Jump to content

Rebuttal Of The Fred Jones Column In The March/april 2013 Issue Of Helicopters


Recommended Posts

Last spring, the fatigue-risk-management working group concluded its deliberations before issuing its final report to the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council Technical Committee in November 2012. Ironically, it’s HAC’s view that the report focuses less on fatigue and risk, and more on the needs of the large scheduled international air carriers represented by the National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC), and their pilots’ unions. What started out as an effort to update the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) in light of the latest available fatigue-related research, turned into an airline-centric overhaul of the Canadian regulations.

 

The collective bargaining agreements between the unions and their employers are generally less demanding than the CARs as they now exist and will exist when the revised CARs are implemented. The unions will realize some gains from the suggested revision of the CARs, but not nearly as much as the writer of this article seems to think. The real beneficiaries will be the fixed- and rotary-wing pilots who work for non-scheduled, on-demand operators.

“Pilots are pilots,” as they say. We all get fatigued. But we get fatigued in different ways because we do different jobs. In terms of our respective job descriptions, airline drivers and helicopter pilots share the sky . . . but that is where the similarity ends.

Helicopter pilots operate largely in an unscheduled, VFR, self-dispatch, seasonal environment, and in some of the most remote areas of the country.


We generally operate without crew-scheduling or dispatch offices. Airline pilots have their “pairings” and “blocks” weeks in advance. Helicopter pilots frequently don’t know what they are doing tomorrow morning.


These are precisely the reasons that the CARs must be revised to reflect the circumstances under which non-scheduled, on-demand pilots, both helicopter and fixed-wing, operate. The unpredictable nature of these operations complicate the life of the pilot. Length of tour of duty and length and timing of time off are by no means guaranteed.


In their respective fatigue-risk management working group processes, the Europeans and Americans concentrated on the commercial and business aviation communities first to consider and implement regulatory solutions sensitive to the needs of these segments. This is something the co-chairs in the Canadian working group steadfastly refused to do. Instead, they focused on developing rules of broad application with a few small variations, which were ill-suited to the industry segments they were developed to accommodate.

 

It does not appear that the co-chairs steadfastly refused to consider the needs of the commercial and business segments. What they steadfastly insisted on doing was to consider how ordinary human beings experience fatigue. Pilots who fly non-scheduled, on-demand operations are, after all, ordinary human beings.

The working group co-chairs relied heavily on controversial European Aviation Safety Agency recommendations, the new U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations and International Civil Aviation Organization Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPS) – all of which were only intended to apply to large airlines.

 

What the Working Group heavily relied on was firstly fatigue science. The secondary consideration was to align Canadian regulations with those of other jurisdictions and the recommendations of the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization of which Canada is not only a Member state but a Council Member state.

The working group co-chairs have recommended a series of new and significantly more restrictive changes to the current regime of flight and duty time limitations set out in the CARs which would apply to helicopter operators. These include:

 

  • cumulative duty hour requirements, completely new to the CARs

This is one of the most important requirements suggested by the Working Group. It will also help prevent the new regulations from conflicting with the Canada Labour Code.

 

  • sector limits requiring a reduction in the flight duty period, completely new to the CARs (The more landings and takeoffs you do, the shorter your flight duty period. This new limit, according to the recommendations in the report would apply only to scheduled and medevac helicopter operations)
  • new, more conservative seven-day (down from 70 to 56 hours) 28-day (down from 140 to 112 hours) and 365-day (down from 1,200 to 1,000 hours) cumulative flight time limits

 

Fifty-six hours in seven days is eight hours a day. This is in line with the philosophy apparent in the Canada Labour Code. Reducing the 28 day limit from 140 to 112 hours is a reduction of only one hour a day. It is a rare pilot that will fly more than 1,000 hours in a year.

 

  • new, less-flexible rest period requirements that impose a 10- or 12-hour minimum rest period (depending on whether the pilot is deployed or at home-base), rather than imposing a requirement on the air operator to ensure eight-hours of uninterrupted sleep is protected
  • new, maximum daily flight duty periods that vary depending on when the flight crew member starts his/her day – new to the CARs

 

This is to ameliorate the increase in fatigue experienced when the duty day infringes on the period of circadian low. It is one of the aspects of fatigue affecting scheduling that HAC conceded during the discussions.

