Carry-On Baggage Requirements

[kjw57]

Wiggins you've hit the "nail on the head" TC might just as well see that the CAR's are amended to include;

 

"All helicopters are not approved for flight when the engine(s) are running"

[scottm]

ooops just realized im signed in under someone else name. delete delete delete

[Freewheel]

Then TC (and Mr. Lewis) have the nerve to refer to it as "willful disregard" of compliance with the CARs.

 

Firstly I don't think any of the operators identified believe they are in non-compliance and i apologize for dragging any other operator in go thus. Lets face it, it was anything but corporate espionage. in most cases the videos and pictures were taken from their own websites.

 

Secondly, how can any operator meet these compliance requirements and keep their doors open for business...especially if the company down the road is not held to the same standard by their inspectors.

The only person I have seen admit to "willfully non-compliance" is Mr. Lewis. While Mr. Lewis feels since he has advised his managers of the non-compliances he is absolved of responsibility somehow, the fact is he still flew the aircraft. Why? Likely because he feels he has no other choice. After all it is his livelihood. Just as it is mine and his operations managers as well. It's what feeds my little girls, so unless TC is willing to have clear discussions about how they have failed at monitoring this compliance, or change their interpretation it will continue.

 

Frankly, I think it's an insult to infer that our entire industry would willfully disregard the regulations. If that is indeed the case, then tell me, who's fault is that anywAy? Transport Canada's! They are failing at maintaining their compliance responsibilities, which in turn makes it impossible for every operator and pilot in the country to ensure they fulfill their compliance responsibilities.

[Freewheel]

Also Mr. Lemieux's threats of enforcement don't sound anything like an organization who is trying to promote a reporting culture and they certainly don't seem inline with TC's new enforcement policy.

 

This is exactly why everyone always bashes SMS and TC have made absolutely no progress towards implementation in our industry. Changes to the old school mentality and culture at TC have to come from within before anyone will take SMS seriously.

 

Just as an Accountable Executive has go lead by example and be accountable, so dies TC if SMS is ever going to work.

 

One of the basic benefits of SMS is it is supposed to give stakeholders at the forefront of operations a voice, and make the people at the top accountable. Sorry I just don't see that happening.

 

Ok, now you can go ahead and call me quack for defending SMS. I know it's coming from someone...

[Freewheel]

Minimum Cockpit Weight:

Bell 206B2: 150 lbs with Range Extender 170lbs

Bell 206 L : 170 lbs with Range Extender full 200 lbs

 

I guess it is time for everyone who flies a Bell 206 L and doesn't weigh 200 lbs to retire. Can anyone offer any means of compliance that is acceptable to ensure minimum in cockpit weight in this aircraft?

 

Since the average weight if a female in Canada is less than 200 lbs, I guess options are limited for women who wish to become pilots.

 

We could start filling pilots pockets with sand I guess....

 

"Common practice" is to secure ballast in the front seat with a seat belt. As shown in the attached photo, the survival kit acts as a great ballast. This practice is Standard Operating Orocedure at mist companies and Flight Training Units accross the country. This issue us not limited to Bell 206 helicopters.

[Freewheel]

Sorry, I misquoted the Flight Manual. I believe it actually says "Minimum Front Seat Weight"...even better. It also says:

 

Note: Ballast as required to maintain weight empty C of G within limits.

 

HOW?

 

Also worth noting, Bell 206 B3: Minimum Front Seat Weight: 170lbs

 

 

Many of my best pilots weigh less than 170 lbs

[Whitestone]

There have been very good points made here and i have been reading this thread with interest.

First off my thoughts on the whole "even a purse has to be secured", i find it funny that a woman can't hold her purse in her hands but can't she have an infant in her lap?

Then there was the comment about the speed or the severity of turbulent flight at which things would start flying around inside the cabin. I agree again, yikes, who would even be in the air if it were that turbulent? And the whole "in case of a crash" thing, again as someone mentioned, if ,God forbid, one were to plow it in at a speed where a purse would become a lethal (or otherwise) projectile, given the way most helicopters are constructed who really gives a F about a purse (or a CFS, or a POH, etc...?

I have always scratched my head about the approvals that were handed out by Government to allow these helicopters to fly. Seats that kill our backs (not a peep from Workers Compensation, but a secretary has to have an ergonomically correct chair...), nowhere to stow any of the mandated items legally (within reach of the pilot) so we have to magically comply with these rules. I carry a small library in my hat rack, "eph"ing ridiculous since first off in an emergency in a helicopter who has time to read a book much less those stupid checklists the are so hot about? And second even on the ground all summer long i have have not cracked a single one of those books, just dead weight to satisfy some dumb bureaucrats' idea of safety. Again, VFR helicopter is not Airline where you get to cruise at 10, 20 or 30,000 feet and have ten or 20 minutes to deal with an emergency and all kinds of space to keep those wonderful manuals and checklists.

The whole unsecured items in the cabin kind of crept up on me last season where first it was a few items and the crew kept adding and near the middle of the season it was getting out of hand with a rollover in mind so i put my foot down and now things are either strapped down (soft packs or items only in the cabin) or go either in the baggage compartment, basket or i make an extra trip either with internal or in a net.

I have to comment too about different rules for different operators (or the level of risk they are willing to assume or get away with). If operator "A" will stuff the cabin full of gear and people but operator "B" insists on making two trips, who do you think is going to get the contract? If you take that to an extreme, who will be around next year. And yes i get that that operator "A" is breaking the law and setting himself up for a lawsuit in the event that there is an accident where someone is trapped in the back and injured or killed as a result. The short term and more likely scenario is that operator "A" will be making money and operator "B" will be sitting idle. It's nice to talk about the hypothetical "what would you say to the judge" when the bank account is empty and you are couch surfing, you can't get blood from a stone.

This whole applying CAR's to VFR helicopter aviation across the board is ridiculous, there need to be exceptions like in TDG with limited access.

W.

[Freewheel]

Just watched an interesting episode of "Survivorman" on OLN. Check it out if you get a chance. He acts as a a lost person in the Northern Ontario bush and the OPP conduct a Search and Rescue.

 

At the end he climbs into the OPP's helicopter with at least 2 pack sacks a camera and a Tripod.

 

I wonder if this is "Willful non-compliance" of federal law by the Ontario Orovincial Police?Somehow I doubt it.

 

It's not just about money (the OPP are government funded).

 

It's about what you believe is legal. There is a culture of this type of operation in our industry. We were trained to believe this is compliant since the day we got our licences...

[Freewheel]

Survivorman Deep Woods

 

http://youtu.be/_jSb9ysajHk

[flingwinger]

Bring on the enforcement. I'll continue to secure baggage and gear in the cabin safely as I always have.