Carry-On Baggage Requirements

[Freewheel]

Chad, I can't tell you how much your efforts are appreciated by others in industry. It is painful to deal with and I am impressed by your ability to take these things on in such a calm and professional manner. Many other operators would have already driven the money changers from... Until such time as TC stops trying to force generic rules on everything that uses the air as its medium of transport we will have these issues.

 

 

HV, I appreciate the support , and the fact that my efforts are appreciated by others in the industry, but the fact is, my actions are purely selfish. The only reason I ever put forth this effort was because TC is holding us to a different standard than the rest of the industry and it is a real threat to our ability to survive as an operator.

 

You are right these issues will continue if we as an industry allow TC to continue down this "one-size fits all" path. If these efforts help our industry in the long term, then all the better, but my initial reasons for being involved in this have nothing to do with trying to save the industry. Frankly, I don't really like being in the spotlight; I had no choice.

 

 

It seems they rather allow this confusion to exist than actually admit error on their part.

 

It sure looks like it.

 

So speak up Phil...

Fred, every single helicopter operator in Canada operates as does "Calaiezzi"... Every single VFR one anyway... It is laughable to read TC's correspondence as they show their complete and utter ignorance of what helicopters do. Just like the ridiculous TDG regulations, this one will be ignored until it's changed...

 

HV

 

The sad part really is, that a few (A LOT) of these Inspectors from TC have actually worked IN THE INDUSTRY!

 

I don't really find it laudable that they are now going against what they themselves have done for many years, before getting on the high horse.

 

The Cabin Safety people are all airline people as well.... Never been in a helicopter I imagine, prior to joining TC.

 

 

Cheers

H.

I would suggest that many inspectors do not agree with these interpretations. I have discussed this with several in the past. Also, I suspect the reason for the silence of my operations inspectors is related to this. Our POI's and TTL's are the closest thing TC has to experts in the field; yet they likely aren't getting the say they deserve. These are organizational issues.

 

I'm no expert in the matter,...

I have to comment too about different rules for different operators (or the level of risk they are willing to assume or get away with). If operator "A" will stuff the cabin full of gear and people but operator "B" insists on making two trips, who do you think is going to get the contract? If you take that to an extreme, who will be around next year. And yes i get that that operator "A" is breaking the law and setting himself up for a lawsuit in the event that there is an accident where someone is trapped in the back and injured or killed as a result. The short term and more likely scenario is that operator "A" will be making money and operator "B" will be sitting idle. It's nice to talk about the hypothetical "what would you say to the judge" when the bank account is empty and you are couch surfing, you can't get blood from a stone.

This whole applying CAR's to VFR helicopter aviation across the board is ridiculous, there need to be exceptions like in TDG with limited access.

 

 

I disagree Skids, you are an expert in the matter. So are most of the people in this forum; even Fred Lewis. Despite the fact his views differ from our own, he is a stakeholder who deserves to have his say. You are the experts that the people making the rules are supposed to listen to. I say again, this is inline with the basic principles of SMS. I wonder how many combined hours of experience in the VFR helicopter industry we have in this forum.

 

As far as your simple explanation of how this affects business. Again, you seem like you know what you are talking about. This is not rocket science.

 

I am sure you also realize, this contributes to an overall decline in quality and safety within our industry. Those, who chose to fly below the radar and hide what really occurrs in their day to day operations flourish, while those who put forward a solid effort to maintain compliance receive punitive action.

 

Flingwinger, great example.

 

Dear Mr. Freewheel,

 

Good job.

 

I have read all of this post tonight and have been in awe.

 

At times, I can sort of hear the crack in your ice, but you're holding up. I hope you can remember that no matter what comes out of the future actions of the flawed interpretation by the individuals in Transport, who I PROMISE YOU are not happy with this attention, and will be much LESS happy with the further attention that they will now face, regardless of what they can or cannot do to intimidate, or subjugate your brilliant efforts, ego and misunderstanding flawed this process, and now the situation will be resolved, and when it is resolved, thank you.

 

If there is anyway that we can help support your efforts please tell us.

