Jump to content

Phil Croucher

Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Phil Croucher

  1. They found 3 bodies in the early hours - one more unaccounted for. Apparently it lurched left, then right, then ended up in the sea, upside down. Phil
  2. It seems they rather allow this confusion to exist than actually admit error on their part. It sure looks like it. "Losing the will to live" BTW was not targeted at you You have my every sympathy. If it's any consolation, it's worse in Europe. In fact, it's an international joke. Phil
  3. Items held on laps or loose on the floor is not considered as meeting the requirements to be stowed or restrained. Does the former include infants? (I lost the will to live on trying to read I it all) I remember once that the guys at Niagara tried to load 10 people into my 407 once - 5 were infants on laps with no restraint! (We didn't go) As for the latter, the last time I rode Air Canada, my carryon was in fact behind my feet, and it usually is on every trip I do. Nobody has pulled me up on it yet. Phil
  4. IMHO - Section 6 is for the general stuff, as modified elsewhere. 7 is more specific, covering Foreign, Aerial Work, Air Taxi, Commuter and Airline (Private Operators are in Part VI), so unless it is specifically mentioned in 7, I would say yes, purses can be carried in the lap. What prompts the question? Maybe one should ask if a purse is included in the definition of carry-on baggage? I wouldn't have said so in the normal scheme of things. Phil
  5. S-s-sorry! The system was playing around. But those guys are not the only ones sending inexperienced people off - I once worked for a company that was very happy to send a 100-hour pilot from Calgary to Penticton with no briefings whatsoever, or a safety pilot, even though I volunteered. Low time pilots don't bother me at all, provided they are properly supervised, but I thought that was a bit much. The problem with kicking students off courses (which we have done more than once) is that provided they meet a minimum standard, there's no real justification for it. Phil
  6. I remember doing a safety article about padding logbooks in another helicopter magazine some years ago. My own bs detector is not the flying but the quality of decision making. A really experienced pilot would simply not get into certain situations. Phil
  7. Yeah, I forgot those - highly recommended. You might also look for Warwick Green's stuff - www.sharperedgesolutions.com I know he does an INRAT exam prep guide. phil
  8. A more general book that covers all syllabuses is available from here: www.electrocution.com/aviation/#CPL Phil
  9. There are a few for various machines including the LR at www.electrocution.com/aviation There's a duty hours one in there somewhere as well. Phil
  10. Sure - it's a good bit of kit and shouldn't die. Phil
  11. VertRef - the tail first thing was Al's recommendation, and also in the document called "How to Crash A Helicopter" which can be found on the net. Never done it myself, but as helicopterjim says, you may not have any time to make that decision anyway! phil
  12. Dense foliage, and the denser the better as there is a chance you could just end up on top and be able to climb down (happened three times to Al Ascah). Widely spaced trees are just obstacles. For the cutline you would have to pull everything you have before you reach the treeline, as it is useless afterwards. Then accept the drop. A jetty or 500 would probably take that without doing too much harm to the occupants, but I'm dubious about anything else. Oh yeah, don't forget to go in tail first. If the water is shallow, maybe, but if you end up underneath and have to get out - well, all the egress training in the world is useless if your arms are broken. Phil
  13. It seems there are still a couple of misconcetions flying around. First of all, it's not the UK JAA - it was always JAA which has now morphed into EASA - it is a European wide licence, so assuming you have immigration sorted out you can fly all over Europe with that licence (EASA is to Europe what the FAA is to the USA). The UK just happens to have the best system - it isn't perfect, but it's a highly regarded licence if it is issued by the UK CAA (some countries like Spain are still not even JAA compliant after all these years, let alone EASA compliant!) Your licence is based in whatever country holds your medical records. It is true that many non-European countries also require a JAA/EASA licence - Mauretania being one. The OGP companies also prefer you to have an EASA licence because of its perceived "higher standards". That's bullshit, as they play simply mind games with the questions (the sylllabus is reasonable, though there is a lot of it - the knowledge required is not actually that deep). The irony is that everyone cheats like mad and the OGP gets pilots with no real knowledge. The EASA CPL(H) has 13 exams based on at least 250 hours of study, the ATP has 14 based on 550 hours (the extra being IFR comms). The UAE do not use EASA rules as such, they just take the rules and change the name, so they are not technically EASA - they still have their own sovereign licences and dodgy questions. They will accept the FAA ATP, though, and the Saudis definitely do. You have to be signed off by an approved school - mine being the only real game in town for helicopters (www.captonline.com). You do NOT have to learn Morse! The Australians will accept a JAA/EASA licence with just a law exam. Once you have an Australian one, you can do the paperwork and exchange it for a NZ one. The Canadian/FAA exchange thingy is still ongoing but stalled for the moment because TC don't have any spare people to do the legal drafting as i understand it. If you guys need any advice on European/Canadian stuff please feel free to PM. As to the original question - hardly any country accepts any licence without some sort of conversion, except Oz/NZ as mentioned above and Canada/USA for fixed wing. You should always expect at least a law exam. Phil
