Jump to content

Freewheel

Senior Member
  • Content count

    722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

Freewheel last won the day on December 2 2017

Freewheel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

306 Excellent

About Freewheel

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

17901 profile views
  1. 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”
  2. 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).
  3. Oops Chief of Standards Deb Martin....not Mathews
  4. 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)
  5. “Those who wrote the rules” would need to understand how the rules they wrote apply to Helicopters first. They would also need to enforce flight time consistently across all rules that uses the term. Currently that doesn’t seem to be the case. Hence the discussions with HAC and their decisions not to enforce their own rules. There are many TC approved devices out there to record “air time”, unfortunately many of them were certified by TC to use different methods of calculating air time....some calculate only time in the air, but others calculate air time while the aircraft is on the ground running. This is not air time by definition and pilots using these figures are entering inflated air time in aircraft records. This is very costly, but also could result in torque checks and other special inspections being conducted before the manufacturers minimum air time (as stated in their maintenance procedures).
  6. Received this from HAC preident on Saturday. Sounds like TC has agreed that pilots can record “flight time” and “air time” anyway they want ...for now. Not sure how it relates to the above email from an Ontario inspector sent to several commercial operators. Apparently Fred attended a meeting on this itopic; Director of Standards Robert Sincennes, Cheif of Standard Deb Martin, Robert Freeman from HQ, Serge Côté and a new licensing inspector named John were in attendance. “they agreed: 1. They would not enforce against operators using the ICAO definitions of flight time and air time, for now; 2. They would not reject licence applications which used the ICAO definitions, for now; 3. They would engage with HAC and others, to resolve this issue, going forward. Cheers, Fred”
  7. Freewheel

    Pilots leaving the industry

    It was just meant to basic raw data from which to start the discussion....I think C&D is good for that. It seems to have worked and it looks like you agree.., So, what would you say an appropriate Canadian tariff for an AS350 B2 (at 400 hrs per year)?
  8. Freewheel

    Pilots leaving the industry

    Some more good points from you HV. Checking my stocks. Also funny. im not looking to argue. Was actually agreeing with your comments. Thought that was clear. I made a reference that this was US corporate, not Canadian utility. Just trying to be brief. also i just did a quick search using the online tool from C&D. The report I referenced had aircrew 129,000.000 and benefits at 38000.000. Agreed: high for Canada with that being aaid, it’s likely what many feel they should be paid...so I’d suggest rates need to go up if that is to happen. I also agree with you we need to work with our clients to get through lean times.
  9. Freewheel

    Pilots leaving the industry

    Well said HV. Im thinking your numbers are off the top of your head, but your not far off. According to Conklin and Dedecker a corporate AS350 B2 requires $1968.00 USDper hour when factoring in book depreciation. $1828.00 USD per hour when factoring in market depreciation $1386.00 USD per hour when no depreciation is factored thats at 395 hours of usage annually utility equipped aircraft usd in Canadian market would likely be higher some operators have been selling these aircraft recently at less than $750.00 per hour
  10. Almost a decade has gone by since HEPAC died, yet some continue with the same condescending rants that may have led to its demise. worldywings explained one of the main reasons HEPAC could not get the required support quite eloquently (way back in 2009) on the HEPAC in jeopardy thread. “I wouldn't describe those who choose not to send money to an unproved and untested organization with a limited membership as *sitting on the sidelines*. Let us not forget that until the fairly recent muzzling of certain individuals HEPAC was starting to sound like a bunch of angry thugs intent upon insulting and alienating anyone who dared ask a question. I for one quite liked the idea of general representation and was almost signed on the dotted line until I watched the nonsense unfold on here in the various HEPAC threads. To be quite honest, I decided I didn't want to be associated with a group that had members and founders behaving as they were. This seems to have changed but I am sure I am not the only one with a *wait and see* attitude. Anyhow, to the volunteers giving their time and effort, the best of luck!”
  11. Freewheel

