Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 5 - Evidence for the evening sitting
VANCOUVER, Thursday, December 5, 1996
Upon resuming.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Stan Watterson.
Mr. Stan Watterson, Pacific Trollers Association: Honourable senators, I am a commercial fisherman. I have fished on the west coast of Vancouver Island practically all my life. I thank the committee very much for taking the time to hear us again. For the past few years the champion of our lighthouse cause has been Pat Carney. I am sure she has much more to offer on this than have I. However, I would like to put some things on the record.
For the last few years there have been automated wind reports from both Solander and Saturn Isles which have been about 70-per-cent reliable. In other words, 30 per cent of the time they are broken down and unavailable. When the weather is inclement and accurate information would be useful to both mariners and aviators, it is not available.
Automation may be fine for lighthouses that are accessible by land and can be repaired during poor weather conditions. Automated weather devices are more likely to fail during poor weather conditions. Lighthouses that are not accessible by land must be serviced via helicopter by maintenance personnel. This cannot be accomplished until the weather has settled down.
Mariners and aviators get more than weather reports from the lighthouse. We also get reports on cloud level, visibility and conditions at sea, sometimes as far as a couple of miles offshore, and wave conditions offshore caused by heavy tides which will affect our decisions for safe passage.
We have already lost some lighthouses at strategic locations such as the one at Cape St. James, which affects safety today. Often lightkeepers are responsible for coordinating search and rescue operations which are successful because of their immediate participation. Death from exposure in the sea is prevented when help is available immediately. Automation cannot offer any help. Lightkeepers save lives every year because of their immediate response.
How much value does our government place on human life? I ask each of you that question. There is no doubt in the minds of aviators and mariners that their safety is in great jeopardy. The object of automation of lighthouses is to save money. The cost of helicopters is high, especially when the pilot and helicopter have to stand by while a technician makes repairs. It may take a considerable amount of time to assess and correct the problem. Reliability of automated devices is so poor at this time that we feel our safety is being compromised.
We have received some information from Senator Pat Carney, for which we are grateful. The paper she sent us stated that the "National Marine Strategy" presented by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transportation noted that the general consensus was that search and rescue should be seen as being in the public interest and considered an essential service. The committee specifically recommended that search and rescue services should be treated as essential and a no-cost recovery program applied.
At the ad hoc committee on lighthouses, many witnesses stressed that the alternative equipment used by the Coast Guard to replace people in lightstations fails at times when it is most needed. This was proven once again in the big storm of October 17, 1996, when equipment installed at destaffed lightstations failed to perform to the level promised by the Coast Guard while it was seeking support for these alternative services.
On November 6, 1995, then Fisheries Minister Brian Tobin wrote, in outlining his destaffing plans, that he had directed the Coast Guard to ensure that no lighthouse be destaffed until safety and other essential services can continue to be provided.
To our dismay, they have demanned some lighthouses. The one at Cape St. James was a big one. I heard that they even destroyed the buildings there, so it would be hard to man that one again without great expense.
I would like to know how much it costs now to run the lighthouses and how much it is anticipated will be saved. Based on the reliability of the automated equipment, I suggest that there will be so much maintenance to be done that there will be no savings. There will also be a cost in lives, which must be taken into consideration.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Watterson.
Senator Bacon: I was surprised that you said the object of automation of lighthouses is to save money. The object is not only to save money. Lighthouses are very important, and we heard some good recommendations for them today, but automation is something we will have to accept some day.
Would you accept having people staff the lighthouses until we get the AWOS to function well? There have been problems, as you said in your brief.
Mr. Watterson: There are many services that automation cannot perform. As I said in my presentation, in many instances lightkeepers are on the job 24 hours a day and are available if someone has a mishap.
As many as a half dozen lives are saved each year by the presence and wits of lightkeepers. Even in dreadful weather, they have taken some extraordinary measures to get people out of the water immediately. The survival rate after being in the waters off British Columbia for any length of time is not very high.
Our lighthouses are not accessible by land. They cannot be compared to automated lighthouses that are accessible by land. Faulty equipment on a lighthouse accessible by land can be repaired immediately. Unfortunately, equipment usually fails during adverse weather and it remains inoperable for as long as the storm lasts.
Our coast is prone to storms. We have over 100 of them every year. With the inaccessibility of our lighthouses, I do not see how the job can be done properly with automation. I believe the human element is necessary.
Senator Bacon: Would you suggest two categories of lighthouses; automated stations where they can be reached easily, and fully staffed stations where they cannot?
Mr. Watterson: Yes and no. The automated equipment in an accessible station can be repaired within half an hour. However, in an unmanned lighthouse there is no one to see when there is someone in the water.
Several years ago, a lighthouse keeper was dressed in a Santa Claus suit prepared to deliver toys to the neighbourhood kids. He looked out from the lighthouse and saw a boat overturned. He rescued a commercial fisherman. I believe that fisherman believes to this day that Saint Nicholas saved him.
Senator Perrault: That is what Santa should do.
Senator Bacon: Would that be a bureaucratic decision more than a political decision?
Mr. Watterson: No, I believe that politics are definitely involved in these lighthouse situations. I have asked numerous people at Workers' Compensation Board why they have not been at the fore fighting for the manning of lighthouses. They have implied that safety will be compromised for the time being but, as it is political, they cannot get involved.
Senator Bacon: That is easy to say. People are blaming other people for decisions that are made.
Mr. Watterson: I suggest that the only reason for demanning lighthouses heavy lobbying in Ottawa. They do not want a Third World country to ask why Canada does not have automated lighthouses. I am sure there are big lobbies fighting to put this equipment in.
Senator Bacon: That is not what we heard this afternoon. This afternoon people said that bureaucrats were pushing for the automation of lighthouses and they did not care what politicians said, including the minister. That is not what you are saying.
Mr. Watterson: That is not what I am saying at all.
Senator Bacon: You are saying the opposite.