 

  • removal of the current industry segment-specific standards which applied to non-scheduled and helicopter operations and to heli-logging operations

 

What is the point of making regulations that ensure the safety and quality of the life of citizens if the regulations also include loopholes that can be used those who disagree with the regulations to dodge them?

 

  • new more conservative time free from duty requirements for rotational crews, down from a maximum of five days off after 42 consecutive days to five days off after 15 days!

Again, this will help prevent the new regulations from conflicting with the Canada Labour Code.

  • new, and lower, maximum flight duty period, down from 14 hours to 13 hours

It should be down to 12 hours a day, not 13.

  • in spite of strong scientific evidence that multiple consecutive days free from duty will serve to significantly reduce fatigue, the co-chairs eliminated the “zeroing” of accumulated flight time for five days-off – without even mentioning the issue in the report

When science confirms the HAC’s position on the issues, they embrace it and when it does not, they discard it.

  • In the final analysis, nine associations came together to reject the recommendations contained in the working group report. The bottom line? “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all,” Minister Lebel. It’s time the needs of helicopter operators are taken into consideration in this critical issue.

If HAC is going to insist on using this hackneyed “One size does not fit all.” phrase when it comes to aviation operations, then it must be prepared to acknowledge that one size does not fit all where pilots are concerned either. The regulations must be tailored to fit the average pilot, and while some may be able to endure the demanding schedules that some operators foist on their employees, not everyone can.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I tried to resist but it's just too difficult... And although I'm sure Fred Jones can rebut on his own I am taking a stab at it...   "CARs must be revised" implies some kind of "problem" that need

Rewriting the rules for the lowest common denominator is what is wrong not just with government, but this industry and our whole society. As was said before, no matter what the rules are at some poin

Last spring, the fatigue-risk-management working group concluded its deliberations before issuing its final report to the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council Technical Committee in November

I tried to resist but it's just too difficult... And although I'm sure Fred Jones can rebut on his own I am taking a stab at it...

 

Last spring, the fatigue-risk-management working group concluded its deliberations before issuing its final report to the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council Technical Committee in November 2012. Ironically, it’s HAC’s view that the report focuses less on fatigue and risk, and more on the needs of the large scheduled international air carriers represented by the National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC), and their pilots’ unions. What started out as an effort to update the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) in light of the latest available fatigue-related research, turned into an airline-centric overhaul of the Canadian regulations.

 

The collective bargaining agreements between the unions and their employers are generally less demanding than the CARs as they now exist and will exist when the revised CARs are implemented. The unions will realize some gains from the suggested revision of the CARs, but not nearly as much as the writer of this article seems to think. The real beneficiaries will be the fixed- and rotary-wing pilots who work for non-scheduled, on-demand operators.

 

These beneficiaries of which you speak... Are they different people than the 85% of helicopter pilots who stood up and said "absolutely not" when presented with these new proposals? And where do you get your views on how restrictive the new proposals are in relation to the collective agreements between the airlines and their unions? Since you are working for a teeny helicopter company in Medicine Hat I wonder what connections you have (besides with that Seeker fellow who is obviously connected to you through some kind of organization) that provides you your info. I only know that I was standing no more than two feet from one of the airline reps, on a break during the Working Group meetings, and he stated, unequivocally, that the new regs were often less restrictive than some of the existing collective agreements. He unabashedly said that the airlines welcome the new proposals as they would provide barriers to entry for non-union airlines. I cannot attest to the accuracy of his statements but he did say it.

“Pilots are pilots,” as they say. We all get fatigued. But we get fatigued in different ways because we do different jobs. In terms of our respective job descriptions, airline drivers and helicopter pilots share the sky . . . but that is where the similarity ends.

Helicopter pilots operate largely in an unscheduled, VFR, self-dispatch, seasonal environment, and in some of the most remote areas of the country.


We generally operate without crew-scheduling or dispatch offices. Airline pilots have their “pairings” and “blocks” weeks in advance. Helicopter pilots frequently don’t know what they are doing tomorrow morning.


