Why a whole page dedicated to "politics" in aviation?

Aviation in Canada has become a world of bizarre and illogical rules. This page is a combination of a blog of events and the background of what has transpired to create the current system.

Feel free to contact me to add to them (but events must be factual), or to correct me on issues of fact.

If you feel as I do this has to be stopped I ask you help us do it by cutting the following text, pasting it into an e mail, and send it to the Minister of Transport at mintc@tc.gc.ca . (or send it wherever you feel it may do some good).

Dear sir;

The flying community in this country is frustrated by a hypocritical bureaucracy that functions in inconsistent manner that is unnacceptable. Just as Judge Phelan observed in TC vs Boyd, the Canadian Aviation Regulations are unneccesarily confusing and convoluted. Aviation in Canada is threatened unless the Federal Government re-writes the Aeronautics Act and Canadian Aviation Regulations (SOR/96-433) in simple PLAIN LANGUAGE so that we, the pilots, airline and maintenance companies, inferior Governments, and the general flying public can read them and understand them. Compliance will not only increase, but your costs will be reduced dramatically.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Past letters to the Government in the pursuit of the survival of General Aviation :

 

Most Recent Examples;

Nav Canada implements Service Cuts without following Process Agreed To ?

The local office of Nav Canada pulled off a surprising bit of efficency at the start of February. They decided to remove flight briefing services, announced it, consulted (in an e mail that wasn't circulted) , and delivered said cuts in two weeks. They say the service wasn't being used. Locally we know better than to count on it....the TAF is ammended every time it is issued, within minutes of issue, because it is always wrong. Not surprising really, the forecast comes from a guy in an air-conditioned office in the Okanogan (1200 Miles away), who was given a junket years ago to visit Whitehorse, so he would know what weather to expect, TODAY? I'm barely exagerating here. See : 2012 Cuts at Flight Services in Whitehorse

They also announced they are removing beacons, (Liard), cutting staff, removing computer terminals, and reducing hours. Either someone is sadly incompetent, or, perhaps the plan was to stimulate enough public complaints to prevent political will for further cuts? The latter seems to indcate the former in any event.

The Transportation Safety Board makes Recomendations based on .... what exactly?

The Government circulated Aviation Safety Letter "TP 185E, Issue 3/2011 back in October. Final Report A09P0156 should scare anyone in aviation, anyone who pays taxes, or anyone who flies even occasionaly. To summarize, the conclusions they make and publish at our expense are not substantiated by the facts in the case. In fact, logically they are contra-indicated. When I complained a dialogue began where at first I was minimized, then brushed off. When finally persistence and logic prevented them from ignoring me I was directed to the Head Investigator.

He informed me he had no legal training, but that was OK because he didn't need those skills to conduct an investigation and TSB did not need to worry about rules of law as they are exempt from Charter restrictions. He informed me that "Dramatic restrictions on all your Non-Certified aircraft" have been announced in Ottawa as recently as the weekend before we talked (Feb, 2012). And, "From now on none of you, amateur built, owner maintained, ultralight, any others, will be allowed to do annual inspections or 100 hour inspections." He added more and more alarming detail which I have documented and can provide, He kind of agreed the facts in this case did not support his conclusions, but maintained they were still warranted because he knew better.

What can you add to this kind of logic. TSB opperates using unique rules, in a pseudo-legal way, seldom being called to account before actual legal review. On those few occasions where they are you find statements like that from Ontario Judge Phelan who, in TC vs Boyd, states the Canadian Air Regulations are so confusing they make the Tax Regulations look like elegant prose." Or, try looking up TC vs Wapiti Aviation in Alberta. There they rulled TC was 50% responsible for an accident, and there are other cases like this.

Recent publicity in the major media have TC officials "unofficaly" saying the problem is one of lack of officers to do sufficient enforcement. We know that so long as they can bamboozle everyone with bad law they have job security with impunity. Check out 2012 Response to TSB Zealous restrictions .

The Yukon Government Prohibits anyone from landing on skis?

Update to the following story - April 29 , 2011. There is a Federal election underway, meaning that at this time there is no sitting Government, (including a Minister of Transport.) I have just received word that bureaucrats in Ottawa at Transport Canada have decided that the previous decision (provided to us by the Minister Chuck Strahl) was incorrect and that TC 's position is once again that no one shall land on any airport unless it is upon a designated landing surface. It seems we created a licencing regieme that was pointless, the cause was not addressed, and the TC bureacracy is willing to thumb their nose at their own Minister if they thnk they can get away with it (and they obviouslly do).