Mr. Watterson: I think the human element is absolutely necessary. I do not want to get into the politics.
Senator Bacon: No, nor do I. We are concerned about the quality of service we give to people.
Mr. Watterson: Absolutely. We must be concerned about safety on the water.
I have been on the water practically all my life and I will probably retire in a few years. I have a 14-year-old son who insists he will be taking the boat over when I have finished. It is for his safety that I am at this meeting; it is for his safety that I am fighting with the Department of Fisheries, hoping that we can come up with something reasonable.
We also have to save our stocks. I am not in favour of fishing right now because I think the stocks have to be saved for future generations.
Senator Bacon: Do you think there will come a day when some automation will be necessary, even with staffed lighthouses, or do we already have everything we need for proper safety?
Mr. Watterson: In many cases, the Americans have been on the scene long before our rescue services were available. In one situation, a deckhand passed out on the deck. He had been complaining about a sore back and sore stomach and they just thought he was seasick. He passed out on the deck and they put him in a bunk. They were right off the American border, approximately 12 hours from shore, and called our Canadian Coast Guard for rescue. The Coast Guard told them to start heading for Bamfield, that they could not get anyone out to the boat. When asked if it was possible to get a helicopter out there, they were told that it would be at least three hours before they could get approval from Victoria Search and Rescue to send a helicopter to the boat. With that, the American Coast Guard interrupted the conversation and advised that they could get a helicopter to the boat in 20 minutes. The sick man was lifted off the boat land taken to Victoria Hospital. He had a ruptured appendix.
Sometimes I wonder about our search and rescue. Perhaps our naval forces should be involved. The DFO and the Coast Guard have been amalgamated into what people refer to as "Fish and Ships". I think that for rescue coordinations our navy should be involved. We have never looked to the navy for that. I have no idea what they do out there other than shoot off their big guns, wasting ammunition and effort. The navy could perform a service on rescue missions on the West Coast.
Senator Bacon: You do not think that automation could enhance staffed lightstations?
Mr. Watterson: Perhaps automation could enhance manned lightstations, but much of the automated equipment often malfunctions. The little strobe in the lighthouses is turned on by a reflection back from the fog bank. In many cases, that signal has not been turned on and we have gone through fog without it. During a recent storm in the gulf, four of them did not operate properly. In many cases, the horn has sounded for four hours after the fog bank has lifted. That is what happens with automation.
The Chairman: Something as simple as salt brine on the window can trigger the foghorn when the sun is shining.
Mr. Watterson: That is correct.
The Chairman: That can be corrected with good housecleaning. You cannot blame the equipment for that. However, it makes the point that a foghorn would not be blowing in the sunshine if there were a man or a woman to turn it on when it was foggy.
Mr. Watterson: British Columbia has 10 per cent of the world's fresh water supply because of our storm systems, which is an indication of how many storms we get.
Senator Bacon: However, the topography is different.
Mr. Watterson: Absolutely. Our fjords are so vast and deep that there are no roads going to any of our lighthouses on our coast. Given that, manned lighthouses definitely save lives.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, Senator Bacon has suggested that perhaps we should opt for a hybrid system, at least for the time being; that in locations where there appears to be an absolute necessity for a human presence they remain staffed, and in some locations where the implications are not as serious if something does go wrong, automatic equipment should be installed. It is an interesting idea.
The world is converting to automated lightstations. There is not a single manned facility on the East Coast. I know there are differences in the water there. Norway has a coastline similar to British Columbia and its lightstations are all automated. Those in Great Britain are all automated. Automation is happening everywhere. Does that suggest that others have less respect for the survival of human beings than we have in B.C.? I cannot understand why, when such a massive change is being accepted by the rest of the world, you maintain that every lighthouse should be manned.
Second, you said you want 100-per-cent certainty. Who would provide information if the lighthouse keeper had an appendicitis attack at the same time as a boat started sinking?
The Chairman: His wife would.
Senator Perrault: Maybe he is not married. Nothing in life is certain, not even political elections.
Mr. Watterson: I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty in this world.
Senator Perrault: There sure is. This is an indictment against the rest of the world. You are saying that they do not care about human beings.
Mr. Watterson: I understand what you are saying.
Senator Perrault: I would like to get your views on that.
Mr. Watterson: Ninety per cent of the lighthouses you speak of are accessible by land. Ours are not. If inclement weather strikes and lasts for four days, taking the wind meter off the top of a tower, a resident lighthouse keeper could replace it, or at least give an accurate assessment of the weather conditions at the time. In England, for example, they can drive to most lighthouses and repair the wind meter. We cannot. Ours will be down for four days when we need it.
We have a unique coast in British Columbia. It is entirely different from the majority of the East Coast with regard to accessibility as well as inhabitants, which are very sparse. In the United States, there are roads to most of the lighthouses. Our lighthouses are only accessible by helicopter.
Senator Perrault: I would be grateful if you could find some statistics on that for us.
Mr. Watterson: Yes, I am sure those statistics are available.
Senator Perrault: People on the other side of this issue are saying that the whole world is going this way and Canada is being left behind. I like the hybrid idea of Senator Bacon.
Incidentally, that same view was expressed by two or three witnesses earlier. They said that perhaps we should leave experienced personnel in place in certain stations and in other locations go to automation and see how that works out.
Mr. Watterson: Most of our lighthouses are very strategically placed. Whoever selected our lighthouse locations long ago picked spots where accidents are prone to happen.
Senator Perrault: They were mariners who knew their business.
Mr. Watterson: They were mariners who knew what they were doing. In the locations which are accessible by land, I could accept automated equipment. If something went down, it could be repaired within an hour, if lives depended upon it.
The automated wind reports that we get from Saturn and Solander Island are totally unreliable. Numerous times in the sockeye season in August, I have wanted to go from Tahsis, at the top end of the island, into Johnstone Strait in rough weather and wanted a report from Solander Island, which has a reputation for quite dastardly weather.
