Jump to content

tin lizzie

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by tin lizzie

  1. Hopefully someone can help! I'm working on the ATPL-H exams (Canada) and am trying to fing a CARS reference for when a flight attendant is required to be carried on heli ops. After scouring and scouring the best I found was in reference to airlines/aeroplanes (705). If anyone can help (soon!) I would be most greatful! Thanks, TL
  2. I think electronic flight bags are great! However not everyone is on board the Apple program and I resent the widespread assumption that everyone is. Long live Android and free-thinking!
  3. Ok... couldn't edit the above post... I found the following brochure from Eurocopter, which refers to a kit to increase internal gw to 5225 (page 6, weights, note 3). I need this fms if there is one? Thanks to anyone who can help with this!
  4. Thanks! Sent you a pm (or maybe I sent you a conversation - the system seems to have changed!) Is there a different FMS for an increased internal gw on the B3? If so is it only applicable to certain variants of the B3 or can it be applied to any? I was lead to believe the increased internal gw might be associated with the dual hydraulic system... Thanks!
  5. Urgently needed (for reference only) - reasonably current electronic copy of AS350B (with dual hydraulics) flight manual. Alternatively, if you have access to the hard copy and would be willing to scan/email a maximum of 5 pages that contain the data I need, that will be just as good. If anyone can help, please pm me! Thanks! tin lizzie
  6. I bought the Alpha (military green - I LOVE it!) from Gibson & Barnes in 2009 and had no issues with them shipping to Canada. They even ended up paying for shipping due to a delay in my order! Don't remember how much I paid, but even after the exchange it was way cheaper than buying the helmet in Canada. Apparently Highland supplies Alpha's for their pilots, and the base pilots in the town I was in were kind enough to let me try a variety of sizes (much better than using the head measuring tool they send you) before I made my final decision. I find the Alpha very comfortable to wear, but agree that it does seem a bit bigger than the Gallet. Being tall, I generally have to slouch and we have one LR where I found it easier to wear a headset instead. Before purchase I had I tried my boss's Gallet as well and found it too wide for my head - sometime when I find myself with some extra cash to burn I wouldn't mind trying on a few different sizes of Gallet to see if I still feel the same way. My only real complaint with the Alpha was with the flex-boom mike I ended up with - the boom was horribly stiff and wouldn't retain the mike anywhere near my mouth. I ended up swapping it out for a DC metal boom and that problem got sorted out in a hurry. Cheers, tin lizzie
  7. Freefall & Bugman, Thank you for your input. I did get some preliminary information from Interactive Safety Products, from whom I plan on purchasing the helmet, but the impedance/plug recommendation came from a sales person with no accompanying explanation of the different choices. Re helmet selection, I agree the Gallet feels light in the hand, but I tried on my boss's and didn't like the feel of it on my head. There is one fellow here with an old Gentex and he seems to really dislike it, complaining that it is hot and heavy so I didn't even consider it as an option. I was able to try on the Alpha in a selection of sizes and found one that seems to fit really well and was comfortable (for the 2 minutes I had it on!). I guess I won't really know if I made a good choice until I get the opportunity to fly it. Gary, I have not yet purchased the helmet - the two questions I asked were from the "Easy Order Guide (EOG) and I didn't want to choose an option without a reasonable understanding of the ramifications. Based on your information, and that of another local operator I visited today, I think I will opt for the lower impedance - originally I had thought 300 ohms, but maybe 150 is a better way to go? You will note the impedance choice I am being asked to make is for the plug end. The machines I would likely be flying (fingers crossed!) in the near (ie foreseeable) future would be JetRanger, LongRanger and A-Star. Unfortunately the avionics package in each machine is different so I am aiming for the helmet options likeliest to be widely compatible. Eventually I hope to get my hands on the mediums you describe, but I am sure it will be a ways down the road as I am at the beginning of my journey. Can you explain this: "If your plug is different and you have purchased a high impedance headset, get them to build you a little gender-changing patch cable - save lots of fiddling. __________________________ As an aside, someone pointed out the following article (extracted from TPE 185E 4/2006) and I noted that all the pilots at that company had manufactured a 6" intermediate "pig-tail" cord for installation between the helmet and a/c receptacle. After reading the article, searching the topic online and checking the jack installations in our aircraft, I decided I'll be getting one too. Many thanks, tin lizzie
  8. Is there anyone out there that can help with the following technical questions on the EOG? After canvassing several pilots/engineers, and searching in vain online, I'm still drawing blanks: Side Connector/Jack Plug choices: U172/U-U93/U U172/U-TP 120/U U172/U-NATO U172/U384/U (STEREO ONLY) U172/U174/U STEREO WIRING U172U/-U75/U IMPEDANCE: (at plug) 9.5 OHM 150 OHM 300 OHM 600 OHM If anyone can help with a layperson description of the differences, and point me to the best answers I'd appreciate it... It's for civilian operations - typical fleet operated in Canada... Thanks! tin lizzie
  9. Oh, and one more thing (sorry!)... If you really want a true picture of SMS, go to the ICAO information and have a gander. ICAO has reams of training and background material on the subject. http://www.icao.int/anb/safetymanagement/ If you take the time to compare TC SMS propaganda, and examine their (lack of) oversight activities, you will find they are not in line with ICAO recommendations and intentions with regard to SMS. Two major member states - Canada and the US - are struggling to comply with ICAO initiatives, for various reasons, and both are in trouble. The US at least is starting to have to deal with some of the fallout, but Canadians are regrettably slow on the uptake. Both countries have the power to sway ICAO. TC has their own agenda with respect to SMS - among other things: addressing bloated bureaucracy, lack of budget and a desire to reduce government liability - none of which has anything to do with real safety. End rant!
