Bc Forest Service Dialogue Request

[Flyover]

I would give more respect to a BCFS Supt. if he modestly introduced himself to HAC as a 'ground dummy', than if he was to stand up and tell us that he knows it all.

 

There's a balance between a swaggering know-it-all and a self-deprecating buffoon. How would you react if a pilot were to say "...but what do I know, I'm just a dumb rotor jock". Likely you wouldn't afford that pilot the trust or respect he or she may otherwise garner.

 

Many govt program managers have been in the business for decades and have more industry experience than most of the pilots they work with. It's easy to dismiss somebody because they don't hold a pilot license, and forget that they've seen & done a great deal over their careers. I certainly have encountered a couple of real ground dummys working for government aviation. I've also worked with people who deserve nothing but the highest regard from aircraft operators for their quality work. They certainly don't qualify as dummys in any sense.

 

There's good and bad on both sides of this industry fence. If we acted as and treated each other as professionals, we would be a lot further ahead than we are today. If you introduce yourself as a monkey, prepare to have peanuts tossed your way.

[gwk]

If you introduce yourself as a monkey, prepare to have peanuts tossed your way.

 

I,ve never heard that saying before, that,s a keeper!

 

Oh, and you are very right, good post.

[cyclic monkey]

OKAY, that's it........I'm Officially coming out to say I AM A MONKEY !!

 

(and I'm proud of it !!)

 

Now where's those peanuts !!

 

 

 

 

[47B3]

OKAY, that's it........I'm Officially coming out to say I AM A MONKEY !!

 

(and I'm proud of it !!)

 

Now where's those peanuts !!

 

 

Ahhh........ kinda looks like a chimp

 

So here ya go -

 

[cyclic monkey]

HEY, how stoopid do you think I am ???

Those aren't the peanuts I was promised !!

 

Any primate knows those are cell phones !!!

 

 

[happyfeet]

There's a balance between a swaggering know-it-all and a self-deprecating buffoon. How would you react if a pilot were to say "...but what do I know, I'm just a dumb rotor jock". Likely you wouldn't afford that pilot the trust or respect he or she may otherwise garner.

 

Many govt program managers have been in the business for decades and have more industry experience than most of the pilots they work with. It's easy to dismiss somebody because they don't hold a pilot license, and forget that they've seen & done a great deal over their careers. I certainly have encountered a couple of real ground dummys working for government aviation. I've also worked with people who deserve nothing but the highest regard from aircraft operators for their quality work. They certainly don't qualify as dummys in any sense.

 

There's good and bad on both sides of this industry fence. If we acted as and treated each other as professionals, we would be a lot further ahead than we are today. If you introduce yourself as a monkey, prepare to have peanuts tossed your way.

 

 

I can see your point fella, but there are also pilots with decades of experience who have had ENOUGH when it comes to working with forestry!! Not singling out BCFS in particular because I personally find them alot easier to deal with then say Ontario. It would be nice and I only say it as a point I mentioned earlier if the forestry "professionals" would have a process to mitigate disputes with "professional pilots" before tattle tailing to ops managers over non issues. I realize that everybody want to feel important, but tattle tailing on pilot over non issues is not the way to get promoted in the forestry environment.... or is it?????. Forestry tends to niggle and pick the flycrap out of the pepper on everything. All it does is complicate matters create resentment.

 

Give the monkey a banana, peanuts are for elephants!!

 

Nuf said.

[Skids Up]

Not singling out BCFS in particular because I personally find them alot easier to deal with then say Ontario. It would be nice and I only say it as a point I mentioned earlier if the forestry "professionals" would have a process to mitigate disputes with "professional pilots" before tattle tailing to ops managers over non issues.

 

Never had an issue with BC, Alberta, Sask, or Ontario (or the states).

 

Never had anyone "tattle tailing" on me about anything.

 

Have told lots of customers if they have a problem with me, my engineer, or equipment to call my Ops Mgr at ???-???-????. No calls yet.

 

Perhaps it's not the forest system (or anyone else).

 

Maybe the answer lies in the magic mirror.

 

Just sayin' maybe....

[Zoltar]

Never had an issue with BC, Alberta, Sask, or Ontario (or the states).

 

Never had anyone "tattle tailing" on me about anything.

 

Have told lots of customers if they have a problem with me, my engineer, or equipment to call my Ops Mgr at ???-???-????. No calls yet.

