New Fatigue Regulations

[Rotorhead205]

This needs to get flogged steadily until there is some clarity from T.C.

Much of the work we do with passengers onboard is clearly 702 when the passengers are essential to completing the job, and yet Transport is distributing information that contradicts their own regulations. 

 

 

[Icewind]

7 hours ago, Freewheel said:

😂

I already  “flogged” this horse until I thought he was dead, and low and behold, he woke up.

His name is  “Standards Branch”

And the current Director General Civil Aviation just came from being the Director of "Standards Branch"!

[Freewheel]

23 hours ago, simpleton said:

Lol, no the "Carriage of on board persons other than flight crew members" is not a form of aerial work....it is merely a statement of who is allowed be carried onboard while conducting aerial work or transiting to an aerial work location.

702.01(1) is not an exhaustive list of what constitutes aerial work.

You have only the 3 basic lets under 722.16 for persons carried onboard, or to, during aerial work (as you yourself posted above):

1) Flight Crew (the most obvious)

2) Persons essential onboard (crew members, but not flight crew members [ie. fire crew, spotters, sensor operators, etc.])

3) Persons being transported to an aerial work location (these are just passengers, as per 101.1(1) , as they have no actual onboard duties other than being seat-belted in for the ride to the aerial work area). 

 

Perhaps you should also take that up with Transport Canada "Standards Branch".

I don't think the concept I presented differs much from the concept they present in their own Air operator Certification Manual (TP 4711). How does it differ? I'm good with constructive criticism...

The document is an actual TC publication (not Draft format like the AC that was posted) and also provides an e-mail to direct comments to: MPS@tc.gc.ca

TP4711 Volume 2, Page 23-25:

1.2.3 Definitions and Abbreviations

(3) For the purposes of this volume, to supplement those provided in the above sources, the following definitions are supplied:

(b) Aerial Work: Aerial work operations are conducted by aeroplanes or helicopters, under one of the following four categories (with sub-categories, as listed on legacy AOC’s):

i. The carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;

1. Aerial Inspection and Surveillance
2. Aerial Mapping
3. Aerial Photography
4. Aerial Surveying
5. Forest Fire Management
6. Flight Testing: Flight testing of avionic systems, navigation systems and other aircraft equipment.
7. Parachute Jumping
8. Wildlife Management: The capturing of animals, the collecting of samples from animals, and the placing of telemetry equipment on animals.

ii. The carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;

1. Aerial Construction
2. Aerial Harvesting: The harvesting of articles such as pinecones from tree tops.
3. External Load: The transportation of an external load.
4. Heli-logging
5. Wildlife Management: The slinging carriage of animals to trailers for relocation.
iii. The towing of objects; or

1. Aerial Advertising
2. Glider Towing
iv. The dispersal of products.
1. Aerial Advertising
2. Aerial Spraying
3. Fire Fighting
4. Forest Fire Management
5. Wildlife Management: The dropping of bait.
Note: Combat Air Support is no longer a supported aerial work activity under Civil Aviation regulations.
Note: The transportation services for the retrieval of human organs for human transplants (previously listed as “Human Organs”) are no longer considered an Aerial Work activity.

Note: Some legacy Aerial Work types (indicated in bold print, above) are defined under the definition of Specialty Air Services (see item “ff” below), as were agreed upon by the CAA’s who were party to the CUSMA.

TP4711 Volume 3, Page 31:

4.5 Types of Aerial Work

Description:

(1)Where aerial work has been specified under “Types of Operation” (see 4.3, above), this area of the AOC Part II is to contain the type(s) of aerial work authorized.

(2)Aerial work can be conducted by an aeroplane or , helicopter and falls into one of the following categories (as provided in CAR 702.01(1)):
(a)the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;
(b)the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;
(c)the towing of objects; or
(d)the dispersal of products.

