Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 11, 1997
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 11:01 a.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety is continuing its study of safety in travel for Canadians today, with some emphasis on the work we will do over the next year and where we would like to be 10 to 15 years into the new millennium. We are all aware of the challenges that face each sector of transportation, not only in Canada but around the world.
Before I welcome our guests, I shall deal with one procedural matter.
It has been my practice, at or near the end of senators' questioning of witnesses, to invite our professional staff to tidy up what we may have left unsaid. After all, they have to do much of the preparation of the notes. I should not have assumed that right. It was probably a carryover from my days in the other place.
I must ask members of the subcommittee if they will give formal approval for our professional staff, should they have questions, to ask them late in the questioning of the witnesses.
I am now asking for leave for that, which is the proper way of going about it.
Do I have that leave?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
With us today from Air Canada are Mr. Geoffrey Elliot, Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Government Relations; Captain Wayne MacLellan, Vice-President, Flight Operations; and Mr. Dave Ramage, Director, Maintenance Quality and Engineering.
Please proceed.
Mr. Geoffrey Elliot, Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Government Relations, Air Canada: My two colleagues have, combined, over 60 years of aviation experience. I can claim only two or three years of aviation experience with Air Canada and a few years in government, where I was Chief Air Negotiator in the Department of External Affairs about 12 years ago.
On behalf of Air Canada, we welcome this opportunity to appear before you today. We recognize that the work you are doing is important. It is a matter of ongoing interest and concern to the general public that our aviation system be safe.
I should like to begin by making a short opening statement. Following that, we will be happy to answer questions. I anticipate that my associates will be able to answer those questions which I cannot. If there are any questions we are unable to answer today, we will commit to get back to you with the answers; although I hope that will not become necessary.
There is nothing more important to Air Canada than its reputation as a safe and reliable airline. There is a sophisticated regulatory environment covering safety-related issues to which Air Canada fully subscribes and supports. Beyond the regulatory environment, it is also fair and accurate to say that, for obvious reasons, the safety of our passengers, employees and all others who come in contact with Air Canada is a prominent consideration in every decision we make.
I am aware that earlier this year members of this committee had an extensive tour of our Montreal maintenance facilities, as well as an opportunity to speak with our senior management and staff, probably on some of the same issues that we will address today. I understand that the visit was regarded as a useful experience by those who participated and I certainly hope that the on-the-ground exposure to our maintenance base and our people provided direct evidence of the priority and care that Air Canada gives to safety.
As many of you know, this year marks the 60th anniversary of Air Canada. Air Canada is the largest Canadian-based international air carrier providing scheduled and charter air transportation for passengers and cargo. Together with its regional connector airlines, Air Canada serves 118 destinations with a combined fleet of 225. This number will change because we are engaged in the acquisition of new aircraft as we speak. On any given day, that number may be somewhat different from the one I have mentioned.
The corporation's passenger route network offers scheduled services to approximately 50 cities in Canada and 42 cities in the United States. Air Canada serves directly 22 cities in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and the Caribbean. We also provide charter passenger services to four international destinations on a seasonal basis. Air Canada's cargo division serves numerous destinations in Canada and internationally, with sales representation in approximately 80 countries around the world.
Air Canada is also a member of the Star Alliance, which was established earlier in 1997. It is the first multi-carrier strategic alliance among major international airlines.
Air Canada's Star Alliance partners are United Airlines of the United States, Lufthansa, the Scandinavian Airline System, Thai International and, most recently, Brazil's International Airline, Varig. As well, Air Canada maintains commercial relationships which include joint marketing, co-chairing and other commercial arrangements with nine other international airlines.
With its strategic alliance and other commercial partners, today Air Canada offers scheduled and charter air transportation to over 645 destinations in more than 122 countries around the world.
Air Canada also has Canada's largest fleet of jet aircraft, accounting for about 155 aircraft. We have nine Boeing 747s, 29 Boeing 767 aircraft, and 65 Airbus aircraft of varying types -- the 319, the 320 and the larger 340 aircraft. As well, we still have 28 of our original 35 DC9 fleet. We also have 24 Canadian-built CL-65 Regional Jets. Air Canada also has 26 additional Airbus aircraft on order for delivery over the next several years.
Our regional connector subsidiaries also operate 60 Canadian-built Dash 8 aircraft, making Air Canada and its affiliates the largest operator of Canadian-manufactured aircraft in the world, with a total of 84 aircraft.
Air Canada originally intended to dispose of its entire 35-aircraft fleet of DC-9s with the arrival of our brand-new Airbus 319s. However, as a result of Open Skies and the rapid expansion of Air Canada, we have decided to retain at least some of those DC-9s for an indefinite period. We are currently deciding how many DC-9s we will put through what we call our "re-energizing program" which includes an updated pressurization control system, engine hush kits, updated avionics, and a bright new interior with new galleys and new seating configuration.
