Jump to content

Freewheel

Senior Member
  • Posts

    847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Freewheel last won the day on May 17 2023

Freewheel had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

23,187 profile views

Freewheel's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

401

Reputation

  1. i can’t imagine there are too many “authorities” interested in having any of those discussions in a court of law….but I guess anything is possible.
  2. So true, but still I would also be curious to see protocols led to this unfortunate situation. Unfortunately, bureaucrats fail to realize that. Recent similar concerns, that some have raised with TC, we’re met with the response “I would expect any pilot to prioritize any life saving mission” (over compliance with FRMS regulations). I thought that was quite short sighted. This statement in the article also seems suspect: "Ornge is dealing with protocols that haven't been looked at in so long," said Gélinas. With the massive change to TC regulations surrounding crew working hours, just last December, I suspect most of the related protocols would have had to have been reviewed. Not to mention, I bet just about every protocol related to operational control was reviewed by TSB, and TC between 2013 and 2016, during the investigation that led the longest TSB report ever published.
  3. For 702 Aerial Work, it’s written into the 702 CARs and Commercial Air Service Standards (incorporated by reference). Not applicable to 703 Air Taxi, 704 Commuter, which are regulated under the applicable 700 FRMS CARS. As mentioned, TC recently amended the CARs/CASS to clarify to TC personnel that all Forest fire hire flights are indeed 702 aerial Work. TC is still uncertain as to which basic Air Operator Certification requirements (and Regulations) apply to the rest of the flights in Canadian VFR helicopter industry. It seems we just can’t fit into their one size fits all airline regulations. The Current air operator certification regulations were published 27 years ago, but they still really don’t know what we are lol CARs Time Free from Duty 702.96 (1) An air operator shall provide each flight crew member with the following time free from duty: a) at least 24 consecutive hours 13 times within any 90 consecutive days and 3 times within any 30 consecutive days; and b) when the member is a flight crew member on call, at least 36 consecutive hours within any 7 consecutive days or at least 3 consecutive days within any 17 consecutive days. 2) However, an air operator may provide a flight crew member with time free from duty other than as required by paragraph (1)(a) if a) the time free from duty is authorized in the air operator certificate; and b) the air operator and the member comply with the Commercial Air Service Standards. Commercial Air Service Standards 722.96 Requirements for Time Free from Duty The standard for providing time free from duty other than as required by subsection 702.96(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations is: 1) Except for a helicopter conducting heli-logging, the 24 consecutive hours 3 times within any 30 consecutive days may be replaced by: a) following at least 5 consecutive periods of 24 consecutive hours free from duty, a flight crew member may be assigned duty for up to 42 consecutive days; and, b) the flight crew member shall receive at least 5 consecutive periods of 24 consecutive hours free from duty following any assignment that exceeds 27 CARs Maximum Flight Time 702.92 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an air operator shall not assign flight time to a flight crew member, and a flight crew member shall not accept such an assignment, if the member’s total flight time will, as a result, exceed a) 1,200 hours in any 365 consecutive days; b) 300 hours in any 90 consecutive days; c) 120 hours in any 30 consecutive days or, in the case of a flight crew member on call, 100 hours in any 30 consecutive days; d) 60 hours in any 7 consecutive days; or e) if the member conducts single-pilot IFR flights, eight hours in any 24 consecutive hours. 2) However, an air operator may assign flight time to a flight crew member, and a member may accept such an assignment, even if the member’s flight time will, as a result, exceed the flight time referred to in subsection (1) if a) the extension of flight time is authorized in the air operator certificate; and b) the air operator and the member comply with the Commercial Air Service Standards. Commercial Air Service Standards 722.92 Maximum Flight Time The standards for increasing the flight time limitations for flight crew members are: 1) Except for a helicopter conducting heli-logging, for any 6 non-overlapping periods of 30 consecutive days within a 365 consecutive day period, the maximum flight time in any aircraft shall not exceed: a) where the flight crew member conducts single-pilot IFR operations, 8 hours in any 24 consecutive hours; b) 60 hours in any 7 consecutive days; c) 150 hours in any 30 consecutive days; d) 210 hours in any 42 consecutive days; e) 450 hours in any 90 consecutive days; f) 900 hours in any 180 consecutive days; g) the accumulated 30 consecutive day, 42 consecutive day, and 90 consecutive day flight times may be reset to zero if the flight crew member is provided with at least 5 consecutive days free from all duty; or, h) 1,200 hours in any 365 consecutive days.
