Carry-On Baggage Requirements

[Fred Lewis]

Please post this recording so we may all hear it.

[Freewheel]

 

The call was recorded.

 

Please post this recording so we may all hear it.

 

Ha! You always manage to make me laugh Fred. My intention is not to humiliate anyone. We may post it one day if we feel appropriate at the time but I think we'll keep it to ourselves for now.

[Freewheel]

 

Looks like this operator runs a safe operation and offers an amazing experience. There is no better way to see (or video) our beautiful country than by helicopter.

[Freewheel]

Looks like this operator runs a safe operation and offers an amazing experience. There is no better way to see (or video) our beautiful country than by helicopter.

Looks like something my kids would love. I might have to book a trip. I suspect it comes at a significant cost. I hope they allow us to bring our cameras and a small bag in the cabin ( as in this case ). It would just make the trip that much more enjoyable and memorable.

 

How many people do you think would reconsider a trip like this if they couldn't?

[Freewheel]

By the look of the gallery at Pemberton Fish Finder, they allow more than just cameras and one small bag. Coolers are also acceptable. See gallery or attached photo.

 

http://pembertonfishfinder.com/helifishing.php

 

I would suggest that if they were required to abide by the interpretation of CAR 602.86 as we are being given in Ontario, the cost of the service they offer would at least double since it would mean more required trips to maintain compliance are provide the same experience. This is exactly what will happen to our clients if we start operating as per the interpretation given by TC.

 

The Canadian charter of rights guarantees that every individual is equal under the law and shall receive equal protection and benefit of the law. It seems that air taxi passengers on luxury helifishing trips in BC are allowed to operate this way, but the air taxi passengers/clients in First Nations communities (that require helicopters as essential services for part of the year) are not receiving the same benefit under the law. The Jurisdiction is clearly federal and the law applies equally from one region to the next.

 

Vice versa, if this type of cabin loading truly is in violation of the law (and a serious safety concern), then air taxi passengers on luxury fishing trips are not receiving the same protection under the law as the First Nations people of the James Bay coast.

[Lakelseair]

Freewheel

 

There might be more appropriate ways of bringing these issues to Transport Canada's attention than posting pictures of other operators aircraft on a helicopter forum.

 

I don't disagree that everyone should play on a level playing field but have some couth.

[Harmonic_Vibe]

On the other hand these operators have posted these videos and pics publicly. Freewheel, If you find one of me letting somebody hold their camera or purse on their lap please feel free to post it. I have done it and will do it again.

 

People blindly complying with stupid laws lead to things like Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (I'm not kidding). Stupid laws get changed by people that stand up and say "I'm mad as **** and I'm not going to take it anymore!!"... That's from the great movie Network.

 

TC is so far out of tune with VFR utility ops in fixed wing as well as helicopters, it's like they're on a different planet. Once again the "one size fits all" approach.

 

And Fred, if you want to hear the conversation the boys at Expedition had with TC around this issue just download the Abbot and Costello "Who's on First" routine...

 

HV

[Freewheel]

Freewheel

 

There might be more appropriate ways of bringing these issues to Transport Canada's attention than posting pictures of other operators aircraft on a helicopter forum.

 

I don't disagree that everyone should play on a level playing field but have some couth.

I have tried the more appropriate "formal mechanisms" for bringing issues to Transport Canada. It's called the CAIRs and it doesn't work. As a matter of fact, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Something TC put in place to pay SMS "lip service". Until they make serious changes to their organization and culture within it will never be effective. Have a look at the post "__________" put on the flight time forum today. It was nice of them to point out that the issue he reported had little value. He also had to follow up twice to get them to reply (well past their own service standards). This is not how you promote a reporting culture. They also provide no real corrective actions to an issue they acknowledge exists.

 

It seems the beaurocrats are more interested in tweeting these days. just ask the media how the minister of trandport Lisa raitt or any of harpers government reach the masses these days. Twitter. Since they appreciate social networking so much (and only pay lip service to their own systems) we figured we'd take a page out of their play book.