We all know how Government operates, and how sometimes it appears that their enthusiasm to create more rules exceeds the need. Here as a perfect example of how the end of private aviation can be forecast. A COPA member from Dawson City found the grader opperator removed all the snow from the taxi-way in front of her hanger thus preventing her from moving her ski-only plane to an area suitable for take off. She asked the grader operator to leave an inch or two there to allow taxi across on skis. She was in turn contacted by Mr. Mark Ritchie, Superintendant of Community Airports for the Yukon Government, whom she again asked if some of it could be left next time. Here is part of his answer on Dec.29, 2010;

"We are not able to support off-runway activities such as a ski strip since Transport Canada requires all operations to be in compliance with our operations certificate and Airport Operations Manual.  In this age of regulatory standards and liability, it is no longer possible to allow aircraft to operate off of the available and approved movement areas. "

When questioned by our members to clarify his statement Mr. Ritchie repeated himself on Dec 30, 2010;

"...Transport Canada has also advised us that we cannot allow off-runway take-offs and landings except on the available runway.  Allowing any activities that do not meet the conditions of our operating certificate can subject us to administrative fines, liability and possible suspension of our operating certificate.  If Dawson City Airport were to lose its operating certificate, Air North would be unable to provide scheduled service to the community, as Transport Canada requires airport certification in order for scheduled service to occur.  We have no doubt that Air North’s insurer also requires certified airports for the scheduled service.  So we are just not prepared to risk losing the operating certificate for the Dawson City Airport .
We acknowledge the long-held argument regarding “pilot’s discretion” but there is no clear jurisprudence on this issue and we expect that argument will be contested in court sooner or later.  We also acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies regarding authorizations for landing off-runway at some Yukon airports.  In part, this has come from our reluctance to comply with Transport Canada ’s previous warnings on allowing off-runway activities.
..."

Mr Ritchie's message is absolutely clear, it is against the law to land off of the runway, and worse, he threatens that if anyone does it they will be the cause of a disruption of all aviation service to the City of Dawson by Air North. He says Transport Canada requires this. He also says the Yukon Government disagrees with the principle of a pilots discretion to evaluate safety, and is even looking to contest this in court.

This position is contrary not only to logic but to all legal precedent in Canada.

So, our members in Dawson City contacted the Transport Canada authority quoted, Mr. Dean Zimmer, in Edmonton. Mr Zimmer informed them that Mr. Ritchie's view was not the same as Transport Canada's, there is no restriction from landing off the prepared surface, a pilot does retain the authority to evaluate what is safe, and that they had contacted Mr. Ritchie to discuss this. Our members reply to Mr. Ritchie on Jan 15, 2011 confirms;

"...Dean Zimmer, Superintendent for Aerodromes, MOT sent me a note,(I am sure, you received it as well) with regards to off runway use and the designation of ski strips beside a runway.
 According to Dean Zimmer, the operator of Dawson Airport could designate any suitable area beside the runway as a ski strip.
 Also, as I always assumed, landing beside the runway is at the discretion of the pilot and not prohibited by Transport Canada and in no way would jeopardize the certification of the airport.
Of course all the responsibilities remain with the pilot should a mishap occur...."

Sadly this whole situation reflects the Yukon Governments approach to aviation. You may recall Mr Ritchie, Superintendant of Community Airports is of the same Yukon Government office that refuses to inform private pilots of the radio frequency needed to activate the runway lights in Dawson City because he fears that having that knowledge would only encourage us to abuse Day VFR rules!

There is a pattern apparent. At the same time Yukon pilots are repeatedly told by YTG that there have been no reductions in service we find there are less runways for skis, or tundra wheels. We are told there are no increased fees, but suddenly everyone who parks on the airport is required to buy $ 2,000,000 liability insurance naming the Yukon Government as the insured. (This type of insurance was not even available three years ago.) This is the very simplist form of hypocricy.

The Yukon Government and Transport Canada both play a incestuous game of misrepresenting the law and blaming the other. There is mutual if not formal collusion between both Governments in this machiavellian mis-administration of Aviation Regulations. What a wasteful process this has created. It shows many things but maturity and trust building isn't any of them.