More important than having Canada's largest fleet, Air Canada has Canada's newest fleet, and one of the youngest in the industry. The average age in Air Canada's fleet today is approximately 9.9 years. That figure will improve further as we phase out more of our older aircraft, particularly the Boeing 747-100 and -200 series aircraft that will be replaced by brand-new A340s in 1999.
We maintain our aircraft to world-class standards at two major maintenance bases. The Winnipeg base performs all heavy maintenance on Airbus single-aisle aircraft -- that is, the A319s and A320s. They also do third-party maintenance for Airbus aircraft of other airlines, which is an important part of our business activity. The major Air Canada maintenance base at Dorval provides technical support to the entire system, as well as maintenance support for all aircraft component systems and heavy maintenance for the DC-9, 767, 747-400, A340 and the CL-65 RJ aircraft. We have additional maintenance facilities at Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver that perform line maintenance functions.
Our principal owned-and-leased maintenance properties include over 2.5 million square feet of work space. That work space is divided into four prime activities: airframe maintenance, component maintenance, engine maintenance, and support services.
It is Air Canada's policy and practice to meet or exceed all Transport Canada regulatory requirements regarding all aspects of aircraft maintenance. Aircraft are inspected and maintained through a wide range of regulated and internally developed procedures, each with its own level of detail. The prime criteria governing checks is tailored to each aircraft type. All aircraft are subject to the same basic guidelines. The interval between checks normally is based on flying hours or elapsed time.
To give you some examples, prior to every flight, when the aircraft has been sitting for more than two hours, a mechanic or pilot conducts a visual examination of the aircraft's exterior. Approximately every day, varying between 24 and 48 hours, aircraft receive a service check where items such as tire pressure and fluid levels are verified. Roughly every month, each aircraft goes into the hangar for a scheduled check, which lasts from eight to ten hours, again depending on the aircraft type. About once a year, all aircraft undergo a thorough examination and testing of the key systems, such as landing gear, navigation systems and hydraulics.
The most intensive check is performed about once every five years and can take up to a month to complete. During that process, an aircraft undergoes a complete structural verification, which involves a total strip down of the aircraft and the removal of the interior. The entire structure is then examined for corrosion, metal fatigue and other indications of wear.
Robin Wohnsigl, our new Vice-President, Technical Operations, unfortunately was unable to be here today. He spent 33 years in aviation maintenance in the U.S. before joining Air Canada a few months ago. He has already indicated to us his view that the quality of our aircraft maintenance and mechanics is generally better than that which he experienced in the United States. In his opinion, our mechanics know the aircraft better and have better skills.
Mr. Wohnsigl also prefers the Canadian licensing system because of the specific aircraft-type ratings; he believes it to be superior to that which exists in the United States.
He has also expressed his satisfaction with the new graduates from Canadian technical schools. He believes that the occupational standards and training curriculum developed by the Canadian Aviation Maintenance Council, the CAMC, fully meets the needs of the industry.
Pilot recruiting and training is a very important aspect of airline safety and of our operations. Because of the rapid expansion of transborder and international routes, Air Canada has hired about 550 pilots over the last 2.5 years, and we have plans to hire an additional 250 pilots in 1998. Each and every candidate has to meet extremely demanding and stringent requirements to qualify for consideration at Air Canada. As you might imagine, Air Canada has the pick of the best available candidates in Canada.
Upon being hired, Air Canada pilots undergo a rigorous training agenda that begins two weeks of orientation into the airline. It includes company operations, route manuals, weather, jet performance, flight planning, security, carriage of dangerous goods and safety equipment.
Orientation training is followed by up to three weeks of ground training on the specific aircraft type the pilots will fly. After ground training, new pilots receive a comprehensive aircraft course consisting of up to 12 four-hour periods in flight simulators, followed by a proficiency check, administered by Transport Canada.
Prior to qualification, pilots must undergo further route orientation and aircraft familiarization.
Even that is not the end of the road for the training of our pilots. Every six months, qualified pilots return to the simulator for training; and annually, they receive a Transport Canada delegated check ride on the simulator and on the aircraft type they fly. Once a year, Air Canada pilots undergo additional training, which covers, among other subjects, procedures for hazardous materials and safety equipment. A portion of this annual training is conducted together with flight attendants on board and concentrates on communication among crew members.
Medical standards for pilots are as rigid as those in the classroom. Pilots under 40 years of age undergo physical examinations every 12 months, while those over 40 years old are examined twice a year.
All Air Canada pilot training meets or exceeds standards set by Transport Canada and is recognized throughout the aviation community as among the best in the industry. The airline also provides classroom, computer-based and simulator training to the pilots of other companies, and has hosted crews from more than 30 of the world's airlines.
