Here's some accident reports & what our Transport Canada is proposing to protect us from ourselves:
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012JAG0064-000580.htm

Heres what our Pres. of the COPA thinks:

There are some very expensive recommendations that affect all certified aircraft. We will have to keep an eye on this one as Transport Canada reacts.

The comments and recommendation concerning ELTs are interesting, however it may bounce off the regulator because to my knowledge none of the ELTs were 406 so TC may claim that if the aircraft were equipped with 406 signals would have got out. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth but this is the belief they continue to hold even with a growing database of 406 failures.

Tracking devices are certainly good but the criteria TC has developed in the draft revised ELT regulation makes none of the existing tracking services an acceptable solution or at least affordable. The issue is the choice of words in the draft regulation, such as the requirement for 100% real time monitoring with “immediate” response when an aircraft goes missing (ie whoever is monitoring must be able to immediately recognize that an aircraft has crashed – the 406 monitoring system is not even capable of this) and the location of the accident must be determined within 5km, meaning that reports from the tracking device must be no more than 5km apart, which can be expensive for fast moving aircraft because more frequent satellite position reports costs more money. This rate of monitoring is certainly not affordable for non-commercial operators but TC does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial operators as far as the requirement for an ELT is concerned.

Kevin Psutka

President and CEO

Canadian Owners and Pilots Association

71 Bank St, 7th floor

Ottawa, ON K1P 5N2

I'm wondering just how long the BC Coroners Service has been experts at aviation safety

I thought it was interesting that the "death panel" appeared to be composed of half pilots, half non-pilots (I'm assuming that those related to aviation were obvious, and there's no way to easily tell if the others were pilots or not), and that of the pilots, more than half had positions with Transport Canada already.

Without focusing on the ELT issue, it appeared to me that some of the recommendations had some validity (such as wearing PFDs) where others would add astronomically to the cost of operations without a clear benefit. But what wasn't clear at all was how most of these equipment requirements would have prevented any of the targeted accidents, had they been in force at the time of the accidents.

It seems to me that the entire process was designed only to enhance survivability without first addressing the cause of the accidents, and my reaction is that a lot of the recommendations, without more information, would not enhance survivability at all. I'm not into cost/benefit analysis at all; but if there is no discernible benefit, then forcing increased cost on the industry makes no sense.

Cary