Jump to content

Freewheel

Senior Member
  • Content count

    733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

Freewheel last won the day on December 2 2017

Freewheel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

310 Excellent

About Freewheel

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

18167 profile views
  1. HAC Communique July 12/18 Air Time Versus Flight Time Issue Unlikely to be Resolved – At Least Until the Fall Print this Article | Send to Colleague You may recall from a previous issue of the Newsletter, that Transport Canada is revisiting the definitions of Flight Time and Air Time that were recently imposed on the industry. The current definitions have been delivered to Justice, for their interpretation, and there has been some recent dialogue with HAC. Your association has tried to help inform the Department about some of the problems that have arisen with the current definitions. The current definitions were not really drafted with the rotary-wing community in mind. Your association is concerned that the department will torture the interpretation of the current definitions, by applying Guidance Material, rather than fix the problem by revisiting the definitions themselves. You can’t fix a bad definition by applying your own definition that defies the meaning of the words in the regulation. HAC believes that would be “regulation through Guidance Material,” which circumvents the regulatory process altogether. I like the insinuations that there has been New definitions for Flight Time and Air Time imposed on industry recently. The CARs definitions have not changed in 22 years, since the CARs were first introduced in 1996. There have been no new interpretations.offered recently either. TCs 2005 Policy Letter acknowledged that many were interpreting Flight Time = Air Time interpretation prior to 2005 and advised to use ICAO definition. The idea that the definition for flight time was not ideal for Helicopters is nothing new, either. Clearly, that is the case, or TC wouldn’t be continuously be interpreting it differently. This forum wouldn’t have 69 pages and almost 102,000 views either. It was clear back then that the definition was not perfect for Helicopters. That is why TC s 2005 policy letter also committed to amend the CARs to include a specific flight time definition for Helicopters (which stated it would expire when the CARs were amended). Talk about coming full circle (13 years later). What’s really odd, as I understand it, the HAC was instrumental in the creation of the 2005 policy letter. I guess they don’t recall that.
  2. “ICAO AUDIT OF TRANSPORT CANADA CIVIL AVIATION OVERSIGHT - APRIL 2005 3.2.7 Adequate aircraft operation regulations have been established in the CARs, Part VII ─ Commercial Air Services (CARs 700 to 706) which contains seven subparts: General, Foreign Air Operators, Aerial Work, Air Taxi Operations, Commuter Operations, Airline Operations, and Aircraft Maintenance Requirements for Air Operators. A set of Commercial Air Services Standards (CASS 720 to 726) complement the CARs, which are incorporated by reference into the regulations. These standards provide the detailed requirements in the various areas of aircraft operations. The CARs and CAS are kept up to date on a quarterly basis. The regulatory structure is complemented by policy letters and guidance material such as policies, procedures, circulars and manuals.” https://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Canada%20final%20report%202-2-06.pdf Coincidentally the very same year General Aviation POLICY LETTER 2005-02 was issued by TC stating: Action In order to clarify the interpretation of the definition of "flight time" with respect to helicopters as it applies to flight crew licensing, "flight time" shall be as it is set out in Annex 1: "The total time from the moment a helicopter's rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped."
  3. Simpleton is right. NavCanada is a fully privatized, non-profit organization. I’m not naive enough to beleive it would happen, but Maybe that’s the way to go for TC to bring some accountability back. The flight time issue, and how TC is handling of it is just one example of a much larger issue. The lack of accountability is the root cause. An advisory circular does not address the root cause and won’t fix the bigger problem. Let’s ask the Auditor General: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4685726 The AG does audit TC. The last time a scathing report identified many findings which they generally ignore.
  4. I think you do care as demonstrated by your numerous posts in this forum. Apparently others do too. I haven’t seen to many Canadian Helicopter forums with over 100,000 views. Has anyone else? if ICAO was the boss the requirements for a Canadian commercial licence would be more like 150+ hours Flight Time and TC wouldn’t be interpreting Flight Time to be the same as Air Time. For the most part, I tend to agree with the rest of the post. Mind you, I wasn’t around in the 50s...
  5. If Flight Time is the same as Air Time, in this case, TC has been issuing licences using “CARs minus” (and enforcing “CARs MINUS” for all Flight Training Units in the country).
  6. Appatently HQ has advised HAC that they weren’t aware industry was interpreting Flight Time to be anything other than Air Tine for skid equipped helicopters. Odd since the director of standards issued a Policy Letter in 2005, that remained in effect until 2011, that advised pilots, operators and inspectors to do just that... As I inderstand it, the vast majority of FTUs are providing students with training towards licensing Flight time requirements under CARs part 4 using ICAO (rotors start to rotors stopped) and TC is issuing licences under the same premise. I guess we are supposed to beleive all inspectors just didn’t notice... The likely answer is that TC has been choosing to enforce something other than what the CARs say, inspectors have been “looking the other way” for licensing requirements. Either that, or Flight time isn’t the same as air time...either way,; TC wants industry to comply with what they say...not what the actual CARs say. i beleive Brian Jenner used to call this “CARs plus” The problem: “it is contrary to principles that sustain our system of government. First of all because the Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees that every individual in Canada is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law no matter where they are. Secondly, because the regulations impose on regional authorities the obligation to issue or amend documents based on compliance with CARs, as written.” - Brian Jenner. CARs also impose on TC the obligation to enforce the CARs AS WRITTEN. The fact that they can’t answer basic questions or issue an advisory circular over a 6 month period suggests they wish to continue with this unethical behaviour and are still trying to come up with more BS that they think will pass a basic sniff test. Good luck with that TC... The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
