2 Hours Averaged ?

[helicopterjim]

Somewhere, years ago it seems, I mentioned drones. Not one person mentioned it in all that has gone by since.

 

If drones replace us ..... so be it.

 

When that day comes ..... do you really want to be a pilot anymore?

[bh205]

there are a couple of companies out there that charge the client more than 2 a day and also pay the crews 4 a day. but due to the "others" charging less per hour these companies seem to be getting less work.

Seems like it is the "large" share holder type companies that are driving the rates down and paying the crews chump.

[Maury]

In reality Jim, the drone thing in all likelihood won't affect those of us that have been around for a while as I would imagine we will be either retired or close to it when the industry is really affected.

 

For all you others, think of this. There have been few new uses for helicopters in the last 5-10 years. Can the same be said about drones? So powerline patrols will be done by drones, undoubtedly pipelines, and many other tasks now being done by those pesky and hugely expensive helicopters. So how many helicopter hours in Canada do you think will disappear just for those two things? Can the operators afford to lose those hours? Rather than operators making their voices heard to industry and government, who actually pay them, who do you think the operator is going to go to bring his costs down? The path of least resistance - pilots.

 

And for those from the various forestries that may read these posts, when the operators start to drop, and they will, who is going to save your towns when the big fire seasons come again?

[Guest driver81]

http://helihub.com/2014/05/30/kaarbontech-wins-uk-caa-approval-for-first-unmanned-aerial-survey-in-london-airspace/

[Skidz]

As far as drones go, realistically speaking in the near term, they will replace helicopters mainly in and around built up areas. You won't see drones doing long-haul powerline and pipeline patrols. Only the military has the hardened communications systems required for operating drones over long distances. No doubt it will happen eventually for civilian drones, but that is still several years away, and the costs of deploying those communications systems are going to be huge. I'm really not that worried about it for now...

[everlast]

We are getting 3 hr mins non averaged at this outfit for sitting in the bush all day which isn't enough in my opinion, however it's work right now, Transcanada pipeline seems to be the only work around right now . I couldn't imagine doing it for 2 hrs averaged,

[Skidz]

We are getting 3 hr mins non averaged at this outfit for sitting in the bush all day which isn't enough in my opinion, however it's work right now, Transcanada pipeline seems to be the only work around right now . I couldn't imagine doing it for 2 hrs averaged,

 

By current standards you're doing very well. Any non-averaged mins are a rare commodity right now...

[Freewheel]

I went back and read what Fred wrote and I didn't see anything written on page 8 or any other page that was even remotely bullying. In fact, maybe we should be using harassment instead - bullying sounds a little high schoolish.

 

I really do not want to get into whole carry-on baggage thing, but reading a number of posts there, it was always "we have always done it this way. How else are we supposed to do it? And on and on and on.

 

I got news for you guys, The CAR's are law, whether you agree, whether some of the rules are stupid, whether some of the rules are fixed wing based, DOES NOT MATTER IN A COURT OF LAW. When you are getting your *** sued because of a minute lack of attention, or whatever, you will not be able to say, "Oh it is a stupid law based on airplanes" or "well this is what we all do". That is all hearsay. The lawyer or judge won't know anything about helicopters or aviation, but they do know about the law. We have all read the accident reports where the most trivial discrepancy that had absolutely nothing to do with the pilot flying into a mountain, are all brought out.

 

And as I am writing this, it points to another reason for an association. Why are the pilots worrying about what the customer carries on board, apart from the obvious? Let the forestry go to the government and say that they are unable to do their work because all the pilots stuck together and decided NOT TO BREAK THE LAW COLLECTIVELY. Even better, how about this. Ask your forestry guy with the ping pong machine or whatever, to sign something saying that he realizes he is breaking the law, and will not have any claim against the pilot and company or something like that - it doesn't matter, it would never hold up in a court of law but it may make someone pay attention. Or, ask your guy if he regularly breaks the law, while working for forestry, and if he says no, then ask him why he is asking you to do so. If the forestry guy then goes to the next helicopter down the line, and jumps in and flies away, go immediately to whoever is the safety officer of the project and demand an explanation, when it was pointed out to be illegal, why it is okay for the forestry to break the law.

If you are so certain about what the LAW says, then answer me this: why is it that most of us are operating the same way as we always did with regards to carry-on baggage, equipment and cargo in the cabin (and Transport Canada has done nothing)? They are fully aware of what goes in our industry. The very same LAW you discuss imposes on regional Transport Canada authorities the obligation to enforce the CARs, as written.

[Maury]

And your point is? Why are you asking me? Shouldn't you be asking the "law and order" government? Or Transport Canada? Better yet, as you are no doubt associated with an upstanding operation, why are you not demanding that Transport send out inspectors when your competition is BREAKING THE LAW. Why do you not ask HAC their opinion on whether the CAR's are law, and whether you are breaking it by having unsecured cargo in the cabin? Why are you not asking the OMNR to either get the law changed, or abide by it. Do you think the OMNR is going to demand that their employees break the law? I would love to see what the government lawyers would say about that. In fact, I am sure that there are people from the OMNR reading these posts, I would be interested to hear what you have to say. And your upstanding company is going to back up the pilot 100% when they have that unfortunate accident where one of your passengers was injured or killed when hit by a flying whatever in the cockpit.

 

".........why is it that most of us are operating the same we always did with regards to carry-on baggage........? And I would say a lot more than just carry-on baggage. That is the majority of the industry in a nutshell. Those companies that are progressive are having to deal with companies like yours and that is holding them back. I think that the crews are fed up with it!

[R0T0R]

Is a good thing you don't identify yourself Maury. You are doing a stand up job of painting a target on your back like this. Freewheel and his company are trying to change things and if you could read his posts you would see that he did talk to TC about other operators practices.