The promulgation of Canadian aviation regulations in 1996 was the result of a significant effort by those sharing the responsibility for airline safety in Canada. We believe that the new regulations represent an improvement in overall air safety management.
Aviation safety is a non-competitive, cooperative effort comprising government, regulatory agencies, industry organizations, manufacturers, unions, airport groups, air traffic and navigation organizations, as well as the airlines.
Air Canada has always been active in promoting air transport safety with all these groups. It is a part of the culture of the industry to share all safety-related information to ensure that all involved and interested parties may effectively contribute to aviation safety.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I would now be more than happy to take your questions. I hope that there may be one or two of them that even I may be able to answer.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have had Open Skies and deregulation now for quite some time. In the beginning, there were frequent charges that safety could be compromised unduly by the deregulation process, that is, by cutting corners. For example, not only Air Canada but also other airlines have reduced the number of flight attendants per passenger. Indeed, Senator Kenny wrote extensively about this last summer.
Do you see any deterioration of flight safety in Canada as a direct or indirect result of Open Skies?
Mr. Elliot: It is very important to make a distinction between economic regulation and safety regulation. Certainly, there has been a removal of economic regulation that relates to where airlines are permitted to operate and the prices that they charge for their services. However, there has been no change or dilution of the stringent regulatory framework that exists with respect to airline safety. Everyone in the airline is confident that that has not been compromised at all.
I would invite my colleagues to add to that if there is any specific information that they want to provide.
Captain Wayne MacLellan, Vice-President, Flight Operations, Air Canada: With the introduction of the new civil aviation regulations, I believe that any concerns about safety have been answered. It has not affected Air Canada or Canadian, but some of the third-level carriers and perhaps other aviation operations in other parts of the country have been affected positively by CARs as far as flight safety is concerned.
The Chairman: The safety of Canadian flying passengers does not begin when you get on board a plane in Halifax and end when you get off it in Toronto. Perhaps you are going to Calcutta or Indonesia, or anywhere else in the world. The safety of Canadians is comfortable here at home. We are fortunate to have major carriers with the level of competency of Air Canada and Canadian. However, it is a big world. You are flying people all over the world. Perhaps later I will get into some questions about how you monitor safety and react to safety standards and how you handle our external operations from the point of view of safety of a Canadian that you or one of your partners may be carrying.
Senator Bacon: I will read a letter from one of my colleagues. It states:
I have been concerned about transportation safety for some time, quite particularly as it relates to some of Air Canada's planes. Specifically, the 50 seat CL 65 (CRJ) and the Dash 8300 (DH8).
Air Canada successfully petitioned the Department of Transportation to raise the ratio of one flight attendant per 40 passengers to one flight attendant per 50 passengers -- a 25 per cent decrease in safety.
As you know, the principal purpose of flight attendants is not to serve drinks and peanuts, it is to provide for flight safety and, in particular, assist passengers evacuating the plane in the event of a crash.
I heard devastating stories and saw a most compelling video tape presented by the Flight Attendants Union which convinced me that Transport Canada and Air Canada have made a serious mistake in allowing only one flight attendant on these two types of aircraft.
I sincerely believe that we are putting passenger lives unnecessarily at risk in the event of a crash and the attached clippings may be of some assistant to you in describing the problem.
I would urge that you hear from the Flight Attendants Union and ask to view their compelling material.
Would you care to respond to the concerns of my colleague?
Mr. Elliot: We are familiar with the concerns that have been expressed by your colleague, Senator Kenny. I have a fairly thick file of correspondence between my office and Senator Kenny's in the past. Your question does not come as any surprise.
The regulations relating to the number of flight attendants on board our aircraft are consistent North America-wide. Our regulations are no different from those in the United States. This matter was considered carefully by the safety regulatory authorities in both countries, and we and they are confident that safety was not compromised in the decision related to the flight attendants on board our 50-seat aircraft. We are confident that the senator is mistaken in his concerns that he has expressed widely in a number of articles that he has had published in newspapers.
I would encourage the senator to direct his attention -- that is, if he is still concerned about that -- to the regulatory authorities responsible for the changes having been made.
Senator Bacon: Are you are telling me that, in other airlines, it is one flight attendant per 50 passengers?
Mr. Elliot: It is the standard in North America.
Senator Bacon: Are you aware of any crash or problem associated with having only one flight attendant present on the aircraft?
Mr. MacLellan: I am not aware of any. When we petitioned Transport Canada to look at this, we had to do a test to prove that we could meet the certification standards of moving those people off the airplane in a safe manner with one flight attendant. That was only for the CL-65, or the Regional Jet. For all our other airplanes, it is still one in 40 because of the number of passengers on board, as well as the number of exits.