  10. CJM91, The trouble is, Transport Canada has been insisting all along that they have no intention of leaving the industry to self regulate, but that is what is actually going on in our industry at this time. The only segment of industry with regulations in place for SMS, is 705, and the airlines haven't been audited for some time now. In anticipation, and in advance of SMS, Transport Canada cancelled the national audit program. The rest of the industry, which is not presently legally required to be SMS compliant is not being subjected to audits either. At present, TC representatives are doing "program validations", but if you read the fine print, oversight simply isn't happening. Therefore, by default, SMS, self-regulating, self-management - whatever you want to call it - is all the same thing. Consider the CBAA - which started regulating itself, two years prior to enabling legislation. How is it Transport Canada authorized to behave outside the regulations? And how does ICAO look the other way as Transport bamboozles them on a feel good tour audit of their safety and oversight role, when all the while, Transport Canada no longer meets the requirements of ICAO? If you have the time to read the backgrounder on US problems, researched and presented by Richard Balnis, researcher for CUPE, you can see where Canada is headed: http://safeskies.ca/events/2009-04-21_air_...ce_Problems.pdf We certainly don't claim to know everything, but there is a select few of us frustrated and fed up with the damage Transport Canada is in the process of causing to our industry, in the name of safety. And what will be the cost? There is some really good information available through the safeskies website, to which we hope to be adding a newsletter, background information and hopefully a way for anyone to add their own experiences, opinions and feedback. At present, comments and input are welcomed on the "about us" page, and of course, on these forums. There aren't many that won't agree the aviation industry is rife with problems, and that Transport Canada (the department as a whole) lacks accountability. If you've ever tried to run a business, or dealt with more than one office of TC, you would likely be well familiar with regional differences in "policy". Whatever happened to federal law? A handful of people aren't going to change much on their own - but can you imagine if the industry organized and demanded change? Historically, industry hasn't been very good at cooperating with each other - but nothing is written that says it has to remain this way. Thanks for listening, tin lizzie
  11. FYI, all you HAC members, this is all that HAC under Brian Jenner, contributed to the battle against Bill C-6/7 and the SMS mess: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...s=1#Int-1925751 In his presentation, Jenner said this: "HAC's roles include identifying problems; searching for solutions; advocating for industry, representing individual operators with regard to those problems and those solutions;..." and this: "The Association's membership now includes 70% of Canada's commercial helicopter operators, an astounding achievement for a voluntary membership organization. As a result of its success in attracting operator membership, the Association has also enrolled 90 helicopter industry suppliers as associate members." Yet I haven't seen much HAC opposition to SMS and a complete abandonment of regulatory oversight in Canada. I presently work for an operator who is a member of HAC, but is frustrated by the fact that HAC, the voice of the helicopter industry, is not taking action on this. It would seem the big money corporations run the (trade) show, and SMS is not on their radar. How well do you think SMS is going to work for your typical helicopter company, operating out of tent camps in the arctic, or mobilizing across country to fight fires? When the customer tiries to kill you as you drop them off or pick them up in a tricky confined area, or you hook up to an unwieldy drill in close quarters, how well do you think SMS is going to work when you can't impose it on the customer, - even more ironic when you consider that most major oil companies want you to have a safety program in place? Do you think allowing helicopter (aircraft) operators to govern themselves, in the complete absence of oversight on the part of Transport Canada is going to decrease the accident rate in Canada? I think not! Hopefully the new president of HAC will take interest in and action on this very important topic. Thanks for listening, tin lizzie
  12. You're welcome - and thanks for checking it out! FYI that cartoon was used in Greg Holbrook's presentation, which you can view here: http://safeskies.ca/events/2009-04-21_air_...g_holbrook.html Also, if you check out the press release page (the event following the conference) he made some interesting comments about how Canada isn't meeting ICAO standards with their current approach to oversight (or lack of it) and their implementation of Safety Management Systems in advance of enabling legislation. I sent the release to HAC top brass - I wonder if they will get involved, or if they will continue to remain on the sidelines... With their help, we could make a difference. Best Regards, tin lizzie