These are precisely the reasons that the CARs must be revised to reflect the circumstances under which non-scheduled, on-demand pilots, both helicopter and fixed-wing, operate. The unpredictable nature of these operations complicate the life of the pilot. Length of tour of duty and length and timing of time off are by no means guaranteed.

"CARs must be revised" implies some kind of "problem" that needs solving. Since no stats or studies are available to back this up, other than your feeble attempt to say that with the new regs in place a lot of pilots simply would be home on the day of their accident (of course which means someone else would have been there!), why must we revise? Since a vast majority prefer the existing to the proposed why do you speak with what seems like moral authority when you are in a tiny minority? Are you like Jesus in the "and the world knew him not" sense? Are we all going to realize years from now that you were right all along and the satisfaction we get from our jobs was somehow a construct of our employers? I think I need another scotch... and a boot! Ha ha ha


In their respective fatigue-risk management working group processes, the Europeans and Americans concentrated on the commercial and business aviation communities first to consider and implement regulatory solutions sensitive to the needs of these segments. This is something the co-chairs in the Canadian working group steadfastly refused to do. Instead, they focused on developing rules of broad application with a few small variations, which were ill-suited to the industry segments they were developed to accommodate.

 

It does not appear that the co-chairs steadfastly refused to consider the needs of the commercial and business segments. What they steadfastly insisted on doing was to consider how ordinary human beings experience fatigue. Pilots who fly non-scheduled, on-demand operations are, after all, ordinary human beings.

 

Completely incorrect. I was there. They did NOT define duty in any real way. They got the fatigue expert (Greg Belenky) to state that duty time and flight time were equally fatiguing. When I see what airline pilots do I concur with that estimation. Duty day for a helicopter pilot can be more fatiguing or not fatiguing at all. Airline pilots go to the same airports, fly the same planes, fly to the same places. They are alike in their duties all over the world. I have flown in many countries and for many companies. All of them were different! Our attempt during the WG meetings was to gain recognition of the fact that duty time to us is not the same from job to job or even day to day! Define duty and then further study what type of duty is fatiguing and I'm with you. Just to say "duty" as if all pilots are doing the same job is insulting! All the WG Chairs needed to do was to split the sectors into groups. Why do you keep insisting only the airline unions know what they are doing? If there are 10 groups in a room why does one get all they want and the others get what ever they get handed? Because 95% of the traveling public is handled by the airlines we were told. How is that relevant to us and to what we do? 95% of heli fishing is done by pilots! And I bet half don't have fishing licences!

The working group co-chairs relied heavily on controversial European Aviation Safety Agency recommendations, the new U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations and International Civil Aviation Organization Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPS) – all of which were only intended to apply to large airlines.

 

What the Working Group heavily relied on was firstly fatigue science. The secondary consideration was to align Canadian regulations with those of other jurisdictions and the recommendations of the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization of which Canada is not only a Member state but a Council Member state.

 

We were given studies to read. I read every one. Most were completely irrelevant. While they all dealt with fatigue, the subjects in some of the studies (most of them actually) bear no resemblance to what we do or the schedules we keep. A study of sleep deprivation where participants were kept awake for extended periods and were prevented from sleeping unless they told us where Osama was hiding... oops, wrong movie! Joking aside the majority of the studies focused on sleep deprivation and then short sleep cycles. Intrusions on the "Window of Circadian Low" or "WOCL" were demonstrated by waking people at ungodly times and then testing performance. None of the things I read about were even close to 99% of the things I did in my career. To say the WG focused on fatigue science is a lie. It was one consideration but one of several. As for aligning Canada with other states, that was NOT a stated goal of the Working Group. Read the terms of reference Fred. My god you're obtuse.

The working group co-chairs have recommended a series of new and significantly more restrictive changes to the current regime of flight and duty time limitations set out in the CARs which would apply to helicopter operators. These include:

 

  • cumulative duty hour requirements, completely new to the CARs

This is one of the most important requirements suggested by the Working Group. It will also help prevent the new regulations from conflicting with the Canada Labour Code.

