Jump to content

jjjjabbs..How Many will I need now to still fly come April. ??


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, simpleton said:

I hope you got the shot....if not, you're likely out of work and wouldn't be able to afford that dictionary that you so desperately seem to need.

So now you are attacking my spelling? 
Please put this tread dead. There are no useful information here. Just rants and ignorance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, simpleton said:

Yeah, you should learn to read some law. It is not the companies decision.

Which part? The mandate only applies to flights departing aerodromes listed in Schedule 2 - feel free to check the list and see if your local runway is on the list - if not, you're good. If it does, see below, taken directly from the latest interim order no. 52

 

Vaccination — Flights Departing from an Aerodrome in Canada

Marginal note:Application

  • 17.1 (1) Sections 17.2 to 17.17 apply to all of the following persons:

    • (a) a person boarding an aircraft for a flight that an air carrier operates departing from an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2;

    • (b) a person entering a restricted area at an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2 from a non-restricted area to board an aircraft for a flight that an air carrier operates;

    • (c) an air carrier operating a flight departing from an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2.

  • Marginal note:Non-application

    (2) Sections 17.2 to 17.17 do not apply to any of the following persons:

    • (a) a child who is less than 12 years and four months of age;

    • (b) a crew member;

    • (c) a person entering a restricted area at an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2 from a non-restricted area to board an aircraft for a flight operated by an air carrier

      • (i) only to become a crew member on board another aircraft operated by an air carrier,

      • (ii) after having been a crew member on board an aircraft operated by an air carrier, or

      • (iii) to participate in mandatory training required by an air carrier in relation to the operation of an aircraft, if the person will be required to return to work as a crew member;

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, simpleton said:

Someone's on the rag.

Please post/direct me to the laws you've read which overrule the non-applications I've posted, because mine comes directly from the legal document issued by the governing authority.

 

If you have something which overrules this, and proves what I'm saying is incorrect, I will happily concede to your position and take further time to educate myself.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HadEnough said:

Yes I am well aware of the Ford Pinto case, it's common knowledge to anyone not living under a rock

But are you also aware of the MUSTANG with its exploding gas tanks?

RE: "As to your proud APPROVAL of the 47G - yes the government told you it was approved, and you believed them. Same with the vaccines."

I guess you could say that I am proud to have flown one of the more iconic helicopter types ever made; yes. It did undergo testing (trials), conducted by BELL HELICOPTER test pilots, and after competition of the testing (experimental), it was, APPROVED.

Testing (clinical trials), are still on-going with the 'COVID-19 vaccines' - and that information is available in the thread titled: "COVID-19 Vaccines" - AUTHORIZED, is not APPROVAL. It can be found 'In the News' here.

Can you honestly say that the "COVID-19 vaccines" which Canadian Aviators (yourself included, perhaps), received, from December 15, 2020, to September 15, 2021, had been APPROVED?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HadEnough said:

Which part? The mandate only applies to flights departing aerodromes listed in Schedule 2 - feel free to check the list and see if your local runway is on the list - if not, you're good. If it does, see below, taken directly from the latest interim order no. 52

 

Vaccination — Flights Departing from an Aerodrome in Canada

Marginal note:Application

  • 17.1 (1) Sections 17.2 to 17.17 apply to all of the following persons:

    • (a) a person boarding an aircraft for a flight that an air carrier operates departing from an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2;

    • (b) a person entering a restricted area at an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2 from a non-restricted area to board an aircraft for a flight that an air carrier operates;

    • (c) an air carrier operating a flight departing from an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2.

  • Marginal note:Non-application

    (2) Sections 17.2 to 17.17 do not apply to any of the following persons:

    • (a) a child who is less than 12 years and four months of age;

    • (b) a crew member;

    • (c) a person entering a restricted area at an aerodrome listed in Schedule 2 from a non-restricted area to board an aircraft for a flight operated by an air carrier

      • (i) only to become a crew member on board another aircraft operated by an air carrier,

      • (ii) after having been a crew member on board an aircraft operated by an air carrier, or

      • (iii) to participate in mandatory training required by an air carrier in relation to the operation of an aircraft, if the person will be required to return to work as a crew member;

Um, no...see starting at section 17.20.

A company operating from a schedule 2 aerodrome, or has operations at a schedule 2 aerodrome, must have an internal vaccination policy that is either comprehensive or targeted.

Thus, most companies are required, by law, to follow the interim order. The only exceptions are companies that have no operations on schedule 2 aerodromes at all. This is a major piss-off to most operators because the law applies to some operators, yet others are not required to comply.

The "Targeted Option" is so convoluted and burdensome with reporting requirements, that the majority of companies are using the "Comprehensive" model instead for their policies. Transport Canada and Aerodrome Operators have been given authority to enforce the interim order via the Aeronautics Act.

So no, it is not just operators deciding to do this on their own to keep customers happy.....it is a matter of law (bad law)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 47G-MyFirst said:

But are you also aware of the MUSTANG with its exploding gas tanks?

RE: "As to your proud APPROVAL of the 47G - yes the government told you it was approved, and you believed them. Same with the vaccines."

I guess you could say that I am proud to have flown one of the more iconic helicopter types ever made; yes. It did undergo testing (trials), conducted by BELL HELICOPTER test pilots, and after competition of the testing (experimental), it was, APPROVED.

Testing (clinical trials), are still on-going with the 'COVID-19 vaccines' - and that information is available in the thread titled: "COVID-19 Vaccines" - AUTHORIZED, is not APPROVAL. It can be found 'In the News' here.

Can you honestly say that the "COVID-19 vaccines" which Canadian Aviators (yourself included, perhaps), received, from December 15, 2020, to September 15, 2021, had been APPROVED?

Mustang - Yes, again, does not apply, should we just post the wikipedia page on every known corporate coverup and call it even?

The authorized vs approved argument has been beaten to death all across the internet and is irrelevant - again you are attempting to use semantics to prove a losing point. Any treatments initially deployed under an "authorization" which were ultimately found not effective were removed ex. hydroxychloroquine. 

I've flown the 47, wonderful aircraft, go find one and get your AOC, you can bring new meaning to sheep survey while you cruise through the chemtrails and laugh at all of us down here carrying on with our lives.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pool pilot said:

I stand by the saying "you cannot fix stupid".

With that being said..... did you give up your career?.... or are you just stirring the pot here.

I guess I will see here soon...can we fly forestry  without the jjjjabb ?  and yes it does not take much to stir the pot in aviation but at times need to be stirred...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, simpleton said:

So no, it is not just operators deciding to do this on their own to keep customers happy.....it is a matter of law (bad law)

 

Bad law..... it is keeping the unvaccinated out of work..... and I am ok with any law that will teach the whining.....  " You don't always get what you want".... (Rolling Stones).

Whine on as we know you have nothing else to do.  And don't be mad at your banker when they take your home..... just remember..... it was your choice to go broke.

So good luck to you and your unvaccinated friends.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...