Flight Duty Time Limitations In Other Jurisdictions

[oil pressure]

If Management and/or pilots were really concerned about fatigue etc... every operator in Canada (ime guessing about every operator in Canada) wouldnt have the ops specs to increase flight duty time limitations from the standard CAR's limits in the first place.

[hybrid]

If Management and/or pilots were really concerned about fatigue etc... every operator in Canada (ime guessing about every operator in Canada) wouldnt have the ops specs to increase flight duty time limitations from the standard CAR's limits in the first place.

 

Its TC that is trying to implement the new FDT, not the pilots or operators.

[oil pressure]

Its TC that is trying to implement the new FDT, not the pilots or operators.

 

that is true...and a good point...but any more restrictive FDT limits, one would hope, would be based on some sort of data or reasons why. Obviously with such ops. specs. we in the business dont see a problem with the limits as they are and i agree. It is TC who also authorizes these increased limits I would think those special limits would be restricted first if they were serious about change? I dont know, just thinking out loud.

 

Ime sure when the flight duty time limits that we have today came about, operators and pilots probably thought, wow, now we need more pilots, shorter tours,more crew changes, less earning potential in a season etc...probably seamed like a real big deal at the time but the industry and customers adapted...maybe if it changes again in the future we will adapt again and in 20 years it will be forgotten about.?..just a thought.

for our VFR utility operations i really hope it doesnt change to much.

[MedMan]

@vortex: A partial solution would be to get rid of the lawyer on the WG and start fresh with people that actually wish to accomplish meaningful results. Of course, what it is, exactly, the present delaying and posturing is accomplishing appears to me to be absolutely nothing by the sound of it.

 

A quick read of the WG's pdf suggests to me that no one is in a hurry to do anything, but I could be wrong about that.

 

Like I said: good luck, kids. It looks like you're going to need it.

[pilot5]

The world is ruled by those who show up.

P5 if your credentials are in the same league as Fred Jones then you would have a chance to be President of the HAC. If your forward looking view was supported by a majority of HAC members and you were nominated (and seconded) for the B.O.D. you could sit on the board. There is opportunity out there for you...

MedMan, out of curiosity, if science is not used as a basis for determining duty times, what do you suggest?

 

 

Vortex What you have written is exactly the point I am trying to make. There is just no way in **** that either the DOB would ever put a person or agree to some of the radical propopsals I put fourth. Its just not in the economic interests of the "owners club". The present reductions to flight duty times TC wants will have an economic imapct and hence will not be supported by HAC. Or if it is it wont be without alot of kicking and screaming. Now imagine a potential candidate nominated to the DOB based on new policy to hold operators accountable to compliance with the Canadian labour code combined with pay equity. Just forget it. I would have a PHD in astro physics and it would make no difference whatsoever. HAC is about protecting the economic interests of the the few, inspite of the many. Now I not saying that HAC hasn't made a few good changes over the years bhut once again... Not a mechanism looking out for the little guy!

 

P5

[skullcap]

If HAC is looking out for only a few and not the little guy,,,,who do you mean? They seem to be looking out for everyone including me and we are about as small as it gets, two to three machines and every single pilot working plus our company will be affected negatively. So am wondering about whom do you speak that will be affected positively by this decision?

[hybrid]

P5, I have a news flash for you! The helicopter industry is a business like any other business, the owners take financial risks to make money! Why that disturbs you is beyond my comprehension. They aren't in business for your personal gratification, shocking but true.

 

A company that steps all over their employees will suffer financial losses, it doesn't take an rocket scientist to figure that out. I work for money it sure isn't for the chicks, all I usually get to fly is juggies, riggers and drillers etc. etc..

 

I am not an owner or a manager, you couldn't pay me enough to put up with the egos in this industry. ( including my own)

 

If you are not happy with the way things are leave or try and fix it, there are no other options! But quit your whining, and make an adult decision and quit blaming everyone for your misfortune..........

[MedMan]

After examining HAC's rather wordy March 9 submission to the Fatigue WG, I'd be surprised if HAC was even looking out for itself. They spend the first page in a lengthy discussion of what they're not going to accept. Eventually, by the second page, there's some mention of what they might consider discussing. What the paragraph preceding those eight points says is beyond my limited comprehension, but it sounds to me like they're telling the Fatigue WG that they should be discussing. I'd say that by page two, it's a little late for that.

 

Then we have more on what the WG shouldn't be talking about. By page three and four, there's more posturing, but no solutions. It all sounds to me like a lot of huffing and puffing and pounding of chests, all to no avail.

 

It appears to me that a very negative brief has been submitted to a Working Group that is putting under a microscope many of the preconceived issues of the helicopter industry. If HAC is trying to form their own committee as part of the Fatigue WG, it doesn't appear to me that they're trying to do so in a positive way. If one is participating in a working group but can only tell the WG what they shouldn't be discussing, it is my opinion that you've already lost the battle. The working group already has its mandate; good luck with changing that.

 

In my opinion, a more positive submission outlining what, exactly, HAC and it's associations wished to accomplish would have made more sense, but I could be wrong. It appears to me as though they're attempting to catch up to a train that has already left the station. It would make more sense to climb on board before the speed of the train makes that impossible.

 

I'm obviously not up to speed on anything to do with what it is that HAC is attempting to accomplish, nor do I pretend to be, but by making a completely negative submission, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Of course, I could be completely wrong. And, as always, your mileage may vary.

 

Good luck.

[skullcap]

It would seem as though perhaps HAC does not percieve a change is required to the regulation and that is why they have taken the stance they have, rather than try to work towards a change, which by your opinion is required. My opinion is that if you are willing to change then a change will happen regardless of the needs or wishes of the users, thus when something like this comes along one must be positive in your argument but at the same time not allowing ground to be lost.

[vortex]

My understanding is that the HAC is just fighting to keep the FDT rules the same as they are now. If fatigue is the big contributor to accidents then FDT should be changed. If its not, why are changes proposed? We would all like to work less for more money but the airline union guys live in a different world than the small aircraft charter companies (fixed wing guys included) of Canada. Helicopter pilots having the same duty times as a guy flying a 777 from Toronto to Hong Kong may make sense to some but I see some differences between the amount of time zones covered, wheels up time etc. Unfortunately, one set of rules will never make everybody happy.