Jump to content

Helirider212

Member
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Helirider212

  1. Its really simple,, as Pilots we need to get our heads out of been paid by the flight hour,,,you are away from home for extended periods of time and suppose to be in a "profession" . Your duty day is up to 14 hrs and most customers demand / expect you to be available for that time. The company expects you to be if you are sitting on spec in a hotel in butt "F' nowhere. So do the math , we should be worth $35 to $55 an hr depending on experience ( check the rates in Fort Mac for a truck driver with no education and a lunch box , we should be worth as much or more) . Now times your rate by 8 hrs..then by 1.5 for the next 6...( or if you want to be nice give the employer 10 to 12 at straight time then X 1.5 after that ) its actually in the federal labor code ( cant remember if we are entitled to double bubble, if so, so much the better). All in all it works out to somewhere between $600 and upwards of $800 a day depending on how you do your figuring. If you want to be greedy ask for a flight pay bonus after the employer has covered his costs and made a reasonable profit,,its called profit sharing... so as an example,, after the 205 /212 has flown 300/350 rev hrs then ask for a flight time bonus. Your away from home you should be compensated, period. its not your fault and its totally out of your control today how many hrs you get to fly. Customers are been controlled by big Ivory towers way over the horizon. Same goes for the company, your heli has a capital cost and needs to be paid for. quit giving the things away...OMNR can not fight fires with out Helicopters, drills can not be moved to remote locations with out helicopters...it might mean a short term pain but in the long run we would all be better off, company makes more , aircrew makes more.

     

    In the end a straight day rate is the way to go, takes all the stress away from worrying about mins, unused will I fly wont I fly, all that. The most important part is you have to remember you are taking the good with the bad, you get paid to sit (possibly for many days),and in return when you fly a couple of 8 hr flight days you might not make as much on that day , but in the end you make more. To be fair to the employer you cant get into a mind set of "I am been paid so why should I fly", remember you are been paid to fly, but you are also been compensated for been away from home when the work is beyond your control. Your moral will be in better shape and thus your stress will be down and you will be a safer pilot.

     

    I"ve tried this for a few years now and it works...

    • Like 6
  2. Whirlygig...Thanks,,I think you have made it fairly clear,,,so lets see if we are on the same page and I will ask one more thing.

     

    If one removes the ski basket it need to have a log book entry and if done with quick pins the pilot can do this under elementary tasks. Correct ?

    If one takes the 4 man out it also needs to be noted in the log book under maintenance action, This I think I get ,,,but instead of listing the revised M/T weight and arm /moment,,,can it not say ,,,,,ski basket removed W/B addendum # 4 in effect. This is how I interpret what you have said quoted from CARS....?? There is not a need to write out the long form W/B calc the adendum # in effect does that. ??

  3. Maybe a DOM in the know or anyone up on CARS can tell if I am right or wrong here....Please correct me if I am wrong...here goes...

     

    If I have this right at some point in the past there was a requirement to do a log book entry if you changed the configuration of the aircraft . For example you take the ski basket off the machine you would write it out in the log book as such ,,ski basket removed blah blah ,,,2 hrs later you put it back on ,,,ski basket installed blah blah,, .

     

    Then some one came up with a system that short cut all the writing ,,this was the addendum page we all see attached to our W&B in the Ops man ,flight man and in some comp log books. So now when you remove the ski basket you make a note in the log book in a column near the flight time but before your signature that addendum # 4 is in use and anyone looking to do a C of G calc would refer to the addendum page in the flight man or log book.

     

    This works if the pilot is trained in elementary tasks to do any of these TEMPORARY changes that fall within a pilots right to do .IE : someone mentioned removing a 206 door that is equipped with the legal quick pins ,it would not apply if the pilot needed wrenches to remove the door.

     

    My recollection is that Transport Ok'd this for operational convenience to get away from having to write it all out every time you did a TEMPORARY change. If you or the next pilot to fly the AC needed to know the W&B that is in effect all you do is reference the number in the WB column in the log book to the WB addendum page in the logbook or flight man....pretty simple.

     

    I may not be stating this 100 % but if you read closely you will understand what I mean. Bear in mind just because your company (or a transport inspector) wants it done does not mean it is a CARS requirement. I feel this is an issue that some transport guy figures he wants to see , not what is a legal requirement. If anyone has past historical knowledge of the whole Amendment /addendum thing please update all of us one way or the other. And as I said in the beginning I stand corrected if my idea here is not right.

