New Fatigue Regulations

[robottxt]

31 minutes ago, 2007 said:

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.

 

Suddenly everything is just 702 when it comes to crew scheduling.  

[simpleton]

3 hours ago, Freewheel said:

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.

 

By the same argument, you could say the purpose for which the flight was hired was for for moving persons from point a to point b. That they wanted to do a couple laps around the their facility prior to landing still falls under 703, as 703 it allows for aerial work involving sight seeing. You just have to stay at 500' in that circumstance.

I'm not saying there is absolutely no scenario where a flights purpose might not change mid-flight...but it is a rare thing. There's no need to try and pigeonhole the above scenario into suddenly becoming 702 at the end of the flight. What is obvious though in the above example you gave, is that the flight cannot be legally flown by an operator holding only a 702 certificate.

 

[Freewheel]

2 hours ago, simpleton said:

That they wanted to do a couple laps around the their facility prior to landing still falls under 703, as 703 it allows for aerial work involving sight seeing. You just have to stay at 500' in that circumstance....

What is obvious though in the above example you gave, is that the flight cannot be legally flown by an operator holding only a 702 certificate.

 

You are right about 703 Regulations applying to "sightseeing operations". In fact you aren't allowed to conduct "sightseeing operations"  under a 702 AOC (or 702 Regulations). 

702.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane or helicopter in aerial work involving...

 

(2) This Subpart does not apply in respect of the operation of an ultra-light aeroplane, or in respect of the operation of an aircraft in aerial work involving "sightseeing operations".

703.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation by a Canadian air operator, in an air transport service or in aerial work involving "sightseeing operations"

But I disagree that you could conduct this flight as a "sightseeing operation", because sightseeing operation is also defined in CARs 101.01.

101.01 (1) In these Regulations,

sightseeing operation means aerial work in the course of which passengers are disembarked at the point of departure;

These passengers aren't being disembarked at the point of departure, so it isn't a "sightseeing operation" as defined clearly in the CARs.

The Air Operator Certification Manual (and CUSMA) goes even further when defining "Aerial Sightseeing". in addition to the flight terminating at its departure, it implies that the purpose of the flight is "providing recreation to passengers".

"vi. Aerial Sightseeing: The operation of an aircraft for the purpose of providing recreation to passengers. This flight originates and terminates at the same airport or the same aerodrome.

Note: Aerial Sightseeing cannot be conducted under CAR Subpart 702. Operators wishing to conduct this activity under CUSMA must do so under a CAR Subpart 703, 704 or 705 AOC, or under a CAR Part IV Flight Training Unit Operator Certificate."

These people aren't on-board for recreation purposes, they are conducting inspection duties directly related to their work. It seems clear to me that the purpose of the flight is much more consistent with the CARs definition for aerial inspection.

aerial inspection means the inspection from an aircraft of crops, forests, livestock or wildlife, the patrolling of pipelines or power lines, a flight inspection or any other operation of a similar nature 

I also disagree that I couldn't conduct this flight with just a 702 AOC (if I knew  that the intent was to conduct an aerial inspection of the mine site). Ironically, the only aerial work flight that must disembark passengers at the departure, is  the one you mention: sightseeing operations. Aerial Inspection, Aerial Photography, aerial application, fire fighting, aerial mapping, spraying, external load etc. etc....none require that you disembark passengers at the departure. 

This is also consistent with standard 722.16, and is inline with the same principle that allows the carriage of forest fire fighters to a fire, ground crew (such as drillers prior to a drill move) to an external load work site, photographers to an aerial work site that they are photographing etc. In conduct forest inspection with forestry companies, you usually need to fly to the forest that needs inspection. This is all 702. Nothing says I need to disembark them at the departure.

722.16 Carriage of Persons

The standards for authorization to carry persons other than flight crew members and persons essential during flight are:

1. (c) the person is being carried to an aerial work site, performs an essential function in connection with the aerial work operation and is necessary to accomplish the aerial work operation

With all due respect, IAW the CARs as written, I don't think it is obvious that "the flight cannot be legally flown by an operator holding only a 702 certificate".  I would actually contend "the flight cannot be legally flown by an operator holding only a 703 AOC. 

Unless someone can show me somewhere in the CARs that says otherwise, I enter this flight into my Flight Time/Duty periods records as a 702 leg. 703 would be incorrect IMHO.

FYI, I also don't see anywhere that says that a 703 sightseeing flight needs to remain at 500 feet or above. If you have a CARs reference, I'd gladly consider my errors. 602.17 says I can't carry persons (who aren't essential) on board while conducting external load, aerial application or aerial inspection . Nothing in that regulation says I can't conduct Air Taxi flights at below 500 feet, does it? Is there another CARs Reg that I missed?

[simpleton]

That's fair point. I had forgotten that statement existed regarding landing at the same point of departure. I concede that example.