 

As for the photos and videos of other operators, I am hardly hanging our in the bushes behind their facilities. These were found by simple random google search. All these items are being used by operators as marketing material for their own benefit. In this case they obviously feel that showing the cargo capabilities to their clientel was important. After all we are all in the business of moving people and cargo. I don't believe they are violating the CARs; if they do then maybe they should remove the photos and videos showing "willful noncomliance".

 

This is not a game and our business is significantly affected. It is also indicative of much larger issues. TC is stepping beyond its rights and implementing rules that conflict with what the CARs say.

[Freewheel]

Regional disparity is the much larger issue here:

 

Here is an HAC newsletter from 2005 that explains the issue that has been identified for many years. It seems to be getting worse not better.

 

Volume 2, Edition 9 Monday, April 4, 2005

 

 

Tribunal Decision

Puts Regional Disparity

On Track for National Uniformity

 

 

CARs and their incorporated standards are made by Transport Canada National Authorities, with industry input through the Co-operative Rule Making Process called CARAC. The result is very often Regulation by Objective which allows for different solutions in different operations.

 

Unfortunately, regional TC officials find CARs imperfect and/or difficult to enforce. Intent on making the rules better/safer/simpler, they sometimes impose better/safer standards that frequently negate the subtleties gained through Co-operative Rule Making. Simpler standards for their part usually means one size fits all which contradict the principles of Regulation by Objective.

 

Regional Disparity doesnt just challenge national objectives, it is contrary to principles that sustain our system of government. First of all because the Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees that every individual in Canada is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law no matter where they are. Secondly, because the regulations impose on regional authorities the obligation to issue or amend documents based on compliance with CARs, as written.

 

Regional Disparity is frustrating for operators who must deal with different rules in different regions, with the competitive disequilibrium that often ensues and with the added costs that frequently generated by better/safer/simpler standards. The phenomenon is also frustrating for TC Functional Authorities who put a lot of work into developing national standards.

 

After years of unsuccessful attempts by Ottawa to discourage Regional Disparity, operators have recently been empowered to do the job themselves. Since June 30, 2003, the Aeronautics Act allows for Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) review of a refusal to issue or amend a Canadian Aviation Document. Faced with the obligation to explain their decisions before an independent third party, Regional Officials will now find that withholding their approval is no longer an effective tool for imposing local standards.

 

In December 2004, for the first time, HAC appeared before the TATC representing an Air Operator whos operations manual amendment did not receive TC approval. Local officials found the Transportation of Dangerous Goods amendment to be unacceptable because it was not identical to the Generic TDG Manual. Among many deficiencies of similar nature the manual lacked a section specifying that Cabin Crew Procedures are Not applicable to the operation of a Jet Ranger.

 

The Association argued that the Ministers refusal to approve the amendment, as submitted, was non-compliant with article 6.72 of the Aeronautics Act, in as much as:

 

i) the Generic TDG Manual is not an officially incorporated CARs standard;

 

ii) withholding approval of the amendment was tantamount to a refusal to amend;

 

iii) the operator was not provided written notice detailing the grounds for refusal;

 

iv) the operator was not advised that the refusal to approve the ops manual amendment could be contested before the TATC.

 

In its recent decision the TATC concluded that it is not necessary for a dangerous goods chapter to adhere exactly to the generic chapter. Rather, an operations manual is required to contain procedures for the carriage of dangerous goods that are applicable to the companys operation.

 

The Tribunal also found that by insisting that the applicant follow the generic chapter, the Minister for all practical purposes refused to issue or amend a Canadian Aviation Document without providing sufficient grounds for doing so.

 

The Tribunal referred the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration in the light of its findings and with the warning that should the Minister decide to maintain his refusal he is obliged to indicate, in writing to the applicant, the conditions that are not met or fulfilled.

 

In practical terms the TATC decision puts Regional Disparity on track for national uniformity. With sufficient impetus through operator complaints, TATC benchmarking will eventually take a load off the shoulders of regional authorities who felt obliged to make CARs better/safer/simpler.

