly with safety information.
There are 30 individuals on the Operations Committee elected by the airlines. There are about 165 members that take part in the election. The focus is primarily on safety information. It is a very good forum for us.
I also sit on the Operations Committee of the Air Transport Association, and on ATAC.
Mr. Peter Howe, Director, Safety, Security and Environmental Services: Mr. Chairman, I, too, am happy to be here to talk to you about our safety and security program. I would like to cover cargo and dangerous goods handling and security in an overview and then get into detail during the question period.
We are regulated on the handling of dangerous goods federally by Transport Canada, but are also very cognizant of recommendations that are made on a regular basis by our two large international organizations, ICAO and IATA. In some ways, they make recommendations that are a little more stringent. We meet the most stringent recommendations in the handling of dangerous goods and try to exceed them.
The most important thing on the issue of dangerous goods is that we train all our cargo agents, ramp agents, cargo handlers, and some of our customer service agents, in dangerous goods so that they are aware of what to expect and how to deal with it. Even more important, all these people are trained in what to do if we get a dangerous goods spill. They are trained in what to do about that spill to save individuals who are nearby. We have a very active program in that.
We have an audit program of our own. My department audits all these agents and the way in which we handle the dangerous goods. As well, we are audited by Transport Canada. As a result, we have a fairly tight dangerous goods program.
We have procedures for handling general cargo in terms of ensuring that we know what is going on board our aircraft. I will get into the details later. This is primarily a security screening procedure.
I will turn now to the security of our passengers, our employees and our equipment. Again, as with safety, we have a proactive security program covering both our domestic and our international operations. Domestically, we are regulated again by Transport Canada under two major regulations: the aerodrome security measures and the air carrier security measures. Airport security is essentially a joint venture; a shared responsibility. It covers passenger screening, access control to the air side and to the aircraft, policing and baggage screening.
The job of the airline is to ensure that the individuals who are performing these functions in the airports do so to the satisfaction of Transport Canada and ourselves. We do that by auditing on a regular basis. We do a deep audit on our major domestic bases at least once a year to determine whether they are meeting our standards. We audit our other domestic bases on a priority or as-required basis, or at least once every two to two and a half years.
When opening an international base, we do a due diligence security audit of that location. Before the recent opening at Manila, we went in ahead of our aircraft to ensure that security was available for our equipment and that the passenger and baggage screening would be carried out to our specifications. Once again, we do an audit of all our international bases once a year, or more often, if required.
Mr. Darryl Watkins, Manager, Flight Safety: Mr. Chairman, it is a given that the airline industry is a very competitive one. Our marketing departments are constantly going head-to-head in a competitive situation on different routes and aircraft. I am pleased to report, however, that safety information is shared on a daily basis through both the safety departments and the operational departments. That is done because we share the same routes or the same route structure. In several cases, we share the same equipment. We operate out of the same airports. As it is the goal of everyone in this industry to get our passengers there safely, there is really no other way for us to work.
As Mr. Weatherly said, we continue this internationally through associations like IATA and the Flight Safety Foundation. I have no fear of talking to my international counterpart if we have a problem and their airline is involved or, if they are the host country, to set up contacts.
Safety is a daily concern for Canadian Airlines and for just about every other major airline. It is something that we include in our daily operation.
Mr. Markey: Mr. Chairman, Canadian Airlines takes pride in our accomplishments and our standards on the safety and security front. We think they derive in a significant way from the efforts of the federal government in years past and from current policies. There is a system of stringent aviation safety standards in place because of the supervisory and administrative role of Transport Canada. Those standards are recognized internationally. We see them emulated in other countries so we believe that Canada is setting a pretty good standard which other nations have tried to emulate.
In our company, we see the standards and regulations which we must meet as something that we must exceed. We see them as a bare minimum and try, in every case, to do better than the standard. Obviously, we do not succeed in every case, but that is the spirit we take to it.
We work very closely with Transport Canada and other relevant regulatory agencies in the development of safety standards and we expect that to continue.
Mr. Chairman, we will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chairman: There are one or two issues that concern us.
We are in the preliminary stage of our work. To be absolutely frank with you, delighted as we are that you are here and that Air Canada will be with us next week, I cannot help but wonder why you have come forward now, when one more meeting of the subcommittee in camera will wind up and put to bed our interim report. We have written without benefit of comment at your level.
We are now about ten years into open skies. You know that I have to accept some parental responsibility for that, for which I make no apologies whatsoever. I think we went in the right direction. There are, however, criticisms of it. Could you comment very specifically on whether it has had a negative effect, a positive effect, or no effect on airline safety?
Mr. Markey: Your opening comment was an important one and I want to ensure that I understood it. I believe you asked why we are here only one week before an in camera session at which your report will be finalized. Frankly, we have to blame our lack of knowledge of the parliamentary process for that.
It was not until approximately three weeks ago that we received a letter inviting us to appear. At that time, we started to try to find dates on which I could get my colleagues to Ottawa. I believe there were four dates suggested, all within two weeks, including this week, and we took this date. I would like to make it clear that, as soon as we knew we were invited, we were happy to appear. We had absolutely no reluctance to appear and, in fact, are eager to have this discussion.
I apologize if you feel that we could have helped earlier in some way. Had we known earlier, we might have been able to appear earlier.
The Chairman: That is quite acceptable. If you were unaware of this committee's consideration of transportation safety matters, then we have fallen down on the job and I apologize for that. We place a high value on your contribution and would have preferred to hear from you at an earlier date.
To continue, have these past ten years led to less than optimal safety conditions as has been suggested by many people?
Mr. Markey: Before I address your question, I would like to make one final point about our availability. If you need access to us in the future, or if we can provide additional information, we would be happy to do that. That is a standing offer.
The Chairman: I appreciate that. As I indicated, we are in the preliminary stage of our work. Once we have identified issues, we certainly will want you to come back to help us with any problems that we have difficulty resolving. We certainly will want you back.
Mr. Markey: We are ready to do that.