One night I took my family around there in my 42-foot boat and we ran into terrible weather. I would not have gone had I known what I was getting into. Having chugged all afternoon to get to Solander, I kept going and took my family through some bad weather, only because I could not get a proper report from Solander.
Senator Perrault: You have said that the facility is only 70 per cent reliable. That is not a very good percentage.
Mr. Watterson: No. It is always down when the weather is inclement.
Senator Perrault: We should ask for the records of that particular station to find out exactly what is going on.
Mr. Watterson: Absolutely. I have no problem with that at all.
Senator Perrault: You said that research shows that such automated systems are approximately 80 per cent reliable. That is not good enough either. If we could get some hard facts on that, it would be helpful.
Mr. Watterson: I assure you that they are down more than 20 per cent of the time in the summer. It is when the weather is nice and I do not even need the reports that I can get them.
Senator Perrault: They perform well when it is nice and sunny?
Mr. Watterson: If it blows too hard, they are out of commission. Perhaps the wind meter cannot stand the velocity.
Senator Perrault: Perhaps the system has not been perfected yet.
Mr. Watterson: Possibly.
The Chairman: It is not that the idea is not good. It is just that the technology is not advanced enough to warrant destaffing.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, I think we should ask for the statistics on those stations.
The Chairman: They are all available to us.
Senator Perrault: I have not seen them.
The Chairman: They are in the papers.
Senator Perrault: I am referring to these particular stations.
The Chairman: Yes. Each individual station record is a matter of public record.
Senator Perrault: I have been reading the wrong publications.
Senator Adams: Where I live, the weather can change in 10 or 15 minutes. Is that the case where you fish? How long does it take to get warning that the weather is changing? Currently you contact the lightkeeper by radio to get a weather forecast. How will that work with AWOS?
Mr. Watterson: Right now, I call one of the lighthouses to get an up-to-the-minute weather report. I use the operators at Cape Scott consistently. That is an excellent place to use the lighthouse station because quite a tide goes through Scott Channel and if the tide is moving in a westerly direction and the wind is blowing from the southeast, it creates a tremendous lump. At the lighthouse, which is set inland a little bit, the wind speed may be less. They will tell you the offshore weather and the approximate height of the waves.
If it were not for the operators at the lightstation, I would have to rely on a weather report that comes out every four hours.
Senator Adams: At one time there were about 30 lighthouses along the coast. Now there are 17. As you are coming along the coast, you get weather reports from the lighthouses, which are connected. How did that work before?
Mr. Watterson: We used to get reports from a weather ship. I believe that meteorologists now use satellites to forecast storms. However, we have no automated equipment to tell pilots what the cloud ceiling is. Pilots can get cloud level information from a human being at a lightstation, but not from automated equipment. There is great advantage to having people on the job who can give accurate reports.
Storms can come up here with no warning. We mariners have barometers on our boats which move quickly up or down when something is coming.
A commercial packer was caught in open waters off Cape Flattery in a storm which struck with such sudden violence that its sails were shredded. It was abandoned to seas that reached 12 metres at their peak. This storm came up in a matter of minutes. Meteorologists call this a "marine bomb". When I am approaching an area which is prone to storms, I call ahead and ask the lightkeeper what is happening. I use their services all the time, and I am not the only mariner who does. I know that aviators also use their services.
Senator Adams: Thanks to the meteorologists employed with Environment Canada, I can turn on my television at home in the Territories and listen to weather forecasts from northern Quebec, the high Arctic and Manitoba. I can find out exactly where the storms are. So much has changed with technology. Do you have that facility along the B.C. coast?
Mr. Watterson: We have a lot of electronic equipment that gives us advantages as far as the weather is concerned. We even have a fax machine aboard the boat and a single side band radio that collects information from satellites. However, when I started to navigate a vessel, I was taught to discount all electronic devices because it is Murphy's Law that when there is inclement weather something will break down and we could be without electronics. We may very well be in a fog bank.
I can remember standing on the bow in the fog, listening to a lighthouse horn and pointing at it so that my dad could run into the beach and follow it along. Once we got into the shallow water, we used an echo sounder. In those days, we had nothing but a compass and an echo sounder. We travelled along for approximately two hours and I again stood on the bow of the boat waiting to hear the bell at San Juan. As soon as I heard the bell, I pointed at it. My father waited until I was 90 degrees to the vessel before he turned and went in. As we went in, we would try to spot the bell, as he knew which side of the bell to pass on.
Usually, once we got inside the bay, the fog lifted and we were in five-fathom calm water where we could throw the anchor down and spend the night until the fog bank lifted. That was all done without navigational equipment. I like to think that I can navigate without the electronic devices that we have. However, I use every device that I have on board.
Senator Perrault: Satellite service is excellent, is it not?
Mr. Watterson: I have the satellite service on board and it is excellent.
Senator Perrault: Science has done well there.
Mr. Watterson: Absolutely. We have plotters on board now that give us absolutely everything we need. However, it is equipment and there is always a chance that equipment will break down. It is not 100 per cent reliable.
Senator Adams: I would not completely trust equipment either. In the lakes up north, they can indicate that someone is ahead of you in a Ski-doo or a Honda, but not that you were heading toward open water.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Watterson: Thank you very much for letting me contribute my 25 cents' worth.
The Chairman: It is more valuable than that to us. We appreciate very much your appearance here.
Mr. Watterson: Thank you for taking the time to listen to us on the West Coast.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Robert D. McCoy of the Merchant Service Guild.
Mr. Robert D. McCoy, Merchant Service Guild: Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before the committee.
Since the first suggestion of automation came up, the Merchant Service Guild has been against automated lights. The guild represents masters, mates and marine pilots on this coast. Our concern is safety, especially with respect to tugboats, because tugboats are limited by their tow line. Swell and sea conditions are paramount to a tugboat going out into open water. If a rail barge is loaded with chlorine and ammonia for Port Alice on the West Coast, the tugboat operator will not go around Cape Scott unless he knows the exact weather conditions out there, and lighthouses give the only reports on swell and sea condition.
