New Fatigue Regulations

[Torque Split]

Might want to check out TC's definitions on Flt Time/ Air time for helicopters in this circular.

Advisory Circular (AC) No. 700-052

From: Transport Canada

Subject: Recording of Flight Time for Skid-Equipped Helicopters

[Freewheel]

15 hours ago, Torque Split said:

In an unrelated Advisory Circular AC No 700-034........TC defines the following in their definitions:

2.3 Definitions and abbreviations

• (1) The following definitions are used in this document:
  • (a) 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.

Aerial inspection (along with aerial application) is actually defined in 600.01 of the CARs under interpretation.  

TC defines the other “Categories of Aerial Work” in the Air Operator Certification Manual Volume 2.

Air Operator Certification Manual – TP 4711

You need to request a copy, but get it emailed immediately . You will notice that they refer to them as “Legacy” categories , since there is no longer a requirement to list them on the AOC. I believe these terms, along with “Specialty Air Services”, now relate mainly to CUMSA (formerly NAFTA) when conducting Specialty Air Services in the US or Mexico. Nowhere are they specifically mentioned in the CARs when defining aerial work, or discussing the carriage of persons in aerial work flights. With that being said, the definitions and guidance do offer insight into the intent of the aerial work requirements, since all specialty air services would be considered aerial work. 

I think based on the CARs and CASS alone, one could reasonably argue that if a person’s presence was essential during flight, and it didn’t fall within one of these “legacy”  definitions, it would still be legally aerial work.
Guidance material can’t set minimum  standards, it’s merely advice.

Currently, when applying for an AOC, there are only 4 true categories of aerial work:

1. The carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members
2. The carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;
3. The towing of objects; or
4. The dispersal of products

The carriage of persons (with an essential function) is actually a main category of aerial work. The legacy categories are listed as subcategories.

[Freewheel]

21 hours ago, simpleton said:

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

I find it dubious at best the claim that any and all work for forestry can legally be conducted only under 702 rules, and wouldn't want to have to try and defend that position in a courtroom after an accident.

That there are still any well known grey areas left in the regulations like this is an indication of the level of incompetence at Transport Canada. It was somewhat tolerable when the flight duty regs were as they were, but now it is going to cause serious issues.

I'm assuming by 'Forestry", you mean 'forest fire" related work. We do a lot of other forestry work, not related to fires, but for this most part it would also all be 702.

P. 27 of The Air Operator Certification Manual, Volume 2

ix. Fire-fighting: The operation of an aircraft for the purpose of dispensing water, chemicals, and fire retardants intended for suppressing a fire.

Note: This includes the carrying of firefighters from base camp to base camp or base camp to the work zone.

xi. Forest Fire Management: The operation of an aircraft for the purpose of fire detection and control, as well as for the purpose of dispensing any substance intended for forest fire suppression and prevention. This does include carrying fire fighters, fire bosses and/or managers from the base camp into the fire area, or to the actual fire site, as well as within the fire zone.

These very same statements are made in 

Volume 3 – Operations Specifications  5.11.2 CUSMA Specialty Air Services

IMHO, "Forest Fire Management" implies a broader scope than just "fire fighting". Since they include detection in the definition, it also implies that flights that are not directly headed to an actual fire, also fall under this definition. Combine this with the fact that the CARs states you can fly essential persons to an aerial work site under 702, and it pretty much covers most flights...unless of course you need to fly air taxi, when flying these people from an aerial work site. This doesn't seem reasonable. Under that same premise, you could go to the states, or Mexico and fight fire, be allowed to fly fire fighters in to the aerial work site, but never out (since you can't complete an air taxi flight under CUMSA/NAFTA). Or, perhaps an American company could come here and fly fire fighters to and from the Aerial Work site as aerial work, while you would need to comply with 703 rules for the return flight.

Obviously, you can also position an aircraft to a 702 aerial work site, under 702 rules. What other flights on fire hire would you consider 703?

[simpleton]

The SAS definition in CARs has virtually no meaning in Canada other than as a reference to the CUSMA authorizations. As to working for forestry...well. there are many different tasks you may be asked to do for them that cannot necessarily be pigeon-holed into the 702 regs. 

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. 

[Freewheel]

1 hour ago, simpleton said:

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

Ya. I get it. I just wanted to make sure you meant for the “Provincial agency” in charge of forestry, including fires; and not all forestry “industry” related flights. In on Ontario, the same agency is now in charge of northern development, mines, natural resources and forestry : MNDMNRF, Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry. It’s a mouthful lol

Forestry “industry” flights would also include aerial application flights, “timber cruising”/forest inventory flights, free to grow surveys, pest management/survey flights etc.; but the client would be the “Forestry” company that has the rights to the timber, not MNDMNRF…and it would be mostly 702 flights. .

 

 

 

[Freewheel]

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

 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. 

The carriage of cargo (internally) is an interesting point. As far as I can tell CARs/CASS don’t really touch on the carriage of internal cargo, even to an aerial work site.Do you suppose this means no cargo can be carried to an aerial work site under 702 operations?

While the tower scenario, may warrant further discussion as to whether it would fall under forest fire management, I generally agree it would take some pigeon- holing. Do you feel the carriage of cargo internally to a destination that it’s a definite  aerial work site, would be considered an air taxi flight?

it seems odd to me that you could carry essential persons to an aerial work site, but not the essential equipment and necessities they require to complete the aerial work. Since the carriage of cargo is not mentioned under types of aerial work, could you do an internal cargo load, with no persons on board, to a fire, or a drill move site under 702?

