Jump to content

oil pressure

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


oil pressure last won the day on June 23 2014

oil pressure had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

About oil pressure

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would think that reducing the ability for an operator to potentially task flight crew to 42 consecutive 14 hr days would indeed, very much increase safetyin reducing risk.. Keep in mind HAC is very operator oriented and obviously anything that increases operational costs and logistical hurdles would get their, and those they represent, attention. This all seems a little reactive in that, had the operators put as much effort into providing a solution over the last year or two, as they did reacting to the potential changes (petitions etc.) we may be farther ahead. The new proposal seems extreme to some....which may be the case...however, again, the current is not good enough and change is needed. NOBODY understands fatigue management issues and their uniqueness to each individual than those of us managing it (pilots and engineers) in the field day to day. We all know consecutive 14hr days are ridiculous, let alone 42 of them in a row. I agree with Skidmark in that all of this will work out....im sure when regulation said you could only fly 120hrs in a 30 day period (not withstanding the ops specs to increase) and had to have 3 off in 30 and 13 off in 90, the logistics seemed overwhelming for operators. With a few ops specs it was workable....the same will happen here...operators will have to work to get variations etc that will accommodate the uniqueness of the VFR utility helicopter market in Canada. This is not about money, customer inconvenience, or logistical difficulties. This is about mitigating potential fatigue issues amongst flight crew and possibly allowing crew to make better, sound decisions that hopefully could reduce the risks of day to day operations....I think that trumps the horrible sounding by products.
  2. Finally maybe we will do at least one little thing to evolve the safety of the industry, at the grass roots level in the field. To think that a Helicopter Pilot can work 14 hrs a day for 42 consecutive days is ridiculous. Particularly given that we know the majority of accidents and incidents are the result of a poor decision....which, of many things, fatigue is a major contributor. We need to give up on the offense of finances and operational logistics....who cares....that will take care of itself with time and client education/adaptation...perhaps the recommended changes are too restrictive, but as the FDT's stand, something has to change. Thankfully most companies already recognize that, and mitigate the risks of fatigue related issues within their own systems. Experienced pilots know when they are compromised and not on their game due to fatigue....and often they manage it themselves... Fatigue is real, but hard to measure and manage. One should not ***** without offering some kind of solution. As a basic start I propose... A 12 hr duty day with VERY SPECIFICALLY defined starts and finishes. 8 hrs of flying in that 12 hrs. Max 28 days on duty then 7 days free...NOT including travel. And so on....
  3. We had a excellent young Canadian 100 hr pilot who took a leave of absence to compete in the Sochi Olympics. He received a job offer and interviewed with Phoenix....landed the job, now he's been endorsed and PPC'd on the 120 and last i heard is actually flying....he is in an environment that should provide him with a long, safe career with an excellent company....near as i can figure. Not many companies getting young Canadian pilots in the seat these days ...so thanks to Darrell and Phoenix. Who knows....maybe the kid will work his way up to a 135 Captain with NVG experience etc.one day!! Geoff Reed Yellowhead Helicopters
  4. In my simple little mind there are a couple ways to look at averaged mins. The company is saying that they need me to go work on a job for them....say, for 20 days....and they are saying no matter what, we will guarantee you 3 hours of revenue per day, averaged over my 20 day tour....whether we fly it or not!...wow that's a good deal....even though its averaged over my tour they are guaranteeing me 60 hours that tour....no matter what the weather does, the client does, the helicopter serviceability does...lotsa daylight....little daylight...no matter what....you will get 60 hours. Seems like a fair commitment to me. But then I get out there and fly my *** off for 10 days... and the weather comes, or the rocket breaks, or the client logistics are all messed up....now I see lost potential and earning ability cause i'm up on my mins....dammit...averaging sucks!!! But if I'm weathered in the whole tour....sure is nice to have mins...even averaged! I still go home with 60 hours that I didn't even fly!!! People ***** about averaged mins when they see potential to over fly them...they never ***** when they come up short and get flight pay for hours they didn't fly. There can be a potential safety issues with averaged mins...if you fly your mins early in your tour...there can be potential for a pilot to try too hard to get more...depending on the individual it can set a scenario where one will push weather or other things to get more $$$$....unaveraged daily mins can help mitigate this to some extent. That perceived need to fly today may be lessened, as I get my 3 or 4 hours today even if I don't fly. A very valid point in my mind when discussing mins. At the end of the day, union or not...are you being compensated fairly for the job you are doing? Is the guarantee your employer is giving you enough for your tour? What a Latino pilot is making is really not your concern...his or hers skill set is not really your concern....the fact that you are a highly skilled famous Canadian pilot that is not getting compensated enough IS your concern....and I would present my case to my supervisor. Or go work for the other operator where the Latino guys are working....sounds like a helluva a place to work. Probably way better! There is no doubt daily mins are better than averaged mins for the employee...but dealing with averaged mins is really a mental thing that can be tough...I always go into it looking at the 'guarantee'...and if I fly lots at the beginning...I need to keep that in perspective....which can be tough to do when you're at your mins with half your tour to go and the flying comes to an end!!!
  5. Soooo...sirlandsalot....you're flying hours you're not getting paid for?
  6. VIH Aerospace has a wonderful bubble window for the 407...might want to check with them...I think its STC'd but may only be an LSTC...give them a call