  4. Well Fred you are giving us all somethings to think about, and thanks for that. Here's one for all of you and I will ask Fred what one should do. I was reading my flight manual supplement for 205 today. eagle vertical reference door.,,,I dont have the precise wording but basicaly it says,,in order for the door to be used the dual controls have to be in place. Now lets assume this is correct. Any one want to tell Ontario that you cant take the duals out and you dont have a stock door with you.,,, Lets see how that fly's ( and again if I am right how many other operators will try to argue thats not so,,,so much for sticking together) and whats your guess that no company leader will stand behind you....well they might but it will be around the corner out of sight. And while we are at that ..how do we water bucket in Ontario with a passenger on board,,aka ,,a spotter..no other province demands it ,,he/she is not an essential person and if one where to ask Transport there is an option and that is for the spotter to fly above in another helicopter...oh oh ..I almost forgot..Ontario wont let their people be on board if we are actually longlineing...correct me if I am wrong but is not ANYTHING on the hook an external load...So Fred how does one deal with all these little technicalities and not get punted from both Ontario and from your job for been a rabble rouser..???

    • Like 3
  5. Its very simple why is everyone including transport Canada making it confusing..

     

    Flight time starts when you hit the starter and the blades start to turn,,you are now in control of an operational helicopter. The flight ends when you turn engine off on the ground and the blades are costing to a stop.

     

    Air time is the time you are in the air,,,skids or wheels up to skids or wheels down. If you are doing a toe in you are holding power and thus still flying. If you are sitting on the ground at 100% waiting for 6 min for customers to load or unload you are not flying and thus would/should subtract a .1 from your air time.

     

    Bill the customer Flight time,and log it as such , the log book shows AIR time and that is what is used to determine the life of components. (It is the time they are under Stress ) The customer and your personal log book should always be billed and recorded on the FLIGHT time number.

    The difference between flight and air time goes to the benefit of the operator to recover his low rate on the contract against his operational costs. Except if you are Helisking where the ******** demand to be billed on AIR time,,but that is another subject.

    • Like 4
  6. The never ending saga of how we should be paid...!!!!! my belief is first I agree with the statement as pilots or engineers we are not in the financial risk business that is the owners chair. Daily mins means just what it implies a daily minimum guaranteed hours paid to the pilot. Which also means if I am guaranteed 4 hrs and I fly 5 then on said day I get paid 5 on the next day if I fly 3 I get paid 4 . If my *** is strapped to the seat I expect to be reimbursed for the risk and responsibility I took on that day. NO AVERAGING NO AVERAGING, anyone that goes to Ontario and really understands how they use averaging against not only the pilots but the companies should understand this position.

     

    They OMNR think that a machine and a pilot should only get 4 hrs a day per day that you are on contract. which means that if you fly 5 days of 8 (which is highly unlikely to happen) that they then have the right to sit you for 5 days of no flying. So if you average you will get paid for 40 hrs if you go mins plus what you fly you would get 60 hrs. Which way do you want to be paid ,,I know where my vote goes. Ask anyone working for OMNR if they would work for 5 free days after getting paid overtime for the 5 previous days. Think about it, that is exactly what we are been asked to do if we average. You fly you take on risk and responsibility and should be paid for it. Mins are a way of guaranteeing that you make a living at the end of the season.

     

    The companies need to learn how to say No to averaging..While I can agree to averaging within a 4 day contract, (for the helicopter not for the pilot) I do not agree with extending the averaging as the contract is extended..every 4 days ,or 3 , whatever the contract term is..zero out and start again.

     

    Unfortunately this will only work if the pilots and the companies would stick together...something that is highly unlikely. In the end as a contract pilot be sure to spell it all out ahead of time ,it will save grief down the road.

     

    One more thing to keep in mind...the company which probably leases the helicopter has no problem guaranteeing the Lessor (ie Eagle,who doesn't average) a fixed number of hrs, so why not the aircrew.

    • Like 1
  7. Does that mean that OMNR has gone into CYA and there will be many years of study a discussion before we get an upfront answer and the OMNR person is held accountable for their action.

     

    Rocksteady ,,,I assume you work for BCFS,,,this comment is not aimed at you personally but at the forestry agency's in general. We all know there is a blacklist cant be easily proven but we know it is undeniably there (some times warranted but many times not ) Any issue should be brought up FIRST with the offending pilot and if there is not a satisfactory conclusion to the issue then go forward to the said pilots company. If the issue brought up with OMNR as stated previously can be used as an example what right does OMNR have to dictate to an operator who they can or can not hire with fear of the whole fleet been banned ??

    Forestry as a whole is a very demanding customer at times I feel too much so. They play a game with the operators that is made effective by the assumption of the fear of not been hired. I understand that the latest craze the fire centers have come up with is to meddle in the standard of training the companies do for pilots. (I believe its a deal been struck between HAC and CIFFC)(I will admit here that I do not know all the inner workings of this upcoming issue) Online tests to be done before a pilot is accepted as been able to work for Any fire agency..?? I believe its in place in Quebec and soon to spread to the rest of Canada.

