Apartment Fire Put Out By Great Slave 212

[Palindrome]

If the Dog didn't stop to take a $h-t he would have caught the rabbit. The Donkey could quit any day and put you on top of some one. Maybe anything with a single engine should be banned from flying over any built up area unless you can glide or auto out of it. This topic is getting crazy.

 

Good Job GSH. keep it safe.

 

When you make stupid quotes, just think of the accident in Cranbrook!

 

Pal

[hawthorn]

Great job GSH. Palindrome, I recommend you persue another vocation and let the rest of us go to work and get the job done.

[dimit]

I expect that GSHL mgmt & the A/C crew had discussed the implications of bucketing over town and concluded that it was OK. I doubt they launched w/o thinking it over.

 

Bucketing to the top of a building must have been pretty fun! Fer shur the crew didn't have to pay for beers that night!

 

Enjoy the glory, lads!

 

Dick

[Guest Bullet Remington]

Obviously, you are not a lawyer, or a TC inspector, nor do you understand the "possible" ramifications if something had gone wrong. In fact, there was a violation of the CARS re external loads over built up areas. But because all went well, it most likely won't be an issue. But when things go wrong all bets are off and there in lies the issue. When things go wrong, someone is always to blame or found legally liable, good intentions aside. You can justify things anyway you want because things went well. It would be front page news and a field day for any lawyer, if they did not!

 

Pal

 

Pal: Are you for real? You have to work to be this asinine or does it come natural. In your statement; "Obviously you are not a....you are correct. I am NOT NOW!

 

You have also verified that firefighting is authorized over built up areas! Now why don't you go dig up a qualifing list of what is required and approved to do this "fire-fighting" that is referenced in 602? Fire fighting dictates the use of external loads therefore it is legal as per the CARs. There is a section in CARs whicjh states, "any other commonly accepted practice in the Canadian aviation indusrty." The fact that there is a statement stating external loads are restricted over built up areas is irrrelevant. There is a CAR that states, in essence, that you can water bucket. Go talk to an aviation lawyer, or any other litigation lawyer. They'll clear it up for you!

 

I can justify this because thesE actions are justifiable, they are legal, they were correct and the letter and intent of the law was followed. IF indeed things had gone into a monkey motion, the actions f the crew and the company as well as the town is still justifiable and perfectly legal. The assistance of the company WAS REQUESTED. If indeed something had gone south, the crew would NOT be responsible, they were in compliance with the law, the company would not be liable, they were in compliance with the law. The town requested the help, it was provided.

 

No judge in any juristication in any province in Canada would find fault with the operator, nor the crew. I know, I have been involved in enforcement actions, from the enforcer side!

 

IF the only thing you can see here in the negative slant on this instance, you're better off to hang up the helmet and /or sell the tool box! Nothing will ever get done!!

 

Frankly, you are not contributing to the safety of this business, you are not contributing to success of this business. Frankly, I can't see anything in your posts that contributes to this business!

 

Look, if you can't say anything positive, or make a learnered observation, leave things alone! So far you haven't made a great impression with anybody! it's a good thing this forum doesn't require you name isn't it?? LOL

[Jammed left]

Hey Pal...here's one for ya..since you're all bent up on the rules...try to find me the definition of a 'built up area' as per the CARS...

 

let me know when you find it....then I'll tell you the rest of the story..

 

Great job up there boys.!!

[starr]

WOW Palindrome, if there was ever an excellent example of to much book knowledge and a lack of common sense, your it... Sorry to be blunt, but Great Slave stepped up and did what any decent person would do, risking the loss of their lives and equipment to help the people in their community when they needed it most and expected nothing in return for their efforts... You can make all the what if claims in the world and get nothing accomplished, or you can follow Great Slaves lead and do something that has a positive effect on the community you live in, making it a better place for everyone.

 

Everyone at Great Slave rocks... :punk:

 

 

Maybe you should re read the posts in sequence and perhaps when you finish you could enlighten me to where an exemption can be found for a Class B load over a built up area and perhaps you can also direct me to any associated standards under the part VI regs I quoted. I agree there is an exemption for firefighting, but it does not include bucketing over a built up area, as firefighting can include many other things, such as placing equipment and personnel on a building or acting as a spotter for example. Like I said, not saying they didn't do a good job, just wonder what the outcome would have been if something had gone wrong. Before you get back up on your soap box and say nothing went wrong, that is not the point. Remember a couple of years back when a medium was taking off from Penticton with is bucket on and the bucket some how got punched off and landed on the highway next to a pick-up truck. Now imagine the same bucket with 3500 pounds of water in it falling in downtown yellowknife with someone under it. A simple google earth search while give you the site of the action.

 

Oh and to quote you " According to you we better tell medevac flights to stop cause there is no more landing at a soccer fields..." thats not what I said and that is covered by a different section of the regs 602.13

 

 

Pal

 

[MMike]

The fact of the matter is, it all worked out. Now HAD something gone awry, then there would have been all sorts of armchair quarter-backing and finger-pointing. The decision making process would have been scrutinized thoroughly, and maybe someone would get fired.

 

But they took a calculated risk.....(and as I understand it, pretty much everything to do with helicopters is a calculated risk) and in the end it paid off.

 

A fire truck racing through the streets to get to the scene could take out a pedestrian too.

 

So high fives all around. Beers are on Elvis.

[Elvis]

[3BX2]

When you make stupid quotes, just think of the accident in Cranbrook!

 

Pal

 

 

HOW IN THE F$#%$K is this anywhere similar to Cranbrook?

 

1) Heavy 206 hovering 80' in a built up Residential area, looking at Hydro wires that COULD HAVE been inspected via Truck, Vs

 

2) a TWIN with a jettisonable load fighting a Fire, taking a SAFE Flight route to and from the Dip Site.

 

Yes, very very similar. :angry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dimit]

While I disagree with Palindrome's opinion and find his repetition boring, I admire the persistence in the face of a repetitive and personally insulting backlash.

 

Pal has the right to be wrong, and we all have the right to tell him so, but come on, page after page of trash talking is just plain stoopid!

 

Dick