 

www.h-a-c.ca

We proudly salute our 2005 Corporate Sponsors

ACROHELIPRO Global Services, Agusta Aerospace, Aon Reed Stenhouse,

Bell Helicopter Canada, Eurocopter Canada, Marsh Canada,

Pratt & Whitney Canada, Rolls-Royce, Standard Aero, Turbomeca Canada Inc.

 

 

This is exactly what is going on in this case, as well as the case of Carry-on Baggage Requirements being given by TC Cabin Safety Ontario region (as discussed in the following forum: http://forums.vertic...ic=21819&page=1

 

Inspectors are trying to enforce better/safer/simpler rules. They have no right to do this and are doing more harm than good. There are processes in place to improve the rules if they feel it is needed. They are trying to bypass this step. Much like a cop handing out speeding tickets based on what he feels us safe(despite what the speed limit says)

[Freewheel]

Freewheel

 

There might be more appropriate ways of bringing these issues to Transport Canada's attention than posting pictures of other operators aircraft on a helicopter forum.

 

I don't disagree that everyone should play on a level playing field but have some couth.

Easy to say for you sitting over in BC. What does your inspector about carrying cameras And purses in the cabin?

 

Here is former president of HAC discussing this issue in Helicopters Magazine:

 

One-on-One: Brian Jenner, H.A.C. president

The industry is on an upswing as Canadas industry gathers in Vancouver for the HAC annual convention and trade show.

 

Is everything working on the regulatory front?

 

I sit and wonder sometimes. From 1992 to 1997 I worked with Transport Canada to develop CARs. All that work kept a lot of public servants busy too. Today there are still as many public servants in the Department as there were when we started on that massive endeavour. You have to ask yourself, what are they doing now that the new regulatory structure has been in place for 9 years?

 

You also have to wonder what the CARs process was for. All that work so operators could write manuals to allow their employees to do their job safely in the context of their own operation. But the first thing Transport Canada did after writing CARs was to write generic manuals that would make all operations equally easy to evaluate and control. That contradicts the process.

 

A common complaint from both rotary and fixed-wing operators is the inconsistency with which Transport Canada operates in different parts of the country. Does that still exist?

The phenomenon is generally referred to as Regional Disparity. One region is enforcing the rules differently to another. In fact, it happens within regions from one office or one inspector to another. It also happens on a national scale where a new generation of public servants sometimes establishes Policy Letters and Staff Instructions that contradict the standards incorporated into CARs. I call it CARs Plus. And depending on the region, the inspector, the subject, you can have CARs Plus, Plus.

 

So what is the solution?

 

There is some good news. We have just received a decision from the Civil Aviation Tribunal concerning an operators transportation of dangerous goods manual. Transport Canada had sent it back saying it couldnt be approved because it didn't match the general manual. Missing were things like a chapter on cabin crew for a JetRanger operation. There were about 20 differences of a similar nature that Transport Canada insisted needed correcting before approving the manual.

 

The operator allowed HAC to take the matter to court. The Tribunal told TC that an operations manual could not be evaluated based on its concordance with generic manuals but rather based on whether or not they provide sufficient guidance for employees to carry out their duties safely in the context of each particular operation.

 

The decision puts TC on notice that amendments can no longer be refused based on non compliance with CARs Plus. It was an indisputable win for Regulation by Objective and will serve as a tool for bringing Regional Disparity under control.

 

I think we have sent out a strong signal. The law is the law for the bureaucracy as well as the operator. From now on local, regional and national disparity will no longer be immune to review. So as an Association we will be encouraging operators to amend their manuals to get ride of some of the CARs Plus irritants. TC will have the choice between approving such changes and defending their refusals before the Tribunal.

 

In all fairness, I have to admit that CARs Plus is a natural and well-intentioned reaction of public servants who are not sure when to say approved. The review process will set some new bench marks that will make the decisions easier.