24 minutes ago, Freewheel said:

FYI, I also don't see anywhere that says that a 703 sightseeing flight needs to remain at 500 feet or above. If you have a CARs reference, I'd gladly consider my errors. 602.17 says I can't carry persons (who aren't essential) on board while conducting external load, aerial application or aerial inspection . Nothing in that regulation says I can't conduct Air Taxi flights at below 500 feet, does it? Is there another CARs Reg that I missed?

As it relates directly to the 703 example I gave, not the one you gave for 702.

602.14(2)(b) - which refers to flights over a non-built-up area, 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. If I was flying around a facility, less than 500', without the purpose of take-off or landing at that point, I am in violation of the CAR. if under 703 rules. If the flight can justifiably be said to be 702, then it is a mute point, because you can go less than 500' in the same scenario unless you create a safety risk in doing so.

If I am on a 703 air taxi or sightseeing flight, I cannot break that 500' reg over a non-built-up area, under 702 rules, I can under some circumstances as listed in 602.15(2)(b).

I'm not saying you can't fly at less than 500' on a 703 flight, you just can't come closer than the 500' rule of 602.14(2)(b) unless taking off or landing (or authorized, say on a ministerial permit).

 

[simpleton]

39 minutes ago, Freewheel said:

With all due respect, IAW the CARs as written, I don't think it is obvious that "the flight cannot be legally flown by an operator holding only a 702 certificate".  I would actually contend "the flight cannot be legally flown by an operator holding only a 703 AOC. 

 

Disagree. If the person who took the call for that flight was told by the client that they wanted to charter a helicopter solely to pickup passengers at the airport and then fly them out to location, as per the direct example you gave, then the charter was initially booked for air taxi, and thus 703. That the customers, once in the machine, then asked you to do an little recce work on the way to location is after the fact. You can't just take a booking on a 703 charter as a 702 only operator. If the desire was communicated during the booking process that they wanted to do some aerial inspection on the way, then yes, I would agree it could be done entirely under 702 rules.

It's a fine line that shouldn't really matter, but it does legally matter.

[Freewheel]

1 hour ago, simpleton said:

Disagree. If the person who took the call for that flight was told by the client that they wanted to charter a helicopter solely to pickup passengers at the airport and then fly them out to location, as per the direct example you gave, then the charter was initially booked for air taxi, and thus 703. That the customers, once in the machine, then asked you to do an little recce work on the way to location is after the fact. You can't just take a booking on a 703 charter as a 702 only operator. If the desire was communicated during the booking process that they wanted to do some aerial inspection on the way, then yes, I would agree it could be done entirely under 702 rules.

It's a fine line that shouldn't really matter, but it does legally matter.

That’s why I said “I also disagree that I couldn't conduct this flight with just a 702 AOC (if I knew  that the intent was to conduct an aerial inspection of the mine site). I meant before the flight departed.

That's  also why we have both 702/703 AOC. To avoid these issues  What I meant is if I knew that it was going to be aerial inspection at site, then I could accept the flight with only a 702 AOC. even with both AOCs, I'm certainly not landing to start a new leg just so i can enter the flight from the airport to the mine as 703, then the inspection as 702. The law doesn't require it, and it would be an inconvenience to my client for no reason. The reality is, the additional landing probably increases the risk more than the inspection around the mine. That's how ridiculous this whole discussion is when you separate 702 and 703 rules for fatigue lol.

Conversely if you only had 703 you could not conduct the aerial inspection of the mine, regardless of when you were asked to do it. If the client called and asked you to fly to the mine, conduct and inspection of the mine, then drop the persons on board at the mine,  you'd have to decline the flight, or tell him you were only allowed to fly them direct to mine with no aerial inspection of the mine.

In fact the entire flight scenario the client is requesting would HAVE to be conducted entirely under 702, (unless you landed at the mine and started a new leg for the aerial inspection (which would require the 702 AOC)). You don’t have a choice under the REGS as written to do the proposed flight under 703. As you noted earlier, each leg can only apply to 702 or 703. 

This distinction is also relevant for other CARs requirements than Fatigue rules. While most 703 rules are generally more stringent than 702 rules. That’s not always the case.
As a very simple example the CARs minimum for 703 passenger briefings (723.39) doesn't require you to instruct passengers on the “use” of emergency equipment (ELT, survival kit, fire extinguisher etc.), just the location and how to access it; while 702 briefings for essential persons (722.23) does require that you instruct them on how to “use” such equipment.

CARs 703 briefings also require that you instruct them on where “carry on baggage” must be stowed.; while 702 requires that you advise them when, where and how carry-on baggage and cargo is to be loaded and secured and unloaded.

This is inline with the fact that they are essential persons, who act much like crew, and the fact that they don’t require the briefing every flight under 702 if they have received training on the briefing requirements. As Icewind noted, the possibility to train them exists.

While this may seem like meaningless differences to some, when discussing compliance with the minimum  standards, it is relevant.

This is also generally why I (like many pilots) usually provide a thorough briefing that covers all requirements under both standards. You never know when the flight may change from air taxi to aerial work.

