Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Freewheel last won the day on October 31

Freewheel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

329 Excellent

About Freewheel

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

20,597 profile views
  1. Then once you get them in. The other guy did it faster. You’re hundred dollar turns(aka recon to pilots) are Killing my budget lol On occasion, i like to spin it this way: I could likely land there 9 out of 10 times too. Did the other pilot explain what happens the other 10% of the time?
  2. Bingo. And these are the type of Pilot Decision Making considerations that can prevent accidents in situations like these. More so than instrument training. I really wonder if the false sense of security provided by Instrument training, Can sometimes lead pilots to be overconfident and into these situations.. MANY of us have several of these PDM considerations listed in our COM, as PDM considerations and training are required for reduced visibility VFR operations, (not instrument training).
  3. To be clear, I’m not judging the pilot. We don’t know any of these details, and it’s just speculation. You are right there could be wide variety of systemic and organizational factors that led him to this situation. If management pressured him o fly, then they are also complicit and should be held to account. There are mechanisms for this also. With that being said, ultimately under the law the PIC carries the final say and responsibility. Something that everyone should consider when making these decisions. The only true way to prevent these type of accidents is through awareness. Discussions like this amongst pilots, might just save a colleague’s life one day.
  4. Thats one plausible theory. Getting canned without cause is better than getting canned with cause.Also no job is worth dying for. The accident stats in our industry clearly demonstrate that low level flight into IMC with a VFR helicopter is high risk. i know hindsight is 20/20, but If we carry on with your speculation,: After Violating regs and destroying an aircraft and almost killing himself, his employer now has every right to fire him. He’s also liable in civil litigation and could be charged.. So, turning back (or landing) while still VFR /reduced visibility would have the right call; fired or not. the metar was 1/2 mile visibility and 300 feet when he called in. Still legally flyable with the correct training, but on the bottom visibility limit. He also knew he had to fly out over the water, which increased risk. I suspect the zero visibility just didn’t come out of nowhere. He likely made a conscious decision to enter the cloud/fog. Perhaps it closed in behind him after that, but had stayed VFR, that would have reduced that that risk significantly. We’ll have to see if any details from NTSB are released in the future. learn from the mistakes of others; you won’t live long enough to make them all yourself.
  5. I hear what you are saying. I’m sure most pilots have experienced the pucker factor on several occasions. I know I have for a variety of reasons. With that being said, I don’t recall finding myself in aN extended zero visibility situation in a VFR aircraft. I generally used decision making to avoid zero visibility, turned back or landed first. It often requires being assertive with clients. Low level IFR in a VFR aircraft is a deadly situation. I agree with you, that there is a very good possibility that pressure got him into the situation. It’s not clear whether where the pressure came from. Could be client, could operator, could even be self imposed (Which is quite common). I also understand that Our industry, is unlike most fixed wing. Quite frankly, the pressure to pick up clients in the bush At the end of the day, in subzero environments, with shortened daylight Hours is a reality that can’t be denied (and rarely occurs in other segments of aviation)....although that doesn’t appear to be the case here. its also possible that overconfidence and normalization Of deviance got him into this situation. Something that is also quite common. Maybe he’s been in this situation before without suffering any consequences and received positive feedback. There is just not enough details to know. Regardless, the Aeronautics Act and the law clearly puts the legal responsibility on the Pilot-in-COMMAND to operate safely, ensure weather meets minimums and avoid IMC in a VFR aircraft (not clients). So , legally,, it was “because of him”. An attitude that passes the buck to others, does not install confidence that the pilot is in COMMAND, and is one that is more likely to lead to tragic consequences.
  6. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2060749 Another IFR pilot flying IFR conditions in a VFR equipped aircraft. Hope he realizes how lucky he is.
  7. There are numerous cases of civilian pilots who have lost control of their aircraft, directly related to a “high speed low level pass”.
  8. I am sure that’s not correct.
  9. If you mean that simply posting on Vertical Forums (or ranting or complaining) won’t effect change, I agree with ya With that being said, a forum like this could be one tool used to effect change. Of course, you can’t expect change to occur without actually using the formal mechanisms that are already built into our regulatory systems. This site does provide a great forum for people in our industry (from coast to coast) to discuss and identify industry related issues. They are also very helpful for gaging how the regulator is applying the regulations and they can be a deterrent to “Regional Disparity”. It’s well known that recent “guidance material” (and changes to regulatory interpretations) from Transport Canada was developed as a direct result of at least one forum on this site. I suspect at least a few of the 137,000+ views were from Transport Canada. Of course, formal mechanisms were used as well as this forum. https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/reference-centre/advisory-circulars/ac-700-052.html
  10. Without knowing your situation completely, I have to agree with you. Either way it looks like you are doing your research. As you can see there are more than a few Canadian pilots who have paid for a licence, before they realized the industry was not at all what they expected. Best of luck with whichever avenue you choose...
  11. That’s a fair reply. Just be aware that it will likely be more than 2 or 3 years of extended tours away from family. In reality, there is a good possibility you will not fly for 2 or 3 years, if ever. Once you do get flying: CARs currently allow for a pilot to work 42 days straight, with 5 days off before and after the tour. Then you can be asked to return to work for another 42 days straight. These “days off” do not need to be away from the job site. You just need to have no company assigned duties. You can do this 6 times per year. While tours are getting better, (and the CARs are changing for air taxi...maybe lol) your employer will likely expect a strong commitment from you early on (as you both try to get you enough hours to work most contracts). Client minimum Flight Time requirements seem to be always increasing, despite the growing shortage of pilots. Aerial work jobs will still be under the limits above even when(if) the new CARs limits do come into effect. if you do decide to get your licence, choose your Flight Training Unit wisely and ask them how they log and bill you flight time.
  12. Longest day 12.3 hours Flight Time/ 9.2 Air Tine 😎
  13. President’s Message - HAC Appeals to Minister Garneau Over the New Interpretation of “Flight time” http://mediaedgedigital.com/supplierinsights/hac/presidents-message-15/
  14. https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/reference-centre/advisory-circulars/ac-700-052.html
  15. May 8/19 email: Dear Sir, We continue to work the file in addition to a number of other priority files. Please note we do not send back the disposition documents to individual commenters, but will be sending the AC out again prior to being finalized. As such, you will be able to assess how your feedback would have been dispositioned. Regards, Robert Sincennes, P.Eng. Director, Standards Branch Tel: 613-991-2738 cell: 613-859-2796 facsimile / télécopieur : 613-952-3298 Internet: [email protected] Transport Canada | Transports Canada
  • Create New...