Carry-On Baggage Requirements

[Freewheel]

Where does it say anything about public transport in CARs. 602.86?

There is no reg about carry-on baggage in the 702/ 703 regs.

600 regs apply to to all flights don't they?

[Freewheel]

According to Yves Lemieux, "CAR 602.86 (1) applies equally to all segments of the aviation industry, including CAR 406, 604, 702, 703, 704, 705 operations. CAR 602.86 is a general operating rule."

[Freewheel]

No person shall OPERATE AN AIRCRAFT...is how 602.86 starts.

Is track and balancing a helicopter in flight not operating an aircraft?

[Freewheel]

By this reasoning I guess a pilot could take a fixed wing cargo aircraft full of cargo out for test flight without securing any of the cargo. That doesn't seem to safe considering how Center of Gravity and weight and balance affect the flight characteristics of these aircraft.

[Freewheel]

http://youtu.be/Hpv3h6bazXo

[Phil Croucher]

What I meant to say was, if it's company employees it's a company flight, i.e. private. There is often not the same interference factor.

 

Phil

[tin lizzie]

Yes but... what Freewheel is saying (and I agree) - the 600 series CARS apply to all aviation - private and otherwise, rev/non-rev.

 

This whole debacle is not about the fair and impartial application of Canadian Laws as they pertain to aviation. It seems more a popularity contest where the person with the most friends (Transport) wins.

 

WTF???!!! Over.

 

Cheers,

tin lizzie

[Freewheel]

What I meant to say was, if it's company employees it's a company flight, i.e. private. There is often not the same interference factor.

 

Phil

Choosing not enforce the regulation is one thing. Claiming something is compliant with the CARs, is a whole different thing. I have asked for a CARs reference (or an exemption) that verifies what he is saying but I have not been provided with anything to back up his claims.

 

What gives one man the right to apply his own rules. He has an obligation to apply the CARs are written. It's a slippery slope when we allow otherwise. Where does it end? This is the root cause of the regional disparity that exists when it comes to the application and enforcement if the CARs accross our country.

 

It leads to confusion amongst pilots, increased non-compliance and a is significant widespread safety concern in our industry.

 

If Mr. Lemieux feels the CARs require improvement he can go through the cooperative rule making process (CARAC) and have them amended or write an exemption. What are the risks associated with allowing anything else? How about rules being created by narrow minded people who have no idea of what the reality is in aviation or our industry. While these people may believe they are creating better/safer/simpler rules, they may be completely overlooking one (or many aspects) and actually creating rules that increase the overall risk.

 

As an example, as stated previously by another poster, hover exits are day to day operations in our industry. As a matter of fact Mr. Lemieux wrote the exemption that allows for hover exit for 703/704 operators in 1997. Cabin safety, being mostly airline people feel that disallowing purses and pack sacks in the cabin are creating a safer environment. After all in the airline world this would likely be true. However, now if you want to hover exit someone, and they need to bring items (such as lunch and supplies with them), they will need to access it from the cargo compartment. What dies this do to the overall risk. My fear is some low time pilot will eventually roll a machine onto someone one day just trying to ensure he is compliant.

 

Here is another one, under Mr. Lemieux's interpretation if you want to do an aerial photography flight in an AStar with door off, the only way to be legal is to fold up the back seats and secure the camera on floor using the downs (for takeoff and landing). Once you lift off, the passenger can take off his seat belt, walk around to the back untie his camera then return to front seat to take his photos. Before landing he can repeat the process to secure the item. So now we have people walking around in a very tight cabin with doors off. Which is riskier? After all he is capable of restraining the camera on his lap to prevent shifting during takeoff and landing.

 

Under Mr.lemieuxs interpretation you can also load all the loose items you want into the cabin as long as you do it in the hover then unload in the hover.

[Freewheel]

I should have stated you can load loose items in the cabin in the hover as long as you don't conduct a landing or takeoff and unload from the hover.

[Freewheel]

I should also mention we had conference call with Mr.Lemieux on speaker phone and 6 inspectors present last week. During the discussion one inspector admitted that he believed securing a survival kit to the front seat with a seat belt was legal. He said it was common place in the industry throughout his career to do this for ballast ing certain aircraft. He also said "if there is a new rule" he was not aware. Another inspector seemed surprised Mr.lemieux claimed carrying a camera during take-off and landing was noncompliance. He stated something like: The next time I see someone in a jetranger with a camera I guess I'll have to write them up to enforcement.

 

The call was recorded.