The absurdity didn't end here of course. The local MP (Larry Bagnel) contacted the Federal Minister of Transport (Chuck Strahl) and together with the YTG Minister of Transportation (Archie Lang) they managed to demand a solution. Unfortunately the bureacrats now didn't want to be embarrased by backing down, so they created a new LICENCE that a pilot must get ahead of time from the Yukon Government. Once a pilot has this new licence they may land off the paved surface.

This is the product of our finest Federal minds, and some new COPA delegates (imported from Transport Canada of course), but I just can't bring myself to support the creation of a new rule as a means to resolve a problem we never really had.

Current Issues and absurditiy ?

-Another decision by the Yukon Government is that we are not to be allowed access to our leased properties unless we obtain a Yukon Government Airport Vehicle Operators Permit. So far, no additional insurance will be required by YTG.

-At a recent meeting between COPA and the YTG airport people we were reminded to make sure we shut all gates and keep control of any pets or visitors we bring onto the airport. Lets make sure we users do our share to make common sense part of the Security system.

-The expansion of Canada Customs at the Terminal is now complete (at a cost of $16 Million). Sadly, because ALL the international flights have ceased it is currently not open for use (They could have repaved all surfaces for less).

-If you are using the parallell runway (13L / 31R) and access it using taxi-way "Alpha" use caution. If you have small tail wheel like I do on my RV-8 I suggest you ask to cross using "19", damage results otherwise!

-There has been a lot of confusion about aircraft parking and about the availability of hanger lots at CYXY. If you are thinking about trying to build a hanger click HERE for a summary of the process and how one person managed to do it recently.

ELTs...The "SECOND LAST" word ?

May 5, 2009, news release is that the Minister of Transport John Baird refused to sign the regulation presented by his bureaucracy. Finally, someone has listened to reason, too bad a lot of us private flyers are already out thousands of dollars.

Now, lets set up a modern (GPS ?) based alerting and homing system that makes sense.

Kudos to John Baird for having the guts to look beyond what his mandarins are trying to peddle to him, and to stand up against them. Too often our elected officials are victims of a manipulative bureacracy which can feed them controled propaganda and obstruct any challeneges by their suposed masters. Baird could easily have just "gone along", but he didn't, he smelled the rat, and acted, and I appreciate it. Maybe he can stick around for a while.

*Frequency Fiasco

* UPDATE* March 31, 2009 - The manager at NavCan today informs me that they have changed their minds yet again and that they will follow through on forcing us onto 123.275 Mz. He (Ray) tried to get me to say he had never said otherwise, which I find as alarming as the latest reverse in decision. He stated that all radios manufactured in the last 15 years are capable of tuning in the new extensions so in his opinion no one has an excuse for not using it. The bureacratic arrogance of this conversation was appalling.

The following is left posted, as it was for past three weeks, for explanation;

UPDATE: The unofficial word is that NavCan was "not prepared for the response by local users" and has decided to reverse their decision. IF they follow through on this it is surprising, rare, and commendable. Stay tuned.

All Yukon pilots received a letter from the Mandarins from down South telling us that all aircraft on the Whitehorse RCO (almost everyone in the Yukon) are no longer to use 126.7 or 122.2 for "Flight Information Services" (flight information requests, filing flight plans etc.). Instead we are supposed to use a new frequency 123.275 MHz,

BUT, lots of us have radios incapable of receiving or transmitting on that frequency. There are still aircraft that fly completely legally with no radios at all. Apparently, before this decision was made back in Ottwaw a year ago, this was pointed out to the Government. The response from NavCan at the committee was; "Well then they should buy new radios!"

So, similar to the ELT decision below, some of us face buying new radios and having them installed at considerable cost because a bureaucrat in Ottawa says she thinks it is a god idea. Net cost to her = $0, net cost to me $ 1,500.00. The sad fact is this change is not based on any need (the frequency is not congested up here). Since most private aircraft have only one radio they are only capable of monitoiring one frequency at a time. In the last ten minutes before an aircraft approaching from the West can land at Whitehorse they must; change from 126.7 (enroute) to 123.275 (for updates and traffic), to 126.7 (to transit the training area), to 118.3 (to enter the zone), to 123.2 (to pass over Cousins strip), back to 118.3 (to enter the pattern), to 121.9 (to close flight plans and taxi).

This will probably result in a considerable decrease in flight safety. The needless distraction (you are afterall taking to the same person through most of these changes) may preclude watching outside the aircraft for other aircraft. And, if for procedural or technical reasons you can't file, or update a flight plan, then there is absolutely going to be more false alarms for search and rescue, which was DND's driving reason for demanding new ELT's .