Again, Transport Canada agreed with us that this is a certifiable process, and North American Airlines use this standard for those types of airplanes, namely, one in 50.
Senator Bacon: Is the union concerned about the number of employees? Is that their first concern, or is it safety?
Mr. MacLellan: I would be disappointed if their primary concern is jobs. I do believe that their concern is safety. I do not believe, however, that it is a safety issue because of coordination with Transport Canada.
Senator Bacon: What changes with regard to air traffic control have taken place with the advent of NAV CANADA? Do any of these changes impact on safety?
Mr. MacLellan: From my perception and the perception of Air Canada, it has assisted in the flight operations area. We are finding much more consultation with NAV CANADA in areas of concern, and much more openness, for whatever reason. It has been excellent. In one particular station, we have introduced a trial procedure that will add to flight safety as well as the efficiency of the system. The controller has more time to monitor the situation. It is good for him, and it is good for the operations.
Senator Bacon: A subcommittee of the U.S. Senate held hearings in April and May of this year on transportation by air of hazardous materials. This became a subject of concern following the ValuJet incident.
Have there been any changes in hazardous material regulations or procedures in Canada since this accident? Would you give us some background on existing regulations and proceedings?
Mr. MacLellan: There have been no changes of which I am aware.
Our rules and regulation training, from my experience, appears to be more comprehensive than that of some of the American carriers. We have a consistent annual training program for our personnel. We support the IATA and ICAO rules on the handling of hazardous goods, and our cargo people are well trained and retrained on an annual basis. I have no concerns myself, and I have not identified any concerns.
Mr. Dave Ramage, Director, Maintenance Quality and Engineering, Air Canada: There have been no changes in the way we carry goods. We have had procedures, limitations, and practices in place which restrict what goods can be carried and what cannot.
When we talk about specific accidents, we must look into the problem and what was being carried. In the particular case to which you are referring, that is a situation that we, ourselves, would never face.
Senator Bacon: That would never occur here?
Mr. Ramage: No.
Senator Bacon: We understand that the system of extinguishing a fire in an aircraft has, first, the warning lights, and then the activation of the fire extinguisher system from the flight deck. What is the possibility of a similar system in the belly hold of an all-passenger aircraft? What is the present system? Does it vary between older and newer aircraft?
Mr. Ramage: There are a number of different standards and regulations regarding lower-deck cargo holds. Generally, they are based on the size of the cargo hold. The ones to which you refer would be called a Class D compartment. They are cargo compartments that do not require any type of suppression or detection by virtue of the fact that they are small in volume and they are fairly well sealed. Any fire would not be self-sustaining in such an environment. We have never had a problem in that regard.
We have aircraft right now, such as DC-9s, A320s and, up until recently, some of our A319s, with Class D cargo compartments with no detection or suppression system around them. Because of last year's accident in the U.S. to which you referred earlier, the industry has given that whole thing another review. The airline community has voluntarily agreed to, in effect, install such systems on all airplanes. In other words, there would be no more Class D cargo compartments.
We, along with many other airlines in the world, are now either taking delivery of new aircraft with all of the fire suppression-detection systems installed or are embarking on a retrofit program to modify the airplanes.
The 747s, 767s, and A340s have those systems already built in. They are not subject to this retrofit requirement.
The Chairman: I wish to be clear about this point. How many of your aircraft are without that option at the present time?
Mr. Ramage: Our DC-9s, at the moment, have Class D cargo compartments.
The Chairman: But they have no oxygen suppressant?
Mr. Ramage: No. There is no detection for fire suppression. When I talk about suppression, I am talking about a fire-extinguishing system.
The Chairman: Yes. You do not spray water; you use something that uses up oxygen very quickly. How many planes do you have that do not have that system?
Mr. Ramage: Our DC-9s; we have 28 of them. They will be modified beginning next year.
The Chairman: Will you go to the expense to do that? It is an expensive venture for you, is it not?
Mr. Ramage: It is a relatively expensive venture. Part of the expense, which is not generally recognized, is incurred in taking the aircraft out of service to be modified. It does not simply involve the cost of the parts and the man-hours to modify the airline; the length of time the aircraft is out of service, as well as the loss of revenue over that period, are factors, as well. It is a fairly extensive modification from that point of view; but, yes, we have committed to it.
Our first airplanes with Class D, being the A319s, are being modified as of this month. We have taken delivery of the first one with the new system installed. We had Airbus do the modifications for us prior to delivery; but in the case of the 319s, that modification is under way.
Senator Roberge: What is your oldest plane? It is a DC-9, I gather.
Mr. Ramage: I am not exactly sure. I can get back to you with that information. It would have been delivered around 1967, somewhere in that area.
Senator Roberge: Have any of them been re-skinned?