Your question with regard to whether deregulation has been good, bad or neutral is an extremely complex one. I do not say that because I am trying to duck the question. I do not think anyone has a full understanding or explanation of that. I spent most of last weekend at a conference in Toronto organized by the Public Policy Forum, hosted in part by Transport Canada, much of which dealt with issues related to the economic and competitive environment of the airline industry and the impact of deregulation over the last decade. I believe there is a general consensus within the industry that deregulation has essentially been a positive experience.
Most of the players in the airline industry feel that the ability to operate in a freer, more competitive, less restrictive environment is important to the industry. We are now approximately ten years into deregulation. It is unlikely that anyone in the industry at this point would want to try to turn the clock back. That is not to say that all elements of deregulation have been positive. There are costs associated with many elements of deregulation that the system must bear. Fundamentally, however, we think it has been a positive process.
We can only comment on deregulation from the point of view of Canadian Airlines. We cannot give you an industry-wide perspective. That should be done by ATAC or other more broadly based groups. Canadian Airlines is not disappointed with deregulation. We view it as a positive experience for this company.
The Chairman: I am not talking about commerce or trade, but rather about how it has impacted the safety of your operation. Many people have suggested that, with the additional costs associated with deregulation, corners are probably being cut. I have my own view on that, but I invite your response to it. Your view is the important one.
Mr. Markey: Broadly speaking, we do not believe that deregulation has been at the expense of safety. Our commitment to safety within the company has been unchanged by deregulation. Deregulation only provides a different competitive environment in which we operate.
The Chairman: This is probably one of the most important questions you will be asked. This is the crux of the entire issue.
Mr. Weatherly: Senator Forrestall, I agree with what Mr. Markey has said. From the viewpoint of safety, deregulation has not had a negative impact on Canadian Airlines. We have cut no corners. We have never been expected to cut corners. We have just as much emphasis on safety today as we did in the past, if not more.
We are into more areas of the world than we were before, as a result of deregulation, which only forces us to enhance our safety programs, not cut back on them. I am quite satisfied that deregulation has not had an impact on safety in Canadian Airlines.
Mr. Howe: I also endorse that view, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we are more conscious of safety now than we were ten years ago, mainly because of deregulation, but also because of the increased route structures. It is safe to say that safety departments in the major carriers have increased. The internal audit process has improved over the last ten years. That is certainly true for Canadian Airlines.
Senator Bacon: On page 6 of your brief you say that airport security is a shared responsibility of both the airport and airlines. With the devolution of airports to local airport authorities, are you sure that the steps that are being taken to ensure safety standards are maintained?
Mr. Howe: Yes. In every case of privatization we have dealt directly with the airport authorities. From my standpoint I can say that we have had no diminution of the importance or the implementation of security measures. The airports seem to have taken this on quite well.
We are still heavily regulated; the regulations have not changed. Therefore, the airports are now in the same position as we are. We have to meet those regulations. We attempt to exceed them. I have not seen any laxity in airport security to date.
Senator Bacon: What changes with regard to air traffic control have taken place with the advent of NAV CANADA? Do any of these changes have an impact on safety?
Mr. Markey: You may get two or three different answers to that question. We believe that the evolution to NAVCAN has been fairly well conducted and smooth. The standards to which NAVCAN has adhered for some time are still in place. The management team, the leadership in NAVCAN, seems to be committed. It has recently changed, as you know, but it seems to be committed to many of the same goals and objectives that the previous administration was noted for establishing. We do not detect any diminution.
There are some challenges for NAVCAN ahead as it negotiates a variety of new labour contracts and things of that nature that are obviously of importance to the flying public. We assume that they will succeed with those negotiations and that the air traffic control system will be run as efficiently as it has been in the past.
Mr. Weatherly: Senator Bacon, a very positive aspect that I have observed is that NAV CANADA appears to be more consultative. I have had a number of meetings with them. I met with them last week. As a matter of fact, I will have another meeting with them on Monday.
We have many meetings with them. They are very consultative. I sit on one of their advisory committees where we exchange a variety of opinions. I have found them quite pleasant to work with.
The Chairman: You had better be satisfied. Negotiations are getting hot and heavy.
Senator Roberge: Yesterday, we met some people from the union of NAVCAN. We asked them about their hours of work, their time off, breaks, et cetera. We were rather shocked by some of the comments we heard; namely, that they sometimes go eight, nine or ten days without a day off because of overtime which they have no choice but to work. We are concerned that this is a danger for the airlines.
What comment do you have on that?
Mr. Markey: I cannot speak from the NAVCAN union point of view. As a major carrier in Canada, the experience of Canadian Airlines with NAVCAN so far is exactly what Mr. Weatherly has described; that is, that it is a company which wants to work very closely with its constituents. We have participation on the board of directors, as do other interest groups and stakeholders in the process. To us it seems like a much more hands-on process where we can have some impact on how it will evolve in the future.
That is not to say that certain internal dynamics do not exist, Senator Roberge, but I cannot comment on those. We do not see them. Our view of NAVCAN as an operational entity, with the new technology and all of the things that it is doing to upgrade the system, is that we have a world leader and that it will stay that way.
Senator Roberge: You and other stakeholders who sit on the board have a responsibility to find out if there are safety or security dangers. I am more anxious about flying after hearing the presentation yesterday.
Mr. Markey: You are quite right.
Senator Roberge: That has been going on for ten years.
Mr. Markey: If that is the case, then we have to be concerned. I can assure you that, through our members on the board, I will ask the question. It deserves to be asked; it is an important question. Until now, subject to what you are saying today, we have not seen that, but your committee report may clarify some of these issues.
Your point is well made and we will follow up on it, sir.
Senator Bacon: At the recent ICAO directors general conference in Montreal it was agreed to recommend to the ICAO council that safety assessments and audits of member states be expanded to include aerodromes and auxiliary services and to make the audits mandatory.
Are you satisfied with the present system of airport and service screening at the airports in Canada, that is, aircraft ground handling, food services, contractors and so forth?
Mr. Howe: The quick answer is yes, we are satisfied. That does not mean, however, that we are not constantly monitoring that. With privatization, we will be exercising increasing due diligence. However, at this point I am satisfied.