 

Enforcement; the act of compelling observance of or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation

 

Before our government can possibly serve such to anyone, as pasted above, they must define its meaning.

 

It is clear, there is a serious misunderstanding here, due to ego, I have read and re-read the portions of the emails, I find that there are obviously emails not posted I would like to read.

 

Under staffing and overworked, well, our industry.

 

It has clearly crooked Mr. Lewis, who I don't know, and don't care to, and wouldn't elect.

 

Continue to 'maintain the modicum of propriety' you have kept, they have bureaucracy, the equal and opposite of what you seek. Transport Canada's employees are only people. They have erred in their responsibility. The staff will come to attention.

 

Heads will roll. Keep yours!

 

Mr. Lewis, give yours a shake.

 

Best Regards,

 

Joel

 

If you are interested in helping fix this industry wide issue, then speak up. Ask your Transport Canada representatives and operations manager's for clarification on the interpretation of 602.86. Your Operation Manager is supposed to be your liaison to TC. If he doesn't answer, e-mail your Primary Operations Inspector yourself. If that doesn't work, e-mail Yves Lemieux.

 

Use the guidance and e-mail that I have received (and posted on this forum).

 

Make official requests in writing by e-mail and expect the same in return. Let's see what kind of varying responses you get. If you are truly concerned about how to be compliant, then ask. It is their reponsibility to ensure you are able to understand these compliance requirements. I'd love to read the responses if you feel like posting.

 

File a Civil Aviation Incident Report (CAIRS) about the issue...that is the purpose of this system. Google it if ypou've never heard of CAIRS. You can find all the info you need and submit a report.

 

If you are a member of the HAC, ask them as well. While Fred has joined my cause by e-mail in April. I have heard nothing from him since...

 

While this may be an industry wide issue that you are helping to fix, it could also be a proactive self serving act. Afterall, you never know when this new and extreme interpretation will be coming to a ramp check or inspection near you. at least this way, you'll be ready for them.

 

Don't forget, if you are ever involved in an accident, and you don't clearly understand the requirements; they will claim ignorance of the regulations is no excuse. That is the biggest joke about all of this; the pilots are the ones who get hung out to dry because you are the one ultimately responsible for loading your aircraft. Fred Lewis would have you beleive you need a union or association. I would say that if that is indeed the case, TC is failing to uphold their responsibility in the compliance chain. You can't quit if your employer asks you to operate this way, because the fact is, the company down the road is following the same practices...Nice!

 

We are not lobbying for changes here. We are just asking for clarity to rules that have existed for 19 years. Sureley they should be able to answer your questions with ease...

 

You may also help in fixing the much larger issue of Disparity in enforcement of the many regulations accross our country. This is but one little Regulation; this type of thing happens across the board, everyday in our industry and leads to confusion and an overall decline in quality and safety.

 

As far as the TC Staff coming to attention and "heads rolling" goes, I am not so sure you are correct on that one. They show no signs of backing down and I fear these organizational issues are deep rooted. It will take more than little old Expedition Helicopters to correct these issues. The fact is, the people making decisions at the top don't really give our industry as whole much thought or credit.

[Freewheel]

Yves Lemieux's Responses to questions in May 15/13 e-mail and Comments below in Bold Italics:

1. Do you believe carriage of Cargo in the cabin of the Bell 206 helicopters is approved?
a. Here is what Bell Helicopters has to say: “Our engineering has defined loading limits to be in the aft cabin, 75 Lbs. per square inch and in the baggage compartment, of 86 Lbs. per square inch, provided the limits indicated in the 206 series Flight manuals are not exceeded. The carriage of cargo in the cabin of the Bell 206 is permitted providing the cargo is “ restrained so as to prevent them shifting during movement of the aircraft on the surface and during take-off, landing and in-flight turbulence” as per CAR 602.86 (1) ( . The cargo weight must not exceed the cabin floor limits.

