Jump to content

Freewheel

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    85

Everything posted by Freewheel

  1. Lo.My mistake. Like I said, “I’m pretty sure”…meaning not 100%. It’s been a while. They certainly aren’t an Airline Operation. I knew that for certain. Didn’t need to look at the AOC to realize that.
  2. They are a 705 “Airline” operation? That doesn’t seem correct under the CARs. Last time I looked at their AOC, I’m pretty sure they were a 702/703 operation like the most of us..
  3. If I recall correctly, the “jist”” of the interpretation in the policy letter, was that to be considered a landing in a “built-up area” it would need to be surrounded on all sides, and would not preclude a helicopter from landing within 500 feet of a built-up area, if they had a clear approach path. One example was a helicopter landing on a lake shore at a community with buildings within 500 feet. Maybe someone else on here kept a copy and would share it. I usually keep all of these “good ones” in “archives”, but not this time. I don’t know the details of this landing, but I know if
  4. Policy Letter 145 was guidance material from Transport Canada on this very topic. “ Policy Letter 145 Helicopter Landings and Take-offs within the Built- up Areas of Cities and Towns It was cancelled in December 2020 after being in circulation for many years. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy anymore. https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/reference-centre/civil-aviation-document-cancellation-history/cancellation-notice-documents-updated-tp-4711 If I’m not mistaken it’s purpose was to eliminate Special Flight Operations
  5. I’m guessing this is related to the assertion that Crosby barrel hooks are not approved for helicopter use https://fr.barry.ca/blogs/safety-alert/barry-barrel-sling-special-safety-directive-product-safety-directive
  6. Definitely off topic from the original thread, but I’ll bite. Not approved by who and under what standard?
  7. Ya got figured you’d get the EC no prob blemish; and that’s very respectable level of service. I applied for one last year in Ontario. Took about a week.
  8. I’d be curious to know if you run into issues, which region you are in and what the turnaround time is for the issuance of the of the EC. I’ve heard from some others, that there are significant disparities from one region to the next. SHOCK! Lol I've always found it perplexing, that despite decades of TC trying to curb such regional disparity, they continue to struggle to get inspectors and regions to administer the regulations consistently. I guess their corrective actions aren’t directed at the true root cause.
  9. My mistake, a 420 lbs propane cylinder has a water capacity of 454 litres which disqualifies it as a “small means of containment”. Looks like, you may be correct, and there will still be a need for the Equivalency Certificate. Under that premise, an EC would be required under Aerial Work 12.12 also
  10. I have not had the time to review the proposed amendment thoroughly, however, I do agree that under limited access, the size of the cylinders are still limited to prevent you from transporting larger cylinder. With that being said the changes to aerial work could be relevant. “The scope of aerial work would align with the scope of application in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs)”. They are removing the “activities listed in the aerial work section and replacing with aerial work activities listed in CARs. Aerial work also only limits you to small means of containment (which is less th
  11. This just showed up in the inbox. Haven't had a chance to review fully, but lots of relevant changes to limited access and aerial work. Apparently, many of the proposed changes will eliminate the need for Equivalency Certificates we are discussing. Also relevant an amendment to TDGR 12 to "Provide an exemption for dangerous goods that are required for the safety and operation of the aircraft and that are not already exempt under the ICAO TI. The intent of the exemption would be to capture dangerous goods, such a portable fuel pumps and spares kits". Notice to CARAC members, Please
  12. I should also mention, that you are correct, the TDGRs do not make a distinction between internal or external loads. Whether it is internal or external, you are still transporting dangerous goods, so the TDGRs do apply. it sounds like you’ve done your homework, just apply for the propane EC and be done with it. They hand those things out like they are going out of style. Just search someone else’s on the TC website and copy and paste into the online application. Turnaround in my region has been surprisingly efficient (before COVID anyway). Dont forget you still need to complete and r
  13. FYI I also don’t agree with the HACs suggestions for change in the discussion paper. To me it doesn’t help the situation at all. When it comes to the TDGRs, they are written by people who have no idea what helicopter operations entail in Canada. The HAC has been trying to explain to them why helicopter pilots need to carry a variety of consumer commodities in their spares (to maintain their aircraft daily) for years. Do you do a NOTOC and TDG records every time you transport your spares (for your WD-40, window cleaner and contact cleaner etc.)? The whole idea of me writing a notification t
  14. I believe your interpretation is correct. You would need to apply for an equivalency certificate to transport the larger propane tanks under 12.9 limited access( if you are unable to comply with 12.12.). Flying propane to a persons hunting or fishing camp, or “back country hut” would not qualify as Aerial work under 12.12. I don’t however believe you would need to have an Equivalency certificate to transport them when conducting activities such as Forestry. Who knows why they would apply for their own ECs. They can already transport them under 12.12 with no additional equivalency certific
  15. TC Civil Aviation would have nothing to argue about. Simply conducting an external load automatically makes the flight a 702 aerial work flight under the CARs. You cannot conduct external load under 703, only 702. The CARs define Aerial Work as: “A commercial air service other than an air transport service or a flight training service” Aerial work under CARs section 702 involves: (a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members ; (b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads; (c) the towing of objects (e.g., banners); or (d) the dispersal
  16. Healthcare and vaccine distribution is a provincial jurisdiction. Vaccine distribution plans vary from province to province, and even from public health unit to public health unit. Stay tuned to what your local PHUs are saying. Depending on your situation you may be eligible, even if you’re not air ambulance. I know some transportation employees, (not just pilots) who have already received both vaccine shots because they are working in and out of remote First Nation communities (which were some of the first to receive vaccines in Ontario). You may also be transporting front line workers,
  17. Latest revision to Cargo hook Swing and Sling Supplements, released in 2020: "The cargo hook system meets the external load certification regulations for Non Human External Cargo (NHEC)." Well I guess that clears that up. 5 years later a pilot can reference the Flight Manual and safely answer the original posters question. The answer to the original posters question. The AS350 IS certified for Class C loads. Revised From: "The cargo hook system is approved for lifting external load which is jettisonable and lifted free of land or water during rotorcraft operation.
  18. Funny how most of the comments on YouTube insinuate that he has such big balls, yet somehow, he couldn’t find them when dealing with “Ops Manager/C.P. heads in the sand and customer demands”...
  19. As mentioned, ELDs exist in a variety of forms in our industry already. Unfortunately, it appears that the confusion that exists within Transport Canada, also existed within TC certification when the devices were approved. As an example: Some devices log air time as only the time spent in the air (Which is correct), while others continue to log air time, after landing, while on the ground with engines running. This results in higher than actual air time records, and is unnecessarily increasing maintenance costs as time expired parts are required to be replaced early. The difference can be sig
  20. HFI Video Land and Live -7:43 “The decision to land and live, is by far, the much better decision” Have a safe weekend
  21. 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?
  22. 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).
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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 f
×
×
  • Create New...