Note 1: For operations carrying persons other than aircrew, and for operations carrying external loads, dedicated Specific Approvals must be obtained by the operator.
•See Chapter 5 Sections 11 & 14 of this volume, including the SA’s:
-AIRCRAFT NIGHT OPERATIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWON BOARD
-CARRIAGE OF PERSONS
-HELICOPTER CLASS B, C OR D EXTERNAL LOAD – BUILT-UP AREA ORAERIAL WORK ZONE
-HELICOPTER CLASS B, C OR D EXTERNAL LOAD – NIGHT, VFR OTT OR IFR
-HELICOPTER CLASS D EXTERNAL LOADS – MULTI-ENGINE (OEI CAPABLE)
-HELICOPTER CLASS D EXTERNAL LOAD – MULTI-ENGINE (NOT OEICAPABLE)
Note 2: For operations by Canadian operators in the U.S.A. or Mexico, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement applies, which will require the operator to obtain a Specific Approval.
•See Chapter 5 Section 11 of this volume, under the SA:
-CUSMA – SPECIALTY AIR SERVICES OPERATIONS

For ease of reference, I have attached TP4711 Vol. 1 and Vol. 2

And in case someone implies I'm repeating myself, I am aware that I brought this up in this thread already (Page 8).

Just a floggin'er...

AIR_OPERATOR_CERTIFICATION_MANUAL_-_VOLUME_2.pdf AIR_OPERATOR_CERTIFICATION_MANUAL_-_VOLUME_3.pdf

[Freewheel]

23 hours ago, simpleton said:

3) Persons being transported to an aerial work location (these are just passengers, as per 101.1(1) , as they have no actual onboard duties other than being seat-belted in for the ride to the aerial work area). 

 

With regards to the discussion as to whether these persons are "passengers", this is a discussion which has been had widely, for many years. As is often the case, it's quite likely been widely interpreted by many at TC over the years.

If the intent was for "persons" carried under a 702 AOC was for them to be classified passengers, then I have to wonder, why didn't they use the term "Passenger", which is clearly defined in the CARs, in any of the 702 Regulations?

If that is the case, you don't find odd that they NEVER use the term passenger in any of the CARs or Standards that we are quoting? In fact they never refer to them as passengers in any guidance material, or even on your AOC. They seem to purposely call them persons whenever they refer to them (and NEVER passenger). If the intent was for these persons to be considered Passengers, the term passenger, as defined in the CARs was a tool they had readily available to them, but chose not to use it (over and over).

Yet under 703 Air Taxi regulations, they seem to intentionally call them passengers (ALWAYS).

Person is not defined in the CARs, but I don't think we need to post the dictionary definition. Since the term is not defined in the CARs, we are left to rely on the dictionary definition. I can't say for sure, but I think that's the approach the Transportation Tribunal of Canada would take. 

[simpleton]

1 hour ago, Freewheel said:

With regards to the discussion as to whether these persons are "passengers", this is a discussion which has been had widely, for many years. As is often the case, it's quite likely been widely interpreted by many at TC over the years.

If the intent was for "persons" carried under a 702 AOC was for them to be classified passengers, then I have to wonder, why didn't they use the term "Passenger", which is clearly defined in the CARs, in any of the 702 Regulations?

If that is the case, you don't find odd that they NEVER use the term passenger in any of the CARs or Standards that we are quoting? In fact they never refer to them as passengers in any guidance material, or even on your AOC. They seem to purposely call them persons whenever they refer to them (and NEVER passenger). If the intent was for these persons to be considered Passengers, the term passenger, as defined in the CARs was a tool they had readily available to them, but chose not to use it (over and over).

Yet under 703 Air Taxi regulations, they seem to intentionally call them passengers (ALWAYS).

Person is not defined in the CARs, but I don't think we need to post the dictionary definition. Since the term is not defined in the CARs, we are left to rely on the dictionary definition. I can't say for sure, but I think that's the approach the Transportation Tribunal of Canada would take. 

101.1(1)

passenger means a person, other than a crew member, who is carried on board an aircraft;

Why would they need to substitute "Passenger" for "Persons" in the text, it's pretty self-evident. 

There is no need to define the term "persons" at all...I mean, they don't say that "passengers" mean "humans" either....but one can deduct that through logic, lol.

[Freewheel]

51 minutes ago, simpleton said:

101.1(1)

passenger means a person, other than a crew member, who is carried on board an aircraft;

Why would they need to substitute "Passenger" for "Persons" in the text, it's pretty self-evident. 

There is no need to define the term "persons" at all...I mean, they don't say that "passengers" mean "humans" either....but one can deduct that through logic, lol.

Exactly.

crew member means a person who is assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time, or assigned to duty related to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system during flight time; (membre d’équipage)

In addition, 722.16 (c) allows for the carriage of persons (whether you want to call them passengers or not) if they perform an essential function in connection with the aerial work operation and are necessary to accomplish the aerial work operation; 

Aren't firefighters  on a detection flight assigned duty in an aircraft during flight time? The ones I carry are assigned duties.

