New Fatigue Regulations

[simpleton]

2 hours ago, 412driver said:

Looks that way…

According to whom?

[robottxt]

On 5/17/2023 at 11:36 AM, simpleton said:

See attached memorandum from TC regarding wording changes around carriage of passengers under 702.

RDIMS-#19495408-v1-AMENDMENT_OF_CASS_722_-_AERIAL_WORK_-_PARAS_(B)_AND_(C)_RE__FIRE_FIGHTING.pdf 201.49 kB · 72 downloads

Did HAC's disinformation campaign pay off?  Did TC just clarify Aerial work for fires?

[simpleton]

55 minutes ago, robottxt said:

Did HAC's disinformation campaign pay off?  Did TC just clarify Aerial work for fires?

To a certain degree it looks like it.

[Icewind]

19 hours ago, robottxt said:

Did HAC's disinformation campaign pay off?  Did TC just clarify Aerial work for fires?

That came after a direct meeting between a TC official and provincial agency members of the CIFFC Aviation Working Group.  Their approach paralleled the same information that was coming from HAC and NATA.

 

[Icewind]

The current situation is based on the report of August 15, 2012 authored by Captain Dan Adamus, (President - Air Line Pilots Association International’s Canada Board), and Jacqueline Booth, (Chief, Technical Program Evaluation and Coordination, Standards, TCCA) who co-chaired the Flight Crew Fatigue Management Working Group.  That group consisted of representatives from:

1.       Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA)

2.       Airline Pilots Association (ALPA)

3.       Air Transport Association Canada (ATAC)

4.       Helicopter Association of Canada (HAC)

5.       Manitoba Aviation Council (MAC)

6.       National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC)

7.       Northern Air Transport Association (NATA)

8.       Canadian Business Aircraft Association (CBAA)

9.       Teamsters (Canada)

10.   Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA)

11.   West Jet Pilots Association (WJPA)

 

The two authors declined to include any dissenting opinions from working group members when preparing the final report.  All the working group members that were not aligned with airline pilots dissented.

The dissenting working group members and other groups formed a coalition that urged the CARC Working Group Report be rejected.   On January 31, 2013, a 13-page dissenting document was submitted that stated, “Not only are the recommendations a retrograde step for safety, but if they were to proceed to implementation, they would devastate many Canadian commercial and business aviation operators and the businesses and passengers they serve.”

The coalition consisted of:

1.       Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC)

2.       Association québécoise du transport aérien (AQTA)

3.       Aviation Alberta (AA)

4.       British Columbia Aviation Council (BCAC)

5.       Canadian Business Aviation Association (CBAA)

6.       Helicopter Association of Canada (HAC)

7.       Manitoba Aviation Council (MAC)

8.       Northern Air Transport Association (NATA)

9.       Saskatchewan Aviation Council (SAC)

 

Then they issued a 158-page report published on October 17, 2014.  The coalition recommended that a new Working Group be convened under new leadership with Chairs prepared to give serious consideration to industry segment-specific solutions suitable for other parts of the commercial and business aviation communities.

 

Much of what was in that dissenting report is proving to be very prophetic today.

[Winnie]

On 5/17/2023 at 7:07 AM, Freewheel said:

Hi Winnie,

is that actually factual? Did most ICAO member countries and EASA actually implement regulations as rigid and complex as these right across the board, for all sectors of commercial aviation (including light and intermediate VFR Helicopters)?  It’s my understanding that most generally applied similar regulations to larger air carriers and airlines only, while TC chose to apply this standard to all air carriers.
Does  our nearest neighbour, the FAA have similar regulations for VFR helicopters, and their closest equivalent to on-demand 703 Air Taxi operations?
I’m not trying to be derogatory. I’ll openly admit that my knowledge of international regulations, worldwide is limited, and I get the impression you have more international experience.,.

I do agree that making this a partisan issue and blaming the liberals is a bit silly. While the Libs were in power when they came into force, I think the proposed rule changes came in 2012 when the Cons were in power. I think the public servants had more to do with pushing it through, and they are the ones who should be held accountable.

It's been a while since I read them but yes, they are super strict. Canada seems to cherrypick the parts from ICAO they want to follow, but most of the old regulations (ANO) were straight out of the UK CAA, ICAO seems to take some from EASA, also EASA takes from ICAO... hard to follow, but in general, the rules in Europe, and northern europe in particular are extremely strict.

[kiefk]

publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF

Link to UK FRMS - heavy reading

[simpleton]

New advisory circular issued. See attached.

AC 702-001 ISSUE 01 - CARRIAGE OF PERSONS DURING AERIAL WORK.pdf

[Bee3]

I had a read? 
 

So can I swing drills and do all other associated camp work on 702?

Still a hard no?? ,but everyone is doing  it anyway….

[bradleytr]

Thanks for information