Jump to content

BadMonkey

Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by BadMonkey

  1. You might want to check out Advisory Circular 700-020 regarding EFBs. Using an iPad in the cockpit falls into that category and mounting it to the aircraft puts it into the category of a class 2 EFB which requires TCCA (or designated representative)certification. Also, I believe anything mounted or affixed to a transport category helicopter requires certification....assuming you want it to be 100% legal. I know our 212 & 205 ram mounts have STCs, and they are specific to certain models of GPS.....which unfortunately means no iPad. The simplest option is probably a kneeboard.

    Hope that helps.

    DP

    If it's just for Nav it's not an EFB. If you want to run your checklists and manuals off it...then it needs EFB approval. As far as mounting a RAM ball....well, Transport has a pretty broad interpretation (or lack thereof) of a "minor mod".

     

    Here's a good article on major/minor modifications & repairs, and some of the problems you can have.

     

    http://amumagazine.com/?p=3030

  2. Well, if you can hold an infant up to 2 years old in your lap legally without anything more than your arms as restraint, then anything else that can be held or stuffed under a seat is fair game too......as it's always been. "Restrained" does not necessarily have to mean "tied-down".

     

    Transport Canada would be better served by terminating the employment of any inspector with alternative ideas of what "restrained" means...

  3. Almost 20 years in industry, 8000hrs accident free, with an IFR ticket, and I can't get a call back or interview for a VFR or IFR job these days. Pretty slim pickings these days, and the few companies advertising for pilots right now aren't really hiring...they're resume baiting.

    • Like 1
  4. ****, they even started making us...sorry, strongly suggested...that we start attaching photocopies of the aircraft log sheets to pilot training records so that their PVI audits would be easier. The reasoning was some operators were fudging training records by having 1.0hrs Flight Time recurrent, but only 0.5-0.6hrs Air Time in the journey log. Somewhere along the line many Transport inspectors seemed to think their opinion is regulation, and many operators caved in just to save themselves the headache of dealing with them.

     

    The problem with demanding clarifications for certain things within CARs is that few in Transport will nut up and put their necks out, and when they're finally forced to, you end up with the most restrictive and extreme interpretations to take liability off the regulator.

  5. Any company that wants to hold to the "airtime equals flight time" is just shooting themselves in the foot. Funny how an organization that states it wants to move toward ICAO harmony, actually goes against it.

     

    As a senior pilot and company trainer, I always told guys they could go either way they wanted, just be aware that in a wreck, Transport may want to audit your logbook. If I saw a discrepancy of 10% between his personal logbook "flight time" and company tracked "air time", I wouldn't bat an eye since it accounts for what we're really doing in the field. I see 20%....it's gonna raise some flags.

     

    Look at it this way, if a contract required a 1500hr pilot, a 10% loss in logable time puts him down to 1350hrs instead of 1500hrs he would have had. 150 hrs may not seem like much, but depending on how much that pilot flys, he could be another 6 months to a year before his company could put him on a 1500hr contract. Is that smart business? Is that good for the pilot? Does it really effect safety in any way? Is that not the ICAO standard anyway?

     

    All that loss for what? So your paperwork is easier?

×
×
  • Create New...