    Endorsements & the Tax Man

    You’re right there are several in Quebec; I’m sure they could set you up with an instructor who speaks English. A quick google search indicates that bot HNZ Topflight and TRK offer AS350 training. You may need to pick up the phone to see about availability. I would assume there are others. Best of luck!
  12. Freewheel

    Endorsements & the Tax Man

    And of course, if you go the training bond route, you actually need to convince your them your worth hiring.
  13. Freewheel

    Endorsements & the Tax Man

    There are numerous Flight Training Units in Canada which will provide A-Star training if your willing to pay the actual value.
  14. Thanks for clearing that up. I think I understand your point of view: since your career predates the regulations and maintenance requirements, you get to pick and chose which one you comply with. You also clam up when someone raises a valid point that does not conform to your opinion. I think I’ll go with what the manufacturer says instead and insure my maintenance is completed in accordance with the regulations. Under the Flight Time = Air Time interpretation, It seems to me that for short flights in accordance with (B), all operators have a contractual obligation to inflate their Air time Q1. Engine Start Time/Blades turning: 754 Time Up Time Dn Air Time Starts Comments 800 804 4 min 1 CYMO – Lagoon 809 812 3 min 0 Lagoon – CYMO 816 819 3 min 0 CYMO – Lagoon 822 825 3 min 0 Lagoon – CYMO 829 833 4 min 0 CYMO – Lagoon 838 841 3 min 0 Lagoon – CYMO 844 847 3 min 0 CYMO – Lagoon 850 853 3 min 0 Lagoon – CYMO 855 858 3 min 0 CYMO – Lagoon 904 909 5 min 0 Lagoon – CYMO Engine Shutdown @ 912; Rotors Stopped @ 914 In accordance with the clause in the contract, For the above entries: The pilots calculated Flight Time and Air Time respectively, should be 1.2 hours Flight time and 1.2 hours air time Q2. Engine Start Time/Blades turning: 754 Time Up Time Dn Air Time Starts Comments 800 824 24 min 1 CYCN – CYTS Engine Shut Down @ 830; Rotors stopped @ 831 In accordance with the clause in the contract, For the above entries: The pilots calculated Flight Time and Air Time respectively, should be 0.4 hours Flight Time and 0.4 hours Air Time Airbus Helicopters indicates this recording Air Time as per the clause for short flights in succession is not in accordance with Master Service Manual or Maintenance Manual... “Good morning, I am doing ok here I hope you are also. Regarding your question yesterday on flight and air time please review the following. Airbus Helicopters is concerned with limitations expressed in Flight Hours (FH), Calendar time & Cycles. The definition of FH is given in both the Chapter 4 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) and Chapter 5 Master Servicing Manual (MSM) both are available through TIPI and as part of the standard documentation for each model of aircraft operated. This definition of flight hours (not to be confused with Flight TIME) corresponds to Air Time as defined in CARs Section 101.01: Airbus Helicopters does not take into account running time (i.e. flight time by ICAO definition) for purposes of tracking limitations. So in answer to your two questions: A1: answer a. Flight Time = 1.3 / Air Time = 0.6 A2: answer Flight Time = 0.6 / Air Time = 0.4 (Note: rotors stopped at 0831) If you have any further questions regarding Airbus Helicopters requirements for tracking time please let us know. Best regards, Rod Rod TUPALA Technical Support (Ontario) Airbus Helicopters Canada Limited”
  15. Because I get the impression you think the “air time” limits in the maintenance manuals are all “Maximum limits”. There are manny maintenance tasks that are completed after a minimum number of “air time” hours. Unlike TC, the manufacturers are very clear that these limits are based on time in the air...not sitting on ground with blades turning. How about the many special inspections, torque checks etc. After component removal and installation? Generally I prefer my maintenance completed with strict adherence to manufacturer’s maintenance practices to reduce the likelihood of this type of failure. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/civil-aviation-safety-alerts-2017-02.html If you are entering inflated air time figures in the journey log book it’s just a matter of time before these tasks are completed early (and contrary to required maintenance practices). Auditors should expect that operators and pilots execute to these standards.
×