Resetting Cb's & Hac

[Rosco]

.........NOW BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL PROGRAMMING........

 

 

CB'S & HAC.

[Peeshooter]

Just out of curiosity, but who are the HAC technical experts that deal directly with TC to get things changed to suit members?

 

What other positive mandate does this group have to fix things on behalf of non members or for the good of the industry as a whole?

 

If a CB pops one would think that a precautionary landing and investigation is always a good idea. My entire career, until it ended... I always made a point of landing on most all problems, after all its seems to me that it's safer to deal with things on the ground unless there is simply no place to set down for a few minutes.

 

LAnd as soon as possible for me its always the best route, and definely is the shortest distance and safest thing to do in all cases.

 

Each to his own though.

 

PS

[downwash]

Peeshooter, where did you see HAC making any claims to "fix things on behalf of non members or for the good of the industry as a whole?" HAC works on behalf of its substantial industry membership. Any benefits of those efforts that spill over to the industry at large are, much more often than not, warmly welcomed by the recipients, especially as they've been paid for by members. The membership grows apace and, in addition to now having the largest helicopter operator membership in the country, will soon reach the level where there is no other effective voice (if it's not actually there already).

 

As to "who are the HAC technical experts that deal directly with TC to get things changed to suit members?" they are the varied persona of our much-esteemed, oft-maligned Brian Jenner who, despite rubbing lots of people the wrong way, especially within the hallowed halls of our beloved Transport Canada, has achieved more for the HAC membership AND the Canadian helicopter operating industry than any individual or organization in its history. No, Brian has no overpaid, overweight staff of "technical experts," but draws on his own substantial expertise and that of many HAC members to deliver outstanding results.

[Peeshooter]

Well downwash thanks for that information, I was unaware that that the HAC only served the interest of members , who are the industry.

 

I personally think its a bit of a self serving mechanism that would forsake its own, if it meant that the owners club could make an extra buck or two. Say where they supportive of a HEPAC?

 

Hmmm.

 

 

PS

[twinstar_ca]

a good reply, dw...

 

i took the liberty of removing the stuff that would just denigrate this into name-calling back and forth...

 

as roscoe might say.... play on, gentlemen...

[downwash]

Now, Pee, how did you interpret what I said to mean HAC only serves the interest of its members? Although the organization certainly does exist to (precisely) serve its members (as does any association or similar type of organization), I thought I made my point of view clear that it has, indeed, served the industry in virtually all of its accomplishments. Of course it first duty is to its membership. They are the reason it exists - not because the industry as a whole got off its collective butts and said, "Let there be HAC." Rather because a small handful were tired of ineffective collective representation and decided to do something about it. The whole industry has benefited, which is natural and fitting, I believe, and may it continue to do so. The more of us that are members, the more it will do so.

 

Back before you became, in your various iterations, so prominent in these forums, Pee, I made a number of appeals for individuals to take advantage of the membership category of HAC open to them, one which could afford them the vehicle (and one with already established 'clout') to pursue most, if not all, their goals. To what I trust is our mutual regret, both that opportunity, and HEPAC, have been forsaken for the moment. We've been around long enough to know, though, that that particular pendulum swings rather swiftly, and will no doubt be seen again soon.