2. Do you believe baggage can be carried on a seat of a helicopter conducting 702/703 operations?
a. Janice Says No in her February 21/13 e-mail: “approval to use a seat for other than its original function of retaining an occupant will require a demonstration of compliance that the installation meets all applicable requirements in the aircraft basis of certification.” Please review this e-mail from Janice for her explanation in its entirety.
b. Bell Helicopters says: “According to CAR 602.861b, BHT would find acceptable to carry cargo or carry-on luggage on seats in the aft cabin provided it does not exceed the weight of 100 Lbs. per seat as defined in Service Instruction 206-2051 applicable to the 206L series helicopters. Weight shall be properly secured to meet requirements of the CAR602.86.”. Since passenger seat belts are certified to restrain human bodies, using them to restrain a variety of objects including cargo can’t be authorised since there is no certainty the seatbelt could restrain to the requirement of 602.86 (1) ( . Janice’s email is very clear with regards to getting approval to secure/restrain cargo or carry-on baggage on passenger seats. “Additional means (besides the seatbelt) to successfully (and legally) restrain seat-loaded baggage would almost certainly be necessary. Such means, and its installation in each aircraft in which it is to be used, shall be approved by, or on behalf of, the Minister (persons delegated with authority to approve on behalf of the Minister include Design Approval representative (DAR) and Airworthiness Engineering Organizations (AEO)). Note that a similar approval process could be followed to install a means to restrain baggage, cargo, etc, to the floor of the cabin.

3. Do you believe a pilot can use a seat belt to secure/restrain small baggage in the seat to comply with CARs 602.86?
a. Janice Berling says NO (in her Feb 21/13 e-mail): “I am confirming that securing a purse or anything else that is considered as carry-on baggage in a seat with a seat-belt is not permitted: (a) stowed in a bin, compartment, rack or other location that is certified in accordance with the aircraft type certificate in respect of the stowage of carry-on baggage, equipment or cargo;
Baggage, equipment and cargo that is transported in the cabin of an aircraft must be stowed and restrained in a manner that ensures continued compliance with the applicable operating regulations (such as section 602.86) as well as the standards of airworthiness specified in the basis of certification for the aircraft.” I have asked her to show me where it discussed standards of airworthiness (with regards to means of restraint) in the 702/703 CARs. I agree that under CARs 705.42 this is correct (as it is clearly discusses restraint requirements in 705 CARs…not so for 702/703).
b. Bell Helicopters Product support and engineering states with regards to 206/407 helicopters: “YES, provided the seat belt secures the cargo or carry-on baggage appropriately in order to prevent any movement or weight shift during dynamic flights. It is the responsibility of the operator/owner and pilot-in-command to ensure this prior to flight departure.” I agree with Janice’s position. Carry-on baggage, equipment and cargo that is transported in the cabin of an aircraft must be stowed and/or restrained in a manner that ensures continued compliance with the applicable operating regulations (such as section 602.86). Furthermore, passenger seat belts are certified to restrain human bodies not an assortment of objects, packages or bags.

4. Can Baggage or Cargo be placed on the floor of the Bell 206 aircraft as per the standards of airworthiness specified in the basis of certification for the aircraft?
a. Here is what Bell Helicopters Product support and engineering have to say “some cargo or carry-on baggage can be placed on the floor as long as limits described above are not exceeded and the aircraft C.G. remains in the envelope prescribed by the flight manual.” Agree provided they are restrained so as to prevent them shifting during movement of the aircraft on the surface and during take-off, landing and is-flight turbulence as per CAR 602.86 (1) ( .

5. Can small carry on-baggage ever be restrained by a passenger on their lap?
a. Janice says NO in March 21/13 e-mail: “I am confirming that carrying a packsack on your lap is not in compliance with 602.86” Agree with Janice.
b. Lisa says NO in March 28/13 e-mails: “Items held on laps or loose on the floor is not considered as meeting the requirements to be stowed or restrained” Agree with Lisa.

6. Is a person carrying a pillow on their lap compliant with CARs? Surely it would be restrained to prevent shifting and is “packaged and covered” to prevent injury. No while the aircraft is moving on the surface, during take-off and landing, and in-flight turbulence as per 602.86 (1).

7. Is a person carrying a small soft covered bag on their laps compliant with CARs? No while the aircraft is moving on the surface, during take-off and landing, and in-flight turbulence as per 602.86 (1).