  4. There is also more to the discussion than just the new fatigue regulations. I don’t expect the Prime Minister to be able to define the differences between a 702 aerial work flight and 703 Air Taxi flight, but the Standards Branch at TC, and every inspector should be able to handle that basic task off the top of their head. Shouldn’t they? They have been working for months on that Advisory Circular, and the draft they circulated seems to indicate they are still thoroughly confused. Either that or the bureaucrats are willfully trying to re-write the regulations through guidance material. If that is the case, they fail to realize that the law is the law for both the operator and the bureaucracy, and they are in non compliance. This leads me to question the integrity and competence of the entire organization, and those who wrote the fatigue rules. That’s not a dig at every inspector. In my experience organizational issues like this start at the management/executive level, which would involve the Standards Branch. It continues to look like they come up with a narrative in advance and try to push it through, regardless of the reality is. Jaqueline Booth director of standards was the co-chair of the working group. Remember her? She didn’t understand the difference between Flight Tine and Aur Tine back in 2012, but she was drafting rules to limit flight time. Are we harmonized with ICAO when it comes to that discussion?
  5. Hi Winnie, is that actually factual? Did most ICAO member countries and EASA actually implement regulations as rigid and complex as these right across the board, for all sectors of commercial aviation (including light and intermediate VFR Helicopters)? It’s my understanding that most generally applied similar regulations to larger air carriers and airlines only, while TC chose to apply this standard to all air carriers. Does our nearest neighbour, the FAA have similar regulations for VFR helicopters, and their closest equivalent to on-demand 703 Air Taxi operations? I’m not trying to be derogatory. I’ll openly admit that my knowledge of international regulations, worldwide is limited, and I get the impression you have more international experience.,. I do agree that making this a partisan issue and blaming the liberals is a bit silly. While the Libs were in power when they came into force, I think the proposed rule changes came in 2012 when the Cons were in power. I think the public servants had more to do with pushing it through, and they are the ones who should be held accountable.
  6. Exactly. crew member means a person who is assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time, or assigned to duty related to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system during flight time; (membre d’équipage) In addition, 722.16 (c) allows for the carriage of persons (whether you want to call them passengers or not) if they perform an essential function in connection with the aerial work operation and are necessary to accomplish the aerial work operation; Aren't firefighters on a detection flight assigned duty in an aircraft during flight time? The ones I carry are assigned duties. Do they perform an essential function, and are they necessary to accomplish the mission? I say yes to both. The act of carrying persons other than crew members is a "Type of Aerial Work", at least according to TP4711 Volume 3, I cant say a necessarily disagree when I look at the applicability Rule (702.01) part 702. No comment on that? Just curious then, do you feel then that all aerial work flights where people are disembarked at the departure point were intended to be classified as "sightseeing operations"? Wildlife survey, Airborne geophysics, Aerial Inspection of crops, forest, pipeline and hydro-line, Aerial photography, aerial mapping etc. etc. etc. most of them disembark persons at the point of departure. So which "carriage of person" flights actually apply to 702 then?