  7. I’m sure many pilots take that approach. Unfortunately, it may not offer the protection you’d expect when things go south and they find the,selves in a tribunal or court case. Afetr, all it is the pilot in commands responsibility to ensure accurate entries in flight records. As far as I know there is no requirement for the company to verify its accuracy...as pointed out in this Aviation Occupational Safety Tribunal: https://www.canada.ca/en/occupational-health-and-safety-tribunal-canada/programs/decisions/2015/ohstc-2015-009.html That didn’t stop a federal Health and Safety Officer from claiming otherwise and levelling charges on the company, however. here are just a few relevant excerpts. [24] I note that at page 24 of her report, HSO Wilson refers to section 124 of the Code, citing the obligation for the employer to ensure that the health and safety at work of every person employed by the employer is protected. She goes on to state that a direction (presumably the direction under appeal) was issued ordering the employer to follow established procedures as outlined in the Manual to ensure pilots that are employed by Black Sheep are accurately capturing the correct flight and duty times for the trips they operate in the aircraft journey log books. I am left to wonder whether it is that particular section of the Code that, in HSO Wilson’s opinion, was contravened by the appellant, short of her so stating explicitly. In my view, it would be a stretch for me to interpret the broad obligation set out in section 124 in a way that implies the very specific obligation for the employer that was found to exist by HSO Wilson, i.e. to ensure that the entries an employee is required to write in the aircraft journey log book under the terms of the Manual, are accurate. So specific a requirement would typically be found in a regulation and there is no suggestion in the HSO’s report that the employer is in breach of its general duty of due diligence for safety, which is usually required before a finding that a contravention of section 124 has occurred. 30] I will first look at the obligation of the employer under the relevant sections of the Manual. I understand the Manual to represent the conditions under which the employer is authorized by Transport Canada to operate its business. It is not disputed that the Manual in existence at the time of the accident was approved by Transport Canada. When I read sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 of the Manual, I simply cannot reach the same conclusion as HSO Wilson as to the extent of the employer’s obligations. Applying fairly basic principles of interpretation, it is clearly stated in section 5.2.2 that “pilots are responsible for entering all relevant flight and duty time information into the program”. It is worth noting that such flight and duty time includes flying time for other operators and/or private aircraft. The pilot’s obligation is also to forward, at least once a month, the data to the office for copy and retention. The purpose of that requirement is to allow the employer to track, as it is required to do under the next section, section 5.2.3, the number of flight hours to ensure that the number of hours does not exceed the limitations set out in that section and to provide appropriate rest periods to its pilots. The Manual specifically states that the pilots and the company share in the responsibility of ensuring that the number of hours is not exceeded. The Manual provides that should any person become aware that a pilot will exceed the allowed times, that person must advise the Operations Manager. [31] It seems clear to me that requiring the employer to verify the entries made by their employees is not supported by the wording of the Manual. Employees are, pursuant to section 126 of the Code, required to fulfill their obligations regarding matters of health and safety. The Manual clearly places the responsibility of accurately reporting flight hours in the log book, on the employees. I note that those hours include flight time for the appellant, but also with other operators or private flying. Requiring the employer to ensure the accuracy of all entries, including the latter, would imply some kind of independent investigation into the actual flying time of the pilots, which is not in my view a reasonable interpretation of the Manual. In my view, if that was the intended result, the wording of the section should have so expressed more clearly.
  8. January 23, 2018 email from Cheif of Standards Deborah Martin: My intention is to resolve any misinterpretations regarding air time vs flight time once and for all. I can assure you that the expertise and experience required to address your concerns is within the Standards Branch; specifically Mr. Freeman as Program Manager Aerial Work, Air Taxi and Commuter Standards. Although, I’m not a helicopter pilot I do have close to 40 years of experience as a fixed wing pilot in both industry and TC; and as Chief, Commercial Flight Standards understand the issue very well. If you are open to hearing us, I believe we will be able to address your concerns. Deborah Hey Deb, 5 months now...still waiting... Experts don’t generally take 5 months to answer basic true or false questions...
  9. Freewheel

    Be nice or be safe?

