Flying With Doors Off

[teabagger]

Nice one Ryan. Now who can define "restraint system"? Would a seatbelt be considered a restraint system by definition?

 

Hold on a second ....hang on here......

 

SUBPART 1 — INTERPRETATION

 

101.01 (1) In these Regulations, “safety belt” means a personal restraint system consisting of either a lap strap or a lap strap combined with a shoulder harness;

 

Cant find a definition for personal restraint system, but this indicates that a safety belt is a type of personal restraint system. So I guess a seat belt therefor qualifies and is sufficient?

[Bif]

Funny timing on this, as at least twice in the last week I've inadvertently released my own seatbelt by catching my watch band on it while moving my left hand to do something. Happily, I wasn't doors off at any point and once I was on the ground. But still.... gets you thinking!

[dimit]

A wise friend has counselled me to consider, "How will it look in the accident report?" If it will look like I'm an idiot, it's probably not such a good idea. Applies to taping seatbelt buckles, using harnesses, selecting anchor points, and way too many things to enumerate.

 

DM

[Over-Talk]

QUOTE; " I've never heard of anyone falling out before."

 

Do you remember the Bre-X gold scandal ??

 

"The fraud began to unravel rapidly on March 19, 1997 when Filipino Bre-X geologist Michael de Guzman died falling from a helicopter in Indonesia."

 

But maybe while we are defining seat-belt and restraint system, we should also define falling, jumping or being pushed !!

[MMike]

I'm sure this will win me friends.....but if one is engaging in these activities, as pilot in command, shouldn't one actually know what the regulations are backwards and forwards.....being pilot in command an all?

[twinstar_ca]

i don't think that is fair at all, MMike.. this is one of those topics of how do you interpret the regs... ask for 4 opinions, get 5 answers... lawyers, being a lawyer and all, should know the law inside and out, don't you think?? so why do they ask for rulings all the time?? no need to stir shite up..

[R22Captain]

And it's one of the beauties of a board like this don't you think? We get to share, discuss, expand, refresh our knowledge.

[hybrid]

I'm sure this will win me friends.....but if one is engaging in these activities, as pilot in command, shouldn't one actually know what the regulations are backwards and forwards.....being pilot in command an all?

 

 

Why don't you educate yourself on the CARS MMike, maybe try and decipher Flight and Duty times for example. Good Luck!

[MMike]

i don't think that is fair at all, MMike.. this is one of those topics of how do you interpret the regs... ask for 4 opinions, get 5 answers... lawyers, being a lawyer and all, should know the law inside and out, don't you think?? so why do they ask for rulings all the time?? no need to stir shite up..

 

I'm not trying to stir anything up....I am trying to ask a legitimate question.

 

So maybe it's a problem with the regs. But you would think that if you are flying doors offs and hanging out, it should be pretty cut and dry, "thou shalt wear one of these!"....Do these supplemental restraint dealies have an actual TSO approval associated with them?

 

And of course lawyers don't know all the laws. But I would think that a good lawyer would be pretty clear on the ones that pertain the the case he's about the argue. So I would hope that if a pilot is presented with a job requiring activity X, that he would make himself very familiar with all applicable rules pertaining to activity X.

 

You guys are always saying that you need to take the extra 2 minutes when doing your DI....or the last check on the pax door....or whatever (referring to the tips and tricks and rules of thumb threads). So why wouldn't you take the extra time to brush up on regulations....if for no other reason than to cover one's ***?

 

I'd be willing to wager a shiny quarter that the words "electrical tape" and "shoulder harness" never appear in the same sentence in the FARs.

 

Again, maybe the regs need to be clearer. Because it's not like it's an uncommon thing....plenty of aerial photography going on. Maybe it's just because I'm ignorant. But I don't see why there should be any room for interpretation.

[Skids Up]

But I don't see why there should be any room for interpretation.

 

You need to go online and have a look at the CAR's! After about a week of steady looking, see if you want to come back and redo your statement...!!!