Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

they actually used Vertical Mag members with negative reps of 25 or more. they found it was the best way to rid the forum of people that didn't conform to the group of 12 that think they run the place

So you're up before me right?

If by "them", you mean the Operators and Command staff, then yes, I do trust them.   For those whom I don't know (politicians included), my trust starts with their demonstrated principles and conduc

Two of the pax looked to be complying with CAR 602.62(4), re: individual life jackets/PFDs, but the guy in the shorts and no t-shirt seems not to be one of them, depending on interpretation of the sub-section; although in fairness to the passenger, 602.62(4) just notes that the device must be stored and accessible to the passsenger when seated, it does not specifically state that the device must be worn. Benefit of the (visible) doubt might be given to the operator for CAR 602.63(4), assuming that there is in fact a raft in the aircraft, perhaps center-rear cabin, but not visible in the video.

 

Those issues aside, CARs 602.25(2)(B) and 702.19 then apply, and the activity would require inclusion on the Operators AOC as well as compliance with Commercial Air Service - Std 722 (Aerial Work).

 

There's nothing immediately apparent to suggest that applicable approvals had not been secured by the operator for the activity -- the video is edited enough it's hard to know, if at all, what approvals and briefings took place prior to the jumps.

 

Regards

AV8

Link to post
Share on other sites

be honest....do you really think, judging by the intro conversation that this was a planned operation with proper permits and such? sounds more like a spur of the moment "Here, hold my beer" event. How long does it take to get any permit anyways? not like they called at 8am and said, "hey if the weathers nice this afternoon we'd like to jump into the water"

 

I don't care one way or another that these guys did this. in the end nobody got hurt and nobody had to answer to a higher authority for their actions. And lets be realistic, the machine wasn't abused at all, i've seen worse abuse while doing what it was designed for.

 

If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, thats fine, but i think you're giving some weekend warriors too much credit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just some items to ponder as food for thought, knowing full well that a TC inspector could interpret their own regulations with a very wide brush and the pilot of the adventure above could find himself honored on the http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/standards-enforcement-publications-non-corporate-menu-3008.htm

 

 

602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.

 

 

 

 

(4) Subject to subsection (5), no operator of an aircraft shall allow a person to board the aircraft, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person's faculties are impaired by alcohol or a drug to an extent that may present a hazard to the aircraft or to persons on board the aircraft.

 

 

 

702.19 For the purposes of paragraph 602.25 (2)(B ), the pilot-in-command of a helicopter may permit a person to enter or leave the helicopter in flight

 

(a) where

 

(i) the helicopter is operated at a low hover,

 

(ii) the person is able to enter directly from or alight directly onto the supporting surface,

 

 

 

702.20 No air operator shall, except when conducting a take-off or landing, operate a land aircraft over water, beyond a point where the land aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless the air operator

Link to post
Share on other sites

be honest....do you really think, judging by the intro conversation that this was a planned operation with proper permits and such? sounds more like a spur of the moment "Here, hold my beer" event. How long does it take to get any permit anyways? not like they called at 8am and said, "hey if the weathers nice this afternoon we'd like to jump into the water"

 

I don't care one way or another that these guys did this. in the end nobody got hurt and nobody had to answer to a higher authority for their actions. And lets be realistic, the machine wasn't abused at all, i've seen worse abuse while doing what it was designed for.

 

If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, thats fine, but i think you're giving some weekend warriors too much credit.

 

I was attempting not to judge, but rather to refer to pertinent parts of the CARs that relate to the recorded activity.

 

Yes, the video does have a significant element of informality to it, but that doesn't mean the necessary operating certificate(s) wasn't/weren't secured in accordance with the CARs as I referred to above.

 

That said, having conducted activities equivalent to CARs 602.16/602.17/702.19 thru 702.22 (and associated 622/722 Stds) over approximately two decades, the briefings I was involved in to conduct said operations were always extensive and both the crew and the passengers were very clear on what procedures and regulations affected the conduct of the activities. While the military regulations do not exactly mirror the CARs/Stds, conformity/similarity to CARs was maximized, as successive Ministers were keen to ensure as much commonality, where appropriate, between TC/CARs and DND Flying Orders. Diver casting is a dangerous business and it can (and has) gone wrong in a hurry -- fortunately in my experience resulting only in injuries and not deaths, but without question it can be a very unforgiving environment.

 

In the case of this situation, if one were to extend the 'atmosphere' of the briefing to the passengers seen in this video to other aspects of required/appropriate briefs, then my impression would not be as positive that all CARs/STDs/SFOC-SAEs were being followed/complied with....but that's only a feeling (vice opinion/judgement) based on what was shown in the video.

 

Regards

AV8

Link to post
Share on other sites

A wise and extremely experienced old pilot said to me once...and I quote, " I miss the days when flying a helicopter was fun! Too many bloody rules now a days..." He then told me I should have bought real-estate instead of a pilots licence. A bit negative yes but there are times I see his point about the fun times.

 

Sure catastrophe could have occurred. But how many times is that true for all of us and it didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A wise and extremely experienced old pilot said to me once...and I quote, " I miss the days when flying a helicopter was fun! Too many bloody rules now a days..." He then told me I should have bought real-estate instead of a pilots licence. A bit negative yes but there are times I see his point about the fun times.

 

Sure catastrophe could have occurred. But how many times is that true for all of us and it didn't.

 

 

yep. the fun is officially out. We might have killed a lot of people back in the day but by God we sure had a good time.

 

I'm with Bobbo rainman. Too many rules. If you want to be perfectly safe park the machine and get a desk job. But be careful crossing the road.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...