Jump to content

Charles W.

Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charles W.

  1. Yeh, Cap isn't it strange how some of us has beens can get past the glamour and sexy images of these things and root out some concerns related to physics and operational concerns with these new ideas? Reverend Chas W.
  2. Cap : There are many other issues when dropping fire retardent from aircraft that come into play when aircraft such as a large jet are used, one of which is the atomization of the liquid as it hits the airflow at high speeds, around 140 knots you start having problems with the load losing effectiveness due to smashing the liquid into particles that are to small for effective coating of the fuel and poor penetration of tree foliage...and of coures there is the manouvering of a large jet at low airspeeds and low altitude. For what ever it is worth to this conversation I tried playing
  3. AOJ wrote : " Unpack my girl got the blades spinnin, pull pitch and went for a burn around the prospect at about 50-60 alg start picking up a little ice but not to bad lower the pull to about 40' agl and things started to shed. Not to shabby. Head back to stagging through on a 25'er and spent 4hrs swingin with light ice build up but went well. " I'm not a Harvard graduate, but in this case there is no need to be to figure out that the above description of an event was in contrevention of not only the regulations but good airmanship. I'm surprised at some of the replies to this
  4. A.O.G. : After over fifty years of flying with more time in icing than I can remember in aircraft certified for known icing I have learned one thing ...there is never a gurantee that any icing will not suddenly turn from manageable to unmanageable. Sometimes the build up will occur in only a couple of minutes. Flight in known icing with a certified aircraft "MUST " be done with extreem care. Flight in known icing with a uncertified aircraft should "NEVER" be done deliberately. You remember that and you may live to be as old as me. :up: Rev. Chas. W.
  5. Thanks Helilog, your answer is much appreciated. You obviously understand that I also detest crooked operators that have no regard for safety or their employees and customers... ...it is just that there has to be something more to that hundred thousand fine than the reletavively small issues listed...except of course the non compliance with an AD that is not defendable on any level, what I would like to know is why was the AD not complied with? Rev. C.W.
  6. Helilog...you said.... "I feel there is absolutely no excuse for an operator not to be able to maintain an OC for some minor infractions " ......................... I do not believe you read my post clearly...I was refused an OC, their own findings in a very , very very costly investigation to you the taxpayer had only one finding...I was denied due process... And please don't think that I am any risk to safety, I'll put my background, experience and qualifications up against anyone in this forum. Go back and carefully read my comments...I stand by my statement, I wil
  7. I would still like to know the whole story here. Some of you may not like what I am about to say however I am saying it using my real name and thereby willing to stand by my opinion. I can understand that there could be reasons for trying to make money without being the holder of an OC. I would have no problems making money without an OC for the simple reason I was denied an OC, even though I had complied with and was quite willing to continue to comply with the regulations.. So in my personal case after over fifty years of working within the rules and finding out that mean
  8. Yes, Jetbox it does seem strange especially the hundred grand fine. If they own two Robbies I wonder why only one didn't have the AD complied with? Strange stuff this because a lot of companies own aircraft for their own personal use and you never see this kind of report. It would appear that they were using private registered machines and charging for transport of goods and people outside of their personal business. The discrepancies listed are really not worthy of a hundred thousand fine so there must be something more signifigant that was going on. I wonder where th
  9. I was not really concerned about the infractions until I read that they had no compass, having an expired compass correction card is one thing, but having the card and no compass is just unacceptable..... I mean just how dangerous can you get? I can't even imagine trying to fly an R22 without a compass ........ Obviously they had the compass correction card up to date or TC would have caught that sure as ****........ they just forgot to put the compass in the thing. :up: Rev. C.W.