The regulations as they stand do not conflict with the Canada Labour Code. The code is poorly written and doesn't even contain a definition of work for God's sake. Rewrite the code, not the CARs! As for the "one of the most important requirements" statement you make, what is that based on? Greg Belenky said, "not a lot of work has been done on the effects of cumulative fatigue so I can't answer that". He was further queried "if 10 hours of duty free time was guaranteed in order to protect against cumulative fatigue could someone essentially work indefinitely?"... Dr. Belenky's answer? A big, resounding, "Yes". Does this appear in the report that the unbiased Union President and his mute TC Co-Chair wrote? An even bigger, booming, "NO"... Go figure...

  • sector limits requiring a reduction in the flight duty period, completely new to the CARs (The more landings and takeoffs you do, the shorter your flight duty period. This new limit, according to the recommendations in the report would apply only to scheduled and medevac helicopter operations)
  • new, more conservative seven-day (down from 70 to 56 hours) 28-day (down from 140 to 112 hours) and 365-day (down from 1,200 to 1,000 hours) cumulative flight time limits

 

Fifty-six hours in seven days is eight hours a day. This is in line with the philosophy apparent in the Canada Labour Code. Reducing the 28 day limit from 140 to 112 hours is a reduction of only one hour a day. It is a rare pilot that will fly more than 1,000 hours in a year.

Ok, you've lost me. There is philosophy apparent in the Canada Labour Code???? Socrates is turning over in his grave. But I personally have little issue with those changes but I do not believe they will do anything for safety. Much like unreasonable search an seizure we, as citizens, need to speak up when things are BS even if they don't affect us. There was nothing even close to a study of those hourly limits and what they mean to safety so I can't really say anything further than that... I have time-exed at 150 hrs in less than 30 days many times... I do not recall ever thinking it was too much. A stated goal of the WG was to get away from prescriptive based rule making and instead focus on performance based regs... and this IS in the terms of reference Fred... Unlike your claims of alignment with other states... So if we are getting away from prescription why does Fred think we, in fact, need prescriptive rules that would work for the person who is most easily fatigued, the least assertive, the most like an airline pilot? Ha ha ha just kidding guys... airline guys I mean... I truly respect what they do but they're not us!

 

  • new, less-flexible rest period requirements that impose a 10- or 12-hour minimum rest period (depending on whether the pilot is deployed or at home-base), rather than imposing a requirement on the air operator to ensure eight-hours of uninterrupted sleep is protected
  • new, maximum daily flight duty periods that vary depending on when the flight crew member starts his/her day – new to the CARs

 

This is to ameliorate the increase in fatigue experienced when the duty day infringes on the period of circadian low. It is one of the aspects of fatigue affecting scheduling that HAC conceded during the discussions.

I think this one is ok as long as it doesn't get too complicated. If someone gets up at 5:59 they shouldn't have 3 hours less of a duty day than someone that gets up at 6:00! I have worked under JARs before and it's like that... prescriptive and frankly stupid...

  • removal of the current industry segment-specific standards which applied to non-scheduled and helicopter operations and to heli-logging operations

 

What is the point of making regulations that ensure the safety and quality of the life of citizens if the regulations also include loopholes that can be used those who disagree with the regulations to dodge them?

Fred, you obviously have not worked different sectors of the helicopter industry and don't try telling me you have! The point is that we do different jobs even in our own industry and companies! A Heavy helicopter logging is flown by two pilots. They usually do a 75 minute fuel cycle. One does all the flying and it can be pretty darn fun. The co-pilot transfers fuel and records weights, etc. Then they land and switch... they can go pee... they stop for lunch... there has never been an accident with a Heavy in Canada from pilot error... on aircraft flying sometimes close to 2000 hours per year!!! Why would those pilots have the same restrictions as a guy flying a Hiller 12E on a spray job working a split shift??? I have done both and the spray split shift is an order of magnitude more fatiguing! And others I've talked to agree but I guess that doesn't matter because the WG Chairs don't think there's enough difference between us and the airlines to have our own study and proposed regs!!! I am becoming infuriated all over again...

  • new more conservative time free from duty requirements for rotational crews, down from a maximum of five days off after 42 consecutive days to five days off after 15 days!

Again, this will help prevent the new regulations from conflicting with the Canada Labour Code.

See above re CLC and the supposed conflicts

  • new, and lower, maximum flight duty period, down from 14 hours to 13 hours

It should be down to 12 hours a day, not 13.

