New Fatigue Regulations

[LABO441]

The Sh!t barometer is dropping, ran.

[Icewind]

Speaking only to the ramifications of Aerial Work/Air Taxi definitions, the insurance side is relevant (liability exposure).  When an aircraft is chartered by a company or agency to transport the charterer's employees there is reduced liability exposure to the air operator (e.g. drillers or fire fighters).  When the aircraft is chartered by a company to transport their clients/customers, the liability exposure increases significantly (e.g. the public - tourists or skiers).  In the first example there is the ability (and responsibility) of the charterer to train their employees and to control the operation - aerial work.  In the second example, the operation may be controllable but the ability to train customers is unrealistic and increases the risks/liability - air taxi.  I believe that historically this sort of thinking was part of Transport Canada considerations.  Now ? ? ?

[Freewheel]

On 12/27/2022 at 5:03 PM, simpleton said:

Any given leg of a flight can only operate under a single CARs ruleset at a time.

True.This is why I bring up “dual purpose” flights

On 12/28/2022 at 3:16 PM, simpleton said:

One easy example is a fire contract machine being used for tower servicing. If I have nothing but a load of groceries and freight onboard and/or maybe a person to do inspection/servicing work on that tower location, then that is moving persons or cargo between two points, and thus falls under CARs 703 regs for air taxi. Some may argue that this flight is in support of fire suppression activities, and thus 702 category work, but it is really not.

If I was a 702 only operator, and accepted the flight scenario made above, and an accident occurred, I don't think Transport Canada is going to be defending the operators position in court, even though their own inspectors for years have made off-the-cuff remarks for years that all forestry work is 702. 

"Forest Fire Management" and "Flying for Forestry" do not mean the exact same thing. 

If the agency in charge of Forest Fire Management told you it was also a detection flightI , or “loaded patrol” (dual purpose), I  would have no issue with calling it a 702 flight. Since Forest Fire Management involves the detection, suppression and overall management of fires, it would seem like wise and efficient use of aircraft to be honest. I don’t think I would need TC to defend my position in court if the client concurred that it was dual purpose and everyone was told to look for smoke. They already pay fixed wing aircraft to fly all day throughout the fire season conducting detection flights, and many helicopter flights to service towers are conducted at 500 and below already, so you benefit with a low level inspection, with no increased risk due to,low,level flight. I think it’s already implied (at the very least) that aircraft (and MNR fire personnel) on hire should be looking for fires/smoke; isn’t that why they give you the fire/smoke report form in the OMNR Map kit?

On 1/6/2023 at 4:18 PM, simpleton said:

I would say, by the letter of the law, that if the crews need to be bumped out for the day to the drill location, but the drill or support gear is not actually scheduled to be slung that day, then it is not a flight tied directly to active aerial work, and thus would need to be flown under 703 rules to bump the crews in and out in that particular scenario. Any particular legs flight rules are dependent on it's intended purpose.

A drill support job is not likely to be considered aerial work 100% of the time for all possible flight scenarios.

I agree that crew change to the drill might be a tougher sell, but if the client feels that there are legitimate  aerial inspection requirements on route, then the same concept could  apply couldn’t it?

Wildlife activity, such as the protected caribou, bears  etc. in the vicinity of the industrial,operations, perhaps? Water sources, outcrop maybe? If the client tells me it’s important,, and each driller is given the task of “inspecting” for something throughout the flight, then it’s aerial work,. The MNR and federal government already highlight the importance of monitoring caribou activity in the vicinity of such industrial operations.

[simpleton]

I don't buy into the whole "dual purpose" position. 

15 hours ago, Freewheel said:

True.This is why I bring up “dual purpose” flights

If the agency in charge of Forest Fire Management told you it was also a detection flightI , or “loaded patrol” (dual purpose), I  would have no issue with calling it a 702 flight. Since Forest Fire Management involves the detection, suppression and overall management of fires, it would seem like wise and efficient use of aircraft to be honest. I don’t think I would need TC to defend my position in court if the client concurred that it was dual purpose and everyone was told to look for smoke. They already pay fixed wing aircraft to fly all day throughout the fire season conducting detection flights, and many helicopter flights to service towers are conducted at 500 and below already, so you benefit with a low level inspection, with no increased risk due to,low,level flight. I think it’s already implied (at the very least) that aircraft (and MNR fire personnel) on hire should be looking for fires/smoke; isn’t that why they give you the fire/smoke report form in the OMNR Map kit?

