From: Kevin Gauthier
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 23:40:34 -0400
Subject: file and information updates
To: Cryptome <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hello Ms. Natsios and Mr. Young,
I would like to share that I have read more about cryptome and how the website came to be. I am at ease with having my documents on the cryptome website and twitter. Several years ago I stopped watching mainstream news and canceled all of my social media accounts ie fb, linkedIN and twitter. I also do not have a blog or website.
Please find the attached file:
https://cryptome.org/2019/04/Gauthier-Air Canada et al-CIRB FCOA Supreme Court of Canada.pdf
From a personal perspective there are findings at the administrative level that I continue to find very confusing. As one can see on page 1 of the CIRB's letter of April 28, 2006 Mr. Suchanek informs that the employer has been added as a party to the complaint ( which serves to later amend the style of clause at the FCOA and SCC level). There is something very confusing about this as my section 37 was a complaint filed against the union. I was bound by provisions of legislation pertaining to the Canada Labour Code and the duties of the employee. Also, I have no records in my files that I actually signed an agreement to join the union (ACPA) when I was hired in February 1998. I certainly was not a card carrying union member nor have I've ever seen any other pilot with an ACPA member ID card. I find this quite unsettling because being a union member prevents an employee of being heard in other venues by Supreme Court of Canada precedent setting cases (note this is what Justice Darla Wilson and Faye McWatt referred to at the Civil Court case level.) I have three union cards (two with CALPA) going back to 1981 and there was a requirement to be a card holder with those unions.
Another very odd claim comes from the CIRB decision 1444 second paragraph from the bottom stating:
“He claims that, in June 2004, while securing an aircraft at a boarding ramp just prior to deplaning passengers, the aircraft rolled backwards.”
I claimed no such thing as no aircraft that I was piloting as crew member ever experienced a roll back at the gate. I claimed that I talked with a colleague who experienced an aircraft rollback.
The CIRB finding that I had experienced a rollback incident also appears to finds its way to the Supreme Court Summary page whereby it states:
“After an incident in June 2004, he advised Air Canada and the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) of a breach of safe aircraft operations.”
This too is not accurate as my Air Safety Report demonstrates I reported on December 10, 2003.
It appears the CIRB and SCC have attempted to isolate my Air Safety Report by making no reference to that being the report that denotes non compliance and rather focusing on incidents in June 2004 . When one considers the 2005 VP of Operations letter defending the deplaning of passengers with an engine operating it appears that there is an attempt here to defend this position by not referring to it. The procedure is not a normal Ops procedure. Further, the AOM requires all engines off, brakes set, rotating beacon off and confirmation of the chutes being disarmed before any of the doors are opened. Perhaps this position by the CIRB and SCC Summary had something to do with my case not being accepted at either level.
Also up to a few weeks ago there was a reference to my Federal Court of Appeal dismissal at this link:
There is no longer any reference to my case at the FCOA canlii archives.
I am also attaching a pdf file called:
https://cryptome.org/2019/04/Gauthier-Globe and Mail emails Derek DeCloet Brent Jang.pdf
I've checked my notes and am able to say that when I met with Mr. Jang on June 23, 2006 he appeared quite nervous and expressed that a story could lead to the Globe and Mail being sued by my employer. For what it is worth after my meeting with Mr. Jang I made my way to the CBC and met with a lady by the name of Gordonna and we spoke for about an hour and my notes were accepted. I also made my way to the CIRB hoping to see Mr. Suchanek but he was not in.
Please also find the attached pdf files:
https://cryptome.org/2019/04/Gauthier-Air Canada June July 2006 handwritten notes - page 80.pdf
letters period February 1994 to July 2000.pdf
I am not requesting cryptome to post all/ any of these documents but I do wish to make the documentation available should cryptome wish to download some or all of these documents on the website and or cryptome twitter.
I would like to say that working as an airline pilot requires considerable attention to detail. I find it offensive that official administrations tasked to oversee federally regulated airline pilot report(s) and industrial complaints at the Canadian Industrial Relations Board might not afford the same attention to detail thereby recognizing the effort that went in to submitting such a report. This comes across as such a huge disservice to the paying passengers who might benefit from mitigation of such reports.
I also want to acknowledge and credit the USA and NASA's ASRS system as these reports are published without the reporter's name or employer and such a system serves to compliment safety oversight. This is where I found the reports that demonstrate the acars anomaly exists throughout North America at several airlines.
Once again I thank you both for your interest in what I reported and experienced.