Carry-On Baggage Requirements

[helicopterjim]

"use whatever storage space is available in the aircraft and for the pilot to use his or her discretion as necessary to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft."

 

From another thread ...... the words of Transport. They make us the boss so I know what I'm going to do ....!!

[Freewheel]

Good Eye Jim. In fairness to Mr. Szwalek, he was responding to correspondence which was not posted. I thought it might add some context to his response:

E-mail sent November 18/15 (in response to his Nov. 9/15 Letter)

Good Evening Mr. Szwalek,

While I am hoping for further clarification on the official Interpretation you provided with regards to logging Flight Time and Air Time, this is not the case with regards to the Cabin Safety portion of your letter. Once again I don’t believe some of your statements are accurate from a strictly compliance point of view.

You stated:
"The carriage of cargo in the Bell 206 is permitted providing the cargo is “restrained so as to prevent them from shifting during movement of the aircraft on the surface and during take-off and landing and in-flight turbulence” as per CAR 602.86(1)( b ). Baggage and cargo transported in the cabin must be stowed and restrained in a way that ensures continued compliance with the applicable operating regulations (i.e. section 602.86) as well as the applicable airworthiness standards. Should there be compartments available in the aircraft for stowage of various items, they should be used accordingly and as appropriate."

CARs 602.86 (1) does not say AND between a) and ( b )…it says OR. That means either a) or ( b ) is required to be compliant. Not both. Adding that little 3 letter word makes a world of difference. You and the Cabin Safety Inspectors have both inferred that both conditions must be met in order to meet compliance requirements. I disagree and the English vocabulary is my defence.

602.86 states:
(1) No person shall operate an aircraft with carry-on baggage, equipment or cargo on board, unless the carry-on baggage, equipment and cargo are
(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;
OR,
( b ) restrained so as to prevent them from shifting during movement of the aircraft on the surface and during take-off, landing and in-flight turbulence.

The Bell 206 Type Certificate (H-92) Page 8 states:

Data Pertinent to all Models

Maximum Cargo See Rotorcraft Flight Manual for loading schedule.

The Bell 206B Flight Manual Section 4 Weight and Balance Data P. 4-1 states:

COCKPIT AND CABIN LOADING

…The passenger compartment contains 40 cubic feet of space and the cargo loading limit is 75 pounds per square foot, and 86 pounds per square foot when cargo service platform is installed.

When discussing, Bell 206 series helicopters, the entire cockpit and cabin is a “location that is certified in accordance with the aircraft type certificate in respect of the stowage of cargo” (as discussed in 602.86 (1) a)).

This aircraft was certified to carry cargo with no provisions for restraint or tie down included and there is no mention of restraining cargo in the Flight Manual. The Bell 206 helicopter type certification predates the current airworthiness standards for certification (in the CARs). I believe it was initially certified under CAR 6 and FAR 27.1561 standards.

In my opinion, from a minimum regulatory requirement standpoint, you are incorrect in stating that we must meet the requirements in 602.86 ( b ). We are not required to meet the requirements in 602.86 ( b ), because meet the requirement in 602.86 a)).

Most pilots do take measures to restrain items that may shift (by using seatbelts and other means), but not all items are at risk of shifting depending on their size and shape and how and where they are packed. As stated, pilots are limited with regards to the ability to restrain with approved devices because of the lower certification standards that existed at the time of certification.

Here’s a link to Type Certificate H-92:
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/nico-celn/c_d.aspx?lang=eng&amp%3baprv_num=H-92&amp%3bISU_NUM=26&amp%3bSTART_DATE=2014-03-28&amp%3bAUTH_DESC=&amp%3bDESC=&amp%3bFRGN_NUM=&amp%3baprv_type=TA&amp%3bPARTS_NUM=&amp%3bid_num=1094

I am happy, however, that you acknowledge that the PIC: “is expected to use situational judgement in ensuring that the helicopter is operated in compliance with the regulations and may use his/her discretion regarding smaller/hand-held items ie. personal cameras, cell phones, etc.”. Until now all correspondence we have received from the region and Cabin Safety stated that carriage of any smaller items without approved restraint mechanisms was non-compliant.

I look forward to you providing further clarification on the Flight Time issue.

Have a Nice day,


As you noted, Jim, he responded in a January 4/16 e-mail:

"As per your comments about CAR 602.86 and as per my most recent letter, I continue to encourage you to use whatever storage space is available in the aircraft and for the pilot to use his or her discretion as necessary to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft".

 

Now if we are discussing other aircraft types, like the EC30 (AS 350), for instance, this argument doesn't necessarily hold water because of it's certification. Now we are back to "what does "restrained" mean?" I don't think "tied down" is a synonym.

 

That is where "pilot discretion" must be allowed under 602.86. No discretion was allowed under the previous interpretations offered by his subordinates and cabin safety department. I think this is because there is much less room for "discretion" under airline rules (705 CARs) which was what they were trying to enforce when they told us a purse must be tied down. In their defense, most cabin safety people have mainly airline experience and training.