     

    I could ramble on with my thoughts of forestry but I wont. Individually there may be a modest level of professional respect, but in general forestry does not respect us as professional pilots.

    • Like 1
  8. Nothing!

     

    Here is copy of the legal letter sent to OMNR-- its public record so there is no problem with the posting.

     

    December 21, 2007

    Via Registerd mail

    Government of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Aviation and Forest Fire Management Branch 475 Airport Road, RR#1, Box 2 Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5K6

    Attention: Mr. Bob Crowell Operations Manager

    Dear Mr. Crowell:

    Re: MNR Reference Number: P2007-00003 Captain XXXXX

    Helicopter Pilot, CHXXXXXX

     

    Robson Court, 1000-840 Howe Street Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2M1 T: 604.687.2242 F: 604.643.1200 www.millerthomson.com

    A. Paul Devine

    Direct Line: 604.643.1227 Direct Fax: 604.643.1200 pdevine@millerthomson.com

    File: 087913.0001

     

    We act for Capt. XXXX with respect to his engagement as a helicopter pilot in Ontario. Capt. XXXX is an extensively qualified helicopter pilot who resides in the Province of British Columbia. As you may recall, there was an “incident” involving Capt. XXXX at the end of the forest fire season in the third week of September 2006. At the time of the “incident”, Capt. XXXX was flying for Campbell Helicopters Ltd., a B.C. Company based at Abbottsford Airport. Campbell Helicopters Ltd. had a contract with the Ministry to provide pilots and equipment for fire suppression in the Province of Ontario. Capt. XXXX was one of the helicopter pilots working on this contract. He had just concluded his flying activities for the 2006 fire season.

     

    Capt. XXXX was flying in helicopter C-GPET on an approach into the airport at Dryden. As a result of other inbound traffic, he modified his approach, and over flew part of the visitor and staff parking lot. Capt. XXXX maintains, and the fact is, there was nothing in what he did that constituted a contravention of Civil Aviation Regulations. Nor did anything from this “incident” result in a Transport Canada investigation. Nevertheless, he was verbally upbraided by the Duty Officer at Dryden. This action itself may have been a breach of the Civil Aviation Regulations given that it interfered with a pilot in command who was scheduled to fly back to Vancouver later that day.

     

    Vancouver Whitehorse Toronto Calgary Edmonton London Kitchener-Waterloo Guelph Markham Montréal Affiliations Worldwide

    MILLER THOMSON LLP Page 2

     

    Our client subsequently raised an issue with you as to whether he had been blackballed as a pilot in Ontario. He received assurances from you in a letter in February 2007 that this was not the case. You said that he would simply be spoken to the next he returned to fly in Ontario. This is also consistent with a note you received from Bill Wiedenhoeft of the Ministry, who stated that in his discussion with Laura Siemen of Campbell Helicopters Ltd that “We simply passed on the facts of what occurred this day and as well expressed our concern over this type of performance relative to safety.”

     

    Our freedom of information requests, however, paint a much different picture about this discussion. We have been provided a memorandum from Ms. Siemen of Campbell Helicopters Ltd. dated September 27, 2006. This recorded her discussion about the “incident” concerning our client’s actions when flying into the Dryden base. Ms. Siemen records that she was told was told specifically by Mr. Wiedenhoeft and Mr. Maxwell of the Ministry that if Capt. XXXX was on one of the Company’s aircraft in 2007, it might inhibit the ability of the Ministry to hire Campbell Helicopters Ltd. Further, in subsequent response to our client’s concerns, there is an email from Mr. Maxwell entitled “Baad Pilot Reminder” dated March 6, 2007. This was an email that was sent to Mr. Maxwell after your letter of assurance to our client. It advises that: “here is a reminder about [name redacted] having to speak with you prior to any flying for MNR. There are also a couple others that are on the @#$% list”. It goes on to say: “XXXX- XXXX was flying for Campbell – no longer is (unacceptable flying).”

     

    This note was followed later by a letter from Mr. Maxwell dated March 30, 2007 wherein he wrote to the Operations Manager at Campbell Helicopters Ltd. for an Occurrence Report, which was to include details of the cause of the “incident”, and an outline of the actions taken by Campbell Helicopters Ltd. to prevent a recurrence in future. The response back was that the pilot had been terminated. It will be interesting to have Mr. Maxwell explain how he knew of the actions taken against Mr. XXXX on March 6, 2007 weeks before the wrote to Campbell Helicopters Ltd. Nor did the response from Campbell Helicopters Ltd. evoke a letter from the Ministry stating that such action was not necessary, or that our client could be engaged again to fly in Ontario. The effect of Mr. Maxwell’s letter was to obtain exactly what he wanted. He wanted Capt. XXXX terminated from his employment, and he used the vehicle of the incident report to obtain this result.