  7. With regards to the discussion as to whether these persons are "passengers", this is a discussion which has been had widely, for many years. As is often the case, it's quite likely been widely interpreted by many at TC over the years. If the intent was for "persons" carried under a 702 AOC was for them to be classified passengers, then I have to wonder, why didn't they use the term "Passenger", which is clearly defined in the CARs, in any of the 702 Regulations? If that is the case, you don't find odd that they NEVER use the term passenger in any of the CARs or Standards that we are quoting? In fact they never refer to them as passengers in any guidance material, or even on your AOC. They seem to purposely call them persons whenever they refer to them (and NEVER passenger). If the intent was for these persons to be considered Passengers, the term passenger, as defined in the CARs was a tool they had readily available to them, but chose not to use it (over and over). Yet under 703 Air Taxi regulations, they seem to intentionally call them passengers (ALWAYS). Person is not defined in the CARs, but I don't think we need to post the dictionary definition. Since the term is not defined in the CARs, we are left to rely on the dictionary definition. I can't say for sure, but I think that's the approach the Transportation Tribunal of Canada would take.
  8. Perhaps you should also take that up with Transport Canada "Standards Branch". I don't think the concept I presented differs much from the concept they present in their own Air operator Certification Manual (TP 4711). How does it differ? I'm good with constructive criticism... The document is an actual TC publication (not Draft format like the AC that was posted) and also provides an e-mail to direct comments to: MPS@tc.gc.ca TP4711 Volume 2, Page 23-25: 1.2.3 Definitions and Abbreviations (3) For the purposes of this volume, to supplement those provided in the above sources, the following definitions are supplied: (b) Aerial Work: Aerial work operations are conducted by aeroplanes or helicopters, under one of the following four categories (with sub-categories, as listed on legacy AOC’s): i. The carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members; 1. Aerial Inspection and Surveillance 2. Aerial Mapping 3. Aerial Photography 4. Aerial Surveying 5. Forest Fire Management 6. Flight Testing: Flight testing of avionic systems, navigation systems and other aircraft equipment. 7. Parachute Jumping 8. Wildlife Management: The capturing of animals, the collecting of samples from animals, and the placing of telemetry equipment on animals. ii. The carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads; 1. Aerial Construction 2. Aerial Harvesting: The harvesting of articles such as pinecones from tree tops. 3. External Load: The transportation of an external load. 4. Heli-logging 5. Wildlife Management: The slinging carriage of animals to trailers for relocation. iii. The towing of objects; or 1. Aerial Advertising 2. Glider Towing iv. The dispersal of products. 1. Aerial Advertising 2. Aerial Spraying 3. Fire Fighting 4. Forest Fire Management 5. Wildlife Management: The dropping of bait. Note: Combat Air Support is no longer a supported aerial work activity under Civil Aviation regulations. Note: The transportation services for the retrieval of human organs for human transplants (previously listed as “Human Organs”) are no longer considered an Aerial Work activity. Note: Some legacy Aerial Work types (indicated in bold print, above) are defined under the definition of Specialty Air Services (see item “ff” below), as were agreed upon by the CAA’s who were party to the CUSMA. TP4711 Volume 3, Page 31: 4.5 Types of Aerial Work Description: (1)Where aerial work has been specified under “Types of Operation” (see 4.3, above), this area of the AOC Part II is to contain the type(s) of aerial work authorized. (2)Aerial work can be conducted by an aeroplane or , helicopter and falls into one of the following categories (as provided in CAR 702.01(1)): (a)the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members; (b)the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads; (c)the towing of objects; or (d)the dispersal of products. Note 1: For operations carrying persons other than aircrew, and for operations carrying external loads, dedicated Specific Approvals must be obtained by the operator. •See Chapter 5 Sections 11 & 14 of this volume, including the SA’s: -AIRCRAFT NIGHT OPERATIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWON BOARD -CARRIAGE OF PERSONS -HELICOPTER CLASS B, C OR D EXTERNAL LOAD – BUILT-UP AREA ORAERIAL WORK ZONE -HELICOPTER CLASS B, C OR D EXTERNAL LOAD – NIGHT, VFR OTT OR IFR -HELICOPTER CLASS D EXTERNAL LOADS – MULTI-ENGINE (OEI CAPABLE) -HELICOPTER CLASS D EXTERNAL LOAD – MULTI-ENGINE (NOT OEICAPABLE) Note 2: For operations by Canadian operators in the U.S.A. or Mexico, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement applies, which will require the operator to obtain a Specific Approval. •See Chapter 5 Section 11 of this volume, under the SA: -CUSMA – SPECIALTY AIR SERVICES OPERATIONS For ease of reference, I have attached TP4711 Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 And in case someone implies I'm repeating myself, I am aware that I brought this up in this thread already (Page 8). Just a floggin'er... AIR_OPERATOR_CERTIFICATION_MANUAL_-_VOLUME_2.pdf AIR_OPERATOR_CERTIFICATION_MANUAL_-_VOLUME_3.pdf
