Jump to content

Jamhands

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Jamhands last won the day on February 7 2013

Jamhands had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About Jamhands

  • Rank

  1. Oh good, a business model built around not paying the aircrew. That sure helps us all... Brutal. No pilot, low time or otherwise should be volunteering. If you do, you are screwing us all over.
  2. I have written a letter to Hon. Jason Kenney and my MP stating my opposition to Mr. Jones' letter. I hope others will do the same as I find Fred Jones' position disgusting considering what is actually going on in the industry. I don't have a problem with TFWs filling holes that may legitimately be there but it is my personal opinion of the canadian market that there probably isn't. In fairness I don't know every detail of the industry. From what I have seen though I am willing to bet the majority of companies using the TFW program are not training Canadians to replace TFWs or working to end some of the ridiculous customer pilot minimums prevalent in the industry. 1000 hours to hop gas well leases is crazy and a company that knows how to choose good pilots and train them to do their job should be able to send a guy or girl of flight school to do it safely. But I'm getting side tracked. TFWs are a quick and cheap solution that only benefit the operators, not the workers, not the aspiring hard working Canadians and not the industry as a whole.
  3. To this I have the same response to anyone who makes that statement including my own mother. "The only way my job is dangerous is if I'm not doing it properly" That can include saying no and just not doing it. Also part of my job.
  4. On further research fishtail air's own website states Moro was the pilot. Sorry for adding confusion.
  5. According to a pprune forum regular flying in Nepal with same company, Pilot of rescue flight was Maurizio Folini. (Mentioned in the article linked above)
  6. So I'll take the bait, apparently it's all tall order to ask for a bit of helpful advice here anymore. Pretty green in the heli-ski world myself but seeing as its all fresh ill share what I've learned as I'm eternally grateful to those that have been helping me out lately: -learn your area inside and out, make mental and GPS (in that order) landmarks of bad weather routes and your outs to fuel caches, lodges or pickups. The weather WILL get bad and having a mental map in your head goes a long way. -make approaches with options to break off and try again. 3 strikes is a good rule, after 3 tries and you don't feel comfortable find another option. -be part of the team, listen at guides meetings and ask questions. Same as any job, if you know the ins and outs of the operation you're supporting it'll make your life easier. -don't lose your reference no matter what. Use your flag, rock, tree or whatever. As long as you have something other than snow to look at when you're landing. Otherwise just pay attention to wind and stay ahead of the helicopter in your head, again just like any other job. Most of all limit your food intake, it comes fast and delicious all day. Im sure theres a lot more hints and tricks out there but as stated this is not advice from an expert but better than answering a question with a question.
  7. It seems clear that the WG proposal is not suited to VFR helicopter work and thus we should all appreciate the work being done to voice our concern. I didn't get the impression from the survey or from discussion here that we are choosing to remain at the status quo, but that we cannot accept regulations suited for one facet of the industry. Thats why I signed the petition.
  8. Apologies to rotorspeed. Green Arc is the one that should be doing his own homework when it comes to statistics.
  9. Rotorspeed, "nearly 90% of all new commercially licensed helicopter pilots never find gainful employment in the industry in Canada" I have an especially hard time believing this statistic and it doesn't come as a surprise that although you are quoting it, you can't back it up. I have personnaly seen Richard and Paul's records that track the hiring rate out of the school and it isn't BS. If you want to state statistics, maybe you should do your research and find out if they are in fact true before trying to support your argument. Asking the rest of the forum to do your homework for you is not a good way to make an argument. Somehow I don't think anyone will be taking you up on your offer to have them look up your statistic for you. As a bit of background to my opinions here, I graduated from a class of 9 students pursuing commercial licenses at MVH, we were all given a huge leg up by MVH and currently 7 of them are working in the industry for 5 years with experience levels ranging from 1500 - 2500 hours including myself. I don't know much about the US system or the industry so I'll try not to comment on what's better. You however, seem to have extensive knowledge of the US helicopter industry which is great for providing insight to those on this forum that are interested in the US. You also seem to have a pretty good bead on what's happening up here. What is your background in regards to the Canadian industry? Have you worked for any Canadian operators? Tours in Canada? If so, for how long? When? Might give someone reading this for information some good background. Our industry is far from perfect and it is a continuous battle for many operators and pilots to fill the gap in experience levels to the challenging flying here. Perhaps the US system is better for developing pilots, maybe it isn't. I don't have all the facts to make a judgement call on that one. But I do know that north of the border, MVH is one operation that does there absolute best to help deserving low time pilots make there way in the industry. IMHO I feel it's ignorant to refer to that operation as a puppy mill. Everyone is free to choose where they spend there money when it comes to flight training, ab initio or IFR/Night. I think the most sound advice is do your own homework on the people you're giving your money to, and make a judgement call on where the best bang for your buck will be. If someone chooses to do their training on an N registered aircraft that is their choice. However, if someone's goal is to work in Canada, it would seem obvious to me to choose a school with experience working in Canada, with contacts to operators in Canada, and a proven track record in getting students work. I am certain there are several schools that can boast that over any operator from the US. It's simply regional knowlege and networks. Ultimately, flight training is expensive, and again, it's my opinion that people make informed decisions, get some FACTS, and choose what will give you the upper hand when looking for work. You do get what you pay for. G
