TRANSPORT APPEAL TRIBUNAL OF CANADA

[John Swallow]

In August 2106, a helicopter pilot and his son landed at a small restaurant north of Winnipeg, shut down, and went inside for a quick lunch.
His unattended helicopter was noticed by passing TC Inspectors who took pictures and videoed his subsequent lift-off and departure.  In March 2017, the helicopter pilot received a “Notice of Assessment of Monetary Penalty in the amount of $1,000”. 
The pilot disagreed with the assessment and the matter was heard by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada this past November in Winnipeg.
The results of the hearing were just released and the link is shown below.
Sometimes it’s nice to have a friend on your side…


http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... dd_id-1966

[Colonel]

Thank you for doing that.

I found some of the Inspector’s comments offensive.  I was startled
that he was dim enough to actually express his motivating class anger
in writing.

The sad thing, is that this guy might have won the battle, but he has
lost the war.  TC will be enraged at this guy, and they will do far more
damage to him in the decades to come, than the silly C$1,000 fine,
which he probably should have just paid.  When the retribution program
gets bad enough, it's best to just leave the country.

I have learned through painful experience that the more vindictive and
petty the person, the more important it is to them, that you give them a
victory for them to crow about.  A very rich, smart man taught me that.

[digits]

[quote author=John Swallow link=topic=9523.msg27048#msg27048 date=1551908476]
In August 2106, a helicopter pilot and his son landed at a small restaurant north of Winnipeg, shut down, and went inside for a quick lunch.
His unattended helicopter was noticed by passing TC Inspectors who took pictures and videoed his subsequent lift-off and departure.  In March 2017, the helicopter pilot received a “Notice of Assessment of Monetary Penalty in the amount of $1,000”. 
The pilot disagreed with the assessment and the matter was heard by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada this past November in Winnipeg.
The results of the hearing were just released and the link is shown below.
Sometimes it’s nice to have a friend on your side…


http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... dd_id-1966
[/quote]

Nice! Upon reading your name it thought it sounde familiar. Then I saw your username.

Nice. Very nice!

Only [24] sides a little bit with Transport. Everything else destroys the case. [25] and [26] is gold.

[Rosco P Coltrane]

August 2106? Are they sure it was a helicopter not a DeLorean?

[John Swallow]

"I found some of the Inspector’s comments offensive.  I was startled that he was dim enough to actually express his motivating class anger in writing."


Concur.  When I received the package detailing the infraction, I couldn't believe that the statement had been uttered. 


I have my own opinion about the suitability of the individual to hold his position, but, as that knowledge is solely based on this incident, I will keep shtumm...


The whole thing could have been handled some much differently.  Instead, a hockey sock full of money - taxpayer and personal - was expended to quiet what was essentially a baseless charge.  Had I been the inspector who witnessed the helicopter and thought that there was a problem (which I would not have, being rotary wing qualified), I would have approached the pilot, indicated I would stay on site to ensure his uneventful departure, and asked if I could contact him later in the week to discuss the situation.  NOT with idea of laying a charge, but to discuss some possible ramifications and "what ifs"... 


Although he was quite within his right to land where he did (I've done similar things dozens of times), there was a another landing option available.


PS


This is the second time I've been involved with pilots defending their actions at the TATC.  If you're interested in the results of such things, you can get to the TATC website at


[url=http://www.tatc.gc.ca/index.php]http://www.tatc.gc.ca/index.php[/url]


Once there, click on the link "Decision" and "Lists by Year".  Dozens of them going back to 1996.

[Colonel]

[quote]I have my own opinion about the suitability of the individual to hold his position[/quote]

Ever heard of the "[u]Peter Principle[/u]"?  That people rise to their level of incompetence?

I have developed the "[u]Numbnuts Ratio[/u]" theory.  It says that in a group of 10 people there
is a better than 50/50 chance that at least one person will be a numbnuts that does dumb shit
that makes the rest of the group wince.  As the size of the group increases to 20, there is at
least a 90% chance of at least one numbnuts.

This is true in almost any corporate or government organization.  Depending upon the
circumstances, it can be difficult to get rid of the numbnuts from the corporation, but
possible.  With enough numbnuts, it's possible for the corporation to go bankrupt.

However, it is almost impossible to get rid of the numbnuts from a government organization,
and the government is literally "too big to fail".

Numbnuts like this TC Inspector earn them all a very bad name.  Like lawyers or used car
salesmen.  I'm not saying all of them are bad, but enough are, to establish the reputation
for the rest of them.  You can probably guess some of the names of the numbnuts I have
run across, that absolutely no private sector company would ever hire.

The objective of this particular bureaucratic exercise was clearly not to improve safety.

As you pointed out, this could have been handled far more efficiently and effectively.

[Colonel]

Not sure anyone has been reading the news, but in case you've been
living under a rock, the people running Ottawa are totally corrupt.

Given this behavior, it's not surprising that we see this kind of sleazy
unprofessional behavior from the people that work for them.  See Enron.

It's not enough to be a good pilot and obey the regulations.  In fact,
neither of those things matter.  You need to please your local TC Inspector.

My friend Peter likes to make fun of me, because of a really great guy
called Wayne Harper who created the SFOC structure.  This makes it
really easy to legally do surface acro in Canada.  In the US, it's a huge
regulatory hassle.  Takes years of effort, but you can do it.  Most waivered
airspace isn't to the surface, either.

As I have told Peter, though, I would rather quit flying or leave the country,
than suck Arlo's dick.  I chose door #2.

[Tailwind W10]

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9523.msg27093#msg27093 date=1552145333]
Not sure anyone has been reading the news, but in case you've been
living under a rock, the people running Ottawa are totally corrupt.

Given this behavior, it's not surprising that we see this kind of sleazy
unprofessional behavior from the people that work for them.
[/quote]

Yeah, the big problem is, the people running Ottawa are the permanent civil servants.  The people working for them are our elected representatives.

Gerry

[Colonel]

Remember the "Yes, Minister" TV series that made fun of this?

It is a huge problem.  You have an enormous, powerful, entrenched
bureaucracy that answers to no one.  Stephen Harper, who was regularly
accused of being a dictator, said he had no control over them.

Pretty scary, when you have a branch of government that answers to
no one.  That's a very dangerous path to be on.

I know, I know, Canadians want to be like Venezuela.  Got that.

It's doesn't make the [u]Top 1000 List of Canadian Problems[/u], but I
learned that if you want to fly aerobatics in Canada, you better get
used to the taste of Arlo's dick.  I didn't, so I left.

[Trey Kule]

I am curious as to the subsequent career path of a TC person that put that pilot through all that on the taxpayers dime.
No speculation, but if anyone knows, please share..
I can see ause for that information.