Important - Tc Releases Draft Of New Flight Duty Time Regulations

[Freewheel]

Sorry I meant to say Medium not intermediate

[chopterlol]

.

[Skidz]

I don't think anyone is rooting for the status quo. I think most of us agree that 42 & 5 is a thing of the past. I haven't done that myself since 2007. Not that employers haven't tried to have me do it...

 

What I'm saying is the proposed regs don't take into account the reality of flying in remote areas (or deployed operations as they call it). Is forcing a pilot to take a day off and sit in a tent in the middle of nowhere going to make operations safer ? I don't think so. While the new regs are pretty specific and detailed when it comes to airline ops, there are gaping holes in the specifics of operating in remote areas that leave wide open the opportunities for abuse, as Freewheel has pointed out, which will not really increase flight safety.

[Brian Jenner]

That's one element in these new regs where they've left the door wide open to abuse. The definition of time free from duty doesn't limit where this time free from duty can be taken. So are you saying you will be requiring your pilots to take days off in camp Chad ?

A day off used to be defined as a day without being assigned any duty. That could be a day in the field. While the new rules are not always limpid, they do include "standby" as FDT; and the new "Airport Stanby" says anywhere the operator requires a pilot to be, is standby ... usually but not necessarilly an aerodrome. So, it would seem quite reasonable, even inevitable, that the job sight will be considered standby; and therefor, days off on the job site will no longer meet the regulatory requirement for days off. I'm sure the airline pilots will agree with the principle in as much as a day off in a Paris hotel does not meet the regulatory requirement for days off. of course that means a pilot away from base is never off duty!

 

Lots of room for improvement in the writting of these rules.

 

On another point someone mentioned that "suitable accommodation" in relation to days off. "Suitable accomoddation" only applies to rest periods. That kind of reinforces the regulatory intent with regard to days off.

 

 

.

[Freewheel]

A day off used to be defined as a day without being assigned any duty. That could be a day in the field. While the new rules are not always limpid, they do include "standby" as FDT; and the new "Airport Stanby" says anywhere the operator requires a pilot to be, is standby ... usually but not necessarilly an aerodrome. So, it would seem quite reasonable, even inevitable, that the job sight will be considered standby; and therefor, days off on the job site will no longer meet the regulatory requirement for days off. I'm sure the airline pilots will agree with the principle in as much as a day off in a Paris hotel does not meet the regulatory requirement for days off. of course that means a pilot away from base is never off duty!

.

I'm sorry I don't see a definition for (or any reference to) "Day off" anywhere in the CARs (Current or proposed). In the proposed Regulations 700.35 says a pilot requires one single day "Free from Duty". ... There is no mention of accomodations for that period. By this reasoning a pilot would not be able to stay at a work camp overnight; it would also mean that a pilot would reach his weekly duty limit 2.5 days after his first duty assignment, wouldn't it? Is that what the intent of the rule was?

 

Lots of room for improvement in the writting of these rules.

 

On another point someone mentioned that "suitable accommodation" in relation to days off. "Suitable accomoddation" only applies to rest periods. That kind of reinforces the regulatory intent with regard to days off.

 

 

.

Correct me, if I'm wrong but suitable accomodation is the only accomodation requirement in the CARs. What regulatory intent with regards to days off? Where does it talk about "days off"? All I see is "Time Free From Duty" in 700.35 (which does include standby).

 

It all seems pretty vague to me. Unfortunately, the airline pilot who disagrees with my interpretation won't be there when I'm discussing it with my TC inspector (who will no doubt interpret it differently than the competition's inspector).

[Freewheel]

Just to clarify :"Duty includes standby". Surely the intent is so a pilot can be at a work location with accommodations (and not be considered on standby or on-duty).

[Brian Jenner]

I'm not saying anything about what I'LL be doing. I'm telling you what WILL happen in our industry.

There are currently quite a few operators and pilots who do this now regularly. I'd expect to happen more frequently under these proposed changes. Have you ever heard of an operator who mans an intermediate on long term MNR hire for an entire season with one pilot? A few maintenance and wheather days...and they make it work. It happens.

 

I would suggest that many pilots would be open a variety of options depending on their beleifs, wants and needs. I say again: Look around you. There are many pilots and operators who will do it (if that's what it takes)...particularily in this market. You call it abuse; I call it "what is Legal". Since they choose to leave the regulations open after years of discussion with scientific experts, I suspect the Science supports the fact that all you require to minimize the effects of fatigue is sufficient "time free from duty". That time can be taken anywhere in "Suitable Accomodations". I take this to mean that the working group feels "going home has nothing to do with the science of fatigue...". By the way I am not of this beleif. That is why we have tried to maintain 3/3 rotations for many years prior to these proposed changes.