  9. 😂 I already “flogged” this horse until I thought he was dead, and low and behold, he woke up. His name is “Standards Branch”
  10. Carriage of Persons 702.16 No air operator shall allow a person who is not a flight crew member to be carried on board an aircraft unless (a) the person’s presence on board is essential during the flight; (b) the air operator is authorized in its air operator certificate to permit parachute descents and the person is a parachutist; or (c) the air operator (i) is authorized in its air operator certificate to carry a person, and (ii) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards. **NOTE: Most commercial helicopter operators are authorized in in their 702 AOC (through an Ops Spec) to carry a person therefore 702.16 (c) is the relevant requirement in 702.16. (a) and (b) are irrelevant if you meet (c) 722.16 Carriage of Persons The standards for authorization to carry persons other than flight crew members and persons essential during flight are: (a) the person is a flight crew member trainee, is a person undergoing training for essential duties during flight or is an air operator employee aircraft maintenance technician; (b) the person is a fire fighter or fire control officer being carried within a forest fire area; (c) the person is being carried to an aerial work site, performs an essential function in connection with the aerial work operation and is necessary to accomplish the aerial work operation; (d) during helicopter external load operations, persons not essential during flight are carried only in conjunction with a Class D load which complies with subsection 702.21(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, except for crew members undergoing training, or fire fighters carried only in conjunction with a Class B load consisting of equipment necessary to fight fires within a forest fire area; *** Note: to transport person(s) under 722.16(c), the answer to the following 3 questions should be YES: 1. Is the person being carried to an aerial work site? 2. Does the person perform an essential function in connection with the Aerial work operation? 3. Is the person necessary to accomplish the aerial work operation? If the answer to all 3 questions is yes, then the person(s) can be transported under 722.16(c). In that case, 722.16 (a), (b) and (d) are irrelevant. ***SINCE the “carriage of On-board persons other than flight crew members” is initself a “type” of aerial work (1 of 4 types of applicable aerial work listed in 702.01(1)), then if the answer to questions 2 and 3 are yes, then by default they are being carried to an “aerial work site”. What type of Aerial Work site are they being transported to? Answer: a “Carriage of on board persons other than flight crew members” aerial work site
  11. I can’t say for sure why they did this. I’m going to assume it’s because they understand that “sightseeing operations” are more generally a recreational type of flight, and the persons onboard would not generally be treated the same as essential persons in aerial work/crew members. Persons carried under 702 generally are required to have essential functions in connection with the aerial work- like trained professional firefighters, in the conduct if their employment, acting as spotters on a low level aerial inspection (loaded patrol). This is also probably a riskier flight than sightseeing Niagara. Persons carried under 702 also require additional items covered under the safety briefing; and they are also eligible and expected to receive additional training as applicable to their duties. They often conduct many duties related to operational control, and can have a significant impact on the safety of the flight operation. Passengers on a sightseeing operation would generally not be expected or allowed to conduct these duties. There’s a big difference between being a passenger over Niagara Falls and a firefighter conducting a low level aerial inspection. Apparently, TC standards doesn’t recognize this difference. I also know that the CARs advise that aerial work involving sightseeing operations must be conducted under 703 in 702.01(2) Subpart 2 — Aerial Work Division I — General Application 702.