Why not 10? Or 8? Why not just stay home and get paid anyway? For someone so pedantic you seem to have trouble actually producing anything other than your own opinion. We all have our own but when we try to tell other people what they should do and couch it in pseudo-science it gets me ticked off...

  • in spite of strong scientific evidence that multiple consecutive days free from duty will serve to significantly reduce fatigue, the co-chairs eliminated the “zeroing” of accumulated flight time for five days-off – without even mentioning the issue in the report

When science confirms the HAC’s position on the issues, they embrace it and when it does not, they discard it.

I haven't seen that. The WG Chairs completely cherry picked what they wanted to include in the report. There was lots of grey area but all the things that benefited the airline unions remained in the report and items that were stated unequivocally (like the fact that all time should zero after about 72 hours free from duty) that disagreed were omitted... Not sure why... Oh wait the airlines handle 95% of the traveling public so let's just let them edit the report themselves.

  • In the final analysis, nine associations came together to reject the recommendations contained in the working group report. The bottom line? “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all,” Minister Lebel. It’s time the needs of helicopter operators are taken into consideration in this critical issue.

If HAC is going to insist on using this hackneyed “One size does not fit all.” phrase when it comes to aviation operations, then it must be prepared to acknowledge that one size does not fit all where pilots are concerned either. The regulations must be tailored to fit the average pilot, and while some may be able to endure the demanding schedules that some operators foist on their employees, not everyone can.

I agree completely that not all pilots are alike, but pilots also need to select duties for which they're suited and also need to express themselves properly (which includes respectfully) when something is unsafe or they are becoming fatigued, etc. I don't see how we can get away from prescription (a stated goal (in writing!) of the working group) yet then say we need to write the regulations for the lowest common denominator. These are diametrically opposed goals... One cannot serve God and Mammon...

 

HV

 

P.S. I'm out of ice...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

HV wrote: "I agree completely that not all pilots are alike, but pilots also need to select duties for which they're suited and also need to express themselves properly (which includes respectfully) when something is unsafe or they are becoming fatigued, etc. I don't see how we can get away from prescription (a stated goal (in writing!) of the working group) yet then say we need to write the regulations for the lowest common denominator. These are diametrically opposed goals... One cannot serve God and Mammon..."

 

 

Please see this demo notice submitted to the provincial duty officer.

 

Dear Mr. Duty Officer

 

As you are aware for the last 12 days we have been very busy with fire 141. This letter is to provide you notice that I am becoming fatiged,and respectfully request that I only remain on duty for 12 hours of the day less 1 hour for morning inspection and 1 hour to complete my daily flight report and paperwork. I am certain that my operations manager will agree with this decision. Please assure that the helicopter remains on the fire and with these extra 2 hours of rest I should be able to continue to conduct my duties without further fatigue. As all pilots are different and some are more easily prone to fatigue especially after 6 hours of bucketing per day. I look forward continuing on with ASRD and trust that this notice and request doesn't negatively effect my employment with ABC helicopters and that any questions concerning this matter are directed to me and or my Ops manager without delay.

 

Respectfully yours

 

Fatigued pilot.

 

 

?? Anybody want to suggest the both short term and long term effect of such a letter???

 

Helicopter and Pilot gone from fire!!!!???? But hold on the letter is respectful!!! Response from operator or at least the ones I know- Not asked back!!

 

 

Although I agree with some Mr. Vibes comments concerning fatigue, without a regulatory or stated rules that would reduce hours worked, it would make for a very short-lived career pursuant to the aformentioned demo notice letter. The goal of the pilot is to conduct his duties safely! Unfortunately, Provincial authorities will hold to the stated rules... The causal hire contract leaves no room for flexibility for fatigue or any form of procedure for governance to modify or adjust duty times as a result of fatigue while respecting the professional integrity of the pilot.

 

I agree with Fred! Something needs to be done. This LA LA land belief that Ops managers will not put the corporate interests first and satisfy the customers needs is just simply unrealistic. The pilot will be released and replaced with another pilot/ helicopter who will conform, who doesn't complian about fatigue...

 

So the lowest common denominator is by definition then " a pilot or person whh is more succeptable to fatigue" ???