Senator Bacon: What is your internal policy on substance abuse?
Mr. Weatherly: We have zero tolerance for illegal narcotics. I am unhappy to report that, four years ago, a pilot was found in possession of marijuana. We dismissed him immediately. We have been through arbitration, the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal. At this stage, he is still a dismissed pilot and I believe he will remain so when his appeals are exhausted.
We have a different approach on alcohol. We have a rehabilitation program. If pilots come forward to a management pilot, someone in the medical department or the pilots advisory group, which is run by the pilots association, and reveal a problem with alcohol abuse, we first notify Transport Canada, which lifts their licence. We then put them on our sick leave program and pay for a rehabilitation program.
Once the professionals say that the pilot has been rehabilitated and is fit for duty, we bring them back to active service after Transport Canada has relicensed him or her and they go on a program with a restricted licence. They must sign an agreement that they will abstain from alcohol for the remainder of their career. If they deviate from that course, they are subject to immediate dismissal.
We hired five pilots last week. I spent some time with them on their initial day. I told them that there are three things they should understand. I was not trying to be intimidating, but it is very important that they understand this. I told them that we have an open door policy. If they have a problem, they should talk to their management pilot, their administrator or whomever. I told them that we would answer any questions they had and solve their problems.
I told them that, if they are ever unfortunate enough to encounter a drinking problem, we have a program to deal with that, and I told them how they should make use of it.
I told them that we have absolutely zero tolerance for illegal narcotics. I said that if they did not want to fly for us, they should go ahead and try an illegal substance, because if they did they would definitely not fly for us.
I also advised them that if they are ever unfortunate enough to be involved in an incident, they should tell their chief pilot what happened to the best of their ability. I said that they should not mislead the chief pilot because that is the one thing, other than alcohol or drug abuse, that will get them into a lot of trouble in this company. The chief pilot is there to help the pilots, not to discipline them, unless it is absolutely necessary.
I spent a lot time discussing alcohol abuse with them. When pilots are hired, they are tested for any signs of alcohol or drug abuse problems.
Senator Bacon: Are the regulations the same for alcohol and drug abuse?
Mr. Weatherly: No. We have absolutely zero tolerance for illegal drugs. For 13 hours before a flight, pilots must abstain from all alcoholic beverages. We make it very clear to pilots as well that they cannot drink to excess 14 or 15 hours before going on duty and expect that that clears them. The Transport Canada regulation is eight hours; ours is 13 hours prior to a flight, and we enforce that very strictly.
Mr. Markey: Part of the culture of our flight operation system is to avoid alcohol. Mr. Weatherly leads that culture. It is very much the culture he set within the company. It is pretty tough on occasions, but it is critical.
Senator Roberge: Is aircraft and motor maintenance done by Canadian Airlines?
Mr. Weatherly: Yes.
Senator Roberge: Is all the maintenance done by you?
Mr. Weatherly: We have an exception with heavy maintenance on the 747-400 because it is a small fleet of aircraft. It would be far too expensive to get all the required tools to look after only four aircraft, so we subcontract that work to British Airways.
We fly the aircraft over to Cardiff, where they have a huge 747-400 maintenance facility and all our heavy maintenance is done there. The smaller checks that do not require making structural changes or work of that nature -- the overnight checks, the C-checks and B-checks -- are done in-house.
Other than that, we have our own engine shop where we maintain our own engines. All the heavy maintenance takes place at our Vancouver operations centre.
Mr. Markey: If it is of interest to the committee, we would be happy to give you a tour of that facility at some time. It is probably the largest shop operating on one floor in Western Canada, and perhaps even in the country. This is 1,200,000 square feet of maintenance facility with very sophisticated testing.
Senator Roberge: Do you have many airplanes that are 20 years old or older?
Mr. Weatherly: I could not give you an exact number offhand. Some of our 737 aircraft would be that age, although not many.
Senator Roberge: Will you tell us a little about metal fatigue.
Mr. Weatherly: I am not an expert in metal fatigue. We do a lot of non-destructive testing in Canadian Airlines. We identify areas where corrosion may develop. You cannot see this corrosion with the naked eye. It could be hairline cracks and so on. We use very sophisticated X-ray machines to look for it.
I recall that years ago we found a cracked spar structure on our DC-8 63 series aircraft. We were the first carrier to find that, and it was done through non-destructive testing.
There was a fleet campaign done. This was the only aircraft in our fleet in which we encountered this structural flaw. There were a number of other 63s around the world which, as a result of that, were identified and fixed at that time.
It is an ongoing program. When the aircraft go in for heavy maintenance every year we do a lot of testing looking for corrosion or any signs of metal fatigue or cracking. There is probably very little of the original metal left on the outside skin of our oldest 737. They get completely reskinned over their lives.
Senator Roberge: In order to prevent the problem which happened with the Hawaiian Airlines, I imagine you would reskin it.
Mr. Weatherly: I do not want to comment on what Hawaiian did, but our maintenance testing is so thorough that it would be a great surprise and a shock to many people in the industry if we ever had something like that occur to us.
Mr. Howe: If I may add to that comment about reskinning, we also have a good deal of restructuring of older aircraft in areas where you would expect corrosion, and much attention paid to those areas.
Senator Roberge: I was not aware of that.
I want to talk to you about crew fatigue. You have probably done some studies on fatigue when people are flying, probably on the cockpit crew more than the cabin crew. Do you want to tell us a few words about that?
Mr. Weatherly: We work within the Transport Canada guidelines. In some cases we are slightly more restricted because of our contract negotiations. On the flights that exceed 12 hours duty time, we carry augment pilots -- an additional crew member -- and have rest facilities on board the aircraft so that they can take a break from their flight deck duties and have a rest. All of our duty days are well within the Transport Canada guidelines.
Canadian Airlines International and the other major international carriers do not have the problem that you have with some carriers in other countries which are not regulated as strictly as we are.