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane or helicopter in aerial work involving (a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members; (b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads; (c) the towing of objects; or (d) the dispersal of products. (2) This Subpart does not apply in respect of the operation of an ultra-light aeroplane, or in respect of the operation of an aircraft in aerial work involving sightseeing operations. 702.01 also indicates that there is only 4 types of aerial work that are applicable under 702 AOC. “The carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members”, is in itself a category, or type of aerial work that is applicable to 702. All types of work being conducted under 702 must fall under one of these 4 categories (whether it be “aerial inspection”, aerial photography,Forest fire management, aerial spray etc..)
  12. That's a good point. The only way I can see them attempt to justify a loaded patrol (AKA detection flight) as air taxi, is by classifying it as a "sightseeing operation", which is a 703 Air Taxi flight by regulation. 703.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation by a Canadian air operator, in an air transport service or in aerial work involving sightseeing operations, of any of the following aircraft: For whatever reason,( like the CARs definition for "aerial Inspection"), they chose not to include the CARs definition for "sightseeing operation" in this guidance material. CARs 101.01(1) sightseeing operation means aerial work in the course of which passengers are disembarked at the point of departure; (excursion aérienne) That seems problematic, since persons that conduct essential functions related to the Aerial Work, are being carried under 702.16/722.16, and not considered passengers. So what's next? Many aerial work flights, that are classified as aerial inspection, (or aerial inspection and surveillance as they refer to it in the AC), return to the departure point and disembark persons. Wildlife survey, airborne geophysics survey, airborne mapping, hydrological survey, forestry inspection (ie. timber cruising for commercial foresters and /or MNR)...just to name a few. How long before they start attempting to classify all of these people passengers, and therefore 703 Air Taxi (sightseeing flights) flights? Also worth noting, nothing that I am aware of in the CARs states that you can't drop essential persons being carried under 702 at a point of destination that differs from departure.
  13. Now that’s funny! Most of us wouldn’t even know this draft document even existed, if it wasn’t posted on Vertical Forum. They strategically chose who they shared it with, just as they subjectively cherry-picked which regulations they would include when they created this nonsensical document.
  14. Just when I thought I was done with this thread, the TC Standards Branch pipes up 😂 Well, the first paragraph is accurate at least “This AC on its own does not change, create, amend or permit deviations from regulatory requirements, nor does it establish minimum standards.” thankfully this document is merely Advice, as the title asserts. Poorly worded advice. Quite a bit of overreach, by the bureaucrats . Particularly in their efforts to re-write the regulations on Aerial Inspection through Guidance Material. That puts standards in non-compliance in my books. Convenient that they left the ACTUAL CARs definition out of the AC, isn’t it.? No mention of the requirements for technical inspection, trained personnel or to collect imagery and make a report in the CARs definition. And loaded patrol, flights that are intended to inspect the forest for smoke or fire is clearly aerial inspection, as per the ACTUAL CARs definition. flights outside the forest fire area, where all persons on board meet the requirements of 722.16 (c) are also aerial work (whether they are firefighters or not). aerial inspection means the inspection from an aircraft of crops, forests, livestock or wildlife, the patrolling of pipelines or power lines, a flight inspection or any other operation of a similar nature; (inspection aérienne) yup sounds like loaded patrol to me.. I’ve already advised Standards and our inspectors that I won’t be complying with this Guidance Material, (when I submitted comments as requested at the end).
  15. I wasn’t looking to debate whether hover exit was aerial work, or whether the carriage of on board persons other than crew members was a type of aerial work. As stated, my assertion was simply to ensure clarity. I doubt there will be a next time, this thread has served it’s purpose. Thanks for your engagement on the subject. Fly Safe.
×
×
  • Create New...