    At the risk of sounding like a “Safety Preacher”: A few years ago we added an excellent series of videos to our PDM and Hunan Factors training that touches on the basis of this discussion. If you accept the “shortcut” or “deviance” once (to get the job done”, before long the shortcut becomes the norm. It’s only human nature. When the shortcut becomes the norm, it leads to “predictable surprises” and a hazardous environment. If you look at some of recent TSB reports from our industry, this normalization seems to be getting worse (and it’s costing people their lives). According to NASA astronaught and Airforce flyer Mike Mullane: the best defences are “Courageous Self Leadership” and “Executing to Standard” Best of luck with your situation. I vote for being a “Courageous Self Leader” and “Executing to Standard” Fly Safe, https://youtu.be/Ljzj9Msli5o https://youtu.be/jWxk5t4hFAg https://youtu.be/Wuk_DoX-rz8 https://youtu.be/DABsxJtNcYg
  10. Freewheel

    How much water can a Jetranger carry?

    What altitude and temperature are operating these aircraft in “the story”?
  11. HAC Communique May 31/18 This Summer’s Flight Time Limits May be Higher that You Thought You may recall from a previous HAC Newsletter, that Transport Canada recently imposed a new definition for “Flight Time” and “Air Time” for helicopters. Apparently, Flight Time and Air Time are now the same. This has caused some grief for the helicopter flight training community, and we know that Transport Canada is in the process of revisiting this new interpretation, so we suggest that you connect with your POI before making any precipitous changes one way or the other. Some charter operator-members have suggested that they must now use “Air Time” for the purpose of calculating Flight Time Limits, which would result in a 10-20% increase over more traditional calculations that use start-up to shut-down for the purpose of these Flight Time calculations. There has been some considerable confusion stemming from the new interpretation, so we suggest that you receive instructions from your Transport Canada Regional office in writing, before proceeding. http://www.naylornetwork.com/hcp-nwl/articles/index.asp?aid=504651&issueID=65688
  12. April 25, 2018 ”Good Morning, Civil Aviation Standards in HQ is in the process of issuing an Advisory Circular on this subject very soon. The interpretation provided to you by your principal inspector still stands and will be further explained in the AC when it gets published.The AC will also be providing a transition period to allow operators to comply with the interpretation and hence, at this time we will not be taking any enforcement actions.Standards in HQ is also working with HAC on the interpretation which stands.Regards,Imtiazali (Imi) WaljeeAssociate Director, Operations EastTransport Canada / Government of Canada”
  13. OPS MANAGER: the hour meter is not actually broken. Meat Servos keep entering it in the JLB as a defect because they think it’s calculating hours wrong. In their defence, not all meat servos realize that every other helicopter has a TC certified hour metre that uses a different method to calculate hours, Also every TC inspector they’ve ever met has different method., some of them work at different companies who use different methods to come up with differing numerical values. To top it off, according to TC, the school they paid 100,000 to for a licence taught them how to calculate hours wrong and they didn’t receive the minimum hours required for a licence (as per CARs).
  14. Oops Chief of Standards Deb Martin....not Mathews
  15. Yet the HAC Communique states this confusion is recent. http://www.naylornetwork.com/hcp-nwl/articles/index.asp?aid=496313&issueID=65485 everyone knows this debate has been going on for decades By my count this is the 3rd differing interpretation to be offered by a 3rd TC Director of Standards. All are posted in this forum. One interpretation is on Page 1 and was released in 2005 (GAPL 2005-02) by Director of Standards Manzur Huq In 2011, Director Jacqueline Booth provided an interpretation. This interpretation was also validated in 2013 by Regional Director Yves Lemieux. Now the December 2017 interpretation from Cheif of Standards Deb Mathews and Director of Standards Rober Sincennes. Back to Flight Time = Air Time (which is the interpretation TC circulated in a generic COM template in the 90s)
×