 

Perhaps it's not the forest system (or anyone else).

 

Maybe the answer lies in the magic mirror.

 

Just sayin' maybe....

I can add Quebec, Manitoba and NovaScotia also. Never had an issue either......bizarre!

[Plinko]

If the job is done as expected, safely and as efficiently as possible, I can't imagine why any forestry official would be calling home to express concerns. (Well unless AFS is trying to make you sleep in an ATCO that is still on a truck...or in a swamp in a tent and the flight crew tells them to pound sand)

 

BCFS IMO leads the country for professionalism, respect, and integrity. Never had an issue worth getting worked up over... good people with a real common sense approach to the task at hand.

 

I am with Skids on this one!

 

P

[Icewind]

Fire management is the world I work in now and I am going to make a stab at responding to this:

 

"Newt, I really have to ask.... Altho we have to pay attention as there are cracks in the system....What makes BCFS a Higher authority of what makes helicopter aviation safer or more efficient than our own Ops mgrs , Chief pilots AND Transport Canada??? It really does piss me off. I dunno.. Can you splain that too me... Thought we had that pretty much covered. I know that the operators have a vested interest to keep the helis turning but at the same time they dont need any lawsuit so they are gonna be pretty careful BUT Seems to mee that T/C has it covered ya think ?? Why does BCFS need a SOUP for Aviation especially since BCFS have NO PILOTS in the administration ??? Oh ya There are consultants but no but do I really need to go there?? Talk to me.

I just really need to know."

 

The answer is a bit complicated. The govt agencies are not exactly a higher authority but they are a very specialized customer and are considered to be so by TC. Fire agencies are the only non-federal agency that has an automatic authority to direct fire aircraft within a specified airspace and can be delegated expanded authority to all aircraft within that airspace. (CARs 601.15, 601.16) Fire management has sub-part 702 definitions as well NAFTA definitions (although how that is applied is a moot point). The whole area of 702 aerial work is the least regulated and the most potentially complex of all VFR work. Transport Canada standards seem to be steadily declining, especially in the 702 world. Perhaps this is because "aerial work" is getting more complicated and sophisticated whereas the regulations and standards are not.

 

Transport Canada officials have said to the fire agencies that we are considered to be an educated customer, that we know more about the specialized nature of aerial work on fires than TC does, and that if we want specialized safety standards, we should set them. This is part of the underlying reason why the fire agencies are working with HAC to develop a "best practices" model of defining specialized pilot competencies that stays away from the arbitrary regulatory approach and that works towards the idea of managed safety.

 

To quote a TC document:

"Of all the tasks you can perform in a helicopter, working on forest fires in particular can make a pilot feel like the central figure in an action movie—smoke, flames, noise, equipment, and crews deployed in and out of tough spots on short notice; even the possibility of evacuating towns at risk. Other operators’ crews are watching. All eyes are on you. “Here’s the job. I know it’s tough. Are you pilot enough to handle it?” The pressure quickly mounts, and it takes maturity to remember where the lines are and not get sucked into the emotional vortex."

 

Fire agencies operate full-time helibases with bulk fuel facilities. Their crews build temporary fireline helipads. Fire agencies provide food and accommodation (yeah, yeah, it's never at the Hilton - insert new thread here). Fire agencies run integrated dispatch systems and perform the legally required flightwatch/flight following. Some fire agencies own and operate their own aircraft as sub-part 702 operators. Fire agencies have nationally certified bird-dog officers who call the shots with air tankers and actively coordinate all air traffic within fire airspace. Fire agencies train crews in hover emplene/deplane. Fire agencies have explicit permission to put an officer in a helicopter performing external load work. (Some) fire agencies train staff in helibase management, air operations supervison and aviation emergency response/accident investigation.

 

Fire agencies are also experiencing the same sort of staff turnover/re-training and budget issues the helicopter industry is feeling. Along with this comes increased expectations for public accountability and transparency that are sometimes unrealistic in an emergency situation (don't get me started on that right now).

 

With all of this comes a responsibilty to fight fire effectively, efficiently and overall, safely. This takes a pro-active approach and works best when there is a sense of cooperation and communication with the service suppliers. However when the fire season is in full swing, the 'Great Canadian Air Race' has started and everybody is pushing hard - the difficulties arise. That's when it becomes a challenge for us all.