Confused? Frustrated? So am I, and if the Government stays true to form they will tell us in two years that no one is using the service, close it, and move the RCO to Kelowna, no to Montreal, (with our weather forecasters).

And.......we know too that Transport Canada has made a rule prohibiting the Community Air Rado Station people from giving any information about traffic, regardless of dangers, because of liability. If this is news to you....check out my "Foolish Rules" item, below. There is more!

*WAC Charts Disappearing

You may have noticed how difficult it is to find up to date charts of any kind? The Caadian Air Regulations require pilots to carry up to date charts at all times. But the Government printer wasn't printing them because of a shortage of ink. When Transport Canada and Nav Can were asked by COPA over a year ago if they would relax the regulation requiring us to carry "up to date" charts because they were not making them, the official answer was a clear "NO" !

Now NavCan proposes to stop producing the WAC chart some of us in the North use because of "low demand". (NavCan is conducting a survey..check it out.) But, of course we still need to carry up to date charts to be "legal". Confused? Frustrated?

* ELT Update;

Well the deadline came...and went. All of us flying private aircraft in Northern Canada are grounded unless we buy the Department of National Defence (did I mean Transport Canada?) approved version of an ELT. The whole issue is summed up on the COPA National page. Transport Canada defied logic, ignored reality, and adopted an expensive solution to what was only a perceived administrative need.

There are a few outstanding issues, like it is not actually the law. But then the new requirements were not based on any concern for law or increased safety for pilots or passengers, or better performance of search and rescue, or any justifiable purpose or logical reason other than to allow the Government agencies to reduce their involvement in aviation.

My favorite saying "lex malla, lex nulla" (or 'BAD LAW IS NO LAW') is now "lex nulla lex nulla". We have to wonder how much this exercise cost the taxpayer?

Here is one final, confusing point. The United States (who are world leaders in almost everything to do with aviation) has decided NOT to make thier pilots do this, The official position is that it is not going to result in any increased safety, and, they have decided to wait for "new" technology which is coming. When this "new" technology (probably real-time sattelite transponders) arrives in the next two or three years you can bet that Transport Canada will make us change again.

Is anyone else in the situation I am in? The American manufacturer of my existing ELT is rushing a 406 MHz version into production for us, but the US Air Force has to test it (they own the satellites) then the FAA needs to test it, then it has to be put onto the Transport Canada's approved list. You can imagine how fast each of these bureaucracies will act. This isn't going to happen for months, if I'm lucky.

If I wait until it is ready I can simply remove my existing (fully functional) ELT, and replace it with the new version.....existing wiring can be used. If Transport Canada does NOT allow me to wait, then I need to rip out and modify my instrument panel, all the wiring, and the antennae location. (Only to do this all again in 3 or 4 more years when the Americans switch to "new" technology?)

* SPOT , or not ?

SPOT is not perfect, we are on the edge of range, but I firmly recommend that all of us flying in Yukon obtain and carry a SPOT beacon or a satellite phone , or both, on our persons. "The fact is ELT's fail more often than they function", and the new 406 will not change that statistic. Tune in 121.5 en route if you can.

* Problems at Yukon & Community Airports;

Development and improvement of airports in Yukon (and in much of Canada) has been frozen. To fully understand how this situation developed you need to know the history of the current airport management structure. Originally the "Feds" (Transport Canada) operated the airports, and in doing so had access to virtually unlimited financial resources. They created a sizable bureaucracy, volumes of rules, and an impressive infrastructure. But that growth came at a cost ( efficiency ? ) and soon the Federal Government turned all the airports over to the Provinces/Territories, along with a "FIXED" budget. What they retained was the rule making authority and this turned out to be the key failure in the system.

Transport Canada continued to regulate and enforce standards that they themselves hadn't been able to meet. Costs and problems grew. Infrastructure deteriorated. The Provinces and Territories tried to defer some of the problems by turning development authority over to the Municipalities in which the airports were located. This created a complex system of regulation and decision making virtually insurmountable by most people trying to fly off the airport properties.

A good example was the construction of my private hanger at the Whitehorse Airport; It took more than a year and two trips to City Council Chambers to get the City of Whitehorse to issue a building permit for a simple wood frame/steel clad structure without power, water, or sewer. Water was the issue for City bureaucrats. They claimed I had to have "fire-fighting" capability, and in the absence of water mains, were holding me to install a dry chemical system into the building. This cost the bureaucrat nothing, but was going to be an added cost to me in excess of $100,000.00.

