Jump to content

Brian Jenner

Member
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Brian Jenner last won the day on December 29 2017

Brian Jenner had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Brian Jenner

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3883 profile views
  1. Frewheel I don't quite get what you are trying to say (read into what I have said) but, although I am loath to add another line to the 71 pages, just to make sure that no one misunderstands my opinion I offer the following clarification: 1) as President of HAC both Fred and I express(ed) Association opinion not personnal opinions (that is not to say they are different but rather if there is a difference, perceived or real, you can not hold me personnally to opinions expressed by me as HAC President); 2) in my personnal opinion (something I could not say as HAC President even thought it was obvious to me at the time) Canada has long proven that 100hrs (rotors turning to rotors stopped) is quite sufficient to train commercial helicopter pilots; 3) in my personnal opinion, what you are up against is an issue that has always come from within TC Flight Training Standards Branch and “in my personnal opinion” TC opinion has always been well intentionned but misguided, inspirred by the unfounded/factually disproven argument that Canada's minimum flight time for commercial helicopter licensing is already too low; 4) in my personnal opinion, the only support for the opinion of some/most Flight Standards inspectors opinion on this subject is the fact that Canadian flight trainning minimum flight time does not in fact respect the ICAO Standard.
  2. Freewheel, « belaboured » is 71 pages of « huh?????? %&$#@+!!!!!!!! » vs no further comment possible if Canada simply respects the ICAO definition of helicopter flight time « rotors turning to rotors stopped » as per our agreement to adhere to ICAO Standards. The problem is, if TC admits to the ICAO definition of «helicopter flight time», they will then have to deal with TC 100hr commercial helicopter license vs ICAO 150 hr commercial helicopter licence.
  3. Besides being extremely belaboured, it is inconsistent with the quite simple ICAO standard definition of “helicopter flight time”, to which Canada has not filed an exception.
  4. Darcy, I know all those guys too! I liked your novel very much. Your ability to sketch/colour people and places is certainly up there with some very good novelists. Look forward to the next instalment of the Edouard/Mike odyssey.
  5. Invoicing has nothing to do with « flight time » « air time »; it must conform to tarrif which must comply with the National Transportation Act not the Aeronautics Act.
  6. CARS 101 AIR TIME: with respect to keeping technical records is defined as, the time from the moment the aircraft leaves the earths surface until it comes into contact with the surface at the next point of landing FLIGHT TIME: means the time from the moment an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight. The term "Leaving the earth's surface" is obviously different from "moves" and the term "comes into contact with the surface" is obviously different from "comes to rest". The fact that the two definitions use different terms only reinforces the basic legislative principle establishing that "The Legislator" does not speak for nought; which in the case of "flight time" vs "air time" make the two definitions logically and legally different. If TC does want's to ignore logic and law to impose obviously flawed interpretation, without offering some logical and legally sound explanation, then operators and pilots have no choice but to do what they are told or contest TC's ilicit interpretation of the CARs definitions for "flight time" vs "air time".
  7. Freewheel, the Federal Court confirmation is cited at length at the end of the decision you refer to. As for the COM being an Aviation Document, the decision can't be much clearer. It's been a while and I was not given the time to push forward based on the Decision, so I had forgotten that simply refusing, directly or indirectly, is grounds for a Tribunal Appeal ( indirecly = ie excessive delay - TC has a Policy Letter setting the maximum time they can take to deliver any service, making unrelated demands (blackmailling) = indirectly.
  8. During the developpement of CARs, 93-96, I tried to convince TC to "eliminate approvals wherever possible ... If you approve it you own it = operators no longer responsible for conformity with CARs ... Make objective standards, make the operator responsible for compliance ... Serious Operators will no longer have to wait forever for approvals ... slipshod operators will quickly fall in line, if you fine the **** out of them everytime you find a non compliance... TC will no longer have to prove everything right before the fact because operators will fear TC finds something/anything wrong, after the fact ... TC will save a fortune in labour costs, that could be spent on more productive and more professionally interestin oversight ". Such a system would be safer, cheaper and more efficient for everyone. They would have non of it; until early 1996 when I convinced the ADM by also explained that The "approval process was contrary to the SMS base regulatory system demanded of TC, in 1992, by Treasury Board (Yes, SMS was supposed to be adopted for the regulatory oversight system, not imposed on everyone but TC). He bought in and in the early 1996 draft of CARs there was no approval of the COM. The ADM retired in April 1996 and the next week a new draft of CAR put TC back in the business of approving COM s and many other documents. And here we are 20 years later, TC inspectors still afraid to approve for fear of making a mistake, demanding one size fits all approval guidance, operators still waiting endlessly for approvals, in an objective based regulatory system that is supposed to improve efficiency and safety through inovation.
  9. Freewheel, just as a contextual note, TC can not initiate any action before the Tribunal, only Document Holders have that right As for the possibility of another fonding on the subject of your times not being consistent with CARS, that should, theoretically, be impossible because findings are made in reference to the COM not CARs. I believe you've said your logging is consistent with your COM definition of "flight time" which is more or less "rotors turning to rotors stopped". In practice, the lines between findings, COM, CARs are blurred by everyone. So most TC inspectors act on their own best judgement, rather than a strict application of the law. Sometimes that's good sometimes not so good - depends on your definition of "good". Nonetheless, if anyone rells you CARs trump COM, remind them that in approving your COM, the Minister exercised his authority to waive CARs, in favour of less stringent rules. So, given their new interpretation of "flight time" what should happen is that TC may give notice that tour COM definition of flight time" must be ammended to comply with CARs, as TC now sees them. In that case you can initiate Tribunal appeal based on the fact that the COM approval is an Aviation Document (as defined by the Act and confirmed by the Tribunal and the Federal Court, previously). .