Mr. Markey: That is an important point. We said that at the outset, Senator Roberge. Canada has standards which are pretty stringent, and major airlines in Canada tend to try to exceed them and improve on them. That is not the case in all jurisdictions. Not all regulatory authorities have the same commitment that we do here.
Senator Roberge: We have received much criticism over this past study on the safety board. I would like to hear your opinion on the safety board.
Mr. Howe: Darryl Watkins is our main liaison with Transportation Safety Board, and perhaps he could comment on that.
Mr. Watkins: I deal with the safety board on almost a daily basis, both the regional offices and, of course, the headquarters here in Hull on an irregular basis. As we said initially, I have only been our of the military and into the airline industry two and a half years, but I dealt with them as well in the military.
I found them to be excellent, particularly with the appointment of the new manager of investigations. He has opened it up, and there is a great deal of consultation. They have made the process much more visible to people and much more consultative. Frankly, I have no fear that, if we are involved in a reportable incident, that the Transportation Safety Board will call me. I deal with them virtually every day.
My schedule in Vancouver has me at work at a quarter to 7:00 in the morning. That is a quarter to 11:00 in the Maritimes. I quite often messages waiting for me, and I work my way across the country. I may not talk to a region for some time, or I may talk to them several different times on several issues; however, if they have questions about our fleet, they call us. Conversely, I feel free to call them.
I must say that the Transportation Safety Board right now has been very open, and we have been pleased.
Senator Roberge: If there is an emergency, for example, which I guess happens sometimes in the cockpit, is there a collegiality of decision making? How does it work?
Mr. Weatherly: We do crew resource management training with all our pilots and, as I said before, one-half of one day we do it jointly with flight attendants. Sometimes what was going on in the back of the cabin in the past was not always relayed to the cockpit in a timely manner. You found out afterwards that that would have been a nice piece of information to know. We train them together, and that has really improved the communications. Since we started that program, it has made a huge difference in the handling of in-flight incidents, which are handled much better by a crew that had been trained together. The flight attendants are aware of the pilots' problems, and the pilots are aware of the flight attendants' problems.
We have a series of procedures whereby we advise the flight attendants that there will be a short duration before we are on the ground so they do one series of checks at that stage. If there will be a long sequence of time before we are on the ground because of an emergency, they have a different checklist that they would follow for preparation. The flight attendants are aware that they must inform the pilots immediately if they see any discrepancy, whether it ice on the wing or snow or a passenger who is behaving erratically -- anything to do with safety equipment on board the aircraft, as simple as a broken chair. Bring it to the pilot's attention immediately so we can start doing something about it. Doing the crew resource management training together has made a tremendous difference in the atmosphere between the two groups working together.
Senator Roberge: Many of the U.S. airlines have an ombudsman for safety. What is your opinion on that?
Mr. Howe: I think it is safe to say that my department is the ombudsman for safety in Canadian Airlines. I have a staff which is auditing and reviewing. We have an open line upon which pilots may call Darryl Watkins, and that is a confidential line. We have means by which we watchdog the safe operation of the airline, and the ownership for the implementation of safe practices rests with the department. My function is to be a sort of a glorified ombudsman.
Senator Roberge: I guess, then, that all levels of employees would feel comfortable.
Mr. Markey: That is the point, senator. I would hesitate to recommend to Kevin Benson that we have one person in the company who tries to stick handle all these complaints. The culture of the company is driven by Peter Howe, Darryl Watkins, Bob Weatherly and others to be one which is dominated by a concern over safety. Safety should be everybody's responsibility, not just one person for negotiating compromises.
We do not have an ombudsman. I am sure how it is utilized in the United States, but I know that at Canadian we seem to have a pretty strong commitment, and I would not want to see that diluted in any way. I would want to know exactly what that ombudsman's role was and how it would enhance Peter Howe's role before we ever got to that stage.
Mr. Howe: You might be interested to see how often the rank and file people in the office discuss safety issues with us. It is fairly open.
Mr. Markey: It is very open, as, I might add, is our company. No one in the company should feel reluctant or for any reason unable to discuss any issue with any senior person in the company. That is the way in which we run this company, and that applies to safety.
Mr. Watkins: Senator, we do act on what we hear. It is not just listening to the people. I have been in to see Captain Weatherly recently, but the policy is that the door is open. If I have a legitimate concern which is done confidentially, it will be kept that way. I can present that case, and I have done that just recently. I feel very comfortable in saying that.
Senator Bacon: Is Canadian satisfied with the Aeronautics Act, or would you like to see some changes to the act?
Mr. Weatherly: We were involved in the CARAC and, to be fair, we would have to say that we had much input through CARAC. If there are things we do not like, it is probably our fault for not saying something. I am not aware of anything we did not say. It was a consultative process, we spoke our piece, we were listened to, and certain measures that we were pushing were adopted.
I must say that the Aeronautics Act was a huge step forward, and the CARs are a huge step forward from what we were living with before. It was an outdated document. This has been very refreshing.
We have not been working with it long, but we made a deal with Transport Canada about a year before they required we implement most of the procedures. They said, "When you cut into the CARs, we would like to have them in place," and they adopted that and we changed our flight operations manual before the CARs were actually in place. We were working to those means at that time.
The Chairman: That is interesting. The existing Canadian Aeronautics Act was written in 1926, before any of us were born. You are talking about a compendium. It is easier to deal with it in an ad hoc way than to rebuild the Aeronautics Act. Many of us continue to believe that the air industry would benefit from a new act standing on its own. It still is quite on certain aspects of work, work time, leaves, and how long a man should fly an airplane. That is company policy and nothing do with national policy, which is the responsibility of government.
While there is no hesitation in trusting Canadian Airlines International with these judgments, the fact of the matter is that due diligence requires us to go one step further. We are all human, and we can all err. It was in that context that I understood Senator Bacon's question.
Gentlemen, I want to look for a minute or two at the problems ValuJet has caused for people who must look at these things. The subcommittee of the U.S. Senate held hearings during April and May of this year on the subject of the transportation by air of hazardous substances. Mr. Markey, I think you are aware that I am deeply involved in the establishment of rates with respect to the transportation of hazardous and dangerous goods. It was dormant up until ValuJet, and there was a concern subsequent to that.