What I eventually discovered was that the City and Yukon Territorial Government were fighting over water and had been for years. The City wants new mains to service new subdivisions above the airport, and wants YTG to put them in. YTG maintains it is not their problem, so the City refuses to issue building permits. (All this even though this is still "Federal" land and and the Supreme Court of Canada is still defining who has authority over it.)

Finally the City of Whitehorse collected about $600.00 in "Fees" from me and gave their blessing, But, now YTG Airports stepped in to ask that I delay construction for a few months until new access roads could be put in and power lines moved. (That turned into another year of delay.) They also created new maps and laid out and surveyed in new water mains, which have subsequently been cancelled.

Want more? Add to this needless confusion the fact that the two largest steel hangers on the Whitehorse Airport, are owned by the Yukon Government. It probably wouldn't surprise anyone to learn that we are not allowed access to these existing hangers, and in fact they are both needed by Dept of Highways to store old furniture and typewriters.

And more? Here is another revelation to fuel our cynicism; the Aviation and Marine Services budgets were cut to fund the expansion of the Whitehorse terminal. This expansion is "required" by Canada Customs whose officials refuse to work in existing cramped conditions when they process Condor's flights, once a week, in summer, that may not even continue. Six Federal Bureaucrats don't like their work environment, pull out their "rule-book" and demand the expenditure of millions of dollars, to the detriment of all other airports in the Yukon. I wish I was wrong, I know I am not.

If you are still with me I will add one more twist to the use of your tax money at the airports in Yukon.

Airports here are managed by "Aviation and Marine Services" branch of the Yukon Territorial Government (YTG). In dealing with these people I have found them to be professional and reasonable.

But, there seems to be problems in the overall operation and development of Yukon airports caused by the YTG budgeting process. This is because "Aviation & Marine Services" is an orphan cousin of YTG Department of Highways who they report to. Highways has been the favored child ever since the US Army came through and willed the whole thing to them. The aviation guys work hard to get a realistic budget only to be cut every time spoiled big-brother needs something. Effectively airports are good places to "store" money while scrutiny is on, and easy to squelch when they are skinned again to fund the newest fashion. The solution is to give them some guaranteed base funding and not make them "compete" with that other gang of bullies; "PLEASE SIR, CAN I HAVE SOME MORE?"

Now is a good time for those in the communities to increase pressure on the Yukon Government for facility improvement and better maintenance. All levels of Government are looking at infrastructure projects in light of the "economic situation". Because the Highways Department is ultimately in charge of the airports we tend to be "low priority after routine highway maintenance" as one past Highways Superintendent informed me once. And with the economic focus shifting to strategic infrastructure the availability of our airports for medi-vacs, fire fighting, and other emergency and economic purposes must be kept in mind by the decision makers.

* Wx Forecasting issues;

Anybody else notice how bad the forecasts have been? In February the forecast was out by 20 degrees for over 12 hours. And we saw forecast overnight lows ten degrees warmer than current temperature. Since the removal of forecasters from the Yukon to Kelowna, and then from Kelowna to Montreal, the needs of 30,000 people are the very bottom priority. (This statement from a Government manager.) We are almost completely automated up here, and failures are starting to show.

Remember the story Environment Canada forecasters told us at our COPA meeting a few years back. They were apologetic, sincere, and straight forward, and it went something like this;

The Federal Governments weather office used to be at the airport and all worked well. But, then Transport Canada decided to start charging Environment Canada rent for the space. (slightly incestuous ...the Federal Government billing the Federal Government with our tax dollars?)

Anyway, at the "commercial" rate it now made sense to the decision makers at Environment Canada to build a new building for $ 1,500,000.00 (the brown building now at the bottom of Hamilton Drive and Alaska Highway) rather than pay rent to another Federal department. They paid to tear down their existing building and restore the property at the airport to "pristine" condition.

Within the year, but before the forecasters moved into their new digs, they were all either laid off or relocated to Kelowna.