 

What's more disconcerting is the Associate Director (who was a helicopter pilot) backed up their claims. Particularly since they are overstating the regulatory requirements of 602.86 (as written) and trying to impose standards above "minimum regulatory requirements". In my opinion this is related to their complete reluctance to ever admit error or retract comments when discussing "minimum regulatory requirements"; which is their mandate to enforce (nothing more). This is an organizational culture issue and is contrary to Transport Canada's National Objective of SMS implementation (which is failing for that very reason).

 

Now, if you want to operate under these new extreme interpretations, to be legal, you could always tie down a purse (or a camera) on the back floor of the AS350 (which is approved for cargo when tied down), lift off to a 100 ft cruise, have your passenger in the front seat remove their seat belt (which is legal), open the door, so they can attempt to walk to the back to untie the item and return to their seat. This is what a strictly "compliance" mind set with no knowledge about helicopter operations leads to: increased risk.

[MEOB]

Man this is still on the go..... Glad I operate in the middle of Butt F#@$ Nowhere.....

[Freewheel]

Man this is still on the go..... Glad I operate in the middle of Butt F#@$ Nowhere.....

Said the majority of helicopter pilots in Canada

[jullian]

I recently took a flight half way across Canada on a major airline. I noticed that everyone has two pieces of carry-on baggage. The overhead bins were so full that I had a difficult time finding room to put my coat in one. I do not know how airlines are getting away with this as it amounts to several tons of hard shell luggage,(Which is not weighed) in plastic bins above the passengers heads. How can this be safer than a purse on the floor of a helicopter?

 

 

[just looking]

I recently took a flight half way across Canada on a major airline. I noticed that everyone has two pieces of carry-on baggage. The overhead bins were so full that I had a difficult time finding room to put my coat in one. I do not know how airlines are getting away with this as it amounts to several tons of hard shell luggage,(Which is not weighed) in plastic bins above the passengers heads. How can this be safer than a purse on the floor of a helicopter?

 

 

I agree. I doubt my brief case meets the carryon standards for weight. The airlines caused all their own grief. Long lines in Security because everyone packs more carryon then allowed. delayed loading because no one can find room for all their stuff. The airlines could elevate most of these issues. Rather then charging for checked bags they should start charging for carryon. You just have to watch people humped over with back packs that are so full there is no way they are legal size our limit. Let alone the carryon they are packing and with women their purse. I have only traveled with one airline that insures no one exceeds their limit. This was air new Zealand. My carryon suitcase was 24 lbs. They insisted i take my jacket out our check it in.

 

The rules are totally screwed.

[Freewheel]

I agree. I doubt my brief case meets the carryon standards for weight. The airlines caused all their own grief. Long lines in Security because everyone packs more carryon then allowed. delayed loading because no one can find room for all their stuff. The airlines could elevate most of these issues. Rather then charging for checked bags they should start charging for carryon. You just have to watch people humped over with back packs that are so full there is no way they are legal size our limit. Let alone the carryon they are packing and with women their purse. I have only traveled with one airline that insures no one exceeds their limit. This was air new Zealand. My carryon suitcase was 24 lbs. They insisted i take my jacket out our check it in.

 

The rules are totally screwed.

Yet you might find yourself defending where you carry your aircraft flight manual. I don't think that the rules are all that bad...it's the bureaucrats at the organization that enforces them that is the problem.

 

In all reality there are no cabin safety rules with regards to carry-on baggage, cargo and equipment for 702-703 commercial helicopter ops except for general operating rule 602.86 (which applies to all aviators including private flights). 705 airline ops on the other hand DO have specific rules....which TC seems to try and enforce on 702/703 ops; yet according to you airlines don't follow...now that is what's screwed!

[Freewheel]

And the next time your mechanic jumps in the front seat with his large strobe light and m/r balancing equipment ask yourself how that is legal under the interpretations offered by Transport Canada Ontario region...602.86 applies to all flights including maintenance flights.

[kiefk]

And the next time your mechanic jumps in the front seat with his large strobe light and m/r balancing equipment ask yourself how that is legal under the interpretations offered by Transport Canada Ontario region...602.86 applies to all flights including maintenance flights.

 

Here's a quick idea, probably a crap one Just put in your COM/SOP that small items (eg purses) may be worn in the cabin, but must be worn under the seat belt. Same with maint, IR and fire flights - 'crew will ensure that any baggage not required for the purposes of the flight should be secured accordingly'.

Then get TC to approve your COM, they'll completely miss the new verbage and your legal...

Try and bamboozle them at their own game....

 

Alternate Methods of Complying with the Regulation

Commercial & Business Aviation

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/commerce-manuals-guidance703-alternate-1866.htm

Where an air operator proposes a different means of conforming with a regulation or standard it will be assessed for acceptability against the following criteria:

1. Does it provide an equivalent level of safety?
2. Is it less or more restrictive than the "normal" means of compliance?
3. Does it address the same intent and issues as the "normal" means of compliance?
4. Does it utilize the most advanced or proven information available?

[Freewheel]

Here's another quick idea. When Transpprt Canada tells you something is non-compliant with the rules as written (and you disagree)....wait till a team of inspectors comes for your next inspection, then video tape yourself committing that act (they say is illegal) in their presence, then report yourself...Call their bluff.

 

Our chief pilot did just that with 5 Ontario Region Inspectors (1 cabin safety, 2 Operations and 2 airworthiness) in 2013.

 

Funny how the discussion doesn't come up anymore....