Has there been any changes as a result of this little flare-up with respect to the handling of hazardous materials and regulations governing the handling of materials or procedures? Is there anything that has happened that would give some of us care? My next question will have to do with fire in the hold, if you will.
Mr. Markey: I invite Peter Howe to help me here because he deals with this on a daily basis.
ValuJet as an accident is not something on which we are expert. We have heard the stories, but we are not privy to any of their administrative and internal processes for controlling these kinds of things. We know what our systems are. We know that we have systems in place which are comprehensive, system wide, and are designed to protect against these kinds of things occurring. We would like to think, we hope without being naive, that our level of commitment is far in excess of anything that was in place by that particular carrier.
However, having said that, I would ask Mr. Howe to talk about the specifics.
Mr. Howe: Mr. Chairman, as far as Canadian carriers are concerned, one change which we have adopted is that we no longer carry oxygen generators with passengers; they are only allowed in cargo aircraft. Other than that, the regulations that we have -- and perhaps I will quickly go through these -- to prevent this from happening have not changed because it was preventable with existing regulations.
For example, we have three basic categories of cargo. We have known shippers. These are shippers who give freight to us either directly from a company or through a freight carrier, a ground carrier, on a regular, routine basis. Every year they must reaffirm a declaration to us that they are meeting the dangerous goods responsibilities and that they are identifying every bit of cargo that we are shipping. We have a great deal of faith and trust and knowledge with these shippers.
Another category which would be the unknown, not the regular shippers. When they arrive with a piece of cargo, we ask them for picture ID, either a driver's licence or whatever ID they have, but it must have a picture. If they are shipping it as a member of the company, we want that information, and we ask them exactly what is in the package.
If the individual is just a freighter and is bringing something from another company, we again ask for the ID and for the papers that he must have in terms of what is being shipped. If we or any of our cargo agents have any sense whatsoever that they are not comfortable with this, we are able to open the package, and in certain cases we do that. We also will x-ray it. In the extreme case where we are not happy, we will put that piece of shipped goods away in a safe place for 24 hours on the basis that, if it is something with which we did not want to deal, after 24 hours you have a safe package. We have specific procedures we follow in handling our cargo.
The Chairman: What do you do about all the pressure devices?
Mr. Howe: They must be identified and properly packaged.
The Chairman: Yes, but you could set it aside for 101 days and nothing would happen.
Mr. Howe: I see what you mean, a bomb under pressure.
The Chairman: You are looking for timing devices; I am concerned about the total device.
Mr. Howe: We would expect those kind of devices to show up on x-rays, senator. We do everything possible at this stage now. Having said that, technology is improving, and we are aware of that. We are looking at that in terms of detection, and we certainly will not ignore improvement in technology.
Mr. Markey: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that in the next few years you will see additional sophisticated equipment at airports which is based on new international standards led by G-7 summit leaders. There is a continuing evolution in both the technology and the systems to support airport monitoring and screening. That will further supplement the kind of systems that Mr. Howe mentioned.
The Chairman: What changes have you made? Do we now have smoke detectors in the hold? Do we have other active or passive systems of alarm? Are there means whereby the pilot can be alerted to any potential problems? Can the crew take steps to extinguish a fire in the hold because it has been detected early enough? We certainly did not have that 10 or 15 years ago. What went into the hold was considered harmless.
Mr. Weatherly: Mr. Chairman, we have smoke detection systems and fire detection systems in all of our aircraft except for the 737 fleet. That aircraft was designed at such a time that it was not designed into the fleet, and Boeing up to this date has not offered a retrofit program. Our A-320s, DC-10s, 767, and 747s all have those systems on board with fire detection. You actually have a warning system in the cockpit and a suppression system as well. We can put the fire out if it develops. The 737 is a domestic airplane. The great concern, of course, is on international flights where you could be hours away from an airport. Even a smouldering fire would be of great concern on an operation like that.
At any sign of smoke or fire on board, any of those aircraft, with their detection systems, immediately suppress the fire, put it out, and then we head for the nearest suitable airport, at which stage you resolve the situation on the ground.
The Chairman: You cannot do it with the older aircraft for what reason?
Mr. Weatherly: There are no systems available for retrofit. These systems must be developed specifically for the aircraft type because it would depend on the ventilation system, the type of cargo capability the aircraft has, and the means of alerting the pilot. The 737 is the only member of our fleet that does not have one of these systems on board.
The Chairman: Canadian Airlines has the capability of designing a system to be put in, but it apparently has not been done. Was this a result of an agreement with Boeing?
Mr. Weatherly: I think it was just the age of the aircraft. All our other fleet types are newer design than the 737. You have an older aircraft where the system was never designed, and it is very difficult for the manufacturers to go back and design a sophisticated system into an older aircraft that was not developed with that in mind. All these other equipment types were designed with those systems built right into the aircraft from day one.
The Chairman: An oxygen suppression system is not that complex. I know it is old, and I understand the problems associated with that, and I can only imagine some of the problems which might be associated with weight and balance and cutting a hole through any part of the machine and the difficulties and the expensive cost of doing that, but was some mist or oxygen depressant system never considered, or was it considered and rejected?
Mr. Weatherly: I honestly could not tell you whether Boeing ever considered it.
The Chairman: We are now talking about CAI, not Boeing.
Mr. Weatherly: Canadian would not have the resources. Most major airlines would not have the resources to go out and invent and certify a system like that. The certification process is so costly you could literally run into hundreds of million of dollars to design a system that would be accepted by all the transport authorities around the world. Unless you had a major manufacturer like Boeing or Airbus doing it, it takes individual carriers out of play because it is so expensive.
We are about to put some GPS units on our 737 aircraft, which ares a navigation satellite system. The engineering cost for that alone is around $700,000 to $800,000. This is a minor navigation set-up. You can literally run into hundreds of millions of dollars when you are trying to do a major system.