Mr. Ramage: We have a re-skinning program as part of our corrosion prevention control program and part of our DC-9 program. That program is based on maintenance that we do on the airline that looks for problems in the skins.
The DC-9 airplane happens to be a good airplane with respect to corrosion resistance. When we bought those airplanes, indeed, when we buy any new airplane, we go to special efforts to put corrosion-resisting compounds on the skin. Our inspection program is geared to look for corrosion.
Senator Roberge: But there is no set rule within the industry or within Air Canada which stipulates that, for example, if a plane is 30 years old, it would have to be re-skinned if that had not been done?
Mr. Ramage: It would not be re-skinned on spec; it would be re-skinned for cause. You would not re-skin it if you did an inspection program and found everything to be perfectly normal. There is a mandatory industry requirement to inspect areas of the airplane, especially those areas where you suspect that there might be some difficulty, such as around lavatories, service panels, and the bilge areas under cargo holds. However, if no fault is found, you are not required to re-skin the airplane.
It is only logical that after you have had an airplane in service a number of years you will get into it. With the wear and tear, it will eventually need to be replaced.
Senator Roberge: I should like to return to the NAV CANADA issue. One union vice-president who appeared here said that they do many overtime hours; that sometimes they work nine days in row.
That is a cause of concern for us because of fatigue and lack of sharpness. What is your opinion? I gather that someone from your company sits on the board?
Mr. MacLellan: I talk to the operational people all the time. Their vice-president of operations has taken that as one area which he would like to resolve.
Presently, I believe that there are some surplus air traffic controllers in the maritime area and there is a consolidation going on. Those people will be moved into the Toronto area, where there was a lot of overtime, and further west. That should solve the overtime problem, or the fatigue problem, if there is one.
We have not had many -- I am talking about one or two; they are rare -- problems with controllers giving wrong instructions or having conflicts airborne. It has not been a problem to this point. It is probably an objective not to have overtime, however. I agree with you there.
Senator Roberge: Does Air Canada have someone on the board?
Mr. Elliot: No. The industry has nominees on the board of NAV CANADA, but individual companies do not have their own representatives on the board.
Senator Roberge: Let me ask you a question about the year 2000 and computers. I am sure you are well aware of the difficulty surrounding that. Where does Air Canada stand regarding that difficulty? Will all of your systems be converted? I should also like the same question directed toward NAV CANADA.
Mr. Elliot: Air Canada is an extensive user of computer-based technology. The millennium problem for computers was identified quite some time ago in the airline. We have an extensive and expensive program in place to deal with it.
I cannot talk to the specific areas of Air Canada that will be vulnerable to the year 2000 bug.
Mr. MacLellan: I cannot add anything. We are working on the problem.
Senator Roberge: I am aware that you are involved. Only a certain percentage of our corporations in Canada are already involved, unfortunately.
Perhaps you can get back to the committee with information on where you stand today and where you will stand by the time December 31, 1999 arrives.
Mr. Elliot: We have identified the areas that must be dealt with and we have committed the funds, time and competence to ensure that we will not experience a problem in the year 2000 with our computers. I can say that with some confidence.
We are also engaged actively with the Minister of Industry's Project 2000. Our chief information officer is involved directly in the work of that task force. We are contributing the competence that we have developed in looking at this issue over the last several years to the more broadly based solutions that are required in Canadian industry.
Senator Roberge: What is the status of NAV CANADA with regard to that situation?
Mr. Elliot: I am not aware. However, I am confident that they are aware of the issue and are working on it.
Senator Roberge: We will bring them back to find out about that.
What about pilot fatigue? There have been studies conducted by various American airlines on that subject. Have there been any studies commissioned by Air Canada? What is your opinion on pilot fatigue?
Mr. MacLellan: We are very conscious of pilot fatigue.
We rely on studies that are done primarily by NASA. There was an excellent study done in Europe by Airbus Industries on crew fatigue.
Based on that, and in conjunction with our association, our contract recognizes that there are periods, time-zone changes which should restrict a pilot's hours of work. That is basically the way we handle it.
We also participate in a committee in conjunction with our association. If they identify a series of flights as being onerous or fatiguing, then we have an opportunity to get together and address that concern. That has worked very well over the years. I am assuming that it will continue to work well for us.
Senator Roberge: On some of those long flights, for example, would you bring in another pilot or other staff?
Mr. MacLellan: We do have augmentation requirements, which are more restrictive than the Transport Canada rules, as a result of some of the information received from our association over the years.
Senator Roberge: We have had some criticism about the safety board. I should like to know what you think of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board.
Mr. MacLellan: In general, I thought the board was working as it should. There is definitely a requirement for a TSB in Canada. I have no negative comments about the Transportation Safety Board.
