Resetting Cb's & Hac

[CD]

Where do we find policy letters of Staff instructions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that all depends on what group you're talking about and what part of the industry you're in as they all have their own. Anyways, here ya go! :prop:

 

Aircraft Certification

 

Guidance and Advisory Materials

 

Aircraft Maintenance & Manufacturing:

 

M&M Staff Instructions

M&M Policy Letters

M&M Airworthiness Notices

 

Air Navigation & Airspace

 

TP308 Advisory Circulars

 

Civil Aviation Medecine

 

Guidelines and CAME Handbook

 

Commercial & Business Aviation

 

Manuals

Advisory Circulars

Policy Letters

 

General Aviation

 

Advisory Circulars

Policy Letters

[twovee_2]

CD; Thanks for the links ,I think they will prove to be even more confusing as the underlying question posed, irregardless of what part of the industry your from is :

Are they law? Who can answer this? Anybody care? I’m an AME and a Pilot as such most of the links have some affect on me. Why would one try and follow a policy letter when it could mean the end of ones job? E.g. Pilots record all time that the helicopters blades are turning as air time? Short career I’m sure! As an AME Scrap all retirement items due to unknown time life as flight time and air time has been mixed up? Overhaul all overhaul items for the same reason? I’m sure our employer’s would be real happy with us to question the clarification for how to deal with the perceived confusion between air and flight time. And who's problem is it? As it was explained me: the confusion comes from Transport Canada definition of lifting devices. This being a rotor blade is a lifting device and once it turns it is under lift or flight hence air time. Make any sense to any of you out there? I believe helicopters have around long before CARS and now TC has the idea that the definition of air time might need to be clarified? Just who is driving the bus we are all in? Keep in mind this could be the tip of the iceberg if policy letters as law is challenged? But then again who ever reads them? They are meant for TC use to understand those plain language CARS!

I think you could be right, here we go! Somebody at TC needs to become the “ACCOUNTABLE EXECUTIVE “Don’t you just love how TC feeds in these new buss words but fails to uphold them to themselves.

[cap]

Maggie -------I wouldn't even "attempt" to fill CTD's shoes and I wish I could shake the feeling I have about why he is no longer present. I trust that he is with us in another "guise".

 

I'm also sorry to report that people start a/c no different in the US than the multitude of different ways that they start them in Canada. So crossing over the 49th parallel does not mean that you have ventured into the "Planet of the Apes". "Canadian way" of starting an a/c ? Excuse me, but perhaps I'd like to use the Russian way of starting an a/c.....or maybe the South African way. ****, maybe the Manitoban way beats all the rest to sh*t. Where do people get this "crap" from?

 

C/B's.....now what have I been told to do/not do with c/b's JUST on the 20b A/B since it's inception?:

1) Do not use any on start-up because the engine driven pump will suffice. The boost pumps were put in place for high altitude work above 6000' and for starting at those altitudes. Use them on start-up and then expect a "slap upside the head",

 

then 2) use ONE only for start-up,

 

then 3) engineering staff tell me to use ONE but make it the rear boost pump c/b and explain why,

 

then 4) leave the DG c/b out on start-up,

 

then 5) then both boost pump c/b's "In" for start-up,

 

then 6) every so often use just NONE for for start-up because if I have an A/F fuel filter air leak, I will probably flame-out before I release trhe starter. If such happens then I will have saved myself and maintenance potential problems with air getting into the govenor (not to be confused with the owner or DOM).

 

Now they don't want me to touch them at all it seems...ok find.......but I'd really appreciate it if they'd make up their minds for once and then show me how to get the g.d. machine drained and started in the morning. I also want to advise them that I seldom fly in "Block Airspace" because neither me nor the a/c is "pressurized", I can get onto the ground much quicker that a Swiss airliner and I'm not allowed more than the distance I can glide out over water with fixed gear. Lastly, would the F/W people from my old alma mater please crawl back into the hole they came out of and realize that not EVERYONE is stupid over here on the "dark side" of aviation. Leave us alone and stop constantly trying to "push your weight around".

[CD]

Lastly, would the F/W people from my old alma mater please crawl back into the hole they came out of and realize that not EVERYONE is stupid over here on the "dark side" of aviation. Leave us alone and stop constantly trying to "push your weight around".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:up:

[Pally]

"In any case the resetting of circuit breakers on most helicopters does not represent the same level of risk as may be the case with some aeroplanes. To our knowledge, repeated resetting of a circuit breaker on a helicopter has never lead to an in-flight problem, let alone anything remotely similar to the catastrophic results as befell Swiss Air 111.

 

Helicopters after all do not fly at 39,000 feet with more fuel on board than they can safely land with. Nor do they do they require a 10,000 foot runway to land."

 

The point is not whether a policy letter is enforcable or not, IT'S A POLICY LETTER. The POINT is that Brian Jenner is saying that electrical fires are not a concern in helicopters because we don't fly at 39000 feet.