CASS 722.82 Contents of COM, does require that an operator include procedures for securing of cargo…so I would say yes.

Subpart 2 — Aerial Work

Division I — General

Application

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

  • (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.

  •  

 

[simpleton]

It would come down to the purpose for which that particular flight leg was tasked, but it in my mind, it would need to either be active fire suppression or an active aerial work project. I believe that flying cargo internally (say water hoses and fuel cans) to fire fighters on the ground would constitute direct support of fire suppression activities, which is 702. Another example of were it gets very grey is where you are flying freight (internally) and/or people to support a remote fire base camp...is it air taxi, or support of active fire suppression?...just because the camp is supporting fire suppression activities, doesn't necessarily mean that flight's purpose was to directly support fire suppression.

Change the above scenario from a helicopter to a Cessna Caravan flying supplies to the firebase, and nobody would blink an eye that it is a definitely a 703 flight, but suddenly one uses a helicopter for the same general purpose, and people get all confused over what ruleset if falls under.

 

[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.

I find it dubious at best the claim that any and all work for forestry can legally be conducted only under 702 rules, and wouldn't want to have to try and defend that position in a courtroom after an accident.

That there are still any well known grey areas left in the regulations like this is an indication of the level of incompetence at Transport Canada. It was somewhat tolerable when the flight duty regs were as they were, but now it is going to cause serious issues.

 

14 hours ago, simpleton said:

It would come down to the purpose for which that particular flight leg was tasked, but it in my mind, it would need to either be active fire suppression or an active aerial work project. I believe that flying cargo internally (say water hoses and fuel cans) to fire fighters on the ground would constitute direct support of fire suppression activities, which is 702. Another example of were it gets very grey is where you are flying freight (internally) and/or people to support a remote fire base camp...is it air taxi, or support of active fire suppression?...just because the camp is supporting fire suppression activities, doesn't necessarily mean that flight's purpose was to directly support fire suppression.

Change the above scenario from a helicopter to a Cessna Caravan flying supplies to the firebase, and nobody would blink an eye that it is a definitely a 703 flight, but suddenly one uses a helicopter for the same general purpose, and people get all confused over what ruleset if falls under.

 

Prior to the implementation of the new fatigue rules, my thoughts on these grey areas, and what constitutes a 702 vs 703 flight, were similar to yours. While not identical, our TC inspectors interpretation was also inline with what you are saying. As you note, the grey areas were some what tolerable, but is now going to cause serious issues.The coming into force, has compelled me to take a much deeper consideration into the rules and the TC Air Operator Certification Manual.

My past interpretation was based mainly on the CARs /CASS, however the specialty air services definitions in TCs own Air Operator Certification Manual, seem to indicate that the intent of 702 CARs was to cover a wider scope. I realize that these relate mainly to CUSMA requirements, but the CARs also indicate that CUSMA Ops apply only to “Aerial Work”. They also wouldn’t apply looser interpretations to out of country aircraft coming into Canada to conduct SAS, than domestic operators, would they?

There are also a few operators out there who only operate under a 702 AOC, and it’s quite likely their TC representatives are not interpreting the CARs the same as we were.otherwise they would also be required to have a 703 AOC.

Just curious, do you see somewhere in the CARs (as written) that says cargo  flights that are  directly related to fire suppression would be considered aerial work?  While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I just don’t see it.

If the intent was for cargo flights that directly support “fire suppression” to be 702, then maybe flights to support the broader scope of “forest fire management” (as defined in the AOC manual)  are as well…

[simpleton]

There is nothing in the 702 CARs to my knowledge that says that directly about cargo, but I feel that is is heavily implied, since persons can be moved to and from aerial work site locations as per the CASS 722.16. If you can move people, then you can move the necessary work equipment as well under 702.

As you said about the wording of securement of cargo, which is part of the training requirements under 722.23(1)(ii)

[Freewheel]

On 12/27/2022 at 6:29 PM, Torque Split said:

Might want to check out TC's definitions on Flt Time/ Air time for helicopters in this circular.

Advisory Circular (AC) No. 700-052

From: Transport Canada

Subject: Recording of Flight Time for Skid-Equipped Helicopters

I’m quite familiar with this Advisory Circular. I may have had something to do with it lol  There’s also the forum with more than 220,000 views. How many helicopter pilot licences are in force in Canada. Maybe 5000?

This was TCs attempt at a Corrective Action after we refused to implement the Corrective Actions they wanted from us. Their findings remained open for several years. We presented them with several multiple choice and true or false questions, which Various TC authorities (including the Chief of Standards who ultimately wrote the AC) could not consistently answer.

I say attempt at Corrective Actions, because I don’t think it was all that effective, and Standards position is not being enforced consistently to this day.

We are once again in a very similar situation, where TC authorities can’t answer basic questions consistently. As is the case with that issue, our biggest concern is that all operators are not playing on a level playing field; and it’s a direct result of TCs failures.  This confusion (and their inability to enforce) also becomes a much larger risk than fatigue to our industry, and the clients/industries we service.

Here we are, several years later, and once again their answer is that they will be publishing an AC (guidance material that will likely take them years to publish).

Given the massive implications this has to our industry (and our clients), from both an economics and safety perspective, they should seriously consider an exemption  to these rules. At least until they can consistently answer questions regarding the difference between a 702 and 703 flight, and enforce their position. They clearly did not think this through very well, and the fact they feel an AC is necessary proves it.