Mr. Watkins: As an accident investigator in my previous life, one of the things you must look at is the total system. As Mr. Weatherly mentioned, particularly with Boeing, if it is not designed into their complete system from the initial stage, depending on the air flow, you may end up recirculating portions of that air back into the cabin and creating further problems with your passengers. Although you may solve one problem, you may induce others. The process becomes simple initially just to suppress the fire, but then to look at the entire engineering systems in that aircraft to ensure that you are not inducing other problems is not, unfortunately, as simple as it seems.
Mr. Markey: Senator, Mr. Weatherly tells me that we do have people in the company who have specific expertise in these areas. If it is of help to you at a later point, we would try to make those people available. I appreciate your time line may not allow that, but the offer is there.
Senator Bacon: In the air taxi segment of your industry, consideration is being given to regulating the airport maintenance engineers' duty time. ATAC is opposed to this suggestion. Do airport maintenance engineers' duty times present any problems to operation of larger aircraft? The air taxi recommendation refers to aircraft of nine passengers or less.
Mr. Markey: Senator Bacon, I cannot answer that question because I do not have the knowledge to do so. I would be happy to try to get an answer for you. It is not something in which we are involved because none of our fleet is that small. The smallest fleet size we have here would be about a passenger plane with 36 people.
Mr. Howe: There is a restriction on the total number of hours an AME can work, or in fact any union maintenance mechanic can work, which is imposed by Labour Canada, as you are aware, and we stringently keep to that. We do not have the specifics, and we would be pleased to provide that to you.
Senator Bacon: You said that you conducted a safety audit at regular intervals. If something negative is found, what steps would you follow?
Mr. Howe: Each audit has findings and observations. The findings usually are much more important than the observations. That is something which requires action. These are documented, and the individuals then must come back to us and say we will have this fixed by this time, and we will monitor that. A complete follow-up of issues is identified, and we will not let that go until they are rectified.
Senator Bacon: How many audits do you conduct on a specific aircraft each year?
Mr. Howe: We do not audit specific aircraft; we audit the function in the airline. I do not do inspections of aircraft. That is done by our quality assurance personnel, and that is ongoing all the time, any time an aircraft comes in for its heavy maintenance or its C-check. They will focus on corrosion and metal fatigue, those things you cannot automatically see.
Transport Canada, by the way, does spot checks on our maintenance fleet.
Senator Roberge: With increased competition in the airline business in the years to come -- this question is not addressed specifically to Canadian International, but generally -- some other airlines they call no-frills airlines will be starting up, and some have already started up. They may not have the same sort of commitment to safety and security as our major airlines in Canada. I do not even suppose the ministry does a cost benefit to ensure the maintenance and security and repairs are properly done. What are your thoughts on that? Are you worried about, as we are?
Mr. Markey: Yes, we anticipate increased competition, and each of those carriers will approach the management of their company in whatever way they choose. It is difficult for us to comment on or criticize anyone else. It seems to me that our focus should be on doing our job right and maintaining our safety standards and commitments. We tend not to be looking outside of our glass windows; we focus on what is inside. However, it is valid to raise those questions.
Senator Roberge: The question is not raised at Canadian, but in general, because we must make a proper, in-depth study on the future of safety in all modes of transportation.
Mr. Weatherly: Senator, Transport Canada, of course, would be stepping in and diligently keeping an eye on them. Certainly if they started having a series of incidents or an accident, the travelling public will not put up with an unsafe airline for very long. The commercial aspects will take them out of business quite quickly. It is a horrible way to resolve it, but you cannot afford in this day and age, with media reporting and so on, to be seen as an unsafe airline. That would quickly take them out of business, in my opinion.
Mr. Markey: If I may add to that, I think the agency and Transport Canada are attentive to all airlines in ensuring that they adhere to the standards and regulations as set out by Transport Canada. They have people riding on board. They do inspections. They do many things to maintain the standards and the integrity of the system. That oversight responsibility is important and must continue and be applied equally and fairly to all airlines. The standard expected of the large airlines should be expected of all airlines, not just airlines like ourselves and our major domestic competitors. Every airline should meet those same standards.
Senator Roberge: That is a good answer. One of reasons I raised that is because I travel a fair bit on non-Senate business in the Eastern Block countries, and there are some airlines that I just will not get on because I am aware that they have financial difficulty, and they are still flying around the world.
Mr. Markey: You do not want to talk to this chap about what you should or should not fly.
Senator Roberge: I would like to have a list of those so I do not book on them.
Senator Bacon: The subcommittee has noted that convicted criminals are sometimes transported with police escort on commercial aircraft in Canada. Would you explain to us the procedures followed by the police escort in these cases? We are interested particularly in the carriage of firearms and whether or not regulations prohibit the transportation on commercial aircraft of certain types of criminals.
Mr. Howe: That is not an easy question to answer simply. If I were to take it at 20,000 feet, we do have procedures whereby some criminals may require two escorts, that we will demand an escort.
To your question with regards to firearms, in Canada, we do not allow the carriage of an armed weapon. In other words, if the police officer or the peace officer has a firearm, he would declare it to the captain and the ammunition would be taken away. We are transporting a dead weapon for when he arrives at his destination.
We do have procedures to identify the degree of risk we are facing with regards to the criminal. I have not had any experiences in the time I have been with security whereby this has fallen down. We have a very close liaison with RCMP, with local police, and with customs, for that matter. Frankly, the majority of prisoners we carry are not really criminally dangerous. I do not know of one that we have carried who actually creates a danger.
Mr. Weatherly: We do not carry violent offenders under escort. If they require an armed escort and they are a violent offender, then the RCMP can take them on their own aircraft.
Senator Bacon: You would not accept them?
Mr. Weatherly: No. This is often people having a court date or for minor offences being moved to a different jurisdiction.
The Chairman: Concerning the whole system of airport screening and clean passengers and contaminated passengers and what not, some of the members of our committee had an occasion to spend a very pleasant and congenial three or four hours with your senior security person on the West Coast. We had a long and very frank and enlightening conversation.