  10. Non-heli related tid bit regarding ipads in the cockpit...According to my old man at Air Canada they are phasing in Ipads as electronic flight bags starting with the A320 fleet. Currently the 777 fleet has been a "paperless cockpit" since day one at AC albeit a factory installation. Hopefully we won't be too far behind the fixed wing world, if AC can figure it out, garaunteed it can't be that complicated... A VNC on an Ipad sounds awesome to me, still would carry paper copies myself though.
  11. One of the gripes I have with this whole scenario is in fact what the flight manual's procedures are. To summarize it states: If oil pressure is low or nil....apply autorotational procedure. This "autorotation procedure" can be found on a previous page (which is not specified in the Oil Pressure loss section BTW) under the heading of "Engine Flame Out In Cruise Flight" Apparently one is supposed to assume this is the procedure they intend you to perform. Item # 3 in the list of appropriate actions is "Twist Grip to shut off detent" This is clearly a description of an engine failure as the title indicates and not specific to a loss of oil pressure. I guess the point I'm making is that by the letter of the flight manual, one has to make an assumption about what the proper procedure is. I had noticed this earlier and made my own mental adjustment to the loss of oil pressure reaction. Until of course I read the service letter. The first thought in my head then was, am I the only that thinks that's a really bad idea? In regards to what legal reprecussions a pilot may face, I wonder if the ambiguity within the flight manual is trumped by the service letter. As far as I'm concerned one could argue the flight manual leaves some room for interpretation. The last point is more out of curiosity because in reality, as several others have mentioned, this probably would not cross mind. I would not be shutting the engine down unless there was an indication of a fire. Anyway, great response to the original post. Happy to have so many useful opinions on an interesting topic.
  12. Company received a service letter from Eurocopter pertaining to an incident involving a loss of engine oil pressure in an EC 120 in flight. (See Below) The point of the letter was to reiterate the flight manual's procedure for a loss of oil pressure in flight. This simply states the pilot should apply the autorotational procedure described for an ENGINE FLAME OUT which includes rolling the throttle to the shut off detent. Any ambiguity about whether a loss of oil pressure should be taken slightly differently than a loss of oil pressure has been straightened out by this service letter from Eurocopter and IMHO they are two very different scenarios. It has always been clear in my head that in the case of a loss of engine oil pressure, entering autorotation and landing immediately is obvious but shutting down a running engine seems like a poor choice. I for one would take my chances and take advantage of any power said engine might produce at the end rather than shut it down pre-emptively. Thoughts? S;arnnN SERVICE LETTER To the attention of maintenance and flight personnel CUSTOMER SUPPORT AND SALES DIVISION 40220 Tarnos - France Tel, (33)(0)5s9744000 Telex 570 042 Fax (33) (0) 5 59 64 74 98 Technical Support Department Fax (33) (0) 5 59 74 45 34 JSV/CD/ML Service Letter No. 281 8/1 1/ARRIUS2F Subject: ARRIUS 2 F Uncommanded in-flight shut-down following illumination of engine Low Oil Pressure warning Iight. Bordes, August 22,2011 Dear Sir or Madam, This Service Letter contains the findings of investigations conducted following an uncommanded in-flight shuldown that occurred on an ARRIUS 2F engine in August 2010 during the final phase of landing. During a commercial flight, the pilot heard an audio warning signal and noticed the illumination of the red low oil pressure "ENG P" warning light. The pilot confirmed an oil pressure level of 0.1 bar on the VEMD and initiated an autorotation procedure while keeping the engine lever in the "flight" detent. Then the engine shut-down occurred during flare, during the final phase of landing. The pilot performed autorotation with no additional consequence. This engine shut-down was caused by damage to the Gas Generator front bearing which resulted in rotating assembly seizure. The bearing was examined and it was determined that the bearing damage was due to a loss of lubrication. Further investigations conducted on the engine did not reveal the cause of the loss of lubrication to be found. The purpose of this Service Letter is to remind you that, following illumination of the "ENG P" warning light, the EUROCOPTER EC120 B Flight Manual requires immediate initiation of the autorotation procedure as soon as the engine oil pressure level is confirmed as low or nil. This autorotation procedure necessitates engine shut-down. This requirement is related to the velocity and extent of the engine damage once lubrication is interrupted. Please contact us if you require further information or assistance. J-S. VIGNES Technical Support Department SIEGE SOCIAL ET DIRECTION GENEMLE : 645'11 Bordes Cedex - France 16l. (33) 5 59 12 50 00 -Telex 560 928 - Fax (33) 5 59 53 15 12 Brevets Szydlowski - TURBOMECA Soci6t6 Anonyme au capital de 38.553.056 Eu.os - Registre du Commerce et des Soci6tes Pau B 338 481 955
  13. Agreed. Thanks Pilot 5 for being a complete dink to a guy who set out to find out how to solve the problems that you yourself have suffered. I hate the fact that I may have to work with customers with on a chip on their shoulder against pilots after reading the things you say on here.
  14. In my understanding of unions, especially pilot unions, the intent is to represent pilots as a group and negotiate labour contracts with the management of the company they work for. Now I apologize for another "my old man says..." story, but being the son of an airline pilot I've been force fed a lot of the union doctrine. What I've determined, is that it polarizes the entired company into an us vs. them scenario which at the end of the day seems to hurt everybody. Furthermore, ASRD is not the management of a company we work for. They are a customer, and as a customer, does it not mean if they don't like the job you're doing, they shouldn't have to use you. However, they do NEED to use helicopters so it is their interest as Rocksteady pointed out to keep us happy and safe. I don't claim to be very experienced in this industry with just four years involved, but the logic behind a union representing pilots to customers doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. How do you prevent entire companies from obstaining from the union and disregarding the union or associations decisions and going to work while everyone else is parked? To me the nature of our business doesnt lend itself to a pilot's or engineer's union but to an association of companies to highlight our concerns. Which as it turns out we do have, so perhaps more energy should be given to that. More importantly, as a helicopter pilot you are the sole representative of the company in many cases and in charge of the flying you do, so a lot of the responsibility lies with the individual to turn down unsafe work. Am I being naieve and too simplistic here?
×
×
  • Create New...