Buoys are located offshore and many times there are unforecast gales around the headlands of northern Vancouver Island. Many times as you go out past Cape Scott you run into a southeast gale blowing up the coast that has not been forecast. The same thing happens around Cape Cook and Solander Island.
As the gentleman who appeared before me stated, now you can call the keeper of the lighthouse who will go out and check and give you a report. They will do this at almost any lighthouse on the coast.
Automation cannot give reports on visibility. Visibility is also very important to bush pilots, of which and there are hundreds on this coast. Recently, eight people were killed in Campbell River as a direct result, according to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, of the lowering of landing requirements by Department of Transport five years ago. Since that time, 32 people have died in similar accidents. Officials at the Department of Transport will only say that they will review the recommendations of the safety board
This is the same bureaucratic business. I will not say it is political. I believe that it may be ex-DOT bureaucrats in the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans determined that this will be done at all costs, whether or not the public likes it.
The Lightstation Services Project report shows that every known group of mariners on the West Coast is against automation, including kayakers, marine pilots, tugboat captains, commercial fishermen and those who belong to yachting clubs. Yet, it is being jammed down our throats. I believe that half the time ministers do not know what is going on in their own departments.
During a meeting with the lightkeepers union, a Department of Fisheries and Oceans official told the head of the lightkeepers union that they did not necessarily have to take ministerial direction, that they could do as they pleased. That is wrong. Lives and the environment are at stake. If a go-getter tugboat captain who does not know what is going on tears out there with a loaded oil barge and gets caught and breaks his tow line, we will have a barge full of black oil on the beach -- another Alaskan disaster. This is too important.
Senator Perrault was talking about automated lighthouses in Europe and England. I read a newpaper article recently which said that volunteers have remanned over 80 lighthouses in England.
Senator Perrault: Can you get that article for us?
Mr. McCoy: I cannot remember what paper it was in, but it stated that the lighthouses were being manned voluntarily because of concern for lives on the coast.
Senator Perrault: It would be helpful to have that article.
Mr. McCoy: The Coast Guard brought an expert out here from England who said he could see no problem. However, marine traffic on the British coast and European coast consists of small freighters and tankers. It is altogether different. Here we have tugboats. The tugboat operators must know what is going on out there and automated stations cannot tell them.
As Mr. Watterson said, half the time the information is not available and many times what it is available is inaccurate. For example, one time I was waiting at Quatsino Sound and received reports from Solander Island and Saturn Island that the wind velocity was in the vicinity of 55 or 60 knots. Those are almost storm force winds. I was looking out there and could not see anything. I called Cape Scott and the lighthouse keeper there told me that it looked like about 10 to 15 miles an hour.
I went out and that is exactly what it was. It was just a slow swell and a light breeze, but those two stations reported raging gales. Had I been further up that inlet, I may have spent two days going around in circles, scared to go out, and that would have cost the company money in downtime.
Senator Perrault: Did you turn in a complaint?
Mr. McCoy: I called Bull Harbour radio about it. They had noticed a problem with that station. The Solander Island station is 200 or 300 feet high. There may be that amount of wind at that height, but certainly not on the surface of the sea. A lightkeeper can give you a visual report. A good lightkeeper gets to know what the sea looks like under different wind conditions, the same as a good sailor. You can almost tell the velocity of the wind.
Automation may be fine for some things, but not on this coast.
The Chairman: Much has been made about the closure of all the lighthouses in the United States. Much less has been said of the fact that in the United States the functions that are carried out here by lighthouse keepers have for many years been carried out by the United States Coast Guard, either stationary or on sea patrol. There is a very large United States Coast Guard fleet which is far more sophisticated than our very humble but efficient lightkeepers. Therefore, it is difficult to draw a comparison in that sense.
On the East Coast, we can drive to our lighthouses. In the old days, they were 20 to 30 miles apart. From the top of one lighthouse, you could see well into the district of the next, so the whole area was covered. We had hundreds of them, but they are not necessary today on the East Coast, apart from some spots in Labrador, like they are out here.
Mr. McCoy: Not all American stations are automated. The ones on Puget Sound are accessible by road. They are practically right in cities. I believe Cape Flattery is still manned and I know that Five Fingers in Alaska is still manned because of the northeast gales and icing conditions there. You can phone that lightstation for a report on freezing spray.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your appearance today.
Welcome, Mr. Koroscil.
Mr. Richard Koroscil, Vice-President, Airport Operations, Vancouver International Airport Authority: Thank you very much for allowing me to make this presentation to the committee today. I will preface my remarks with a few facts about the Vancouver International Airport, or YVR, as it is known in aviation circles.
The airport has been run as a non-profit local airport authority under strict control of the board of directors since 1992 and is the second largest airport in Canada. We are growing at a rather phenomenal rate of 10 per cent per year. In 1996, we will reach 14 million passengers and 325,000 flights.
This past year has seen the opening of our new $300 million terminal building and a $100 million Category III runway, the first of its kind in Canada. In addition, Transport Canada, now privatized as NAV CANADA, has opened a state-of-the-art $30 million control tower. These improvements are part of our plan to ensure that our facilities are fully capable of safely meeting the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.
I would like to address some of the sample questions on potential issues for discussion put forward by you and discuss the safety programs that are specifically airport related.
With regard to the effect of deregulation on safety, it is difficult for me to make any comment on airline safety as this is outside the realm of my responsibility as part of the airport authority.
With regard to government cutbacks on expenditures affecting safety over the years, I would say that is generally not the case with respect to airport safety. However, an issue of great concern to us is the withdrawal of some of the Coast Guard services, particularly the Hovercraft base located on Sea Island. This is an integral part of our ability to respond to aircraft incidents on the foreshore of Sea Island. We will be pursuing that with the Coast Guard and we suggest that the committee may wish to look into it.
