Apartment Fire Put Out By Great Slave 212

[Mark_]

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.p...=54&t=65079

 

 

Mark

[skystar]

Hmmm. Which part of the CARs allows this type of activity? Nothing under 702/703! Working in a built up area below 1000 AGL, Yes with a twin aircraft but probably no aerial work permit from Transport Canada or how did he safety fly the class b load over the built up area?

[deltacharlie]

Ya you're right, he probably should've let the building burn to the ground. That would've been the safest thing to do!

Next time he should apply for a low fly permit with a map of his approach and departure paths, have any walkways or roads blocked off for the duration of the operation, paid his 350 bucks and hopefully have his permit within a couple of days.

That way he can go in and bucket the ashes.

And how do you know he was in a built up area, you can't see anything in those pictures.

Maybe we can wait til all the information is available before we start slamming this guy.

 

DC

[MMike]

Could anyone see the photos? I could only see the videos

 

Any idea what aircraft that was? Not FBUC was it?

[Palindrome]

Ya you're right, he probably should've let the building burn to the ground. That would've been the safest thing to do!

Next time he should apply for a low fly permit with a map of his approach and departure paths, have any walkways or roads blocked off for the duration of the operation, paid his 350 bucks and hopefully have his permit within a couple of days.

That way he can go in and bucket the ashes.

And how do you know he was in a built up area, you can't see anything in those pictures.

Maybe we can wait til all the information is available before we start slamming this guy.

 

DC

 

 

Maybe you should review the video, as it was a built up area. It would appear the regulations are clear on this for a reason. Has anyone ever had a bucket come off, either by mechanical failure or finger trouble? What could possibly go wrong when bucketing over buildings and on lookers with a couple of thousand pounds on a hook?

 

Pal

[Mark_]

The photos were there this morning but looks like they have removed.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/...r-apt-fire.html

 

 

Mark

[bs205]

Its all good till something goes wrong, then, they blame the pilot, ALWAYS

[vortex]

602.15 (1) A person may operate an aircraft at altitudes and distances less than those specified in subsection 602.14(2) where the aircraft is operated at altitudes and distances that are no less than necessary for the purposes of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated

 

 

© for fire-fighting or air ambulance operations

 

 

[deltacharlie]

Permissible Low Altitude Flight

 

602.15 (1) A person may operate an aircraft at altitudes and distances less than those specified in subsection 602.14(2) where the aircraft is operated at altitudes and distances that are no less than necessary for the purposes of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated

 

(a) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority;

 

( for the purpose of saving human life;

 

© for fire-fighting or air ambulance operations;

 

(d) for the purpose of the administration of the Fisheries Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act;

 

(e) for the purpose of the administration of the national or provincial parks; or

 

(f) for the purpose of flight inspection.

 

 

"aerial work zone within a built-up area"

 

The word "within" in this context has been interpreted to mean substantially surrounded by the built-up area. In practical terms this would mean that a landing site would have to be surrounded on all four sides or at least to the point that a landing aircraft would overfly a structure at some point, or fly close enough to create a hazard. As an example, a landing site on the edge of a town or on a shoreline would not require an authorization if the landing could be accomplished without overflying a structure or creating a hazard to any property.

 

 

Yup, you're right. Very clear. All I see are two buildings and a bunch of trees.

I hate to be the guy spoutin' out regs, but he did a kick *** job and should be commended for it.

 

DC

 

[ridgeline]

Hmmm. Which part of the CARs allows this type of activity? Nothing under 702/703! Working in a built up area below 1000 AGL, Yes with a twin aircraft but probably no aerial work permit from Transport Canada or how did he safety fly the class b load over the built up area?

Permissible Low Altitude Flight

 

602.15 (1) A person may operate an aircraft at altitudes and distances less than those specified in subsection 602.14(2) where the aircraft is operated at altitudes and distances that are no less than necessary for the purposes of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated

 

(a) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority;

 

( for the purpose of saving human life;

 

© for fire-fighting or air ambulance operations;

 

(d) for the purpose of the administration of the Fisheries Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act;

 

(e) for the purpose of the administration of the national or provincial parks; or

 

(f) for the purpose of flight inspection.