AIR GEORGIAN, A COMPANY THAT PROVIDES THOUSANDS OF AIR CANADA-BRANDED FLIGHTS ANNUALLY,
IS HITTING BACK AFTER A REPORT THAT CLAIMED THAT FLAWED SYSTEMS HELPED TRIGGER A CRASH LANDING.
A company that provides thousands of Air Canada-branded flights annually had flawed safety-management, quality-control and maintenance systems, which helped trigger a landing-gear breakdown and tense emergency landing two years ago, a federal investigation has concluded.
No one was injured when the Air Canada Express flight touched down at Calgary airport in July 2016, the front gear failing to extend and the aircraft’s nose scraping along the runway for 20 seconds.
But the recent Transportation Safety Board report concluded the malfunctioning gear was the result of longstanding, systemic problems at Air Georgian Ltd., the sub-contractor that operated that flight, and runs 62,000 others for Air Canada yearly.
“When we see a rudimentary maintenance element not being done correctly for a long period of time, at a company that’s offering this level of service for fare-paying passengers in Canada, that is a concern,” said John Lee, the TSB’s Western regional manager. “We’re not doing it to run Air Georgian out of business … The point is to ensure they can do the best job they can.”
The report also criticizes Transport Canada, saying the regulator relies too much on evaluating companies’ internal “safety management systems” (SMS) and not enough on inspecting their actual safety performance.
It noted that the department had for several years given Air Georgian a “high-risk” rating, but still focused just on reviewing its SMS, “rather than regulatory compliance.”
A high-risk designation — used by Transport Canada to determine how often it inspects an airline — can reflect neutral factors such as a recent fleet expansion or personnel changes, as well as actual problems, noted Lee. Meanwhile, Air Georgian fired back at the safety agency itself, complaining that the investigator pre-judged the case, bullied some Georgian employees and was discriminatory toward workers whose first language was not English, according to a company memo obtained by the National Post.
The TSB indicated it provided sensitivity training to the investigator but otherwise dismissed the complaints, leaving the company “very disappointed,” the memo says.
“We stand by our complaints and believe many of the elements in the report to be biased,” said the note. “We believe the TSB fell well short of their mandate (and) will continue to advocate for the rights of our employees. We are committed to providing a respectful and harassment-free workplace that celebrates the diversity that makes our great company what it is.” Lee said the safety board reviewed the complaints thoroughly, but did not change any of its findings as a result.
Through lawyer Rocco DiPucchio, Air Georgian told the Post it has already taken action to respond to issues raised by the board and “will not hesitate” to do more if necessary. Meanwhile, its safety-audit results put it in the top tier of airlines, he said. DiPucchio also said it would be “inaccurate and misleading” to suggest the report applied to anything more than just the landinggear lubrication issue on which it focused.
But Lee said the findings do raise broader concerns, as “the system that didn’t catch that lubrication task is the same system that oversees other, maybe more serious maintenance activities as well.” A spokesman for Air Canada said the carrier is confident that Georgian has addressed the matters raised by the investigation, and that it meets all international safety standards.
A National Post investigation last year reported the concerns of several current and former crew members about Georgian’s safety approach, including allegations that it delayed fixing defective plane parts and discouraged reporting of problems.
The company responded at the time that it had passed numerous safety audits, and that the criticisms were fabricated, coming in part from disgruntled ex-employees.
The TSB report looked at a Georgian Beechcraft 1900 D propeller aircraft, carrying 15 passengers from Lethbridge, Alta., to Calgary in July 2016. Unable to fully extend the gear, the pilots made an emergency landing, the plane coming to a safe stop after sliding on its nose.
The board blamed the nosegear problem on a lack of lubrication, which caused a bolt to seize and break.
It went on to list a number of issues contributing to the lubrication error, including inadequate maintenance procedures and training and internal systems that did not detect potential maintenance problems.
During the investigation, the company found improperly lubricated landing gear on several aircraft that its safety-management, quality assurance and qualitycontrol programs had failed to uncover, the report said. Airlines in Canada have been required to have safety-management systems in place since 2005, the idea being to add another, internal layer of vigilance.
But critics say Transport Canada has increasingly relied on paper evaluations of those company-run systems, while scaling back its own in-person, surprise inspections.
In the Georgian case, that approach meant that the “ineffective lubrication processes” went undiscovered in three Transport Canada inspections before the Calgary incident, the safety board said. The department defended its approach, noting that it oversees one of the safest aviation sectors in the world. Safety-management systems offer an extra level of prevention, but in no way replace scrutiny by the regulator, said spokeswoman Marie-Anyk Côté.