Generally speaking, as numbers grow, as things get exponentially almost out of control, are systems evolving well enough to handle this growing traffic? In the year 2025, will the airport of today be dangerous or obsolete? If so, why? What must happen? Some of the work we are doing is not necessarily identification of the problem of yesterday and those problems that are being resolved today but looking ahead at the safe airport.
Our concern is, in a sense, related to President Clinton's challenge to hold the line on air deaths, to put a lie to the very real possibility of a burnt-out hulk at the end of a runway somewhere in the world once a week, to try to hold the line on the number of lives we are losing. I am asking you to address yourselves somewhere down the road a bit and talk about safe aircraft and about safe airports and what you see as two or three of the major problems your industry must face and to which Canadian, as a viable and active participant in that community, must make major contributions.
We would be very interested if each of you could give us your thoughts on that. While you are thinking about it, Mr. Miller had a follow-up question or two, as does Mr. Carson. Mr. Miller is the consultant on aviation for our committee.
Mr. Keith Miller, Special Advisor on Aviation, Subcommittee on Transportation Safety: On Senator Bacon's question relating to duty times for the engineers, you said you were unaware of anything on the subject. The SATOPS committee of Transport Canada did a report in which they recommended duty times be regulated in the same manner that air crew times are regulated. The Air Transport Association of Canada is well aware of this report, and they wrote to SATOPS on June 2, 1997 disagreeing with the recommendation. I mention that for the record of this subcommittee and for your help.
My question is a follow-up to Mr. Howe's remarks on going into Manila, that is, the operation of your airline in a new foreign city. This was discussed at great length at the recent ICAO conference in Montreal, and I listened to it for three days. It is very fresh in my mind.
You say you do a safety oversight audit before you enter Manila. That is the safety oversight audit of Canadian Airlines International. Do you involve Transport Canada in doing a safety oversight audit of the Philippines and/or Manila before you fly into the Philippines?
Mr. Howe: Not generally. Because of their jurisdiction, we would not take a Transport Canada official with us, but we would certainly be using our own regulations and our own practices and auditing.
Mr. Miller: Are you auditing the procedures of the Government of the Philippines with respect to aircraft, or are you auditing the procedures at the airport into which you will operate?
Mr. Howe: It is a bit of both. The person to answer this more specifically is Cliff Hooper, and I could get more detailed information in response to that question. Cliff will audit what is available, and the audit would be reviewed. He would also review the policies of that government if we have unruly passengers or matters of that nature. We do a security assessment of the hotels. It is fairly thorough. Cliff is knowledgeable of the government's approach to security at airports as well as the individual airport itself, and it varies, as you know.
Mr. Miller: I am not asking this question as a criticism of Canadian Airlines, but this subcommittee is particularly interested in the fact that Transport Canada is capable of undertaking these safety oversight audits. Indeed, they have the authority to put into the bilateral agreement itself a provision for a safety audit by the Government of Canada in the same manner that the United States conducts its own safety audits when an air carrier in some country wants to fly into the United States. I was just trying to establish for the subcommittee what role our aviation authority has in helping you go into a new flying destination.
Mr. Howe: It is an excellent point, and I do not have at my fingertips what role we would like them to play, but we will certainly look at that.
Mr. Weatherly: Since we will be operating 747-400s there, I contacted my counterpart at United Airlines who has a very large operation into Manila and asked him if there were any particular problems, what their procedures were, what they used, what the air traffic control was like, ground handling, et cetera. He sent me a package which I, the chief pilot, and the manager of standards and training examined. We sent the chief pilot over and he had a look at the operation. Prior to going there, we talked to Philippine Airlines' director of flight operations and obtained some feedback from them. We then came back and developed our procedures.
I and our chief pilot did the inaugural trip and debriefed our other check pilots who then did a series of trips until we came up with our printed instructions to our line crews prior to their starting to fly in there. That kind of cooperation on an international level goes on every day.
Senator Roberge: Why do you audit hotels?
Mr. Markey: We are concerned about crew security. It is the whole system, and we take care of everyone.
Mr. Howe: It would be a little difficult to audit all the hotels for our passengers, but we definitely do that for where our crews stay.
Mr. Markey: We also audit any airline upon which we ask our crews to fly. The audit function extends far beyond the in-plane experience.
The Chairman: This area of questioning is an expression of the sub-committee's concern versus the development of a culture of safety among us and among all of you gentlemen and all of you users and operators. It is, more importantly, a reflection of our belief that to hold the safety levels that we enjoy here in Canada we must go more and more offshore to ensure that the places to which you are carrying Canadians meets every standard that we would require for ourselves. You are the ambassadors of that, and you are the doers of that. To that end, the audit becomes an increasingly important part of our dialogue having to do with recognition of the fact that the pilot will shortly will be another functionary on the airplane. The aircraft will be flown by the ground people. Four or five people will have an absolute responsibility with respect to that aircraft from beginning to end, and the pilot will be the foreman.
I am just saying that to the degree that many of our accidents are pilot error, quote unquote, there must be an answer to that, and the collegiality provides the answer. It is attitude. It is an acceptance of the need for a new culture and an acceptance for the need for the gentleman on the left-hand seat to recognize that it takes more than one man to look after the safety of the 200 or 300 people behind him. We would be hard pressed to write a report which said that aviation in Canada can be made safer. Of course it can, but it would be almost imperceptible.
Mr. Bruce Carson, Senior Advisor, Subcommittee on Transportation Safety: We have been asked as part of our terms of reference to look to the future and the safety issues that will arise in the early part of the next century. In your response to Senator Forrestall's question in that regard, could you put your minds to that as well and tell us what you believe will be the safety issues that arise between 2010 and 2025. Perhaps you can also comment on how they might be addressed so that we can respond to them in our report and give some direction to the government and to the industry in general as to how to deal with these issues now, knowing that they are coming.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, could you could address that in light of my earlier question? It has a philosophical overtone, as I am sure you recognize.
Mr. Markey: You have asked a fascinating question, and it is probably one we will take away with us and do some reflection on. Understanding the environment in which we will be operating in 2025 bears relevance to the future of our company. Sometimes we focus a little more on the next year, not the next decade or two decades.