Do they perform an essential function, and are they necessary to accomplish the mission? I say yes to both.

The act of carrying persons other than crew members is a "Type of Aerial Work", at least according to TP4711 Volume 3, I cant say a necessarily disagree when I look at the applicability Rule (702.01) part 702.

No comment on that?

Just curious then, do you feel then that all aerial work flights where people are disembarked at the departure point were intended to be classified as "sightseeing operations"?

Wildlife survey, Airborne geophysics, Aerial Inspection of crops, forest, pipeline and hydro-line, Aerial photography, aerial mapping etc. etc. etc. most of them disembark persons at the point of departure.

So which "carriage of person" flights actually apply to 702 then?

[simpleton]

Quote

 

crew member means a person who is assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time, or assigned to duty related to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system during flight time; (membre d’équipage)

In addition, 722.16 (c) allows for the carriage of persons (whether you want to call them passengers or not) if they perform an essential function in connection with the aerial work operation and are necessary to accomplish the aerial work operation; 

Aren't firefighters  on a detection flight assigned duty in an aircraft during flight time? The ones I carry are assigned duties.

Do they perform an essential function, and are they necessary to accomplish the mission? I say yes to both.

 

 

Of course, they are essential to the aerial work in that specific example....and they are covered specifically under 722.16(b)&c). I would even say that detection flights are a direct part of fire suppression activities...the first part in fact.

 

Quote

 

The act of carrying persons other than crew members is a "Type of Aerial Work", at least according to TP4711 Volume 3, I cant say a necessarily disagree when I look at the applicability Rule (702.01) part 702.

No comment on that?

 

 

Who cares what TP4711 says...it's not a legal document. What does your operating certificate say...that's the legal document that binds you.

Post a screen shot of any 702 AOC you have, or from any other company, that states that "Carriage of Persons" is a category of aerial work, because mine sure as **** doesn't. "Carriage of Persons" is in the "Specific Approvals" (OpSpecs) section of the certificate, not the "Types(s) of Aerial Work Section" above it.

 

Quote

Just curious then, do you feel then that all aerial work flights where people are disembarked at the departure point were intended to be classified as "sightseeing operations"?

 

Of course not. That is an illogical assumption.

 

Quote

 

Wildlife survey, Airborne geophysics, Aerial Inspection of crops, forest, pipeline and hydro-line, Aerial photography, aerial mapping etc. etc. etc. most of them disembark persons at the point of departure.

 

 

 

How do you come to the conclusion that "Wildlife survey, Airborne geophysics, Aerial Inspection of crops, forest, pipeline and hydro-line, Aerial photography, aerial mapping etc. etc. etc. most of them disembark persons at the point of departure."? There's too many work scenarios possible to make any such general claim. No, they do not have to be brought back to the original point of departure.

 

Quote

So which "carriage of person" flights actually apply to 702 then?

 

Well it's pretty simple to determine looking your TC approved operating certificate and reading the "Type(s) of Aerial Work" section, and then looking below that to see if you have the "Carriage of Person" specific approval. Unless you have some special rules that apply to your company that the rest of us don't seem to have.

 

[88is]

https://nationalpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/nationalpost.com/opinion/liberal-regulations-hampering-efforts-to-fight-alberta-wildfires/wcm/17df69fe-7ef7-4e73-9f79-d3f12c224c6c/amp/?fbclid=IwAR0Tyy6gRxbsfokdMwU-80twx-BCd3FbA6DvGo96q-Lp4iPNDVgjL_rQNfs

[Winnie]

A little silly calling it "liberal rules" as that has nothing to do with it, the proposed lawmaking is based on ICAO and EASA.

Most companies have only themselves to blame anyway, greedy owners running minimum crews for as long as possible, now fighting over the few scraps left in the industry. My opinion, glad I'm not chasing the beast anymore...

[shaggy]

4 hours ago, Winnie said:

A little silly calling it "liberal rules" as that has nothing to do with it, the proposed lawmaking is based on ICAO and EASA.

Most companies have only themselves to blame anyway, greedy owners running minimum crews for as long as possible, now fighting over the few scraps left in the industry. My opinion, glad I'm not chasing the beast anymore...

Let’s not let facts get in the way of a good outrage…!