  13. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 11, 2009 CANADA Air Safety Problems Exposed Online During Question Period on April 23, the Honorable Rob Merrifield, Secretary of State for Transport, rejected the claims of the NDP Transport Critic, Dennis Bevington, that Canada is not meeting international standards for aviation safety. Perhaps Mr. Merrifield has been duped by bureaucrats in the same manner as the Canadian travelling public. In addition to evidence provided during extensive Committee hearings held in 2007 over a controversial Bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, further proof was recently aired in a landmark Round Table discussion on Air Safety held at Parliament Hill and hosted by Mr. Bevington. The organizers have now created a new website, www.safeskies.ca, which allows media and members of the public to experience the Round Table: to see and hear the revelations made by pilots, industry insiders, whistleblowers and accident victims. “Canadians need to know that despite lessons learned from aviation accidents and related problems in the rail industry, Transport Canada has abandoned them and left their lives in the hands of those responsible for profit margins – a dangerous strategy which is likely to have tragic consequences.”, claims the SafeSkies website. “International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) says you absolutely have to retain your traditional oversight and the fact of the matter is, Transport Canada is simply not doing that and has no intention of doing it” states Greg Holbrook, National Chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association (CFPA), during his presentation. Apparently the Canadian Public is travelling under a false sense of security. The major airlines have already been empowered to regulate themselves, and are operating without scrutiny from Transport Canada. A similar situation in the US resulted in national disaster, thousands of cancelled flights and huge public outcry. Business aircraft have been governing themselves since 2003 – though enabling regulations were not actually passed until 2005. Transport Canada’s own audit in 2007 revealed this has created a system plagued with troubling holes. Air Taxi and Commuter aircraft in Canada have not yet been enabled by regulations to govern themselves, yet Transport Canada is no longer overseeing this major sector of aviation either. Other Round Table presentations highlighted the systemic problems within Transport Canada, and the known failures which have caused multiple deaths and destroyed lives. An alliance of individuals and industry representatives is now being formed with its prime focus to seek resolution to these issues, hold Transport Canada accountable to the public, and restore Canadian’s faith in air safety. For information about future developments on these topics, check back with www.safeskies.ca and subscribe to the newsletter. Prepared by Kirsten Stevens and Kirsten Brazier Advocates for Air Safety
  14. "So I put you all in my loop and now you don't want to play anymore." Mr. Jenner, Sir, As if your actions, your lies and your hypocrisy were not enough reason, it could be because your spelling is so atrocious. Cheers, tin lizzie
  15. Blackmac, "So, I wrote a paper which I sent to TC and stated the following:: As you are having problems hiring and keeping inspectors, why not contract out to the private sector." Given our present aviation industry, where the government cannot seem to be held accountable for their own actions/inactions, who do you propose will hold the "contracted organizations accountable for their failings?" HAC is vying for this type of designated role, yet the recent conviction of the Association's President - Brian Jenner - for poaching is an embarrasment to the Association and all that it proposes to represent. Is this the type of organization we want in charge of "Self-Management" if the Association condones ethically and legally irresponsible behaviour? http://www.h-a-c.ca/Industry_Self-mgt_Report.pdf If you read throught the various parliamentary meeting notes and legislative debate on Bill C-6/Bill C-7, the idea of designating various authorities outside of TC has been discussed on several occasions, with some interesting results. Who will oversee these people? Who will enforce the law? Who will ensure that these designated organization(s) are acting in the best interest of safety, and not the vested interest in the bottom line? How will transparency be maintained? Who will strip these agencies of their authority when they break the rules themselves or their leadership flagrantly breaks the law? More importantly, who will oversee you? "Everybody has their own idea including HEPAC. HEPAC just submitted a proposal to look after the Safety Management System (SMS) on a national scale." Our industry was not ready for de-regulation, and it is most certainly not ready for self-regulation. Safety is not something you can package into a "Management System". Cheers, tin lizzie
  16. Hi there, Try http://www.softmaptech.com/introduction_en.html Its a Canadian (Quebec) company that produces Canada Topo 250 or Topo 50 and it is a fantastic program. You can seamless scroll, do bearing/distance calculations, add GPS waypoints (interface your GPS with the program), and if you pay extra, you can get moving map capability - i.e. take your laptop with you...and a lot more. One small word of caution, Topo 250 covers the entire country, Topo 50 has specific lat/long coverages. My only complaint is that the 1:50,000 doesn't go far enough north in most provinces except Quebec. I've had this program for years and upgraded it several times. I started with Topo 250 and have added a couple of areas of Topo 50 since. Cheers, tin lizzie
×
×
  • Create New...