I suspect, based on what I have seen in the last while, that the pace of change in the aviation world, which has been dramatic in recent years, will continue, and the change that is generated as a result will influence the dynamics, the operations, the viability and many other aspects of the major operating air carriers. The world is getting smaller as planes become technologically more sophisticated. We are only a short time away from planes which have ranges that were not dreamt of, making the world a smaller place, bringing it much closer together, changing travel patterns, and changing the way people approach flying. Faster travel times will influence how people will travel, how often they travel, and where they travel.
The entire infrastructure surrounding the industry in Canada is changing even as we speak. We have watched dramatic changes over the last decade with deregulation, and then again in the last three years with the end of the new international air policy, which we believe is working soundly and well and should be sustained and maintained in its current position.
The border between Canada and the United States has been transformed. A few short years ago, we flew ten flights across that border on a daily basis to five cities. We now have a thousand flights across the border with our partner American Airlines. Other major carriers in Canada have committed tremendous resources to the transport market. The volume of people travelling continues to increase. The frequency of travel continues to increase as the ease of travel continues to improve for people. All of these characteristics will dominate the evolution of the industry in years to come.
We would like to think that safety and efficiency will remain the hallmarks of our culture and the values underlying our commitment to our passengers. I do not think that will change. I really cannot believe that that will change. We may approach the market differently, and we may approach serving the markets differently, but I doubt very much we would ever compromise on those two underlying values.
Mr. Weatherly: There will also be far more reliance placed on satellite navigation than there is today as a means of air traffic control, at all times being aware of where the aircraft is and the magic CNSATM, which is Communications Navigation Surveillance Air Traffic Management. This is coming down the track very quickly.
We are trying to get out in front of what is happening at Canadian. As I mentioned earlier, we have just equipped our 747 fleet with global positioning systems. This is the first step. We are now talking to some vendors about equipping our entire 737 fleet with GPS, as well as our DC-10 fleet. Once we have those done, we will be looking at our other two fleet types, the 767 and the A-320.
With SATCOM and SAT navigation, the controller can sit in Vancouver or Winnipeg or wherever and see an aircraft on the other side of the Pacific. With computer assistance, he will be able to determine whether there will be a conflict with another aircraft. The aircraft will even be able to communicate automatically with one another to give warnings to the pilots that there is a possible conflict long before you get there so you can start to do something to avoid that. TCAS was the first step in this direction. We get alerts now from other aircraft, which is a great enhancement to safety. This will continue to come down the track.
You asked about reducing the accident rate by 50 per cent. Approximately three aircraft a year now are involved in terrain accidents, but a few years ago that was the number one cause of accidents. Ground proximity warning devices did much to resolve that, and they are still being enhanced. They are now working on an enhanced proximity warning device which runs off the GPS, which is another reason for going to GPS. We will have a database on board the aircraft. If you ever attempt to make a turn toward a mountain, long before you got there you would get an automated warning from the computer system on board that there is terrain out there that you will not clear if you continue on your present heading and altitude.
A task force is looking into control fighting the terrain and I happen to be a member of it. It started with the flight safety foundation. We have done a good deal of work there with an individual by the name of Don Bateman, who is from an engineering company in the U.S. which has done much work on improving ground proximity warning devices.
Five years from now, because of improvements, I do not think you will recognize the technology compared to what we have in the cockpits today. Carriers like Canadian will adopt those new technology improvements very quickly, and that will help us hold down and reduce the accident rate. Much of it will depend on technology and improvement, and they are coming very rapidly.
Mr. Howe: I am heartened by the subcommittee looking forward in this area. I do not claim to be a visionary, but in the years 2010 to 2025 I would see an increased amount of passenger traffic through airports. I would see the airport development being an ongoing thing. As a matter of fact. in Vancouver they are now looking at further expansion.
In my view, the answer to passenger screening, bag screening and security at airports lies with technology. We must get into technology which will give us the ability to quickly screen the passengers and their bags. If I can put a pitch out for the airlines, there will be a very high cost associated with this. If it is to be a Canadian concern, we should all share in how we would go about that. I do not see us holding still with the security system we have now. Personally, I would like to see us ahead of the explosion of passenger traffic, and I welcome an observation by this subcommittee in that area.
Mr. Watkins: Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the insight to look forward to 2010 and 2025. Realistically, all evening, through this presentation, we have tried to portray that if there is a single solution, it is a proactive culture which accepts safety as part of your daily operation. There is no single, simple answer, but we need a system that is receptive and open and ready to search out problems as they develop, or to be a bit of a visionary and see them coming.
Captain Weatherly mentioned TCAS, the Terminal Collision Avoidance System. That technology has revolutionized the way that we do some of our business. Many of those changes coming down. The industry has dealt well with them, and the entire culture is receptive to that and open to understanding that safety is part of our everyday business. For that reason, regardless of what we see in 2010 or 2025, the industry will be able to continue the way we are now and, at least, lower the rate.
I believe we will embrace the technology, but the corporate culture must be there as well. You cannot simply talk about it; it must be part of your daily life. I hope we have been able this evening to put that across, because we believe it.
Mr. Miller: Captain Weatherly, will this new technology include better systems for the so-called CFT problem, the control flight in the terrain?
Mr. Weatherly: In my opinion, it will, and I think they will do it largely through the improved ground proximity warning devices which will be tied in with the GPS navigation devices through a data basis so we will know the exact height of all terrain in the immediate area. Today, if you are in cloud and you look at the charts, you are guessing within five miles, and that is not very accurate in modern jet aircraft. With GPS, we will know within about ten feet of where we are at any given time, and we will certainly get ample warning of terrain problems. Today's systems maybe give you 60 seconds warning, which sometimes unfortunately is not enough time to recover from the situation in which you find yourself. This type of technology improvement will make a big difference, in my opinion.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, you have left me and I am sure the members of the subcommittee with some belief and hope that we may be able to fly twice as many people with the same incident rate we enjoy today. That will come about if you think safety, if the culture is developed, if on the day you enter the company the sign is in front of you, and if, as leaders, you demonstrate it rather than teach it.
The committee adjourned.