Refueling Gear "dangerous Goods?!"

[helidude]

I just heard a rumor that a couple of operators from out East were audited by Transport and were told that they weren't allowed to carry their refueling gear in the cargo compartments unless they had Dangerous Goods documentation to go with it and unless it was stored in a sealed, leak proof container. :down:

I hope that line of thinking doesn't make its way out west any time soon!!!!

 

C.D.

[Deep Throat II]

When will transport get on the same page with all of thier regions, it seems that the guidlines are up to the induvidual inspectors working in each region, do the RCMP have different policies for Vancouver as they would Halifax, I think not, are Revenue Canada audits conducted differently in St.John's as they would be in Edmonton, again not likely, it's time for Transport to Harmonize the Reg's from coast to coast, and make the laws crystal clear so that they are not left up to the induvidual inspectors personal interpretation, Example: the placing of a registration on a 206 should not be done differently in Quebec from BC, small example I know!

 

DTII

[Over-Talk]

Too late Helidude, that sort of thinking has already been out west (and hopefully won't return).

 

Ah yes, the huge amounts of fuel remaining in your Wix/Velcon/Go-No-Go filters once again pop-up as the greatest threat to aviation safety........

 

I believe it was 407 Driver that bumped into this one a few years ago during an audit. It was discussed here. I forget the exact details, but I believe it was eventually resolved that the refuelling gear was part of the operational equipment of the helicopter and didn't actually require paperwork etc.

 

Check wth 407 Driver, if he's still around this playground.

 

Here's another for you that I heard this year.........(from somewhere up near Helidude's happy little town).

 

Fire crews are allowed to carry Jerry cans of gasoline on board a helicopter when the helicopter is involved with the active suppression of a forest fire.

Well........I heard some pilots got a nasty letter from MoT because they had Jerry cans onboard during a loaded patrol...i.e. there was no "active" fire and therefore the Jerry cans needed full paperwork etc. etc. !!!!!!!

 

I believe the result of this was a bunch of Operators, Provincial fire authorities and HAC complaining to Ottawa. The MoT eventually agreed it was not appropriate, and the nasty letters were thrown away.

[Elvis]

Once again DT11 I agree 100% with your post ,in order not to raise the comments of bloodyvalve I did not use the one button smilie.

 

As for the 6" +20 " Or 12" registration, or as the western TC rules that a 6'' only is ok let the battle go on.

[Firehawk]

I think MOT needs some lessons from the FAA, some of these guys seem like they have to justify there job and come up with these insane unrealistic rules.

After all they are'nt the ones out there doing the work. They will never come up with a straight forward system and one that will ever make sense.

Like you say it all depends on the inspector, One says this, the other says that.

My favorite is being asked why I put the wording "DAILY INSPECTION COMPLETE"

in the log book and being told that I can't do a inspection because I'm not a AME.

it must read "DAILY CHECK COMPLETE".

oh, dont get me started.

[cyclic monkey]

Holy Crap, lookout boys. Firehawk is getting all wound up.

Bleedvalve is an angel compared to this grumpy old man when he gets rolling !!!!!!

 

'Hawk, breathe deeply buddy, all this tension is not good for your blood pressure.

 

 

 

I suspect this looks like you right about now.

[Firehawk]

Breathe, ahhh much better, Thanks for the advice C.M your a good man to have around when I start to go off.