 

The point of the Canadian Aviation Regulations is not to represent you from a labour standpoint (on your rights as an employee), but to ensure Safe Operations and minimum regulatory compliance standards.

I'm sorry I don't see a definition for (or any reference to) "Day off" anywhere in the CARs (Current or proposed). In the proposed Regulations 700.35 says a pilot requires one single day "Free from Duty". ... There is no mention of accomodations for that period. By this reasoning a pilot would not be able to stay at a work camp overnight; it would also mean that a pilot would reach his weekly duty limit 2.5 days after his first duty assignment, wouldn't it? Is that what the intent of the rule was?

 

 

Correct me, if I'm wrong but suitable accomodation is the only accomodation requirement in the CARs. What regulatory intent with regards to days off? Where does it talk about "days off"? All I see is "Time Free From Duty" in 700.35 (which does include standby).

 

It all seems pretty vague to me. Unfortunately, the airline pilot who disagrees with my interpretation won't be there when I'm discussing it with my TC inspector (who will no doubt interpret it differently than the competition's inspector).

Today 10:05: Freewheel talks about suitable accommodations in the same sentence as "time free from duty" (sometimes known, in the vernacular, as a day off) -

 

".... I suspect the "Science" supports the fact that all you require to minimize the effects of fatigue is sufficient "time free from duty". That time can be taken anywhere in "Suitable Accomodations". ..."

 

For my part, I say again, "suitable accommodation" is not related to days off (single day free from duty).

 

Now going back to the fundamental question at hand, you are quite right, there does not seem to be any obsticle to providing a "single day free from duty" in a mining camp or a Paris hotel. So, if the new rules are to provide a level playing field "single day free from duty" will need to be ammended, to inlude something to the effect that the "single day free from duty" can't be given in a bush camp or a 5 star hotel of the operator's choosing i.e "single day free from duty" means a time free from all duties and free from any practical requirement to be away from home base ...."

[Freewheel]

welcome back to the forums Brian. You may not be the President of HAC anymore, but IMHO., anyone with 25 years of debating with TC and is willing to comment openly and freely can add valuable insight in these forums. I know others who may not agree...but really Heli pilots can't agree on anything.

 

After all I've only been debating with them for 15 years.

[Freewheel]

Received this by e-mail from your replacement today:

 

Bulletin September 23, 2014

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

As you know, last Monday after more than 18 months of silence, Transport Canada issued a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) to the Flight & Duty Times Regulations (a Link to the NPA is set out below). All stakeholders have been given until October 3 2014, to comment at which point the comments will be reviewed and the Regulation will be slated for publication in Gazette I, for the formal comment period. No Association was given advance warning that these new proposals were looming, and their was NO dialogue with industry on the content of these regulations.

 

The NPAs are very similar to the proposals contained in the Fatigue Management Working Group Report. Virtually every Aviation Association in Canada (National and Regional with the exception of the National Airline Council of Canada - NACC) - earlier in the process, has proclaimed their opposition to these proposals in a joint submission to Transport Canada. HAC and our allied associations believe that the preamble to the NPAs is aggressively misleading, and grossly underestimates the impact that the proposal would have on the Commercial aviation community at all levels if they were to proceed forward in their existing form.

 

On Thursday of last week, allied associations met with the Minister of Transports Chief of Staff to express our concerns, and urged the Minister not to underestimate the damage that the the regulations in their current form would cause to the Commercial aviation community, or to underestimate the resolve of the Canadian commercial aviation community to oppose them. We made it clear that the proposals would cause extensive damage to our industry and to virtually all the other industries that we support including service to northern and remote areas, particularly in seasonal operations; to a Resource-based economy; to EMS and Offshore Operations, and to smaller aboriginal communities to name only a few. Furthermore, we believe that there is no safety case for the new proposals, and in many cases they run contrary to the fatigue-related science.

 

We have asked the Minister for more time to provide practical examples of the damage that the new proposals would have on our respective industries. We have also asked the Minister to ensure that the extension to the comment period includes feedback that operators will be able to provide at our Montreal Convention, November 7-9 2014. More importantly, we have also urged the Minister - rather than to move forward with the existing proposal - to work with the CAR 705 Community and move forward with new rules as they apply to airline operations, or scheduled international passenger-carrying airline operations, and to reconvene a new Working Group under leadership that that would be prepared to work with us to develop more practical changes to the existing fatigue-related Regulations that are better suited to the operation of helicopters and other segments of the Commercial aviation community. We believe that the current proposal will simply bring the regulations closer to the collective agreements currently in place at Canadas scheduled international commercial passenger carrying operators.