8. Is a person carrying a camera on their lap/in their hands compliant with CARs? No while the aircraft is moving on the surface, during take-off and landing, and in-flight turbulence as per 602.86 (1).

9. Is a person carrying a laptop used for aerial surveying/mapping on their lap compliant with CARs? No while the aircraft is moving on the surface, during take-off and landing, and in-flight turbulence as per 602.86 (1).

10. Is a person carrying and restraining a Net Gun/Tranquilizer Gun in their arms Compliant with CARs? No while the aircraft is moving on the surface, during take-off and landing, and in-flight turbulence as per 602.86 (1).

11. Is an MNR fire boss carrying a Fire boss kit/document bag in the front seat compliant with CARs ? No while the aircraft is moving on the surface, during take-off and landing, and in-flight turbulence as per 602.86 (1).

NOTE: Except for infant, for scenarios 6-11, securing/restraining any objects, cargo, baggage in one’s hand or with one’s arm does not meet the requirement of CAR 602.86 (1).

12. Are you able to provide me with another CARs reference or supporting documentation that supports Janice Berling’s belief that a pilot conducting 702/703 operations cannot secure an item in the cabin or seat of the aircraft if it is not “stowed in a bin, compartment, rack or other location that is certified in accordance with the aircraft type certificate in respect of the stowage of carry-on baggage, equipment or cargo;”? Review 602.86 (1) ( , and the answer to 2 b. above.

You are also right: “The requirements for passenger briefing and the securing of carry-on baggage are not new and apply to every segment of air operations regardless of the certificate types”. I can easily demonstrate that the current policy and interpretations being offered by Janice Berling, Terry Long, Lisa Witton MOST CERTAINLY ARE NEW! At least in the Commercial Helicopter sector…
The requirements for passenger briefing and the securing of carry-on baggage is clear and not easy to misunderstand, in my opinion . Compliance to the CARs is the responsibility of every air operator and aviator and wilful disregard of any parts of the CAR is an enforceable offence.

Firstly, these interpretations that you discuss were provided to the President of the Helicopter Association of Canada (Fred Jones). As you are aware, in an e-mail the HAC joined our opposition to these interpretations and referred to them as “new and extreme”. Fred also stated: “not only is it inconsistent with other regions, but it is inconsistent with long-standing accepted practice in the Canadian helicopter industry”.
Considering its many excellent initiatives to improve the safety of helicopter operations in Canada, one would expect organizations such as HAC to champion compliance with the CARs within every sector of Commercial operations.

When this issue was sent to Tom Grover, Bell Helicopter Sales Representative he had this to say in e-mail: “It has been pretty much industry standard practice to carry operational equipment, spares and personal baggage in the cabin if the baggage compartment is full when ferrying to and from the job site. In addition, you have to respect the maximum weight limits of the baggage compartment and normally operation gear, spares and personal baggage will exceed this limit so some has to be carried in the cabin. I would further suggest this applies to all makes and models of helicopters, not just Bell Helicopter products.”
I agree that operation gear, spares and personal baggage can be carried in the cabin of any helicopter provided the requirements of CAR 602.86 (1) are complied with.

I have also provided several photos and videos at the (end of this e-mail) demonstrating the longstanding industry practice of carrying cargo in the cabin of helicopters. Note that many of these items were posted on the Operator’s Website (by the Operator); they are being used as marketing material. Based on this fact I suspect they feel that they are in compliance of the CARs.
Noted. However, it does not justify/rationalize non-compliance. All operators and their employees must comply with every applicable regulation and standard.

It is quite obvious to me, that there are only 2 possibilities here:

· Widespread Non-compliance with 602.86 is occurring industry-wide across Canada; or It appears to be the case particularly in your sector of commercial helicopter operations. This must be addressed by every helicopter operators involved in the types of operations similar to yours. Wilful disregard of these CAR requirements is not acceptable at any level and particularly at the management level.