  7. Yellowhead Helicopters has immediate multiple openings for full time pilots to fulfill crewing needs for secured, long term contracts with Oil & Gas and Heli Ski clients. Yellowhead Helicopters has pilot needs as follows: Bell 206 type endorsed, minimum of 100 hrs. on type and a total of 1000hrs PIC Helicopters. Pilots will be tasked to contracts within the oil and gas sector in BC and AB, transporting passengers and equipment to well/lease sights. Selected pilots will be expected to work in this sector through the 2015 season. Yellowhead Helicopters is committed to providing opportunity and development of pilots with further advancement within the company. Bell 212 pilots. Previous 212 Heli Ski experience essential. Yellowhead Helicopters provides competitive wage and benefit programs. Pilots can send resumes to [email protected] or call (250) 212-3978
  8. Bob Mcnary Pelican Group, Calgary AB. 1 403 209 4044 Good guy, understands what we do and will get you as fair of a package as anyone. Good guy to BS with about it and get you set up!
  9. I talked today to a product support person at BLR. She indicated to me that for the 212 the premiss is that TC recognizes their FAA STC. At this time there is only approved published performance charts for HOGE...no WAT increases or HIGE (which would be WAT limit anyway) Seems the 212HP with applicable T/R ....giving you the increased WAT limits...would be the best 212 combo for the buck from a clients perspective. All leagal beagal and certifiable on manufacturers charts. I still havent figured what a 212E is and how it needs to be configured to be designated as such.
  10. Not sure what the marketing angle is? a 212 (stock car...no tricks) will do what the flight manual says. so strakes and fast fins add improved performance but no charts published/approved. The benefit would be an increased safety margin and lower pilot work load? The only rig that has increased WAT limits is 212HP with applicable tail rotor. Keep in mind the dash number of the engine has nothing to do with HP's. One operator of the 212E shows increased WAT limits over the 212HP....im trying to learn where that comes from?
  11. The ASRD has published their 2013 Casual Charter Rates (Revised March 25, 2013) There are 3 variances of the Bell 212 listed... Bell 212 Bell 212HP c/w Tail Rotor Mod Bell 212E c/w BLR Strake and Fast Fin What is a Bell 212E and why would it have the same rate as a 212HP? As far as I understood, the 212HP with the applicable T/R was the only 212 variance that had approved published increased WAT performance. The HP without the applicable T/R only has different HOGE and HIGE charts. I did see an operators website that showed higher WAT numbers for the 212E (whatever that is) than the 212HP. I guess it is a positive that the ASRD is willing to pay for the safety margin gains of having the Strake/Fast Fin combination performance. The 212HP with the applicable T/R and Strake/Fast Fin should be the highest paid 212 out there then. Given that thought process, the Bell 205++ with the Strake/Fast Fin combination should yeild a higher rate that the 205++ without? Got me baffled....anyone know more about this 212E?
  12. The current standards are ridiculous...my concern is that if this current proposal is stopped, then on we will go as is, and nothing will change. If not though, and the proposal becomes law...then maybe we will be able to get an operations specification to increase flight duty time and reduce time free from duty requirements...much the same as we have operations specifications to eliminate the 3 days off in 30 requirement and increase our 30 day flight time to 150 hrs? Maybe an Ops. Spec to allow 28 days of 12 hour duties and 8 hrs. flown a day...for example. I'm sure when the CARS came to require 3 of in 30 and 13 off in 90...with only 120hrs able to fly in 30 it was a major inconvenience? Just some thoughts.
  13. i heard that too....apparently someone wants to sell some mediums and Bailey is going to pick them up. I heard 2 or 3 212's
  14. I must add...it could be we are managing our fatigue issues, and the current FDT regulations are working fine for the industry, and operators are mitigating the risks just fine...not sure the accident data is there to make the current changes proposed relevant.
  15. I think the struggle here is to separate the issues of safety and effect on logistics. The discussion of this topic always seems to trend to how we are going to conduct business efficiently and competitively with the restrictive FDT's proposed. That, I think, is a by product that we need not worry about right now... how much money we make is somewhat irrelevant. If there is a SAFETY issue here that can be mitigated with fatigue management, then lets look at it very particularily. Forget about crew changes, double crewing, where all the pilots are going to come from etc. If we think tightening up FDT's will prevent even one accident...then lets do it. Something does need to change....quite crazy, in my opinion, that we can work 42 consecutive 14 hour days, wether companies do it or not, it is too much and I think that could be more restrictive. Maybe stopping this new FDT action now would buy some time to come up with set of standards from the industry that would mitigate fatigue issues (if it is determined there are some) and, as a by product, still allow operators to carry out business and pilots to make money. Problem is, specifically identifying fatigue as a lead up to an accident is very difficult to do. We do know many accidents are a result of a poor, or a series of poor decisions...you just can't see how fatigue effected those decisions. Tough to measure. Lots of external factors too...camp conditions...quality of sleep you're getting...type of flying you're doing...how your time off went etc. I personally would like to see a 12 hour duty day...max 8 hours flying...max 28 day tour including travel days and a minimum of 7 full, complete days off free from duty. And just to clarify current FDT's...we are not required to have 8 hours of rest...we are required to have 8 hours of sleep...I like to think of the FDT's as the time free from duty being the root of it all...you need to have the 8 hours sleep plus travel to and from accomodations..plus time to eat and take care of personal hygene. All the rest of the hours in the day after that are free to be worked..up to 14 hours. If the former takes 12 hours...then you only have a 12 hour duty day. I think we need to try to stop this all incompassing notion to really restrict FDT's...but then look at what might mitigate any fatigue issues we have. Most companies are controlling tour lengths etc. within the company and I dont think 42 and 5 is the industry standard...I could be wrong. Engineer hours though....a whole other can of worms that needs to be looked at! Geoff Reed
  • Create New...