Changes In Flight Duty Time Regulations

[Grasshopper]

The Canadian Helicopter Pilots Association is a website - nothing more. It does not represent me. It will never represent me. Whoever has this website is portraying themselves as a representative of Canadian Helicopter Pilots.

 

THIS IS FALSE!!!!!

 

I want to know more about who is behind this. They DO NOT REPRESENT ME!!! I don't like this.

 

 

I'm with you, Jim!

[Brian Jenner]

On April 5th 2008 I made what I thought would be my last post on this forum. Splitpin responded by saying “you’ll be back”. Well he was right, I am back; spurred on by another working group report on flight and duty time (FDT).

 

For 25 years I was the principal political spokesperson for Canadian helicopter operators. I built HAC into what it is today, an industry association, that represents a particular sector of the Canadian helicopter industry, that is to say “air operators. In the process, I was a very active member of the 1987 FDT Working Group; and the 1995/1996 FDT Working Group. I did all that because I didn’t want to spend 8 weeks in the bush and two weeks at home for the rest of my life.

 

Today I am officially still a pilot and arguably still a very experienced, highly trained and well informed public policy analyst, specialising in air transportation policy. But now I am a free agent, who can speak to the subject of FDT, without subordination to any stakeholders.

 

HAC’s response to the FDT WG Report is, of course, self serving, of air operators. It can’t be any other way. HAC was never meant to be anything other than an air operator organisation. Its arguments against the FDT WG Recommendations are meant to maintain a status quo, that is familiar and predictable for operators. In business, change and the uncertainty that goes with it, are an unnecessary risk.

 

Air operators, comfortable with well known rules may not want to be disturbed by having to deal with new rules. But if you put aside that basic aversion to change and take an objective look at what the costs of new FDT rules would in fact be, you will come to the inevitable conclusion that new FDT will not affect the bottom line of the Canadian helicopter industry. Rules that are imposed on everyone equally, impose on everyone the same costs and benefits. Industry would adjust quickly and harmlessly to any new FDT rules. That’s why we admire the special talents of businessmen!

 

Not that all the WG recommendations are well founded, but the Canadian helicopter industry has had a free pass to deal with safety haphasardly for far too long. Canadian FDT rules should offer the Canadian public and Canadian pilots at least the same basic safety benefits as other jurisdictions. That is simply good public policy.

 

Canadian operators should not expect FDT rules to be based on the lowest common denominator, just because helicopter operations must deal with variables not faced by the airlines. Canadian FDT rules should be based on international standards, that can be adapted to the realities of Canadian operations by individual operators, who demonstrate their company policies provide an equivalent level of safety.

 

To properly construct such a regulatory regime it would be helpful if Canadian helicopter pilots represented themselves in the same professional manner in which they do their jobs.

 

And now, once again, I shall retire from this Forum.

[helicopterjim]

Fair enough! Take your organization and represent yourself ... but don't go parading a name that offers the presumption of representing all Canadian helicopter pilots and advocate changes that are your opinion. Otherwise I can start an organization called Helicopter Pilots of Canada and offer polarized options and be just as legitimate .... but to what end. Just another pissing match.

 

I am a Canadian!

I am a helicopter pilot.

I am NOT part of your organization!!

 

 

 

It only takes one - or, at most, two - to form an association of like-minded individuals. Such an association may call itself anything they choose. Furthermore, if you don't want anything to do with it, don't consider yourself a member - which you so obviously aren't.

 

 

 

Speaking of all of you who like to represent yourselves, how did your presentations regarding flight and duty times for helicopter pilots go over the course of the last working group? Did any of you have any thoughts or concerns about the current 40-year-old flight and duty time requirements? Did your concerns get addressed by the working group? Did your concerns get addressed by anyone? Were they included in the final report?

[FREDDIE]

I am trying ah I am with you Jim kind speechless

 

 

 

Dazed and confused

[skullcap]

So Brian, you say operators are good businessmen and will figure out a way to deal with new regulations. By looking at the proposed regs it is not virtually impossible to judge the amount of time out of a day one could work of most charter ops but simply impossible. Also if there are required to have 5 days off in 20 this then is the nail driven home. Operators will not be able to safely send out a pilot to do a job....they will have to send out two. What a load of horseshit this proposal is. My single pilot single heliocopter operation would have to go to a 4 pilot one helicopter operation. So what does one do with 4 pilots when not flying for a few months.