  10. So, TC now has a, new "official" interpretation for the "flight time" and "air time" definitions in CARs. But that does not necessarily make it so! All conflicting opinions on the subject not withstanding and TC's opinion remains just one of many, the law remains the law as written and it will take a decision by a Court of Law to provide an authoritative interpretation of what the writing means. Unfortunately, while TC has no dictatorial powers to re-define the CARs definitions as per their latest opinion, TC carries a big stick, which gives their opinion a certain "my way or the highway" value; unless someone is willing to stand their ground before the Transportation Tribunal of Canada or the Federal Court of Canada. To set up that process before the Tribunal, TC would first have to take action against someone's document: fine, order to "change a COM or else". Of course to avoid a Tribunal challenge, TC may decide to just keep brow beating the weak, the poor and the hungry into submission. Before the Federal Court the process would be a bit more complex and costly but any document holder could take action anytime. It would suffice to present the new policy as stated in this forum as the object of a request for declaratory judgement. One way or the other, TC has no "authority" to dictate to the Court either. At the outset of the Court hearing all opinions on the subject will be equal. And in the end the opinion that will prevail is the one that can muster "authoritative" support (for example:compliance with international standards that Canada is obliged by treaty to follow). Therein lies the challenge for TC ! If someone does contests the new interpretation. How on earth could they possibly explain to the Court that their own Aviation Policy Letter 2005-02, was wrong and their new one right. How will they prove the old policy did not conform to international standards (ICAO) while the new policy does. Any volunteers?
  11. APL 2005-02 was published after a comprehensive presentation that I made to TC on the subject. Essentially "flight time" vs "air time" has nothing to do with what anyone thinks is best. It is a question of properly interpretting the law, as written. First simple rule of interpretation in that regard is "the legislator does not speak for naught". In this case there is no getting around the fact that if the regulation speaks of "air time" and "flight time" it's because they are two distinct regulatory concepts. Ergo, they can not be systematically the same ... Defining the same thing twice would be a legislative waste of time and I say again, the rules of regulatory interpretation says that can't be! Second simple rule of interpretation, if "flight time" and "air time" can't be the same, one must figure out how they are authoritatively different. In the absence of clear distinction in the CARS we can refer to the quite clear and ICAO definitions, especially in as much as Canada's agreement to abide by ICAO standards makes them officially as well as generally authoritative: "flight time" = rotors turning to rotors stopped; "air time" = skids up to skids down. (This really burns the people responsible for flight training, especally ab initio flight training because the 100 hr minimum "flight time" is less han the ICAO Standard of 150 hrs. And hey are right to be upset! Canada should not be cherry picking ICAO Standards!) Unfortunately, that being so, does not prevent anyone from TC o the industry from saying it ain't so ... And thus the argument goes for 38 pages on this forum and will continue to do go until someone goes to Court over the issue and a judge makes it official or until APL 2005-02 is re-issued. BTW, the answer to the Indoctrination Exam question is non of the above, because without the time for beginning of rotors turning and the time for rotors stopped, you can not calculate the legally binding "flight time".
  12. TC is not the problem, it's the politicians. The "business friendly Conservatives" faced with the towering menace of electionearing on the part of industry associations must be shaking n their boots. Afterall there must be at least a couple dozen customers that will be up in arms over the cost of new FDT rules - what the heck lets go for a gross - and then multiply by 10 so as to inlude their minions - plus operators, their families and managers - this thing could involve as many as 5000 votes, if everyone on the calamity side of the issue is interested enough to care and provided the other parties aren't promising even more strigent FTD rules or in favour of gun control.
  13. [quote President’s Message Flight & Duty Time Update – The Time to Speak Out to Your MP is NOW .... We have been working with the Minister’s office to emphasis the fact that these proposals will NOT improve safety, but also to emphasis their catastrophic impact on our businesses, if they were to move forward in their current form. Our efforts for now, are being focused on urging Transport Canada resolve our differences through a constructive dialogue - but with the other Coalition Associations we have crafted an Advocacy Campaign that could see this regulatory proposal become a campaign issue running in to next year’s Federal Election. We do not believe that this “Business-Friendly government” wants a fight with Business running in to an election year. ... I can already imagine front page news across he country CONSERVATIVES ABANDON BUSINESS FRIENDLY POLICY Conservative Government is forcing a marginal increase in costs, on Consumers of Canadian helicopter services, just to save lives by adhering to international standards for pilot flight and duty times. The new rules include allowances for any operator to essentially make their own rules, based on necessity and their ability to assure an equivalent level of safety but many operator representatives claim that can't be done! They add that cost increases in the helicopter industry will be the first step toward another Great Recession
  14. Ya never know, maybe if enough individuals send in cards and letters with recommendations that have potential, maybe they will set up a helicopter table - see you there!
×
×
  • Create New...