I agree that crew change to the drill might be a tougher sell, but if the client feels that there are legitimate  aerial inspection requirements on route, then the same concept could  apply couldn’t it?

Wildlife activity, such as the protected caribou, bears  etc. in the vicinity of the industrial,operations, perhaps? Water sources, outcrop maybe? If the client tells me it’s important,, and each driller is given the task of “inspecting” for something throughout the flight, then it’s aerial work,. The MNR and federal government already highlight the importance of monitoring caribou activity in the vicinity of such industrial operations.

That's a whole lot of "maybe" scenarios, and regs shouldn't be written in a  way that leaves that many possible loopholes open. There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on here to try and shoehorn multiple different operations into only 702 ops....but I understand why

One thing we can all agree on though is that Transport Canada will definitely find a way to fu^k it all up for everybody.

[Icewind]

I wonder what document TC is intending to use to substantiate the purpose of a flight (to identify whether it is 702, 703 or possibly both) .  Journey log entries do not include that information.  There should be a manifest somewhere that lists passengers, cargo weights and dangerous goods, that might help.  So, the customer would have to be consulted to determine why the aircraft was hired and to what it was assigned. Complicated? Yup!

[simpleton]

The last thing we need is another Advisory Circular from TC trying to sort it all out. Fix the bloody wording within the regs...that's the only thing that's actually legal anyway.

They write regs...which often nobody is sure how to comply with, so then they make a CASS to let people know how to comply with the reg...and then when they screw that process up, they have to come out with random interpretations in Advisory Circulars, which they seem to change their minds on every few years. They don't even bother to train their own inspectors before new regs come into effect.

That whole organization is a giant clusterfu*k.

 

 

[Freewheel]

7 hours ago, simpleton said:

The last thing we need is another Advisory Circular from TC trying to sort it all out. Fix the bloody wording within the regs...that's the only thing that's actually legal anyway.

They write regs...which often nobody is sure how to comply with, so then they make a CASS to let people know how to comply with the reg...and then when they screw that process up, they have to come out with random interpretations in Advisory Circulars, which they seem to change their minds on every few years. They don't even bother to train their own inspectors before new regs come into effect.

That whole organization is a giant clusterfu*k.

 

 

Can’t disagree with you there. Our recent teams meeting with the Regional Director of Civil Aviation, Associate Director of Operations and a Technical Team Lead seemed to indicate they weren’t knowledgeable with the CASS, or what their own Air Operator Certification Manual said on the subject, yet they want to release more Guidance Material in the form of an Advisory Circular.

[Freewheel]

22 hours ago, simpleton said:

I don't buy into the whole "dual purpose" position. 

For the record I’m not trying to sell anything. Just trying to have open dialogue.

When you say you don’t buy the whole dual purpose position, are you implying that dual purpose flights don’t already happen? I regularly run into situations where I believe flights have a “dual purpose”. It’s not even unusual for me to believe a flight is going to be 703, but after lift off I’m assigned tasks by the persons on board that change it to 702.

As just one of many examples, I could be tasked to pick up mining executives at an airport and fly them to a remote mine site for meetings and a tour of operations on the ground. On the surface it’s a 703 flight. As we approach the site, they ask me to fly over the open pit and operations in general..IAW 602.17 I can’t complete this portion of the flight unless all persons on board are essential. At that point I recognize that the flight just switched to 702. In this scenario, do you land and start a new leg before conducting the overflight of the operations? There often isn’t any need to descend, as the 703 flight was conducted at inspection altitude, and presumably since they all want the overflight, they are all essential.

Carriage of Persons during Low Altitude Flight

602.17 No person operating an aircraft shall conduct helicopter Class B, C or D external load operations or engage in aerial application or aerial inspection at altitudes less than 500 feet AGL while carrying on board any person other than a flight crew member, unless that person’s presence on board is essential to the purposes of the flight.

[robottxt]

Where are the job ads from "northern" operators or operators in general, the new regs where supposed to be devastating and the need for more pilots extreme, according to the sage's at HAC. Yet i see very few job ads, just the usually suspects advertising.  

[2007]

I don't see the big deal....just lie like all the other crooks and whores in this business.

It's not like TC has the people to figure it out or enforce the regs.