D.o.m. Missing?

[amodao]

Skullcap,
In 2002 their was a initiative proposed by Transport Canada to make an "Accoutable Executive" (a financial stake holder of a company) responsible for the maintenance control system of the operator. This person would be defined in the MCM and would be held financially and criminally liable if it was determined that they had not given the PRM adequate resources to fullfill the needs/requirements of the organization.
The owners of various companies complained, through Associations they belong to, and put pressure on Transport to drop the requirement. It is still on the back burner! :blink:

Charles W.
I am quite concerned that the applicant PRM's you are describing would want to take on a position that they were not deemed qualified to do so. Maybe there was other concerns that made TC not approve the individuals. Maybe they needed to brush up on CARs or develope a better understanding of the requirements and responsibilities of the position. I am suprised that TC didn't communicate or that the person being interview didn't realize what their short comings where during the interview process.

 

[Charles W.]

amodao :

With all due respect to your last comments.

The issue that I was addressing was the fact that M&M have an internal poilcy that clearly gives them cover for the occasions where for their own reasons they deny an applicant.

I made an error on my last post regarding the internal document I have, the exact wording in the top right hand corner is ...

PROTECTED Please shred when finished.

It has been used to deny approval, and on more than one occasion and more than one company, that I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt.

They have refused to give a reason for not approving the applicant.

Granted I can not argue your wondering if the applicant had the needed understanding of CAR's.

However I personally can prove that they will deny without any reason, and as to the interpertation of CAR's, well lets not go there.....that in it's self is a mine field I do not wish to get into.

Hell nevermind a simple interpertation, they will not even abide by the wording when it is straight foward and the interpertation is obvious.

I do not wish to argue with a total stranger on this forum, but I can show enough evidence to back up my statements that there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of my statements.

How about this for an example.

A company intending to operate two Cessna 150's appoints an engineer with an M1 M 2 and S33 licenses, the person talked to the M&M inspector and backed out of the agreement due to not wanting to deal with said inspector.

The company then appointed the Class 1 instructor who was on staff who studied and unfortunately failed the written by one question, however the Instructor was not given the CAR's to refeer to as required in an open book exam...M&M said to bad he had to wait 30 days to re write.

Company appoints another candidate who met the requirements of CAR 426:36 (2)

M&M sets up the interview as outlined in CAR's and also had confirmed beforehand in writing from the Regional Manager of M&M that the applicant met the requirement of 426:36 (2).

M&M set up an interview with four TC managers present then refused applicant stating that 426:36(2) did not apply to the applicant in question...interview not completed thus no approval.

So what do you make of that amoado?

I can give you more, but that first one should get you to thinking.

Chas W.

 

[skullcap]

I guess Amodao that being responsible for the maintenance control system of a company and criminally liable for not giving person in charge of maintenance the resources needed are two different things. How could someone with no knowledge of a maintenance system owning the company be responsible for it, am afraid that is what the DOM/PRM is for. Being liable for not backing up the DOM/PRM and not giving the adequate resources, you bet, and agree 100%.

Personally am liable, accountable, responsible and just plain simple for it all, passed the blessed interview and made to feel small but here I am.

sc

 

[Blackmac]

Having covered most of the job descriptions mentioned as engineer, pilot, base manager, company manager, director of maintenance, chief pilot and person in charge of keeping my work place clean, I beleive I can comment on this thread.

In very simple terms the following is applied,DOM or Chief Engineer goes to the people that controll the dollars for money to carry out the required parts replacement for the aircraft that were being operated. Inspections aside, everybody in parts replacement knows that parts do not last as long as the manufacturer states. So, comes the argument with the money controller.

Originally aviation companies were run by people with some knowledge of aviation.

Today, most companies are run by "bean counters", who have little or no knowledge of having to replace a time expired item that still looks perfectly good.

Hence, comes the TC "Accountable Executive" that should be held responsible.

I personally quit a company that operated everything from PBY's, Single Otters, Beavers, C185's, Stearman, C310, B204B, FH100, S55's, and God knows what else as DOM because it was run by "bean counters".

Never mind with trying to put the blame on the Person Responsible for Maintenance, the problem has always started at the top and it is called President, CEO or whatever and is ultimetily the person who controls the purse strings.

Some people will do anything to feel important, when in actual fact they are impotent and a safety hazard or dangerous goods with no number.

My thought for the day.

Cheers Don