Mr. Elliot: We have a good working relationship with the Transportation Safety Board. When there are requirements to discuss specific incidents or events with them, they normally give us an opportunity to work with them on their draft reports. Our experience is that the work that they do is to the very highest technical standards.
Generally we find ourselves in agreement with their findings. They are receptive to our observations about their draft reports; and where there are differences with respect to interpretations or facts, they will listen to the arguments that our people make.
In general, our relationship with the Transportation Safety Board is a positive one. They are a highly competent and a well-run organization.
Senator Roberge: What about their speed in transmitting a report?
Mr. Elliot: I do not have any observations on that.
Mr. MacLellan: Are you inquiring as to the length of time from an incident occurring to the reporting? Again, I am at a loss.
Mr. Elliot: I am not aware of any problems in that area. However, from Air Canada's point of view, we would much prefer to see a good report than a quick report.
The Chairman: Would you sooner see a report so that action can be taken? The current board has no teeth whatsoever. If there is any delay in filing the report, then corrective action is delayed; for example, if legislative action were necessary. That is a relevant point. If it is not important to you, I would suggest that you think about it from another point of view. There are always other points of view.
Mr. Elliot: I do not disagree with what you are saying. The question you put concerned the timeliness of their reports. I am saying that we do not have a problem with the timeliness of their reports. However, I agree that where deficiencies are identified as a result of their investigations it is important that they be conveyed in a timely manner, allowing for remedial action as quickly as possible. I do not think there is any disagreement between us on that subject.
Mr. Ramage: I do not want anyone here to get the impression that if we had been involved with the Transportation Safety Board we would wait for a report to come out before we take any action. Our experience has been that we often take action before the investigation begins.
As Mr. Elliott pointed out, we hold safety above everything else. We will do whatever is necessary and make the tough calls. We do not need someone to tell us what we should be doing. We will do whatever is necessary to assure a level of safety.
In my limited experience with the Safety Board, I would agree with Mr. MacLellan that they are professional. I have the utmost respect for them. If there is a question as to the length of time that the reports take to come out, that is an academic point for us as we have probably long since acted on the problem that was identified. The case has probably been closed by that time.
Senator Adams: My concern involves what happened a couple of days ago at Little Grand Rapids. You were discussing the age of pilots and the periods of flying time during the year. Some pilots used to be bush pilots and now they are flying a 737 aircraft.
What regulations are in place to prevent what happened in Manitoba, for example, where four people were killed? From what I have heard so far, the pilot may have been too young. What controls are in place to prevent that type of situation?
Mr. Elliot: I spoke a bit about the program of training of pilots in my introductory comments. Unfortunately, you missed that, but you will have the text in your package.
If I understand your question, it relates to your concern that our pilots are properly trained, particularly given the rapid expansion of our complement of pilots at the airline.
Mr. MacLellan will give you assurance on that.
Mr. MacLellan: As the chairman has pointed out, we have a positive feeling about our training standards of pilots in Canada. We have an excellent oversight group in Transport Canada that ensures that we do what we say we will do. That is within the large carriers.
I cannot speak for some of the other carriers or other operations in Canada. Transport Canada does have an impossible situation, in some cases, to monitor the activities of the operators in Canada.
However, we large air carriers spend a great deal of time and effort to make sure that our pilots are very highly trained, in comparison with other countries in the world.
Senator Adams: What I heard about that aircraft is that it was not able to withstand the conditions such as ice and freezing rain. You have nothing to do with that, however. That is for Transport Canada. Does any other department or organization have a say in whether that plane flies or is it just a matter that as long as the airplane can fly, someone will fly it?
Mr. MacLellan: No. Even the small carriers are governed by the same rules and regulations as we are. The new CARs spell out in great detail -- much more so than the old air regulations -- the requirements for pilot training and pilot retraining. The rules and regulations governing an approach and landing are also contained in a standard in the new CARs. Those people are governed by those regulations consistently across the Canadian aviation scene.
Senator Adams: We have two only official languages recognized in Canada. However, in remote areas of the Arctic, where we do not have highways, the only way to get in and out is by air. NWT Air connects to Air Canada. Canadian Airlines has a licence to operate in the territories. The majority of people are natives but some of the elders do not understand the language when there is a discussion about safety.
Until about a year ago, safety announcements were translated into native languages; however, presently, NWT Air and Canadian Airlines only use French and English. Is that regulated by Transport Canada or is it up to each individual airline?
Mr. MacLellan: I will have to plead ignorance on that. I have been on flights, with a company you would probably consider to be from the south, in Northern Ontario, where they did have three languages on the emergency information cards, but I do not know about NWT Air and Canadian, which fly in the territories.
