Jump to content

Freewheel

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    80

Everything posted by Freewheel

  1. 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”...
  2. 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
  3. HFI Video Land and Live -7:43 “The decision to land and live, is by far, the much better decision” Have a safe weekend
  4. 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?
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. There are numerous cases of civilian pilots who have lost control of their aircraft, directly related to a “high speed low level pass”.
  11. 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 “Re
  12. 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...
  13. 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
  14. President’s Message - HAC Appeals to Minister Garneau Over the New Interpretation of “Flight time” http://mediaedgedigital.com/supplierinsights/hac/presidents-message-15/
  15. https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/reference-centre/advisory-circulars/ac-700-052.html
  16. 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: robert.sincennes@tc.gc.ca Transport Canada | Transports Canada
  17. Excerpt from April 16/19 e-mail: “I am responding on behalf of Robert Sincennes who is currently away. TCCA has received many comments on Draft Advisory Circular (AC) 700-052 - RECORDING FLIGHT TME FOR SKID-EQUIPPED HELICOPTERS and it has now completed a disposition of all comments. These will be sent out shortly for all persons and operators who submitted them and when the consultation period and processes are complete, the AC can be issued.” Best Regards,Pierre RuelPierre RuelChief | ChefFlight Standards| Normes des Opérations AériennesStandards Branch| Direction des NormesTransp
  18. And n the form of a stamp of approval on behalf of the minister (in my COM]. Like I said “Good to go” ...for the time being at least. At the rate TC moves, that could be quite awhile.
  19. We’ve already involved all parties and done the work...now it’s up to them. This circus has been going on since 2015. According to Airbus I’m good to go with Class C loads. That’s what their letter says. They have also been advising several operators of this since 2015. According to anything I have in writing from TC, I’m also currently good to go. That includes correspondence from TC Standards, Certification and Regional Operations and my COM approval. I’m confident that constitutes “approval from the responsible authority in accordance with the applicable operational regulat
  20. Additionally, Airbus has been circulating the attached letter (to Transport Canada and many operators) since June 2015. Also attached is the November 2017 letter from TC certification (to Airbus). In this letter TC Certification states that they have completed their review, validate the "major change affecting Airbus Helicopters AS350B2" and find the changes acceptable. 13530660.pdf AS 350 and EC 130 series helicopter - External load certification.pdf
  21. That it does. So let's look at the Operating Limitations section in the latest amendment (06-17) to the supplement for the Cargo Swing on the AS350 B2, approved by Transport Canada themselves in November 2017. "The cargo hook system is approved for lifting external load which is jettisonable and lifted free from land or water during rotorcraft operation. Operation with an external load which remains in contact with land, water or any fixed structure is not demonstrated by the manufacturer. These operations shall not be conducted without approval from the responsible authority in
  22. FYI: Earlier this month, 4 TC inspectors and the Associate Reginal Director advised us (verbally) that TC standards have changed their position with regards to AS350 Helicopters and their certification for Class C external,loads. We asked to receive their position in writing and we’re told that TC is preparing a Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA). A follow up email to the standards department garnered this April 19 reply: With respect to operations with Class “C” loads by the AS 350 series helicopters, TCCA will be advising operators through their regional POI’s and through the
×
×
  • Create New...