  14. If you're in Toronto, whty not have a chat with Richard Pearce? He may be able to chat with them on your behalf. It doesn't say pre recorded in the rules, it just says audio or audiovisual. Given that the law must be interpreted in plain words, ground crew speaking to a passenger is the same thing as "audio". phil
  15. You could argue that the rules just lay the responsibility on the commander, no matter who does it. "The pilot-in-command shall ensure that passengers are given a safety briefing in accordance with the Commercial Air Service Standards" phil
  16. Hmmm - these guys have enough cash to have an aeroplane and crew sitting in Rainbow Lake for a week while they investigate a native burial ground. In my experience, it's not the oil companies that have the problem with pricing, it's the hangers on in the middle doing work on their behalf. They would always try to beat us down on price - if I had to deal directly with an oil company and quoted a sensible price, it was usually accepted. But you're right, whoever pays - they are doing it to themselves. phil
  17. The worst requirement I heard was 200 hours "in the province". What idiot thought that one up? Tundra in AB looks just the same as it does in BC. Phil
  18. I have found that it's usually a "consultant" advising someone in the customer's company that used to have 50 hours on fast jets in the military. If we found a good guy our workaround was to persuade the customer to go up for a quick flight with him. It's funny how the minimum experience for simple jobs goes up year by year, as you noticed. And to think I was let loose with missiles at 200 hours...... It's a very similar position to a heart surgeon being told by some idiot in an insurance company what he can and can't so in an operating theatre. My sympathies. Still, the way I see the job market going (from where I sit), they will have to have a drastic rethink about mentoring or nobody will be flying at all. phil
  19. CARS in Plain English? http://www.electrocution.com/aviation/#CARS Phil
  20. You might want to use this as a basis: http://www.electrocution.com/docs/206B3cg.xls There's a couple of others there as well for the 350 etc Phil
  21. From the Bell 206 book...... The speed restrictions for flying with doors off are due to possible controllability problems when the C of G is too far aft, or where aircraft response will not always follow a predictable pattern for a given cyclic input. In addition, the back doors, with the original handle design, tended to blow open in flight, and the changed airflow over the static ports may cause the altimeter/ASI to misread slightly. The cyclic is not necessarily at its most central point when in the hover. In fact, it is more likely to be central at around 40 kts. In other words, the anticipated rate of speed increase or decrease with movement of the cyclic forward or backward may not be achieved with doors off, due to disturbed airflow. It is a carry-over from early versions of the 206A which, when flown at very light weight with the doors off, had negative static stability, meaning that the fuselage did not try to return to its original position after a disturbance (helicopters are normally statically stable). For example, if you settled down at 60 KIAS, then accelerated to and held 70 KIAS, the longitudinal cyclic position would actually be slightly aft of the 60 KIAS position. In forward flight with all the doors on, the air flows evenly over the horizontal stabiliser to create the lift required to keep the nose up in forward flight (the horizontal stabiliser is an inverted aerofoil). However, if you remove the doors the airflow at higher airspeeds (above 69 kts) now burbles back toward the tail and disrupts the lift over the stabiliser. Thus, as your speed increases, the lift created by the stabiliser decreases, which means that the nose will be too far down, requiring aft cyclic to correct it. Because of this, the problem got called Cyclic Stick Reversal, but there has never been a situation where you had to push the stick forward to make the nose go up. As the 206 series increased in empty weight, or if you flew it at something other than empty with nearly no fuel, the problem went away, but it stays in the supplement as a restriction. The Canadian Air Force apparently found in later models than the 206A that there was no problem out to much higher airspeeds, but if you nudge the envelope in this area, in a descending right turn, with doors off and 120 kts IAS, the adverse yaw will almost tip you out the door. phil
  • Create New...