· Transport Canada is not applying the CARs equally to all operators and the interpretations offered are not correct. Transport Canada can’t witness and verify compliance of every operations. TC relies on company management to comply with every applicable regulations. With regards to the two issues under discussion, the CARs requirements are clear and simple and therefore, should not be subject to interpretation. The arguments being made by some suggest that they view the requirements as simply inconvenient, not consistent with the “common practices” and therefore, are considered wrong i.e. “not correct”. It is difficult to explain how these CARs requirements can be misinterpreted. Attempts to justify or rationalize non-compliance is even more troubling.

As for your comment: “Our responsibility is to ensure that every sector of the aviation industry is compliance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations. To the end, when regulatory non-compliance is uncovered, we work cooperatively with the organization or individual to resolve the issue(s) of non-compliance”; I expect you will work co-operatively with operators involved in the photos and videos below to resolve the issues of non-compliance (as per Janice and Lisa’s interpretations). I am sorry, it seems TC is failing miserably at ensuring compliance with in our sector of aviation industry (if the interpretations we have received are correct),and we fail to see TC working co-operatively in our dealings.
It is the Accountable Executive responsibility to “ensure compliance” within its enterprise. When an air operator applies for and receives an Air Operator Certificate, the Accountable Executive commits to conduct the enterprise’s operations in accordance to all the applicable Canadian Aviation Regulations and Standards. Operators who fail to meet this commitment may be subject to enforcement actions.

13. What actions are you taking to correct what is obviously a much larger systemic issue of widespread non-compliances industry wide?
· TC will take immediate actions to alert the industry to this wilful disregard of the subject CARs requirements once the appropriate means of doing so is determined by Headquarters.
· Within the Ontario Region, the process of verifying compliance for our helicopter air operators was initiated immediately following the discovery of the non-compliant practices at Expedition Helicopters.


Note: I removed all the links that were included in the original email to reduce the size of this file. Yves

If we lift a skid equipped helicopter into a 1 foot hover and load Carry-on baggage, cargo or equipment into the cabin of the helicopter, then unload it at the end of the flight from a 1 foot hover are we compliant?

 

Ridiculous as it sounds I think we are.

 

We can't move on the surface without becoming airborne (since we are skid equipped) and the equipment is only required to be restrained to prevent from shifting during Take-off, landing and inflight turbulence.

 

Rarely if ever do I encounter inflight turbulence that could cause cargo to shift in a helicopter; most flights are low level.

[helicopterjim]

· TC will take immediate actions to alert the industry to this wilful disregard of the subject CARs requirements once the appropriate means of doing so is determined by Headquarters.

 

 

 

Too late Transport Canada .... the willful disregard is deeply seated in reason and is spread all across this great nation.

 

I love the way they throw a threat at you and then try to codify it with "once the appropriate means of doing so is determined by Headquarters.". ......

That means they don't have a clue what to do about this .......

[Freefall]

They also realize that nobody is doing or has been doing for the last 60 years what they have suddenly interpreted to be the rules for helicopters as well.

 

The lack of common sense within Transport Canada only ever seems to get worse. Everyone knows it, and its sad. Instead of focusing on issues related to safety, they focus on anything they can possibly find to try and nail you, even if it means radically changing the way helicopters have worked across this country since the industry began.

[MEOB]

According to all of this we should just moth ball the whole industry and call her quits. If everyone listened to this foolishness we would have to pass out little foam earplugs and leave the headsets on the shelf in stores!! Guess I'm ok because I wear a helmet. But. In all seriousness how the **** would you operate with out breaking one of these bull$% Regs. Can't hold a camera really give me a break!! Bet half these fools have never worked with VFR helicopters or even seen one on till they started work with transport. Freewheel you have some serious patients my man keep up the great work!!! Myself however would probably have the OC and my licence gone by now for politely telling them where to go and how to get there!! This industry is going to be in a sad state within the next ten years its scary. Guess we'll all have to fly around in s92 so we have room to put Nan's purse under the seat.

[Skidz]

I just read Mr. Lemieux's replies to Chad's questions/comments. I tried to read between the lines, trying to put myself in his shoes. TC is a very political shop. There's no way any inspector will publicly disavow a colleague, no matter how lame their position. Reading his answers, I think I see the CYA angle clearly.