It is possible that we could have an incident similar to that which took place off South Africa where a 767 went into the water. Without Coast Guard facilities, particularly the Hovercraft, it would be impossible to respond to that type of incident on the mud flats.
The Chairman: Why do you not do that yourselves?
Mr. Koroscil: The foreshore is not the responsibility of the airport authority.
The Chairman: Take responsibility for it. If a plane crashes across the back road at the Vancouver International Airport, who is responsible for the fire that ensues?
Mr. Koroscil: It is normally the responsibility of the municipality in which the aircraft crashes. The airport does not provide crash fire and rescue off-airport. We will respond, but as a second resource. The authority for aircraft crashes off-airport lies within the municipality of responsibility, not the airport authorities.
With respect to how airport safety is monitored and whether there are effective spot checks by the industry, the answer at YVR is definitely yes. Transport Canada regulates the airlines and air traffic control separately from the airport, or the aerodrome, as it is known in the legislation. Transport Canada aerodromes regulate YVR and the aerodrome inspection office conducts regular inspections and monitors our procedures. Our airport operations manual has just been approved by Transport Canada. It sets out our facilities and procedures and is used as a reference document for training and safety.
We have full-time, 24-hour-a-day airside duty managers, whose sole job is to ensure that ground operations are conducted smoothly and safely. Many of them are pilots or have worked as ground crew for the airlines. They are, therefore, completely familiar with proper and safe procedures and are prepared to intervene immediately if they feel safety is compromised. We have a dedicated, highly experienced airside safety officer on staff as well as a department dedicated to aviation safety and security. They work closely together on airside operational and safety issues. There are also two people dedicated to emergency planning and two to airside coordination, which includes our airside driving program.
Meetings of all operators involved in airside safety are held quarterly. Representatives of airlines, caterers, refuellers and all others attend to see the driving statistics and describe the measures they will take to improve their records. This is in addition to our monthly Airside Operations Committee meetings with Transport Canada.
Finally, there is a meeting every other day between construction contractors and representatives from the airlines and airport operations to ensure that all operators are familiar with the current construction plans and to discuss any safety and operational issues. The rapid growth of the airport has made this meeting essential, especially over the last two summers.
Our Emergency Operations Centre has representatives from all agencies, as required. A full debriefing is performed after any EOC activation. We also run a tabletop emergency exercise every month with police, ambulance, fire rescue, airline and operations personnel to discuss scenarios and learn each other's roles and responsibilities. Although the Transport Canada requirement for a major live exercise is once every three years, we normally schedule one every year. This year, we decided that opening the new international terminal and new runway to the public would be an excellent substitute. We have found these exercises to be an invaluable part of our safety preparedness.
Finally, YVR has two full-time occupational and construction safety officers.
In short, our airside duty managers continually spot check the operation to ensure safety and our safety personnel work on preventing repeat incidents.
The question about trucks does not apply.
With regard to whether we are satisfied with the effectiveness of safety enforcement, we are with respect to operations. We are generally satisfied with the regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous goods. Although, once again, this enforcement is the responsibility of Transport Canada, we have an extensive and detailed environmental emergency response plan in the event of an incident. Our airfield maintenance specialists are also trained in petroleum and hazardous materials cleanup.
There is a saying in aviation which sums up our approach to safety. Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous; however, to an even greater extent than the sea, it is unforgiving of carelessness or negligence.
I cannot stress enough how seriously we take the safety issue. Our passengers, when surveyed, have consistently rated safety as their most important criteria. We run YVR as an aviation business and it makes excellent aviation business sense to be safety oriented. In many areas of safety we have expended far greater effort than did Transport Canada when it operated YVR. For example, we consulted with our operators on a new airside driving program, designed the program and spent tens of thousands of dollars on a new handbook and training materials for the 7,000 airside drivers at YVR. This program has now become a model for other airports in Canada.
I do not mean to imply that we never have any challenges. On the contrary, we live with these challenges every day. Consider a 747 arriving from Asia. First, the aircraft must arrive safely, even in the most difficult weather conditions. Although this is obviously not our job, we and NAV CANADA play a critical support role for that pilot. We have already had several snow events this year, which is unusual for Vancouver. Keeping the runways and taxiways clear of snow and ice is a complicated function requiring careful coordination between several agencies.
As the pilot taxies to the terminal, he or she is guided by the latest fibreoptic directional signage. Items as seemingly mundane as the paint markings on concrete are consistently evaluated by our maintenance and airside operations departments, which ask the following kinds of questions: Are the paint lines bright enough? Should we add glass beads to the paint? Will the markings work for all aircraft in all conditions? Should we outline the paint in black in order to enhance visibility? Do we need to add lines or delete lines? The construction over the past few years has made these questions extremely important.
After the aircraft arrives at the gate, over 50 vehicles are required to get it back in the air in the minimum time possible, sometimes as little as 90 minutes. Many tonnes of cargo and baggage must be off-loaded, the aircraft refuelled, dirty water and trash taken off, the interior cleaned, and meals, cargo and baggage put back on. Maintenance work must also take place, as well as inspections. This is done in all weather conditions, which in Vancouver often means in the rain, as well as in the dark, and it is done expeditiously and safely every single day of the year.
For example, on this past Monday, December 2, 10 747 jumbo jets arrived between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. All of our widebody gates were full. It had just stopped snowing and we were in full de-icing mode, which has its own unique challenges as we comply with very strict environmental legislation. It was just another day at the airport.
In conclusion, the Vancouver International Airport keeps safety in mind at all times. It is never sacrificed for operational reasons. We are closely regulated but even more important is the safety culture in which we operate with our employees and business partners. As a business, we manage risk by reducing it or eliminating it wherever possible. It is a constant challenge but one which we must meet every day.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Perrault: I am interested in security and access to aircraft by people working for various companies or in branches of the airport operation. Presumably a very secure plan has been put in force. I have seen some in the United States recently. The newspapers did a test run to find out how accessible the planes were. They found that it was surprisingly easy to get aboard the planes wearing a maintenance uniform, for example.
