In July 2007, Brian Iler, Chair of Community AIR, wrote to the then transport minister Lawrence Cannon about safety concerns and the Island Airport.  Three concerns, in particular, cited in the letter were the length of the main runway, the weather and bird strikes.

Mr. Iler received a stock, bureaucratic response, along the lines of the following.

“Transport Canada's first priorities are safety and security.  The department's mission is to develop and administer policies, regulations and programs for a safe, secure and efficient transportation system.”

It would become a Transport Canada mantra as though if it were repeated enough, it might actually come true. 

In hindsight, it is easy to see why Transport Canada was so dismissive.  Over a year before, on April 27, 2006, Transport Minister Cannon introduced Bill C-6 to the House of Commons.  Bill C-6 called for, amongst other things, the introduction of a Safety Management System (SMS).  SMS called for the airline industry to be self-regulating.  Transport Canada’s role would switch from inspecting to monitoring.

A year later, March 29, 2007, Kirsten Brazier, an air taxi operator, blew the whistle on common practices in the industry that compromised safety and what she saw as a problem with Bill C-6.  The same day a Transport Canada official was in the news charged with attempting to intimidate employees who might speak out against the bill.

The last time Transport Canada cut back on the inspection process was under the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.  The Conservatives took over in 1984.  After years of airline industry deregulation and Transport Canada cutbacks, on March 10, 1989 an Air Ontario aircraft crashed at Dryden, Ontario killing 24.

Justice Virgil Mohansky, the commissioner who investigated and reported on the Dryden crash, presented a paper on October 16, 2007 at the International Civil Aviation Organization that faults Transport Canada, once again under Conservative rule, for repeating the kinds of mistakes that led to the Dryden crash. 

It is easy to see why Transport Canada was too pre-occupied, with criticism over Bill C-6 and a determination to keep planes flying out of the island airport after the federal government coughed up $35 million for infrastructure, to pay attention to Mr. Iler’s concerns, which it appears are justified.

Transport Canada runs the Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS).  The CADORS site provides initial information on events involving Canadian-registered aircraft, as well as actions which occur at Canadian airports, in Canadian sovereign airspace, or international airspace for which Canada has accepted responsibility, even those involving foreign registered aircraft.  A reader can seek out non-standard civil aviation related events by a variety of search possibilities.

A search of the three concerns, in particular, cited in Mr. Iler’s letter, the length of the main runway, the weather and bird strikes are interesting.  Since July 2007, CADORS reports 238 occurrences at CYTZ, the Island Airport.  Of those 33 were missed approaches meaning the aircraft did not land on the first attempt.  Some of those were weather-related and some had no reason given.  Of the 14 weather-related incidents, 3 required diversion to Pearson.  Bird strikes accounted for 29 incidents.

Cavalier members of the airline industry will see these incidents as nothing out of the ordinary, just part of the normal course of doing business.  As for Transport Canada, who knows if they are monitoring the situation or are still putting all their energy into trying to bring about their Safety Management System? 

It would be tragic if the Island Airport becomes a victim of what some experts call tombstone improvements – changes that come about after people die.

Bill C-6 never made it beyond the report stage but was brought back with amendments on 29 October, 2007 as Bill C-7.  That version died when the 39th Parliament ended on September 7, 2008.  Would the Conservative government want to bring it back a third time?  They would if Transport Canada and not they were running the show. 

As for safety at the Island Airport, Transport Canada doesn’t seem to be concerned.  Perhaps they should be, if not for loss of life, then for liability.  Should a fatal accident occur at the airport, the finger pointing would be frantic.  Any carriers involved will be the obvious targets, then the Port Authority for running the facility, finally Transport Canada.  Presumably their insurers know about the missed approaches, weather-related incidents and bird strikes, not to mention the numerous pilot cautions.

In the final analysis, why should Transport Canada be concerned?  It’s the politicians that will take the heat.

Bob Kotyk