 

Today, your HAC Board of Directors considered this issue, and we are actively investigating a formal advocacy campaign using an Ottawa-based Government Relations firm. Between now and October 3rd, the allied Associations will be preparing a joint submission to the Minister, summarizing our objections and outlining the impact of the current proposals, and we invite the views of helicopter operators so that they might be included as part of that submission. We will include quotes from your observations on the proposed new regulations. Your electronic submission to fred.jones@h-a-c.ca, must be received prior to Monday September 29th, and it should include:

Examples of how the proposed regulations would affect your business, and if possible, how they would affect the businesses of your customers. Their views, as part of your submission, or directly-made to HAC would be most helpful, since they would illustrate from the source the effect that the proposed changes would have on different segments of the Canadian economy that we support.

Please include examples of how the proposed regulations would make it more difficult for your business to operate but not just from a cost perspective, but from the perspective of how crew changes would be required more frequently and the logistic challenges that they would present in remote areas of Canada.

Please present your views on how the demand-for and supply-of experienced flight crews in our industry would be affected.

Please also focus on the effect the proposed regulations would have on our industry in an unpredictable on-demand environment

Please provide examples of some of the challenges that crew members would face as they manage their own limits in the field and in an on-demand environment in the context of these considerably more complicated regulations

Please provide specific examples of how the proposed new rules would affect the cost of operations in our industry

Please provide examples of how you would crew different jobs under circumstance where the number of hours-flown is unpredictable, or predictably-low in the context of long Duty Days, particularly in Canadas north during extended daylight hours

Any other comments or observations on the proposed new regulations that you may have

In addition to our lobbying efforts here in Ottawa, HAC will be preparing Bullet Points for your use in letters and meetings with your local Member of Parliament. Do not underestimate the positive effect of your efforts on this front, particularly as the next Federal Election looms large. One of the strengths of our industry is the fact that our Operator Members and the Associates that support us are located in the four corners of Canada each with an MP, answerable to his/her constituents.

 

Comments that are provided will not be attributed to any individual or company, but may be attributed to operations in a specific industry-segment or geographic area of Canada.

 

We look forward to communicating with you on this critically important subject, as events unfold.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Fred L. Jones BA LLB

 

President and CEO

Helicopter Association of Canada

 

Bringing the Industry Together

 

130 Albert Street, Suite 500

 

Ottawa, Ontario

 

K1P 5G4

 

 

Office:

 

(613) 231-1110 x239

 

Cell:

 

(613) 884-1422

 

Fax:

 

(613) 369-5097

 

Website:

 

www.h-a-c.ca

 

 

 

 

HAC AGM, Convention & Trade Show

Sheraton Montreal

November 7-9 2014

 

 

We Proudly Salute our 2014 Corporate Sponsors

 

 

From: CARAC Feedback <CARRAC@tc.gc.ca>

Date: Monday, September 15, 2014 at 2:16 PM

To: CARAC Feedback <CARRAC@tc.gc.ca>

Subject: CARAC Notice of Activity #2014-019 - NPA - Flight Crew Fatigue Management / Avis d'activité CCRAC #2014-019 - APM - Gestion de la fatigue des équipages de conduite

 

Le français suit

 

Notice to CARAC members,

 

We have created a new activity (#2014-019) in the CARAC Activity Reporting System http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/NPA-APM/actr.aspx?id=13&aType=1〈=engon the topic of Flight Crew Fatigue Management that includes:

 

 

A Notice of Proposed Amendments Flight Crew Fatigue Management

 

In summary, these proposed amendments will enhance safety within flight operations by amending the current limitations associated with flight duty for flight crew members (pilots and flight engineers). These would have an impact on 702, 703, 704 and 705 operators.

 

A joint industry-TC working group looked at this issue and published a final report that can be found at: http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/npa-apm/tcctr.aspx?id=240〈=eng

 

We would appreciate your comments in writing to CARRAC@tc.gc.caby October 3, 2014.

 

Thank you.

[Freewheel]

Now going back to the fundamental question at hand, you are quite right, there does not seem to be any obsticle to providing a "single day free from duty" in a mining camp or a Paris hotel. So, if the new rules are to provide a level playing field "single day free from duty" will need to be ammended, to inlude something to the effect that the "single day free from duty" can't be given in a bush camp or a 5 star hotel of the operator's choosing i.e "single day free from duty" means a time free from all duties and free from any practical requirement to be away from home base ...."

Unfortunately, since you are not part of the airline association (just a Heli pilot), TC and the working group will likely ignore what you are saying. And herein lies the problem. They are not following their own principles of rule making. That is the biggest problem in transportation safety and regulations today: TC not following Their own rules. This is just one little example of issues with these rules; they should all be scrapped and they should start over. They were created contrary to their principles of rule making and their own mandate (and therefore have not taken all risks and hazards into account). Isn't that one of the reason the CARAC process was created?