     

    The fact that our client “no longer is” flying in Ontario is due directly to actions taken by the above-named employees of the Ministry. The effect of Mr. Maxwell’s letter was to obtain exactly what he wanted. He wanted Capt. XXXX terminated, and used the vehicle of the incident report to obtain the result. It is clear that Campbell Helicopters Ltd. was told to get rid of Mr. XXXX as a pilot or else the Company would not receive a contract in future. This has caused and continues to cause our client to suffer significant direct and indirect damages. These consist of a direct loss of income by inducing a breach of his contract of employment with Campbell Helicopters Ltd., and indirect damages due to his loss of reputation as a pilot. His previously unblemished record as a pilot has been irrevocably besmirched over this incident. He has effectively been blacklisted for flying in Ontario for the Government ofOntario despite assurances to the contrary. At a minimum, he lost $100,000 flying this past fire season, as well as general damages for damage to his reputation. We have been instructed to commence an action on behalf of our client claiming that the actions of the Ontario Government induced a breach of his contract with Campbell Helicopters Ltd. We will seek special, general, and punitive damages against the Ministry on behalf of our client.

     

    This letter is to give you notice of our instructions to commence litigation. Please notify us as to your counsel for the purpose of serving our Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. We also put you on litigation notice that any and all records, correspondence, emails, and other evidence relating to this incident be preserved pending the initiation of our action on behalf of our client.

     

    Yours truly, MILLER THOMSON LLP Per:

    A. Paul Devine APD/jt

    c: Client

  9. Just my 2 cents...I worked overseas in an unnamed country,,,its pretty simple there,,equal time on/off,,,28 day tours in country,28 off,you travel on your own time. If you chose to live in country 1 day off in 7. The operators there seem to be able to survive...(might have something to do with not giving aircraft away for 2/3rds or less of the going rate) Maybe its time the Canadian operators started to rethink their business plans. I also should mention that the going rate is annual salary based, over $110,000.00 plus travel costs. So if they can do it there why not here. I thought it was great, the equal time portion, and the pay was good too. One was able to have a life. (I dont recall what the duty time was but I think it was 12 hrs, only part I had issue with was the long line restriction,,if you put a line on for as little as 15 min you were restricted to 6hrs total flight time per day.

    • Like 1
  10. Do all the same stuff when flying utility!!!

     

    Nothing too special about staying safe and smiling!

     

    P5

    Here,, here,,, seems to me this is how we should all approach flyng...Heliskiing is nothing special....winter flying,,either you like it and can do it ,,or not....pretty simple,,,but you dont need to be a special godly pilot to do it,,,,,

  11. In regard to engine failures..for you 2 engine dude's...keep in mind...that most of , if not all the engine failures in the 214 are from fuel starvation, which in no way should be confused with mechanical error, comes under human factors..pilot error...one or 2 engines doesnt matter still needs fuel...and as for any other "mechanical error" 2 engines wont make a dam bit of difference if the spar or a clutch fails....

  12. In regard to engine failures..for you 2 engine dude's...keep in mind...that most of , if not all the engine failures in the 214 are from fuel starvation, which in no way should be confused with mechanical error, comes under human factors..pilot error...one or 2 engines doesnt matter still needs fuel...and as for any other "mechanical error" 2 engines wont make a dam bit of difference if the spar or a clutch fails....

  13. 6 weeks overseas 6 weeks home.

    Take off - engage outo the pilot- read check list - 1 hr later read check list - disengage outo the pilot - land - read check list - do same in reverse - ect ect ect

    Miss fires, exploration and drill moves ect. a lot - so much fun.

    I hope everybody has a great, safe season.

    Cheers

    Sharkbait

     

    I understand the boredom factor of checklists and auto pilot, but consider the 6weeks of UNINTERRUPTED time off..you will never get that moving drills and fires...overseas work takes a bit of getting use to..but in the end its the way to go..augmented with the occasional shift at home so you remember why your working overseas....the steady paycheck helps too....

  14. There is a UH-1B (204) model with Cobra blades on it...not sure what eng it has...that would be the "super lifter" in the 204 category....I believe Garlick helicopters built them in the restricted cat,,saw one at HAI years ago...and I believe McDermot runs them in OZ...pos a UH-1F

  15. There is a UH-1B (204) model with Cobra blades on it...not sure what eng it has...that would be the "super lifter" in the 204 category....I believe Garlick helicopters built them in the restricted cat,,saw one at HAI years ago...and I believe McDermot runs them in OZ...pos a UH-1F

  16. There is a UH-1B (204) model with Cobra blades on it...not sure what eng it has...that would be the "super lifter" in the 204 category....I believe Garlick helicopters built them in the restricted cat,,saw one at HAI years ago...and I believe McDermot runs them in OZ...pos a UH-1F

×
×
  • Create New...