 

Yes one size doesn't not fit all and I support that our type of operations "cause more fatigue".

 

P5

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG I can't take this back and forth argument anymore!!!

 

I have been flying for 22 years, I go to work when I am asked if I am rested and able, I fly the required hours on whatever job I am doing if I am rested and able. I work the required duty hours if I am rested and able.

 

Being rested and able is up to me!

 

Take some personal responsibility, no new rules will supply the miracle cure.

 

Sorry I don't get it, everywhere you look these days people are pointing fingers at someone else for their problems.

 

Okay I'm done my rant, If anyone needs a driver this summer give me a call as I will make sure I'm rested and ready to go because I take that as my responsibility not because some frickin rules said.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been working such long shifts away from our families for so long we don't even know what "normal" is anymore. Like someone said to me yeas ago as if that was justification "That's helicopters!" Good for you Putz that you that you are perpetuating the 1967 way of thinking. These crap[y long tours and long hours will only continue if we keep thinking that this is the only way. Of course companies don't want to hire two pilots, of course they don't want to pay more. They will use what ever argument they can to prevent this. The fear that the whole industry will collapse, that machines will sit idle because there are no crew for them but in the end if we do get a better tour time and duty time the industry will change and adapt. Did we all stop driving because the price of gas doubled?


For someone who loves his family (even the first Mrs. Whitestone is still a little fond of me.. LOL) all i can say is that we will only have quality of life if we stop working such long tours and stop working for hours flown. Most of you are so far behind you don't know how much you have lost.

 

H_V,


We all have an opinion about the flight and duty times or at least we should. I think you could have made your points without calling anyone down. You've made it very clear in your history of posts that you are in management at a big company, all the more reason for you to be gracious in that regard, not to be so petty as to point out that someone works for a small company and where they work, NOT COOL! (if where someone works makes any difference?)

 

W.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

H_V,

 

We all have an opinion about the flight and duty times or at least we should. I think you could have made your points without calling anyone down. You've made it very clear in your history of posts that you are in management at a big company, all the more reason for you to be gracious in that regard, not to be so petty as to point out that someone works for a small company and where they work, NOT COOL! (if where someone works makes any difference?)

 

W.

I didn't mean to sound petty but when someone makes statements (in this case regarding the collective agreements between the airline unions and the airlines themselves) that seem to indicate they are an insider to specific details then I think it is relevant to point out that, in fact, someone who actually has no connection to that information is unlikely to offer information of value and is probably couching opinion disguised as fact. When something is my opinion I am clear about that and when it is fact I make sure that is clear. Mr. Lewis does not play the game that way.

 

Regardless, I apologize for coming across as petty.

 

HV

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG I can't take this back and forth argument anymore!!!

 

I have been flying for 22 years, I go to work when I am asked if I am rested and able, I fly the required hours on whatever job I am doing if I am rested and able. I work the required duty hours if I am rested and able.

 

Being rested and able is up to me!

 

Take some personal responsibility, no new rules will supply the miracle cure.

 

Sorry I don't get it, everywhere you look these days people are pointing fingers at someone else for their problems.

 

Okay I'm done my rant, If anyone needs a driver this summer give me a call as I will make sure I'm rested and ready to go because I take that as my responsibility not because some frickin rules said.....

 

No offence, Putz, but it's these types of personal anecdote "arguements" that I can't take anymore...

 

You're always rested and able and, if not, you'll speak up. That's great. Good for you!

You've also been flying for 22 years. You likely have a wide range of experience and a very good personal barometer for fatigue. You also likely have a sense of security in your place within the industry. You have the assertiveness and self-confidence to tell your supervisor or the client that "Hey, we can't fly as much today because I'm fatigued, and that's unsafe". You likely have the skill set that, if you were to get pulled from a job, or benched at your company, you could go find a new gig any time anywhere, since your skill set is in high demand.

 

What about a 1,000 hr pilot, Putz? What about a 500 hour pilot on his first summer of fires? What about a 150 Hr pilot who just landed his first field assignment after flight school and 2 years of ground crew, picking up the odd hour here and there? Do you think he's going to have the courage to stand up and tell his boss, or the lead hand at the gas plant who has to get out and pig all his lines today, that "Hey, we can't fly as much today because I'm fatigued, and that's unsafe."?