Mr. Koroscil: We do have systems in place. I understand that tomorrow you will be taking a bit of a tour. You will have the opportunity to see some of the security arrangements that are in place.
With regard to security, we are regulated quite heavily by Transport Canada. We are required to ensure that everyone wears a "restricted area" pass. They must be security cleared by Transport Canada. We do not do clearances ourselves.
Senator Perrault: Do you have an electronic data chip inside those passes?
Mr. Koroscil: Yes, we do.
Senator Perrault: That is an improvement over Edmonton.
Mr. Koroscil: Every time someone goes through one of our access points, it registers that person.
Senator Perrault: That is good. Edmonton does not yet have that capability.
I understand that there are some additional bays being installed for aircraft parking.
Mr. Koroscil: Yes. Actually, we are now going on to our next phase of development for the airport authority, which is the extension for the transborder side. The building was full the day we opened. We are now involved in another $300 million development program to expand the new building as well as retrofitting the existing domestic terminal.
The Chairman: Are you the only people who have these chips?
Mr. Koroscil: As far as I know, we are the only ones using them in Canada, yes.
Senator Perrault: That is a great idea.
Mr. Koroscil: This is a new system that the airport authority has just installed as part of our new international terminal.
The Chairman: Is the technology available to everyone?
Mr. Koroscil: It is something we bought off the shelf and modified for our own use, but it is available to everyone.
The Chairman: That is good. If a security clearance is carried out by Ottawa, does that security clearance stand you in good stead in other airports?
Mr. Koroscil: I am not clear on what the procedures are at the other airports, but we do not automatically recognize a security pass from another airport. They must get a pass from us and we would then do a check on the security clearance. Otherwise, they must be escorted by someone who does have a pass.
The Chairman: There are exceptions to that, of course?
Mr. Koroscil: Not normally, no.
The Chairman: What about air crew?
Mr. Koroscil: Air crew have a national pass that is issued at their national station. It is a separate category for air crew.
The Chairman: Do they have a chip in theirs?
Mr. Koroscil: No, unless it is issued from Vancouver. Each home base of each carrier can issue passes. We can issue passes for the Vancouver resident staff.
Senator Perrault: With regard to the recent crash of a jet, it has been alleged that cylinders were loaded aboard that plane without proper checking or security. Have the facts ever come out in that case?
More importantly, how would the authority at Vancouver airport have handled the situation? Would it have been left to the carriers to make the decision about whether certain goods should be put on the plane?
Mr. Koroscil: That is a carrier responsibility which is also regulated by Transport Canada. That is not an airport authority responsibility.
Senator Perrault: Presumably there would be a list of items that would not be transportable drawn up by Transport Canada?
Mr. Koroscil: That is correct.
Senator Adams: You mentioned that over 50 vehicles are involved when an aircraft arrives. Are those vehicles that have been around the airport all the time or would they come from town? For example, there are catering vehicles bringing food to the aircraft. When there are 50 vehicles at one aircraft, it may be difficult to check everything at security. How do you handle security in that situation?
Mr. Koroscil: All the catering is done on Sea Island by caterers on site. They have access to the airside through their facility, which must again follow Transport Canada regulations for security.
Each land lessee on the site that has a piece of property must follow certain security regulations. There must be fencing and signage and they must ensure the proper flow through the facility. All vehicles operating on airside are operated by licensed drivers who are licensed by us. They must be trained and they must pass a test to operate on airside, indicating that they are familiar with airside operations.
For vehicles coming on to the airside there are two access points and two security gates. They must enter through a security checkpoint and they can be inspected at any time by the RCMP or by the Corps of Commissionaires, which are provided by the RCMP.
Senator Adams: Are vehicles coming through the gate videotaped so that if anything happens such as a hijacking the tapes can be viewed to see who came through?
Mr. Koroscil: There are several hundred cameras throughout the airport and we have a camera on every single gate.
Senator Adams: My concern is that someone could be inside a vehicle. How do you ensure that there is no one hiding inside a truck filled with boxes? When the airplane reaches the aircraft and the doors are opened is the only time you could see the people hiding in the vehicle.
Mr. Koroscil: Every person who goes through the access point has to show their security pass. They cannot go through unless they have a security pass or are escorted by someone who has a pass and they have an "Escort Required" pass.
Senator Adams: Would a truck have only one person in it?
Mr. Koroscil: No, it could have more than one, but each person must have a pass. If there is someone hiding in the back of a truck, the owner and operator has some responsibility, be it a catering firm or an airline.
Senator Adams: Do catering companies arrive at a scheduled time every day?
Mr. Koroscil: Their purpose is to meet the airplane, so their timing would be pretty well the same every day. Most of the caterers are owned by the airlines, so it is not often that there would be an independent caterer that is not associated with an airline.
The caterers have to go through the same process as the airline people with regard to getting security passes or having access to airside.
Senator Adams: Yesterday in Edmonton I saw a person with a tag with a picture on it who did not go through a machine. Does the airport authority have a machine which would identify such a person?
Mr. Koroscil: It is a proximity card that you put in front of the reader. It does not have to go into it. When you put the card in front of the reader, it detects the chip inside and the door opens.
At manned positions there is no requirement to run the card through a machine. Either a security guard opens the door or the lock is released by the proximity card.
Senator Bacon: With the evolution from airports to local airport authorities, do you feel that every step is being taken to ensure safety?
Mr. Koroscil: I believe that more is being done now from an airport safety and security perspective than was ever done before.
Senator Bacon: Are you concerned that, with increased competition in the airline industry, our carriers could be cutting back on maintenance and repairs in order to cut costs? Would this lead to safety concerns?