 

I find it very disheartning and disgusting that RW safety is not taken as seriously as FW safety, to compare the two is rediculous to say the least, especially by an organization which is supposed to be representing the RW industry.

 

I guess he thinks resetting circuit breakers is not dangerous in helicopters. I guess electrical fires are not dangerous anymore either. :down:

 

Maybe we should all change our mentalities to where politics preceed safety just to look tough and stir the pot to make sure we can justify our members dues.

 

Jenner is way out of line on this one and to make a comparison such as he did is absolutely ludicrous.

 

BTW......I don't work for TC but I do see where they are comin' from in regards to the resetting of CB's.

[cap]

Pally ----read the accident report on the Swissair fire and realize that the fire started and grew because of what the inulation was made of on the a/c. Realize also, that if that material would not have been in place, the fire and resulting spread would not have happened.

 

There are a host of a/c in the F/W and R/W worlds that do not have any such insulation in place and the "pop" of a c/b means you might attempt to push it back in, but it will just "pop-out" again. If it doesn't then wire will 'fry", BUT it won't ignite a fire because there's nothing to burn or will burn. Other damage...yes perhaps, but not a total all-consuming fire. We are confusing pushing a c/b back into place when it "pops", with disengaging one and re-engaging it again for a mulitude of normal flight deck functions, both before start-up and during operation. Fine.....replace the c/b's with something else and their toggle switch "cousins" also if such is the case, BUT explain to us what that will be and how we do certain normal functions for safety, checks and simply starting the a/c. What are we to have in "our world"? ........one for the "Master", one for the "Generator" and one huge Master c/b for all the rest. That'll be interesting because they are all c/b's also. I'll "hand-prop" a Maule Rocket, but it'll be a ***** trying to "hand-prop" UH-1B, D, H or N.

 

Perhaps it's in "the reading", but I don't get the sense that Brian Jenner was denegrating the R/W world with regards safety....perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps it would be more proper for someone to check and see how many R/W have ever crashed and/or killed people because of a "popped" c/b causing a fire or any other disaster way back to "square one".

 

Usually, if the "popped" c/b is not honoured, it's the "loose link between the collective and the cyclic" that causes any ensuing problems. It "popped" and some member of our fraternity chose to ignore it's meaning and shoved the thing back in again. Is that the c/b's fault, it's manufacturer, the company's, MOT's or the a/c manufacturer? That's the fault of improper training and/or a "brain cramp" on the flightdeck because the a/c is "talking to you" and saying "hey Mr. Pro, we got a problem here and don't ignore me or I might give you a real "bad hair day"..

[Peeshooter]

Resetting of breakers can be a problen on any aircarft that is equipped with old cracked Kapton wiring. Of course the failue of this older wiring that is a component of many many older AC mostly sold off by 1st world countries to 3 rd world fleets will continue. The stuff lights up like a dynamite fuse.

 

Maybe Dupont should fess up and rewire all these Aircraft

 

Opps, sorry that will never happen as long as greed takes power over safety.

 

PS

[cap]

Peeshooter ------NEWS BULLETIN!! I've flown 204's right here in downtown Canada where the wiring was 25 years old and c/b's on the a/c had been pulled and had "popped" more times than I am old. I've seen wiring come out of the tail-booms on the same type of a/c where it crystallized when touched and you had a handful of powder. Why should Dupont replace the wiring? I got a '57 restored T-Bird sitting in my garage and I didn't expect Ford to replace the bad wiring in that 35 yr old car when I bought it for restoration. Why should some African from Zaire expect a different deal? If they got enough money to buy an a/c then they had enough brains to obtain that money in the first place.

 

Someone buys an a/c here or in any country, they know the age, have it inspected by a qualified person and buy it or don't buy it. That's one of the reasons for inspection panels. Once they buy it and then have a problem with the wiring because of age, then that's the seller's fault? Sorry sir, but when you sell your car through the want-ad section of the newspaper, the buyer does his "due dilegence" and it's "caveat emptor" time. The buyer can't blame you if he didn't do that "due dilegence", you acted legally and now he wants the government to get his money back. He has learned a lesson though and if the same thing happens again, he is what is termed "stupid" or a "slow learner".

[Peeshooter]

My point is CAP is that the older Kapton wiring is dangerous, read the studies, and you will see that Dupont even claims the older cracked stuff is safe. Despite 100% clear evidence to the contrary. When combined with a humid salty environment it's like det cord.

 

Its money/ political that keeps them from replacing the stuff before they export it form the first world nations, combined with the total lack of regulations in these 3 rd world countries its a recipe is for more Kapton related disaster in the future.

 

I am sure that you have much experience in this field. Say, next time you are at ICAO or invited to the annual DG meeting say hi to the Secretary General for me.

 

Who cares anyway, african life is worth less - Right? ( probably not worth hiring either)

 

PS- Slow learner.

[412driver]

any accidents directly related to said Kapton wiring?