Then Environment Canada wheeled in a $1,000,000.00 "Fully Automated Unmanned Upper Air Station" (thats what it says down the side of the fancy trailer covered with antennas sitting beside the same new building). It promptly quit working as soon as it got cold. It turned out it was never designed for winter use. Then, since the weather balloons it launched cost nearly $200 each, they cut back to one balloon a day, as a cost saving measure. (Oh, yes then Environment Canada spent $130,000.00 "renovating" the brand new building so they could rent it out to another Government Department.)

At the same time all this was going on the Canadian Government got into an argument with the Americans and couldn't agree on sharing the use of the Alaskan forecasts (Ever wonder why the weather starts or ends at the border according to Environment Canada ? ). Then Environment Canada offended the YTG Forestry towers and CARs stations and stopped getting and using their local weather observations. Seems Environment Canada were selling them back their own observations, and at the same time telling them their "wrong union" observers were incompetent to make the observations "reliably".

So, today all forecasts in Yukon are based on a satellite picture, and one balloon a day, evaluated in Montreal. We can hardly be surprised that they are useless I guess. There might be some good news, Environment Canada has lost the contract to supply NavCan with aviation forecasting next year. It will likely go to a private contractor. Now if we just get back that tax money we pay for the service?

It is imperative that we push for real-time weather cameras like the Alaskans have, they are very inexpensive and completely intuitive.

I wrote this, and then noticed in the media that the the "Commissioner for the Environment" just published a report that tells a story of worn-out, broken and dilapidated weather forecasting systems. The commissioner himself, Scott Vaughn, says the situation is unlikely to change in future.

* Foolish Rules;

Here is one good example; Did you know that we are not allowed to know the frequency needed to activate the runway lights in Dawson City? Transport Canada has decided that if we know how to activate them in an emergency, we might use them, and that might make them liable.

They would rather have you crash in the dark in an emergency situation!

To make an absurd situation even worse, if Transport Canada change their own "designation" of the Dawson City airport on paper (from "aerodrome" to "airstrip"), then they say the situation is completely different and they can then tell us how to turn the lights for an emergency landing. It's true!

( I wonder if we'll need to use frequencies we don't have? By then it will be to contact someone in an RCO in Edmonton who will have no idea where Dawson City is ? From there they will dispatch search and rescue out of Comox BC in their new replacement aircraft, which is aparently going to be faster than the "outdated and slow" Buffalo, but might actually be the same Buffalo airframe they have now, they haven't decided?)

* Not Illogical Actions After All;

All these seemingly bizarre actions by Government (in particular Transport Canada) are not so illogical if we again look at history.

Back when aviation was healthy the bureacracy was much smaller, and more efficient. But two air accidents changed all that. The first was the crash of "WAPITI Aviation", out of Grande Prairie, in about 1976 that killed a local politician (I belive it was Grant Notly), and several others. In the impending lawsuits the Courts found the Minister of Transport was 50% responsible for the deaths because his officials had failed to do thier jobs. (Regulatory Negligence was described in the Judges ruling).

The marching orders for Transport Canada since that time have been to; "...reduce the Ministers liability".

And they have done a good job. Every bureaucrat at Transport Canada (mostly Military retiree's) knows the task is ;

  1. Make MANY rules- so that it is difficult for the pilot not to be found "non-compliant" in any situation.
  2. Make the rules extremely complicated and difficult to understand -(Try reading C.A.R.s, then compare to any other law) so know one can tell if the are "guilty' or not.
  3. Create many official 3rd party entities and force the public to deal with them instead for the services you used to provide (IE Ministers Designates program,), that effectively puts layers between the Minister and the "problem"
  4. Switch to "self-regulating" requirements for aviation operators, then designate your officials role as only "auditors" so the public not you are responsible.
  5. Spend tremendous amount of time and money on these audits ( because spending $ = progress), so you must be doing a good job?
  6. Deviate away from the system of courts and legal safeguards provided for other Canadian citizens towards a "Kangaroo" court system with unique rules for all players and procedures that defy "Charter of Rights" guarantees. (Avoid real courts).
  7. Use fines and threaten arbitrary suspension of priveledges for minor infractions to promote "guilty pleas" and prevent complaints. (Ask anyone who has been through this process.)
  8. In an extensive (expensive ?) program of propaganda publicize every accident and infraction to justify all this on a "SAFETY" banner. No one dare challenege that.

This sounds pretty cynical I know. Unfortunately it is factual, logical, and predictable. To quote Judge Judy (not my usual legal authority) "If it makes sense we know it must be true". The key to changing this pattern of behaviour is to recognize it and then to refuse to stay with status quo.