Senator Adams: Even a translation for take off, telling passengers to put their seats in the upright position and to make sure their luggage is underneath the seats, and so on, would be good. Some people who do not understand French or English at all will say, "I do not know what you are talking about." That translation service used to be there. Now we only have French and English. At First Air, three languages were used -- Inuit, French and English. From Montreal to Ottawa, there are only two languages used, English and French. There are thousands of passengers and patients who fly from Baffin Island each year and now we will be based in Ottawa. I want to know who is responsible for regulating the languages used in regard to notification of safety. Is it Transport Canada or the airlines?
Mr. MacLellan: In Air Canada, we have a rule where we have a route language. If we end up flying to Germany, Korea or Japan, we will have a route language and there will be people trained in the route languages as well as English or French. However, on domestic flights, I have to plead ignorance on the requirement.
The Standards and Operations Division of Transport Canada would have the answer to that question. If no rule or regulation exists regarding that issue to which you refer, they would certainly support having that language available for people on an airplane in those areas.
Senator Bacon: In the first paragraph on page 5, you mention that you hired approximately 550 pilots over the last two and-a-half years and plan to hire an additional 250 pilots in 1998.
I can appreciate that pilots undergo rigorous training with Air Canada, but where will you find 250 more pilots that you want to hire?
Mr. MacLellan: Air Canada is in a very fortunate position, because it is seen as a leader in Canada. There has been a pent-up demand in the airline industry over the last 10 years. There is a great deal of experience out there. We have been fortunate to get people with hours experience as well as having the highest licences possible. Even though it is not a requirement, in some cases the only way we have been discriminating is that we have demanded university degrees on top of all this pilot experience. We are still hiring who have 5,000 hours plus a university degree and, in some cases, graduate degrees. We are very fortunate.
However, at the front end of the aviation stream, we are beginning to see an increased requirement for pilots. Of course, they need people to train those pilots; as such, there may be some difficulty gaining experience as well as keeping experienced people.
Senator Bacon: Would some come from special schools where they are already trained?
Mr. MacLellan: We do not hire any pilots straight out of school. Most of our pilots have worked for at least one other company, in most cases two or three. They could be from the military, executive jet pilots or regional airline pilots. They could also have been long-time instructors at schools. They are very experienced.
Mr. Elliot was talking about the initial course that we give our pilots. We only have to give them a two-week initial course, on entry into Air Canada, primarily because they have been in the aviation industry for a minimum of five years. We do not have to do any of the basics, which is fortunate.
Senator Bacon: You may be aware that Canadian truckers now driving in the United States are subject to random mandatory drug tests. We understand that alcohol and drug testing in the surface transportation industry is a controversial subject. What are the regulations at Air Canada relating to this issue?
Mr. MacLellan: Relating to mandatory drug testing?
Senator Bacon: Yes, and substance analysis?
Mr. MacLellan: As far as mandatory drug testing or substance-abuse testing, there is none. Initially, on hiring, some tests are done. However, beyond that, we give our pilots a medical every six months, if they are over 40. If they are under 40, a medical is done once a year. Some tests are done then.
Senator Bacon: How many hours before a flight can a pilot have a drink?
Mr. MacLellan: In Air Canada, the rule is 12 hours. We also recommend that they take into consideration the fact that in the AIP -- which is an aeronautical information publication -- they recommend 24 hours. However, the regulation is 8 hours. Air Canada's own internal rule is 12 hours.
Senator Bacon: What would happen to a pilot if you discovered that he had had a drink within the time limit?
Mr. MacLellan: Disciplinary action would have to be taken.
We also have another program. Hand in hand with the disciplinary action, there would be entry into a program to assist the person.
Senator Bacon: You have assistance for them.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
Senator Adams: What is the duration of that program? Does it take place at the terminal or in the home? As well, how long does it take to find a replacement?
Mr. MacLellan: We have people who show up in an airport three hours after they get a call. However, given the number of crews going through an airport, we can normally replace them on 30-minutes' notice; but we do not count on it.
Senator Adams: My concern is how long the delay would be for the flight.
Mr. MacLellan: Fortunately, we do not have much trouble with that.
The Chairman: Our staff has provided us with a series of questions that are of concern to senators generally.
How do you know that when you get on a plane in Jakarta, for example, you are not being contaminated? How do you know that things are safe elsewhere in the world? We are comfortable here, but how do you know about other protocols? Perhaps you could give consideration to those questions.
At this time, I would ask Senator Adams to take the Chair.
Senator Willie Adams (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
Senator Corbin: I wish to make a comment on the point raised by our colleague Senator Adams. I am mindful of the response given by Captain MacLellan, but I would not want to let the opportunity pass.
The matter raised by Senator Adams is a matter of life and death in many circumstances, certainly in emergency circumstances. I am saying this more for members of the committee as a point to be noted in our report.