 

This will be the end of small operators. It is beyond rediculous. If people cannot see this then reality is a tv show watched by baffoons.

 

I am a Canadian who is a helicopter pilot who is not interested in this association which is determined to put me out of business.

[Zazu]

There has often been talk about organizing, forming an association etc etc. While it sounds so simple, the pilots working in the canadian bush are just as varied as the work they do. Yes, the rules are broad. Yes, there is lots of room for interpretation. Yes, I have heard of companies/ management taking advantage of said interpretation in favour of the customer/job demands and effectively using the pilot up.

 

But I have also heard of a couple of things like an Ops Manual and CAR's. And, in my case anyways, both state that it is my responsibiity to make sure that I'm am capable of working competantly and effectively. If not, well, I'll take a nap...or make a phone call and go home. Other than that, I would like to make hay while the sun shines thankyou very much.

[helicopterjim]

I am trying ah I am with you Jim kind speechless

 

 

 

Dazed and confused

 

I'll make you a T-shirt ....

[Iceman]

Are you drinking?

[Zazu]

To continue (had to put the little one to sleep before I took off for a couple days...even neg reped myself I was in such a hurry LOL!); the fact is that the power to halt a job already rests in the pilot's hands. If you want a real challenge, and want to really mitigate risk, try engineers. Now that is something I would get behind. They have no set hours, schedule etc. Even SRD in all their beurocratic bliss disregard their collective value, going so far as to try to double up wrenches from different companies while each trying to work their own phase inspections. They give me the a/c room because I'm "priority" yet I'm in the bush all day while my wrench is trying to sleep in a non ac room at 30 C 100m from the flight line...,I think not. Used a little of that PIC power to put a halt to that...I/we stayed on.

 

Now here is the important part...I have yet to talk to an engineer about this that wasn't worried about it. They are open and honest about the fact that there is no real definitive "" Fatigue Risk Management " as one recently put it.

 

Considering I rely on these guys, I would appreciate it if you would lay your focus elsewhere. At least I have the tools at my disposal to make sure that I get enough rest.

 

Sleep well all, summer's almost over.

[kiefk]

Hi All

I haven't posted/replied to anything for a long time........but here's my 2 cents:

 

I agree with Zazu - in Europe and the Military (I know lots of money & people) they had MRM (Maintenance Resource Management). Even to the point in one location we had civilian engineers working on Military Registered but Civilian owned Aircraft - Both sets of rules had to be applied and if they disagreed the more stringent was boss!?

 

Now having scanned through the draft report:

http://www.h-a-c.ca/RDIMS-7640094-v2-FLIGHT_CREW_FATIGUE_MANAGEMENT_WORKING_GROUP_DRAFT_REPORT.pdf

 

I have noted the changes as I read them:

 

FLIGHT DUTY PERIOD (@ work): 60hrs/7days, 190hrs/28days, 1928/yr

FLIGHT TIMES (flying): 8hrs/day [same as Forestry], 112hrs/28days, 1000hrs/yr [same as EASA & FAA]

REST: 12hr/day if @ home base, 10hrs/day in camp/away from base

FREE OF DUTY: either 5 days off in 20 or 1 in 7

plus some blurb about positioning

 

So IF my maths (english u see) is correct:

A pilot could only do 14 days away flying with a day repositioning to achieve the 5in20.

During that time (using a rolling 23 days @ work plus 5 days off to achieve the 28 day limits) they would need to average:

8.2hr Duty Day (190/23) with 4.8hrs (112/23) of actual revenue flying (if they were already @ camp!)

That would earn the Company and the pilot the 112hrs of (hopefully all) revenue every 28 days........this is where the new low time pilots could build hours ferrying machines (maybe)

On a single day job the Maximum would be 8hrs flying in a 11 hour day if you took off @ or after 0700 - that's IF you counted every drill/equipment move as a sector......

My suggestion to get around the sector issue would be to get the FW Airline boys to concede that a sector for helicopters is engine start to engine stop and not take off to land (cause we're helicopters)??......

 

Sorry it's soooooooooo long but there you go - awaiting the comments i.e people ripping my numbers to pieces

Does this not just mean safer operations where the Company, Customer and Pilot have to talk to each other and PLAN to achieve results.......