Jump to content

Carry-On Baggage Requirements


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Under CARs 602.86, Can a passenger carry a purse on their lap in a 702/703 helicopter flight in Canada?   Carry-on Baggage, Equipment and Cargo   602.86 (1) No person shall operate an aircraft wit

I would say they have been enforcing it at 705 level (for passenger compartment anyway). The thing is, there is actually a Carry-on Baggage regulation in the 705 CARs. No such regulation exists in 702

I also cc'd your friend Richard Pierce on many of my recent requests for clarification...I know what really goes on in our industry...this is an issue we are discussing with our legal council.

Posted Images

Does anyone know anything about the MBB (Eurocopter) BO 105 (like operated by the Governmwnt of Canada under the Coast Guard)?

 

The Bell 206 type certificate (under Max. Baggage) seems to approve Cargo in the entire Cockpit and Cabin (by referencing the Flight Manual Loading Schedule)

 

The MBB BO 105 type certificate (uner Maximum Baggage) states: in small baggage compartment 2o KG (44 lbs). I guess this means it is not approved for Carry-on/equipment/cargo in the cabin under 602.86 (a).

 

According to Recent guidance from TC they require DAR approved restraint method to meet 602.86 (B) requirement.

 

Does anyone know of any approved cargo restraint kits for the MBB BO 105?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pictures attached:

1)another canadian coast guard BO 105 (operated by Transport Canada) with yellow bag in cabin

2) passenger exiting cabin of Coast Guard BO 105 (operated by Transport Canada) with large briefcase (rotors turning).

How did he stow or restrain the carry-on baggage?

For sure that life raft should be safely stowed in the baggage compartment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yves Lemieux:

 

Transport Canada cant 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.

 

This may be true but I would expect TC to witness and verify compliance within TC's own air operations.

 

 

Check out this Arctic research video 2009 showing Coast guard MBB 105 (operated by Transport Canada) with rear cabin LOaDEd with carry-on baggage, cargo and equipment at 2:35 mark in the video. Restrained using what appears to be passenger shoulder harnesses.

 

According to many at TC there is more than one issue here...I disagree completely legal. I bet the Pilot in command also agrees with me...

 

 

Attached is a screenshot. The video link is below.

 

 

 

 

Check out this video on YouTube posted by Natural Resources Canada.

 

post-2403-0-21845700-1379279003_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the install of the life raft has an LSTC...that's why I asked if anyone knew about approved restraint systems for these aircraft.

 

I am pretty sure the load in the gateway to the arctic video isn't restrained in compliance though (according to TCs recent interpretation). I think most pilots with loads like this would use a cargo net in (aircraft like a-stars) in the commercial sector. Bell 206s offer significantly more separation between the rear cabin and cockpit. The Longranger in particular is pretty much a segregated cabin from the cockpit which protects the crew significantly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest problem is the word "Interpretation"...
It should not be an individuals "interpretation" of the intent of the law.

 

In the US they have a legal department at the FAA that produces "Interpretation" to all FAR's... These "Interpretations" are considered gospel in the US, and the "Interpretation does NOT vary by region to the extent it does in Canada.

 

We are standing at the step of another Audit, and the troops are already "sampling" training, so we are at the sim, with TC sampling 1 or 2 rides a day.

 

Now my "Interpretation" of "SAMPLING" is that if I go to the grocery store and try one or two or even three grapes out of a bag, it is considered "sampling" if I eat the whole bag, it is shoplifting...

 

I agree to some extent with what they are doing, but it is getting over the top. Back off, and go back to the way it used to be, the safety has obviously not improved. Perhaps they should look at their own AOC (Coastguard) a little first???

 

Cheers

W.

  • Like 1
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...