Mr. Koroscil: I am not aware of what the airlines are doing with respect to cutting back on maintenance, but we have seen no indication that there have been any changes in aircraft operations. We, as the airport operator, have not seen any significant increase in incidents.
Senator Perrault: We talked a few years ago about the desirability of having falcons or owls at the airport. We have an incredible bird population here which stays all year. They do not go south any more because things are so nice here and they get fed so well. Do you have an airport cat or something? Even a tabby doing a patrol would help.
There are Canada Geese all over the place. Do you have a sound device or something of that nature that frightens birds away when an international flight is taking off?
Mr. Koroscil: Bird control in Vancouver is a very important issue for us because we are on the largest flyway for migrating birds.
Senator Perrault: The airport is near the Reifel Sanctuary.
Mr. Koroscil: We presently have the most extensive wildlife control programs in the world. We have nine people dedicated to wildlife control.
We also have a fairly extensive program of habitat modification and utilization of scare cannons as well as what we call wailers, which are speakers that play bird distress calls. We also have a very extensive monitoring program to track what is happening to the birds on Sea Island.
With the evolution of the airport, part of the compensation package was the development of a conservation area on the north part of Sea Island called the Sea Island Conservation Area. We have been monitoring the SICA lands and the effect on the wildlife population in relation to aviation safety. It is a unique situation to have a wildlife facility right next to an airport and it takes unique management to keep track of what is going on.
Senator Perrault: I hope no incoming flights will think that those cannons are anti-aircraft guns.
Mr. Koroscil: No. It is similar technology to that employed in blueberry fields in Vancouver, especially in the Coquitlam area. It is a key issue for us. Wildlife control is very important.
The Chairman: Do they issue notams?
Mr. Koroscil: We do issue notams warning pilots about the birds, yes.
The Chairman: You have a Category III runway. Has it had occasion to be used?
Mr. Koroscil: Not yet.
Senator Perrault: What is a Category III runway, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: No hands on landing. It will be interesting to follow that.
Mr. Koroscil: It really improves our reliability to the airline industry by reducing the limits that a pilot can land an aircraft. I think it brings up our reliability over 99 per cent.
The Chairman: It all sounds very safe, sir.
Do you keep a log of incidents at the airport?
Mr. Koroscil: Yes, we do.
The Chairman: How many might have been listed, for instance, during the month of November?
Mr. Koroscil: We track incidents on site that do not necessarily involve the airport but involve aircraft. For example, last week a DC-9 was departing and one of its rear main tires delaminated and part of the rubber went into one of the engines. While the engine was still producing power, the pilot kept the gear down and did a fly by to verify that the gear was still there. It was fine and he landed.
On average, we have one event a day.
Another example is when a pilot gets an indicator light. In the majority of cases, it is a problem with the monitoring system on board and not the gear.
The Chairman: Are the incidents recorded on computer so that an analysis can be done? If so, is there a particular type of incident that tends to show up regularly?
Mr. Koroscil: We do not keep records in that great of detail. The Aviation Safety Board would have more accurate records. Many times we are not informed of what caused the aircraft to come back. Those incidents must be reported to the Transportation Safety Board, which would have more detailed data. I suspect that they are tracking that very carefully.
The Chairman: Some are moving away from using the RCMP for security. You still have RCMP. Are you going to continue with them?
Mr. Koroscil: As in all of the other airports in Canada, the RCMP will be leaving Vancouver airport.
The Chairman: That is not a decision taken by you as a local authority?
Mr. Koroscil: I understand that this is a federal decision by Transport Canada and the Solicitor General.
The Chairman: Well, that is interesting. Would you like to keep them?
Mr. Koroscil: We will in fact be working with the Richmond RCMP Detachment because it is the police force of jurisdiction for us. In the long run, we will be keeping RCMP at Vancouver, not through the Solicitor General but through our own efforts.
The Chairman: We tried to avoid following the practice of Ports Canada with some ports being policed by the local or municipal police and some by Ports Canada police. We tried to stay with a common police force, for obvious reasons.
I gather that we will now have RCMP at some airports while others will have local or municipal police. Quebec will have Quebec Provincial Police because that is their jurisdiction.
Already there are five or six different police organizations involved. I am sure that you have discussed this on numerous occasions. Does this suggest problems to you?
Mr. Koroscil: Not at all. In many countries, airports are policed by various police forces.
The Chairman: It is usually the military.
Mr. Koroscil: Not normally. In the United States it is done by many different police forces, and we do not see that as a problem.
I should point out that special RCMP squads will remain at all of our international airports.
Senator Perrault: That is reassuring.
The Chairman: How close are we to being able to deliver a sterile aircraft to the taxiway at international airports? Is it only more equipment that is needed?
Mr. Koroscil: Security at any airport is provided by many people. While the airport authority has responsibility for a large part of it, everyone who operates at the airport has responsibility to ensure security, including the airline, the caterers and the refullers.
We play more of an audit role and a day-to-day enforcement role to ensure that those other players participate, along with Transport Canada and security inspectors. I am fairly confident that we are on the road to being able to provide the service that is necessary. As a matter of fact, we will probably provide better service than existed two years ago because we have made major improvements.
The Chairman: We will want to hear about some of that tomorrow.
Mr. Koroscil: You will see some of that tomorrow.
The Chairman: In the Territories the desire was expressed not to have security checks done in the north, but rather to have them done at the deplaning end. In the Northwest Territories, and eventually in the Eastern and Western Arctic, there will be no requirement on certain categories for any security check.
What is your position on planes arriving with passengers who have not been security checked?
Mr. Koroscil: That creates a significant operational challenge for both us and the airlines. Because of the kind of facility we have today, it would mean building additional facilities to screen everyone as they came off the airplane, because they would not be allowed into the building as it is today without being screened. The airlines have had the opportunity to do that for some time now and have chosen not to do so. Their preference is to continue as they are operating today.