 

Maybe. Maybe not. What are you and the rest of the industry going to say if he clips a tree or a wire and balls up the machine, killing himself, maybe his crew, and pilot fatigue is listed as a contributing factor?

 

We can't cater the regs to your personal data set, Putz. However this whole thing plays out, it needs to be fair and unbiased. I agree that "One size does NOT fit all", but neither does "Putz's size fit all".

 

I'm done my rant too, and look forward to the continued discussion. The biggest positive is that we're actually TALKING about all this.

 

Cheers,

 

Bif

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been working such long shifts away from our families for so long we don't even know what "normal" is anymore. Like someone said to me yeas ago as if that was justification "That's helicopters!" Good for you Putz that you that you are perpetuating the 1967 way of thinking. These crap[y long tours and long hours will only continue if we keep thinking that this is the only way. Of course companies don't want to hire two pilots, of course they don't want to pay more. They will use what ever argument they can to prevent this. The fear that the whole industry will collapse, that machines will sit idle because there are no crew for them but in the end if we do get a better tour time and duty time the industry will change and adapt. Did we all stop driving because the price of gas doubled?

 

 

For someone who loves his family (even the first Mrs. Whitestone is still a little fond of me.. LOL) all i can say is that we will only have quality of life if we stop working such long tours and stop working for hours flown. Most of you are so far behind you don't know how much you have lost.

 

H_V,

 

We all have an opinion about the flight and duty times or at least we should. I think you could have made your points without calling anyone down. You've made it very clear in your history of posts that you are in management at a big company, all the more reason for you to be gracious in that regard, not to be so petty as to point out that someone works for a small company and where they work, NOT COOL! (if where someone works makes any difference?)

 

W.

Here Here! Whitestone elequently spoken. The sad reality is that the 1967 mentality prevails. The industry is slow to change, in Canada at least. Same cannot be said for the Brits, and even Africa that is in most cases back in the technological stone age but as far as governance is concerned they follow the ICAO recs for the most part. So why is Canada so behind the times when we look at FDT and regulatory changes for the rotary end... ??? Cant say for sure, but its must have something to do with the complete lack of representation of the folks atthe grass roots level. HAC has determined that this forum itself is threat and has partnered with the Verticalmag... seems nefarious or perhaps its because they realized that in an open forum like this one and the lack of control that has arisen with the FDT issue alone and TC agreeing that HAC does not represent the pilots and crew. Measures must be taken to make affiliation or future loss of control could occur... Just speculation of course but desperate times calll for desperate measures.... Who knows but one thing I do know... There will never be a President of HAC put in place who stands up for the pilots and engineers.. of this you can be certain... because it contravenes the 1967 sweatshop mentality, toe the line and give meaningless lip service. Completely disengenious!!! $$$= Membership and a say in whats approved and what is not... Thats the world we live in!!! Booya!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HV thanks for that (very gracious), for my part i didn't want to come across as too harsh, hope it doesn't drive you to drink (more), boot or not. LOL I'm just a bit sensitive about (as Freddie put it) outing people on this forum given how blacklisting works in this (and many) industry (s).

Bif not only will i give you a "like" but a "that-a-boy" pat on the back and a 10 out of 10 for your post!

As long as we are apologizing i have to say sorry to Mike for coming down too harshly on him on the advertising thing. He is the first one to get it when something controversial is posted (whether the person is a total ba$tard or a saint who is being written about) and he provides one of the only venues for Canadian pilots come together to ask questions or complain. So thanks Mike for keeping the Forum open.

W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum, That post never came across how I wanted it! Guess that's why I don't write here often.

 

Anyway I didn't show up in this industry with 10000hrs, I was that 100hr guy trying to make it so I know how hard that is to say no.

 

Do I want better tours? YES

Do I want better money? YES

 

I am sure we all do! My point was not that I want to see things stay in 1967 mentality, rather that maybe some personal responsibility of how we each manage the fatique issue is needed not just some big brother hard fast rules.

 

That's it, that's all I got. Back to being a lurker.....

  • Like 2
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...