Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Freewheel

Carry-On Baggage Requirements

Recommended Posts

So explain this to me Mr Lewis, how the **** do you tell a customer that is paying $1800 an hour let's use transport Canada for the customer who is going to take picture or video of a accident scene or a new heli site to be approved (happens all the time). He gets in with his camera in hand as you do your final walk around you take the camera and place it in the baggage compartment and say sorry this has to be stored for take off and landing......once in the air you can have it back. So then what tell them to scurry down the skid to the baggage in flight..... But it's ok I'm being a MAN!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hi Fred,

 

Your choice to admit to flying with unsecured items in the cabin in one paragraph and lecturing us on the function of society is condescending and offensive. I know that you are saying that we as adults have to make the correct choices but your wording is less than ideal.

 

Is it not our duty as a member of a democratic state to improve on rules and regulations rather and blindly going forth and obeying when they are antiquated? We know of a few instances where blindly following direction rather than asking quesitons has led to some of the most terrible atrocities in history. I know that unsecured items is a far stretch from genocide but the fact remains that we have a right to stand up and express ourselves.

 

TC has chosen to downsize their involvement in the industry due to changing times however they are not changing the rules to reflect the new age. We are becoming more and more separate from the fixed wing world yet continue to be measured by the same stick....not right.

 

Safe flying to all as the weather changes this fall.

 

Cheers,

 

R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is and always will be that the regulations are as specific as possible but with so many aircraft types and so many different equipment options and so many different companies it would be impossible to cover all eventualities. Then, the application of these broad regulations to all aircraft exacerbates the entire situation.

 

Many small aircraft have no stowage that is accessible from the seats and no way to move around the aircraft in flight, let alone access stowed items. Does this mean the framers of the regulations intended that no pictures ever be taken by passengers in small planes? No of course not. It boils down to alternate means of compliance. TC is NOT going to a campaign fire with ticket books in hand to start writing people up for flying with hand held IR cameras or fire boss cases or anything else. If common sense is followed and safety can be assured (use of internal nets and belts, etc) that is all they will be looking for. TC ignores untenable regulations the same way every other regulator and governing body in the world does. And thank god for that... I just wish it was more often...

 

And Fred, where do you get off telling us that some member's responses were insulting and then go on to say that we're boys not men unless we follow the rules as written? Was Thoreau a boy? Ghandi? Wallenberg? Solzhenitsyn? King?

 

Methinks not...

 

You said it yourself that you and most of us have flown with "unsecured cargo" which is an admission of non-compliance with rules and basic safety tenets. I do not fly with unsecured cargo. The issue here is that we can "secure" the so-called cargo but not in full compliance with CAR 602.86... the same regulation that goes on to reference the overhead video screens... you know, the ones that always bump you in the head in your Longranger???

 

I was once asked to fly a machine from Edmonton to the high arctic, a distance of approximately 1500 nautical miles as I recall. I was to be by myself. No engineer or pax. The kicker was that as I was leaving an oversight was discovered. The ELT was calendared out. You cannot legally leave an aerodrome where repair or replacement could be effected so they were going to remove the ELT. There were no replacements available (it was a weekend) but I was told not to worry, as I could legally fly with no ELT for 90 days (I believe it's 30 now), as long as the dash was placarded.

 

I informed everyone within earshot that I was going nowhere without the ELT (this was before sat tracking or I would not have cared anywhere near as much) and people were quite insistent I had to go but couldn't take the ELT with me.

 

Does this make sense? An ELT is fine one day but not the next due to a date on a calendar? The regulations, which are based on safety, allowed me to fly with a sticky note on the dash saying I had no ELT but i couldn't take it with me to the camp and then send it back... that would be illegal... Is this not the epitome of regulation getting in the way of real safety and common sense??

 

3 guesses as to what I did with the ELT and the first two don't count!

 

HV

 

P.S. Eff you Heli-Zero and your so-competent lawyer Blow Fan Gleeson!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is being polluted with more and more misguided individuals . Fortunately this misinterpretation of a regulation is not enforceable. It is a little like spitting on the sidewalk. Take care of the things that are important and ignore this shite. It is the proverbial storm in a teacup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is being polluted with more and more misguided individuals . Fortunately this misinterpretation of a regulation is not enforceable. It is a little like spitting on the sidewalk. Take care of the things that are important and ignore this shite. It is the proverbial storm in a teacup.

Ignoring it may work...until the unlikely event you are involved in an accident and TC/insurance companies/lawyers claim you were in "willful non-compliance". There is your ultimate storm in a tea cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we already know and has become painfully obvious is that the Regulations are not a one size fits all and that TC enforcing the Regs which are being talked about in this thread borders on lunacy. I get all that about the Law and following it and their mandate, indeed their duty to enforce it but for the love of Pete... There is a difference between having passengers in the machine with a headset hanging on a hook and passengers in the machine with cinder blocks laying about. Also is there a history of people being killed by a purse in a helicopter?
How does one go about changing these Regs? It comes back to having a voice AND political/financial clout.
Some of you keep mocking Fred about a pilots association but what were we when we signed that petition? The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" once again holds true. Hey it's only Expedition getting reamed by TC, LOL. "Butt" who will it be next time?

Same thing holds true with purchasing from the big vendors, all you little guys going to them with your cap in hand and taking the crumbs. How about forming a purchasing co-op? Write up a service contract made up of 10 or 15 small companies and present it to a vendor... hmmmm...... There are other sectors of industry where small businesses have banded together to compete with the box stores.

 

W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How does one go about changing these Regs?

 

W.

 

I am not looking to change the regulation.

 

If I read 602.86, and interpret it in "plain language" as it was intended, I think it is quite workable and allows for the helicopter operations we are discussing. This is a general operating rule that covers all of aviation. The people who wrote the regulations likely understood that it had to cover a very wide range of operations in a variety of sectors and aircraft. That is why it is left open and not as specific as many would like.

 

705 airline regulations have specific requirements for Carry-on baggage and restraint because the regulators felt a need to be more specific and impose stricter standards for airline operations. The 705 regs actually state that the means of restraint must by approved. Nowhere in 602 does it say that. Furthermore it says to prevent from shifting during takeoff, landing and turbulence...not in the event of an impact with terrain.

 

If there was an intent to enforce the airline standards on 702/703 helicopter operations to this standard then there should be a regulation that specifically states just that.

 

I feel if anyone needs to change the regulations to meet their current agenda, it is Transport Canada. I think they feel that 602.86 may be a little weak and are imposing stricter levels of compliance than was intended.

 

Are we to believe that all the past inspectors who let this slide were willfully non- compliant and simply chose to ignore it? I bet many agree that these operations are compliant with 602.86.

 

Regardless, of whether my interpretation is not correct We have obviously identified a systemic issue and a culture. If things are to improve it requires more than individual threats of enforcement and findings to few operators. Changing the culture and correcting the issue requires long term corrective actions (by TC) against the root cause. They can't continue ignoring it...they are not fulfilling their responsibility. I had to scream and shout just to get a response to basic questions...they were trying to ignore it.

 

I shouldn't require an association to receive answers to basic questions from TC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...