 

He very specifically states carry-on can't be held during take-off, landing and in turbulence. So lets, take the fireboss and his bag for example; If he stores it under the shelf in front of his feet (I'm talking Astar here) during takeoff and landing, I think that would comply. Same for rear pax if they stow their bags under their legs. As soon as the skids are off the ground, they can then do whatever they want with the stuff. Again, when coming in to land, if the pax stow their gear at/under their feet, it's legit. As far as turbulence goes, unless the captain turns on the seatbelt sign, their ain't none...

 

I sincerely think TC don't have a clue what to do with this hot potato.

 

I really feel for you guys. It really looks like someone's gunning for you guys...

[flingwinger]

I just read Mr. Lemieux's replies to Chad's questions/comments. I tried to read between the lines, trying to put myself in his shoes. TC is a very political shop. There's no way any inspector will publicly disavow a colleague, no matter how lame their position. Reading his answers, I think I see the CYA angle clearly.

 

He very specifically states carry-on can't be held during take-off, landing and in turbulence. So lets, take the fireboss and his bag for example; If he stores it under the shelf in front of his feet (I'm talking Astar here) during takeoff and landing, I think that would comply. Same for rear pax if they stow their bags under their legs. As soon as the skids are off the ground, they can then do whatever they want with the stuff. Again, when coming in to land, if the pax stow their gear at/under their feet, it's legit. As far as turbulence goes, unless the captain turns on the seatbelt sign, their ain't none...

 

I sincerely think TC don't have a clue what to do with this hot potato.

 

I really feel for you guys. It really looks like someone's gunning for you guys...

Yes but he also states that you can't have anything loose in the cabin.. Ie, under that tray is not an approved spot for cargo. You also can't strap gear to a seat by his 'interpretation', using only a seat belt. You must have another form of restraint approved by a DAR ( meaning you need a full on STC or LSTC for the cargo to seat restraining system.) they don't know their *** from a hole in the ground. Or in this case, an airbus 350 from an airbus a380.

[Helilog56]

And so an infant carried on board is secured how according to CARS....??!!??!?

[Fred Lewis]

Every pilot who holds a license and every chief pilot, operations manager and accountable executive has, by virtue of the certificates they hold and the positions they occupy, a moral obligation to uphold and obey the law. The rules regarding the restraint of cargo have been on the books for decades before the the CARs were enacted.

 

It is likely that every pilot in this country, myself included, has flown a countless number of times with cargo unsecured and that every operator has condoned the practice. No argument can justify this. We must resolve to never do it again.

 

We live in a civilized society. We cannot chose which rules we obey and which we do not. We may not like the rules and if so, we can work to change them. In the meantime, we must conform. To do otherwise is to be a boy, not a man.

 

Some of the replies to this topic are not only irrational, they are rude, disrespectful and verge on bullying. Members of the general public who read this forum must have serious reservations about helicopter culture and the people who compose it.

[helicopterjim]

Every pilot who holds a license and every chief pilot, operations manager and accountable executive has, by virtue of the certificates they hold and the positions they occupy, a moral obligation to uphold and obey the law. The rules regarding the restraint of cargo have been on the books for decades before the the CARs were enacted.

 

It is likely that every pilot in this country, myself included, has flown a countless number of times with cargo unsecured and that every operator has condoned the practice. No argument can justify this. We must resolve to never do it again.

 

We live in a civilized society. We cannot chose which rules we obey and which we do not. We may not like the rules and if so, we can work to change them. In the meantime, we must conform. To do otherwise is to be a boy, not a man.

 

Some of the replies to this topic are not only irrational, they are rude, disrespectful and verge on bullying. Members of the general public who read this forum must have serious reservations about helicopter culture and the people who compose it.

 

You have got to be kidding me ....

 

You are telling me to do as I am told ..... do not think .. just do as I am told.

 

You are telling me if I do not do this I am a boy ... not a man!

 

You are telling me if I speak out against this I am a bully

 

 

 

Fred Lewis ... my name is Jim Henderson.

 

 

 

 

F*@k off on all accounts