It is extremely important that the third or fourth, or whatever order of language, be provided in areas where passengers do not have a good understanding of either French or English -- or no understanding -- and where native languages are the language of day-to-day business and living. I hope the committee will comment to that effect in its report.
You should be aware that I am not a regular member of this committee; I am merely an interested senator.
On page 6 of your presentation, you make the following statement:
Aviation safety is a non competitive, co-operative effort comprising government, regulatory agencies --
And so on. Included in this list are unions.
Is safety a bargaining point between employers and employees at the time of the reopening of contracts? Does that ever happen with respect to safety considerations?
Mr. MacLellan: In my experience, safety is not a negotiating point.
Senator Corbin: Has it never been used as a bargaining tool?
Mr. MacLellan: The word "safety" has not come up. There may be items that could be related to safety. It was on there as a concern, but it was not a safety-related concern.
We are able to work out all of our safety-related problems in an ongoing relationship with our union. We have a group that meets to discuss safety.
Some of the concerns related to safety have had to deal with pilot fatigue. This committee is able to work through those concerns with our particular group.
In my experience, nothing related to safety has ever had to go to the negotiating table.
Senator Corbin: When you say "in my experience", are you speaking as a union member, a former union member, or in a management capacity?
Mr. MacLellan: I have been with Air Canada for 32 years, and 20 of those years were spent in management. Anything dealing with safety is handled or solved as quickly as possible to everyone's satisfaction.
Senator Corbin: There are other avenues, in other words. It is not a bargaining chip, ever.
Mr. MacLellan: It is not a bargaining chip. I would have to say that there has never been a safety-related item on the bargaining table.
Mr. Elliot: The dialogue is ongoing.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
Mr. Elliot: It not just at the negotiating table.
Mr. MacLellan: The dialogue is also with Transport Canada. This is an important point. The union, Transport Canada and the company are in a continuous three-way dialogue regarding any items of concern.
Senator Roberge: Does Air Canada have an ombudsman like some of the airlines in the U.S.? If not, does it intend to have one?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, we do have an ombudsman. The ombudsman is there primarily for the non-unionized employees. Different types of cases have gone through the ombudsman.
Senator Roberge: Do the unionized employees go through the ombudsman?
Mr. MacLellan: Normally not, because they have a grievance procedure laid out up to and including arbitration.
Senator Roberge: I did not mean in that aspect; I meant in a security aspect. For example, if a union member within Air Canada feels that there is a security shortcoming somewhere, what route would he take? Would he go through the ombudsman?
Mr. MacLellan: I will speak about flight operations in this regard.
The pilot has a reporting process. We receive approximately 3,000 of these per year. They run the gamut of everything from a bus being late in Paris to a concern about an operation somewhere.
Within that process, it is possible for pilots to bring their concerns to the attention of their chief pilot, who will investigate and then provide an answer to the pilot within 30 days. If it is a concern over flight safety, something will be done about it immediately.
There are other methods. If the pilot does not like the answer, he can go to his own safety representative within the union. We have parallel organizations, in effect. That person would then bring it to the attention of management and get it solved.
If, for whatever reason, there were no agreement through those two processes, then I believe the union would probably go to Transport Canada and have them investigate, either from an enforcement or compliance point of view, or from a standards point of view.
In my experience, that has not happened. We have normally resolved the issues with Transport Canada. If we identify something as a problem area, we try to keep the people in Transport Canada updated so that they are not blind-sided.
Mr. Ramage: On the maintenance side, we have a health and safety committee made up of both union and management members. It is a standing committee and it has direct access to the vice-president of technical operations. The role of that committee is to observe what is happening, to audit, to identify problems, and to work out the problems and report.
Senator Roberge: Many no-frills airlines have commenced operations in Canada and elsewhere. Incidentally, this question is not necessarily directed to Air Canada only. However, what is your opinion with respect to their level of commitment to maintenance? Do you have a general comment to make in that regard?
Mr. Ramage: I will not speak for other airlines. I will only say that the reason we have regulations is to provide that safety net for operators.
There is no airline in this country operating jet aircraft, in my opinion, that is unscrupulous. The purpose of the regulations that preceded that was to keep us out of that type of difficulty. We have seen willingness to act over the past year where there have been perceived difficulties.
The Deputy Chairman: Do the ground workers and flight attendants have different unions? I believe the flight attendants have been on strike a couple of times. If they go on strike, do you hire replacement workers qualified in that area?
Mr. MacLellan: If we had to and were allowed to hire replacement workers, they would have to go through a training program approved by Transport Canada.
The Deputy Chairman: There being no other questions, I wish to thank you very much for your attendance here this morning. We hope to see you again in the future.
Mr. Elliot: Thank you. I hope that our contribution to your work was worthwhile.
The committee adjourned.