Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Freewheel

Important - Tc Releases Draft Of New Flight Duty Time Regulations

Recommended Posts

 

Lets be clear "No One" represents helicopter pilots in Canada!

 

 

To represent helicopter pilots in Canada would be virtually impossible because you couldn't get them to agree on anything for any length of time... :D

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to see the media get a hold of the issue, they have the means and ability to hold some feet to the fire and follow-up until someone resigns, responds to, or resolves the issues. Of course since we only represent ourselves and not a few hundred voters per flight, I don't think they (media or politicians) would be interested in the story.

 

The media might be very interested in telling the public that when they get into a helicopter the pilot may have just worked 14 hours a day for 41 days. It might make a good "How safe is Helicopter Flying" story!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media might be very interested in telling the public that when they get into a helicopter the pilot may have just worked 14 hours a day for 41 days. It might make a good "How safe is Helicopter Flying" story!

Which media are you referring too? It's not like it's a big secret ...

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't change, but what is being proposed is extreme. In our industry, (with all the specialty ops) I'd say that switching pilots out too frequently May increase risk to everyone involved.

 

I also believe that there are some occupational health and safety stats that would support this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To represent helicopter pilots in Canada would be virtually impossible because you couldn't get them to agree on anything for any length of time... :D

 

 

You are Right! The helicopter industry in Canada is a Little industry with little people.....who all think They at different !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian perhaps you need to come up for air. Kevin's schedule may be fine for Kevin, but it is far from "normal". Perhaps check the operator's directory for the number of single ship operators in Canada. Your down the nose look at the industry is not appreciated.

 

How do you propose the numerous single ship people who make a living flying 300 hours a year to make it if they have to do the 2 x 2 schedule?

 

How in ell are they going to regulate the "no days off away from home"? My lanta, I have seen numerous pilots take days off away from home,,,,in Mexico one of our guys brought his family there for his time off at the beach. Get special approval from TC to take your days off away from home. What if you leave your home to go on days off,,,oh my...Rediculous. You said it yourself, if you want to make a change then it should be done "realistically".

 

My guess is that you are here now only to stir things up and get the various opinions in the open the similar fashion as the local newspaper getting the locals fighting to read the rag. Start reading and listening to what is written with an open mind, as this is an open forum and you will reap what you sow.

 

 

What a bunch of crap! The only way to crew a single ship is to have even rotations .....Say 2 and 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To represent helicopter pilots in Canada would be virtually impossible because you couldn't get them to agree on anything for any length of time... :D

You are Right! The helicopter industry in Canada is a Little industry with little people.....who all think They at different !

Some of whom feel the need to belittle others for not sharing the same opinion as they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could you possibly increase risk by crewing in a fully rested pilot? That makes no sense at all...

If fatigue was the only Hazard that leads to accidents, I'd agree with you.

 

I'm looking at the big picture and considering whether or not additional hazards are created and/or risk is increased by implementing these rules.

For arguments sake: If I switch you out every day, I'm likely not replacing a pilot who is suffering from fatigue, so I have not reduced the risk from fatigue in any way. I may introduce other hazards by doing this, however.

 

On jobs where we do increase crew change too frequently, we could possibly be increasing other inherent human factors related risks: Every time a crew change occurs, on many jobs, there is an increased risk for the first few days as the pilot gets accustomed to the job requirements and the crew he is working with.

 

In our industry our passengers are like crew and we work as a team to ensure safety. Speaking for myself, I am usually just getting into the routine after week (espescially if I'm moving a new drill once or twice per week). An airline pilot’s job is much more routine and rarely changes. A helicopter pilot might do one work rotation on a diamond drill job slinging and assembling drills working closely with drillers on the ground (whom he has never met), then his next rotation could be on a forest fire working with provincial fire crews in limit visibility (with numerous aircraft in same vicinity) or a multitude of different scenarios.

 

When examining Occupational Workplace accidents, “studies have shown that people who are in their first 30 days, especially in places like warehousing, are at a higher risk of incurring a work injury.” Do you think this is because of fatigue? I highly doubt it...

 

Our SMS has also identified this trend, more incidents occur at the beginning of a rotation than any other time. Generally, it takes a few days to become accustomed to the job requirements, specific proficiencies and communications with ground crew, etc..

 

I'm also evaluating the economic risks. I get a kick out of those that try to separate the economics and the safety aspect of this discussion. The two are inherently linked; IMHO, one should not be discussed without the other. You hear TC say it all the time: "“A strong SMS can lead to economic benefits because safety and economic performance are linked. There are direct and indirect cost savings when accidents are prevented, because accident clean-up is costly and shutdowns cause lost revenues. In short, safety is good for business."

Conversely, while safety is good for business, I would argue, business is also good for safety.

 

The fact is safety has a significant day to day cost. Replacement of aging equipment, investment in new equipment and technological advances, personnel, training, safety management, innovation, implementation of safety initiatives and corrective actions all come at a cost. When a business has economic difficulty, they are much less likely to invest in safety. Generally, budget cutbacks and layoffs occur reducing the resources to meet safety goals. I would assume this is why many of the aviation safety auditors for some of our major customers request copies of our “Financial Statements.

 

Just my opinion...have a nice weekend.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...