Jump to content

Firehawk In Canada ?


Recommended Posts

N1: Are the LA County machines Restricted or Public aircraft?

 

I think may find they fall into the latter category - which is why they can do, what they do?

 

If the former HK machines were operated by the military (or a branch of the military), they are ineligible for Restricted Category Certification in the US.

 

Restricted Category is limited to aircraft that were formerly operated by the US military only - no foreign military aircraft permitted.

 

AS an aside, didn't Helicopter Transport have a Restricted CH-54B on a fire in Canada last summer?

 

Some thoughts on this:

-You are correct on the statement that only former US military a/c are permitted

EXCEPT when the good old USA GOV does not follow the rules? Point in question?

Who do you think bought the ex Canadian Gov military CH what ever? A private US company brokered the deal to the US state Dept. Which then had Dyna Corp

refurb them to give them to Columbia I think? Now are they former US a/c after all US state Dept owned them at one time?

 

in Canada we do not have Public cat of a/c that I'm aware of? anybody know?

 

-Yes you are correct in HTS CH-54B was in Canada .How ? anybody know?

nothing wrong with the aircraft or crews but I thought it was a reg to have

only stand cat a/c in Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From what I hear the Firehawks are to replace the 415's. Apperently the MNR is feed up with the 415 pilots and wants to get rid of them and the machines. But the Firehawks would not be able to take IA crews. And as of this time the Firehawks are not allowed out of the US. Now this is only hear say.

 

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, regardless of whether Ont buys a/c, there will still be long term contracts.

 

Last summer was an anomoly

 

Yes it was, as was 95, 98, 2001, 2002, when finding a medium was darn near impossible at times. Many of the operators who do have mediums don't even bother to bid for long-term contracts in Ont. They either have them tied up on seismic, logging, etc out west. Regardless there is a new gov't in T'ronna, and they will be on a cost cutting kick soon. I would imagine that the Firehawks, or any new a/c ideas will be shelved fairly soon. Especially since the Firehawk was an idea brought in from the previous administration.

 

Torqued, an interesting concept, except that the OMNR would need them to be certified anyways in order to operate them. So just having them fly empty to the fire would be a n incredible waste. As far as the tanker pilots are concerned, they won't be getting rid of any of them. Most likely they would be retiring the twinotters from bombing duties, and possibly leasing them out like they did the turbo beavs.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point Randy G; they don't usually bid on them because most of the long term contracts SUCK. When I say descent contracts I mean descent, if the LA proposal for Firehawks says 600 hours and the numbers are based on that then why not do something similar where an operator can bid on a contract that starts in the spring and goes til fall and make the equivalent number of hours, oh I can hear it now, TOO MUCH MONEY. If a contract is put out to supply the right aircraft and if the thing needs to be double crewed then it is nothing to do 600 hours. Usually these contracts are lowest number of hours for the longest amount of time, so what happens when it is busy, aircraft is flown until hours used up then sent off to middle of nowwhere, ask any rap pilot in the west how much shuttling they do to get outr of the way of hot spots when there contracts hour are nearly runout. If the payed extra for potential high useage of aircraft then is a win win for all when there is bad fire year, if it is pouring rain then put the machine up for grabs to other provinces. What the h is wrong with that?

 

High speed helicopter to replace 415's, I think it would be cheaper to get new pilots for the 415's.

 

Worked up north a bunch of years ago with the Buffalo Airways tankers and were excellant to work with, helos worked one side they the other. No conflicts no primadonnas just put the fire out. Maybe mnr should phone Buffalo Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HERE'S THE LATEST RUMOUR................

 

The Department has contracted a large helicopter company to supply V-22 Ospreys with dual-rope rappel capability, and with side-mounted water tanks that are filled by a snorkel.

 

This photo was snapped near an undisclosed military base in Maritime Canada today, where crews were being given type endorsements.

 

When reached for comment on this matter, the Premier said, " I can neither confirm nor deny this rumour, however we are looking at several options, and cost is not a barrier here because we have a long history of borrowing huge amounts of money for this type of project".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMNR can have our old Sea Kings for a song.

 

They've only got an average of 11,000 hours on the clock and with AMEs looking after them instead of DNDs ill-trained, ill-supported, ill-paid technicians and chronic lack of spare parts they might actually stay serviceable enough to do work.

 

Take all our ASW crap out of' em and just put in a big tank. Cheap as borsch and voila.....a reborn dinosaur.. Sea King Tankersaurus.

 

PS: Stick Monkey, good work dude. What software you using for those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the "real" reason that this rumour has struck a nerve? Is it truly another case of government waste or is it an issue of job security for medium operators?

 

If it is the latter, why is it that one of the first methods of recourse is to get HAC invloved to deal with the perceived unfairness? A look into the past will reveal this will solve nothing. As some of you may know this issue was already tackled a few years ago in an HAC brief with no result.

 

In this industry we are often the "victims" of our own actions. Lets put this into the perspective of the customer, in this case the OMNR. Why shouldn't they or any one else for that matter try to negotiate the best deal for themselves? Wouldn't you? After all isn't this what deregulation is all about? If we constantly complain that hourly rates are not where they should be, then why do operators slit their own throats, undercut each other or offer up the same aircraft at different rates depending on the time of year? Isn't an hour of Astar time worth the same $ in December doing a moose survey as it is in July working a fire or am I missing the boat here? Bottom line is that no government agency or private company makes an operator enter into a contract. We negotiate the rate (exception Alberta Forestry)) ourselves, enter long term contracts and agree to ferry for free. If unsatisfied we should either fix it ourselves or accept the deal agreed to and may the strongest survive. The point is that there is no consistency or standard so why should the OMNR or any seismic company for that matter treat it as such. The industry has let this happen to itself so perhaps its time to look inward and quit biting the hand that feeds so many of us!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...