The Chairman: Your concern is the interconnecting passenger who does not leave the secure area when he leaves the plane. He can go to another gate without having to go through security and can board a plane carrying whatever he wishes.
Mr. Koroscil: Transport Canada has very strict regulations in place to ensure that screened and unscreened passengers do not mix. If unscreened passengers were brought into a screened facility, there would be some challenges.
The Chairman: Then you definitely want the practice to continue of security clearance at the point of embarkation?
Mr. Koroscil: It is an airline decision. We would work with them, but that change would necessitate additional facilities. It is a matter of convenience for the passenger, too.
The Chairman: I have several concerns. You will receive an additional $140 million or $150 million a year from the $10 you collect from each traveler, yet you have effectively killed the airport rotating fund which small airports in the east had to draw on to survive.
I am concerned about having four or five different policing agencies. I am also concerned about security becoming so sophisticated that the security check carried out in the Northwest Territories will not be up to your standard and that they will not be able to afford the standard required by you or Transport Canada to allow them to mingle in Vancouver.
Do you see my dilemma?
Mr. Koroscil: I understand what you are saying.
The Chairman: It is beginning to look like a horror story.
Mr. Koroscil: One could argue that point.
The Chairman: I am not putting up an argument. We are here to study safety in 10, 15 or 20 years. There is not much point in us paying lip service to a flawed system.
Mr. Koroscil: That is fair enough. Airport safety and security -- particularly security -- is regulated by Transport Canada. Transport Canada makes the rules that passengers must be screened and that they cannot mix. Aircraft coming into Vancouver must meet the screening requirements of Transport Canada, not of ourselves.
The Chairman: As a frequent traveller in Canada, I have noticed that I can go through some airports with no difficulty at all while at others I have to take my braces off to get through. The same standards do not exist at all airports.
To screen passengers to your standards in Yellowknife may cost $25 a passenger. That may not be very much for Air Canada or one of the other big airlines, but it is a lot of money for an operator in the north. It is not a level playing field.
I appreciate your enthusiasm about security but it will not do you any good if we share it and put the blinkers back on.
Senator Bacon: Does Vancouver International Airport have a policy or a program for substance abuse by employees?
Mr. Koroscil: We do have a policy for airport staff.
Senator Bacon: Is it prevention or education?
Mr. Koroscil: Both, as well as assistance.
The Chairman: Is that zero tolerance?
Mr. Koroscil: Yes, it is.
Senator Perrault: Has the new terminal fulfilled all of your expectations or are there design improvements you think should be made?
Mr. Koroscil: We are very happy with the results. However, we are also always looking for ways to make it better.
Senator Perrault: Are there some complications? Does putting the cruise ship people through cause problems?
Mr. Koroscil: It is not so much a complication as something that can be improved. We have a small task group made up of airport staff and cruise and airline representatives working on finding ways to make it work better.
Senator Adams: You spoke earlier of the Coast Guard. Are there ships involved, or are you using the land along the airport shore? That could be a safety concern in an emergency. How much equipment is available? Is there a wharf and a dock?
Mr. Koroscil: It is actually a Hovercraft base. The Hovercraft is very important to us because it is the only vehicle that can operate on the mud flats. We have a large area off Sturgeon Banks that is a mud flat during low tide. There is no possibility of getting any tire or wheel vehicle out there to respond. Also, it is almost too shallow to use boats when the tide is in. That is where the Hovercraft is very important. It is a very important piece of equipment for responding to incidents off the airport.
Senator Adams: So an emergency landing or a plane crashing there is a very real concern.
Mr. Koroscil: Yes, it is. On the rest of the land mass around us, municipal forces can respond, as is their responsibility. The concern is in the mud flats area. That is a Coast Guard responsibility and without a Hovercraft they cannot respond.
The Chairman: How do you meet that very real concern? I would not wait for someone else to resolve that problem; I would resolve it myself.
Mr. Koroscil: The Coast Guard has resolved it by being there. The issue is them pulling out of the service.
The Chairman: But they are gone.
Mr. Koroscil: No, they are not gone. They are still there but they are talking about removing the service. We are saying they should not remove the service.
The Chairman: They are still there?
Mr. Koroscil: Yes.
The Chairman: I am sorry. I misunderstood you.
Mr. Koroscil: They are still there but they are proposing, as part of their cost reductions, removing the service. That is our concern.
The airport authority has bought special equipment to help us work in the mud flats with the Coast Guard. So we have gone part way, but removing the Coast Guard would create a real void.
The Chairman: What type of equipment have you bought?
Mr. Koroscil: We have purchased Zodiac-type boats, large rafts that can be dropped by helicopter that will float or at least provide a bridge to assist in moving people back and forth. The equipment that makes a real difference is the Hovercraft. We are not aware of any other piece of equipment that can respond as well as the Hovercraft.
Senator Adams: Is the Coast Guard there for 12 months of the year?
Mr. Koroscil: Yes, they are. They are not there only for us. They provide service for many. The majority of their work is for the marine industry. I am sure the marine industry would not want to lose their service.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Koroscil: I would like to comment, if I may, on the issue of the transfer of airports to local airport authorities and the impact that has had with the collection of the airport improvement fee.
Prior to the airport being transferred to the airport authority, it was generating in the neighbourhood of $12 million to $15 million in revenue. That was four and a half years ago. This year, through our ground lease arrangement with Transport Canada, we will give back to the federal government almost $50 million for the four-and-a-half-year period. This is in addition to many of the other taxes that are collected.
The Chairman: If you had left that in a rotating fund, we could all have had a little cut of it. The federal government will not give it back to us.
Mr. Koroscil: We did not create the rotating fund. My point is that Vancouver is contributing more than its share, more than it ever did before, to federal resources.
The Chairman: As an easterner, I say, "Please keep the money coming. We need it desperately."
Thank you for appearing here today.
Mr. Koroscil: It was my pleasure.
The committee adjourned.