  10. " NAV CANADA will also be introducing a new State aeronautical information publication, called the AIP Canada (ICAO). This new publication will be different from the current AIP, as it will be an ICAO-compliant publication intended primarily to satisfy international requirements. It will be available on the NAV CANADA Web site as a downloadable product as of October 27, 2005. " So the Metar for Nanaimo this AM will read. Metar CYCD 171400Z 19003KT 1800 -RA BR...... Rev C.W.
  11. Quote : " How long before we get charged for the air we breathe ?" Well brace yourself for "BIG CHARGES " because if the air coming out of TC is to be charged by volume and temperature we are f..ked, remember the hotter the air the less dense it is....therefore the volume really increases. However on the flip side there is no shortage of dense thinkers at TC. :down: Rev... C.W.
  12. Yeh but you could change that tail rotor buzz by flying it in heavy rain. :up: Funny though when I look at the 269 / 300 that is made today the thing still looks the same as the first time I flew one.....how come they didn't really change it? I have not made any comment on TC's newest SMS brainless requirement, because you all would think that I have slipped into my old ways again..... :up: Rev.
  13. O.K. Cap and all you other misguided well meaning people out there let me try and explain Gyroplane to you. Get in your Helicopter and at a safe altitude kill your engine and drop the collective to the bottom, now you are flying a gyroplane without any means of foward thrust. Actually the helicopter is easier to land without an engine because you can pull collective to cushion the touch down...... Why am I bothering to explain all this?? Oh I know I have nothing better to do... How come no one picked up on the 269 thing? Or was the 269A before your time?? Rev.
  14. Twinstar.............. .....thanks .........Cap is being real nasty to me and I want you to set him straight. :up: Anyone remember when Leavens Brothers operated the Pitcarins out of the Island Airport? I do...... Anyone here have a Commercial Gyroplane License to add to their rotary wing stuff??? Rev.
  15. Aaahhhh Hughes 269.......... But the real he man belt drive was the 269A... But **** I guess not everyone goes back that far........... Rev. Chas W.
  16. The hardest thing in flying is knowing when to say no. Rev. C.W.
  17. I do not understand all the new buzz words that are used by TC when they dictate new requirements, however I would like to ask a couple of questions. It seems that the regulations and the aeronautics act are not sufficient to give guidance in operating safely, so TC keeps adding new requirements for operators to meet and in so doing the operator must take the time and money to write new guidlines into their opereations. That further drives up the cost of operating the business. Correct me if I am wrong here but is TC intent on putting all the responsibility on the operator with
  18. Old Dog.. I spent most of the summer flying in holland, will be home for the winter than back to Holland come spring. Do you know anything about the Nanchang that is based in boundry Bay? Someone over here is looking at buying it and I am going to teach her how to fly it this winter..... ....Reverend Chas W.
  19. Yeh, when Wayne refurbishes anything he goes first class, he even had a leather interior installed in the Cessna TU206 on amphibs I used to fly for him not to mention the small fortune he put in the 222, what did he finally do with that 222? I saw the 61 in Nanaimo a few days ago and knew it was Waynes by the paint job, should be interesting to see how it goes. Rev.
  20. skids : I never ever said I was smart, or observant. It must be the fixed wing part of me. :up:
  21. The owner of www.jetthrust.com has set up a temp place for the Avcanada posters until Joe gets his site back up. Rev.
  22. Some of us can. :up: Actually I was chosen by the Newfie Government as their contribution to Canada for the one hundred year celebration back in the sixties and they put me back in school until I graduated from grade four. So now I can read and if you read this site often enough you will note that I can write stuff to. :up: Reverend Chas W.
  23. Do those two Doctors still hold down their positions and occupy their seats to continue judgement?........you bet they do. And therein lies the hypocrisy with wich we are goverened by these parasites. Regardless of their actions there is zero accountability on their part ( any TC official ). On a moral judgement level I personally put them just marginally above child molesters, and do my best to have as little contact with their ilk as humanly possible. Chas W.
  24. And if he does give you the latex glove probe, don't kiss him.
  25. Don : Are you a member of the Moravian Mission from your days in Hopedale? Or did you spend all your spare time up the hill at the radar site? Chas. W.
  • Create New...