tDawe

Hmmm If a guy didnt know better he would think that TC had issues providing uniform interpretation and enforcement of regulations across different regions.. Its not all bad R22Capt, the Arriel is a much better engine in the 76 than the Allison.

The ANR debate gets thrown around a lot on the fixed wing forums (www.Avcanada.ca) if your looking for lots of debate from both sides. I used ANR (Bose X headset) for about 3 months in the SK76, after 2 years of flying it without. The Bose was quieter, without a doubt. And no, it does not drown out any of the noises you've grown to love/ count on. I could still hear the compressors change pitch, inverters come online and everything else. All it does is make the high pitch of the compressors slightly quieter. Except that it didn't actually make anything quieter. If you read the forums on AvCanada the one thing that stands out is that ANR does not work equally for all people. Some people swear by it, some people (like me) found the canceling wave just leads to accelerated hearing loss. After 3 months I had to pack up the headset and go back to my old one because at the end of a 6 hour day my ears were ringing so bad using the Bose that I couldn't hear a thing for hours after a shift ended. Went back to the el chepo Dave Clark and my ears were better within the week. Now the fancy Bose sit in a box in my basement (for sale if anyone wants em....) My advice would be to find someone who is already running ANR and beg to borrow their rig for a few days to try it before you commit.

ORNGE has had open postings for FOs and Captains at half of its bases for the last year or more. It appears the only way to get hired there is to have a pulse.

Let's not forget the part of the report where the NTSB describes how NEITHER one of them was flying the aircraft at the time of the accident. The aircraft was being flown by the autopilot while both of them sat on their hands and chatted with each other about 1.) how they were both being underpaid for how awesome a pilot they were, and 2.) how neither one of them had ever seen icing conditions as bad as the conditions they were in AT THAT EXACT MOMENT. Neither one of them bothered at any point to check and see what the robot was doing. The aircraft was picking up a ton of ice and pitching up more and more in an effort to maintain altitude. They both botched the stall recovery, but only because they were surprised by a situation that never would have occurred had either of them bothered to pay attention to what they were being paid (albeit not very much) to do.

I drank beer out of a rugby cleat once, can I apply?

Once you add the 20th seat the helicopter becomes 705 and has to play by airline rules. The CAR that he posted is the only one you need. You can get an exemption to run a heli with 20+ seats under 704 rather than 705 from Transport, but they will still make you carry an FA.

Another option to make your life slightly easier to to have labela printed up for when you remove or re-enter the door so you don't have to acctually write "doors required to be removed for ops.. Doors removed new wieght is X new c of g is Y and Z ". And then just slap that in the book when you take them off. I guess it would depend on which combos of doors you have off, but since the numbers won't change it can make It go a little quicker when customers are staring at you.

I'll begin this topic by stating that I have ZERO hours of first hand long line experience, only some seat meat time in a 214 watching people who know what they're doing do it. I'll apologize in advance for asking what might be stupid questions. The TSB has released their report on the tail rotor drive failure of a 214 involved in heli-logging operations in 2007 http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2007/a07p0209/a07p0209.asp I've read a few TSB reports that always come back to hit on how the pilot should have been wearing his should straps in order to increase his chances of survival. But the report then goes on to acknowledge that this is not possible since you have to lean over to see the hook/load. The TSB states that they've raised the issue with TC, who replied that it's the operators responsibility to comply with the CARs regarding restraints, but that "Transport Canada has a well-established process in place for assessing and approving supplemental aircraft equipment." I'm curious how easy this process is. How many companies have modified seats/restraints in their aircraft to allow a pilot to wear shoulder straps and still lean out the door or bubble all day long? Do these systems actually work from a pilots point of view? Is it a big production to get an STC for a modified pilots seat? And for the pilots of aircraft specifically designed for vertical reference, like a K-max or the crane, are your seats designed any differently, since the aircraft is purpose built?

Lets see what we know 1.) the tail boom fell, or broke, off. It's probably an AW139.

Perhaps some enterprising soul could invent a camera mounted on the fuselage or tail (with some serious vibration dampening mounts no doubt) If the technology can exist to put it on the back of a minivan perhaps a nice wide angle camera pointed at the tail might help. I'm not saying it should replace proper situational awareness, and no one is arguing the merits of turning the aircraft about the tail rather then mast. But maybe, just maybe, it might help. I also think MMike is right about mirrors, maybe the 76 needs mirrors. **** if you were really crazy you could mount 'em on a spring hinge and let the wind resistance fold them back towards the fuselage as the aircraft speeds up. Maybe a convex lens in the door frame? But I don't know if it would be able to see past the fuselage as it widens further back, and the depth perception would be distorted no doubt. 150' by 150' landing areas all the time would be great, but helicopters will always have to go into confined areas, that's what makes them helicopters. (well, that and the price tag.) So why not augment the training with some visual clues whenever you can? It's no replacement for proper maneuvering, but maybe it can help.

Or Transport's.

I'm just an infant in this business, but I'm willing to bet that Icefield isn't the first company in the history of Canadian Rotary aviation to ask a guy to pay for his first job. If they are they certainly didn't invent it, they stole the idea from more fixed wing companies then any one person can name, up to and including companies that fly Airbus A320's (not to mention Canadian "airlines" like JetsGo) I've gotten 3 endorsements out of my employer, including a medium and a 61. Never paid them a dime, I signed a paper saying I would stick around for 18 months for the medium and the 61 endorsements each, would have done it on principal though, didn't need the paper. (not sure how binding they were anyway). Luck had a lot to do with me getting in the door at my company, I will NEVER dispute that. But hard work and a solid performance kept me here and got me my endorsements, luck had nothing to do with that part. Whats the difference between Icefield's deal where you have to buy your job, and simply hiring a guy, training him, and then having him fly all summer and not paying him a dime? If you still end up with NO MONEY at the end of summer then didn't you work for free? Take Icefield's form letter and do the math yourself. By the same token Icefield appears to be nothing if not honest about how they run their ship, so for this kid to come whingeing on the internet like he's so hard done by is quite laughable. I highly doubt it caught him/her by surprise. You don't take home the dirtiest girl in the joint then complain when your tackle has got the tickles in the morning.

Have many of the current CHL crew been contacted as a result of ORGNE's recent posting? Has anyone?

YXD would go the way of Meigs field if some people had their way, sadly.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.p...=54&t=65575 JTF2