[Freewheel]

1 hour ago, simpleton said:

That's fair point. I had forgotten that statement existed regarding landing at the same point of departure. I concede that example.

As it relates directly to the 703 example I gave, not the one you gave for 702.

602.14(2)(b) - which refers to flights over a non-built-up area, 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. If I was flying around a facility, less than 500', without the purpose of take-off or landing at that point, I am in violation of the CAR. if under 703 rules. If the flight can justifiably be said to be 702, then it is a mute point, because you can go less than 500' in the same scenario unless you create a safety risk in doing so.

If I am on a 703 air taxi or sightseeing flight, I cannot break that 500' reg over a non-built-up area, under 702 rules, I can under some circumstances as listed in 602.15(2)(b).

I'm not saying you can't fly at less than 500' on a 703 flight, you just can't come closer than the 500' rule of 602.14(2)(b) unless taking off or landing (or authorized, say on a ministerial permit).

 

602.14 only prohibits me from flying within any person, vehicle or structure. It does not prohibit me from flying less than 500 feet AGL. The example I’m discussing is one of the largest open pit mines in North America. There are many instance where I could do a flight at less than 500 AGL over the mine and still stay 500 feet away from persons, vessels, vehicles, structures. There aren’t any people or vehicles in the tailings pond I can assure you.

[Freewheel]

If every flight that transported persons from point A to B was considered Air Transport Service, and therefore Air Taxi, then you also couldn't ever hover exit (disembark) anyone, unless you hover exited them at the departure point. That hardly seems like the point. Leave the hangar, fly them around then come back and hover exit them at the hangar.

Hover exit is only allowed under 702 CARs, 702 flights and 702 AOCs. 

[simpleton]

4 hours ago, Freewheel said:

If every flight that transported persons from point A to B was considered Air Transport Service, and therefore Air Taxi, then you also couldn't ever hover exit (disembark) anyone, unless you hover exited them at the departure point. That hardly seems like the point. Leave the hangar, fly them around then come back and hover exit them at the hangar.

Hover exit is only allowed under 702 CARs, 702 flights and 702 AOCs. 

I never once actually said that any and all "flights from point A to point B" is always 703. What I've consistently said is that the context for the flight's purpose dictates the ruleset it operates under any particular leg.

1st Example: Helicopter is hired to fly out ground surveyors (not tied to aerial work, so 703), if you can't find a place to land at the destination end, you can't just decide that "screw it, we also have a 702 certificate, and so I'll just hover exit these guys anyway". You'd have to land somewhere first, shut down, brief, then do it (even then, somewhat of a grey spot in the regs, since it would be hard to sell it as suddenly becoming aerial work even at that point)

2nd Example: Helicopter is on initial attack with a HAC crew on a smoke patrol (fire detection, so 702 flight). You see a fire and have to action it and need to hover exit the crew...not an issue. You are already flying under the 702 ruleset, and the crew has been pre-briefed before hand and does recurrent training for the task every 30-days. No further restrictions apply.

[Freewheel]

12 hours ago, simpleton said:

 

1st Example: Helicopter is hired to fly out ground surveyors (not tied to aerial work, so 703), if you can't find a place to land at the destination end, you can't just decide that "screw it, we also have a 702 certificate, and so I'll just hover exit these guys anyway". You'd have to land somewhere first, shut down, brief, then do it (even then, somewhat of a grey spot in the regs, since it would be hard to sell it as suddenly becoming aerial work even at that point)

 

Even if you foresaw that this could be an issue (since you knew you were taking them to numerous unprepared sites, gave them the full 702 and 703 briefing (which included the use of emergency equipment and loading, unloading and securing of cargo), hover exit briefing and practice hover exit training before the flight?

I don’t see anywhere in the CARs that says I have to determine whether a flight is 702 or 703 before the flight, if I ensure all of the CARs requirements are met for both types of flights…I don’t see it as a grey area at all, if it’s a non-existent requirement, particularly if I feel following this non-existent requirement reduces safety levels.. Again, I’m not selling anything. No regulation can be written to cover every real world scenario.

This is something I do regularly. I often suggest to the client that we conduct the hover exit briefing and training in advance, and explain to them that it increases safety levels and efficiency. I also explain that it’s often safer to conduct a hover exit than land at some unprepared sites. If we haven’t completed the training and we determine a hover exit is required, then we will need to go land somewhere and conduct the training.
I find the hover exit training before the flight also helps reduce pressure on the pilot (to land in areas that might not be ideal) and workload, as well as helps the crew gain operational/situational awareness while working around a helicopter in operation. After all these people are also required to open and close doors, load and unload cargo (with rotors turning) clear landing areas and build pads etc. The pilot usually can’t shut down and do it himself in many unprepared sites. Some might say that alone makes them essential. Even the briefing requirements for 703 indicate that air taxi passengers wouldn’t usually load/unload cargo.