Contrail

[cap]

Charles W......... Chuck 'ol bean, I used to laugh my fool head off, when the DAC would land on some strip and the cargo door would swing open with Molly standing there. She'd start issuing orders to unload the cargo and the roughnecks would say, "Hey *****, you ain't the boss around here, so stop issuing orders.......and where's the pilot anyway". Bill would appear and say something like, "This lady IS the Captain, I'm the First Officer, she's MY boss and that makes her literally "the head mother in charge around here also..........and watch your mouth". You could hear a paper clip hit the ground for the next 2-3 minutes. I got to know her and Bill pretty well because we always seemed to get thrown together all the time. I learned a **** of a lot about flying whilke having a bite with her at the restaurant in the Edmonton Flying Club as I was HQ'ing out of Edmonton in those days ('68-'69) and we'd run into each other up around the Keir Air hangar quite often. Great lady, blunt, terrific pilot and a walking book on flying tips........and yeah........Bill was no slouch either in the cockpit, but he knew who was his "better" in that cockpit with her and he'd admit it.

 

Albert Ross.......Retire? What's this crap about retiring? Keep that kind of talk up and I'll be forced to come over there and wash your mouth out with lye soap and take your bottles of Single Malt Scotch away from you.

[highbladedown]

Amodao........

 

Sorry to correct you on both counts, this one will not "take up to 7 years for an investigation to be completed". There is already a preliminary report on this accident and the results should be known within the next few weeks.

 

As for TC enforcement visiting this one operator, let’s just say that ball has already started to roll and it has gone to and beyond the tribunal, I can’t see how that is heresy. It also takes time before it’s published on the Corporate Offenders site, however all the other steps can happen before then. I have had personal experience with enforcement; from start to finish in my case was 6 weeks.

 

No one is blowing anything out of “proportion”, I was responding to the unfounded statement for Remote’s suspension. If you have at read some of the generic safety standards “incident” is not even mentioned, “accident” is the term used.

 

It’s the suspension time frame on any one individual in the event of an “accident” that leaves me scratching my head, no matter how small it is. My opinion is it penalizes good safe pilots who may never had one single blemish on their record and if they have one small accident they have to sit it out for a long time period. If one makes his or her living working the oil fields it leaves them on the outside looking in. I think any individual suspension should be based on a case-by-case scenario and not paint all good pilots with the same broad brush. I heard one operator had a pilot accidentally hit a jug hound with a carousel because the jug hound was stupid enough to chase the helicopter with a quad. The end result was the pilot was suspended for working with the one oil company for 3 years because of the suspension time period laid out by the consultant.

 

HBD

[amodao]

HBD

I said investigations can take up to seven years, each case is different. As per going throught the tribunal process they still have to determine the final charges if any and don't forget the charge/wording review process and released document agreement before anything is even published. As you obviously know cut and dry cases are over quickly but the whole litigation process has taken many years.

If you have an agreement with a oil company for example, the AOG (in Imperial Oils case) Aircraft Operating Guide, has a procedure defined in it for companies that have an incident/accident. The incident/accident doesn't even have to be for that particular company. The only hope is that after a company does have an incident/accident the person performing the audit review is reasonable and reinstates a company's flight status quickly. I think the length of a suspension depends a lot on how a company deals with the incident/accident and how effective their response is.

Edited November 26, 2005 by amodao

[highbladedown]

Amodo

 

I know fair well how the Enforcement process works. I also am aware of how the policies and procedures work in the oil field; I have work in the corporate sector for 20 plus years and have also written a number of Policy and Procedures manuals in my 33 years in this business. What it also boils down to is effective communication between all parties and unfortunately there was a lack of communication from all sides in this case.

[transientorque2]

Well, all I can say is if Contrail have removed Remote from the "approved list" that blows away any credibility he has ever had with me and it wasn't much in the first place. I did the 2003 season with Remote and I consider them as one of the top three companies I have ever worked with in terms of professionalism and experience, and administrative support.

 

For what it's worth, I did visit the gentleman concerned and make the point that low timers should not be forgotten, but it doesn't seem to have made any difference. When we have all retired and they have to use low timers, the same accidents and mistakes are going to happen again because nobody will be there to show them the way. It's all very shortsighted. There's so little big picture stuff going on these days!

 

It almost makes me want to visit the customers myself.

 

phil

 

I suggest that the next time you visit Mr. Cornholetrails bring a pitt bull. It might be more convincing. :up:

 

 

There is an old saying in this business. There are those that have had accidents and there are those that will have an accident.

[Phil Croucher]

I don't quite understand your remark!

 

Are you suggesting that I'm likely to have an accident in the future? On what do you base that statement? Have we ever met? It may be an old saying but it is rather a stupid one - I know plenty of pilots that have retired without having an accident.

 

Phil

[PerfectTrack]

don't worry too much about it albert, if you and many other guys can have a blemish free career, many more guys will ensure the law of averages stays the same and pick up the slack.

[Harmonic_Vibe]

The point of the remark is to supply a little humility when we might be a little too full of ourselves. It's sort of taken way out of context in this thread, but it still applies when taken in the spirit with which it is usually intended: Something akin to "Don't throw rocks at other people when you have just as fragile a skin as they do..." or, as I prefer, "Hey!!! Pot!!! It's me!!! Kettle!!!!"

 

HV

[cap]

Mr. Contrail has a few "humps' he must get over before some of his proposals can be instituted. One of those already mentioned would involve many gas field firms greatly curtailing their activities to the point of being unable to function. The 1000' ceiling rule will cause one large natural gas company that I personally know of to cease operations because of the number of occasions that they won't even be able to change crews out on their rotations. Therefore, before we give Mr. Contrail more than "his due" and before we all get "wired" about this gentleman, I'd suggest that we wait and watch him solve JUST the ONE problem alone that I just mentioned. I am sorry, but the "world" cannot and will not function in a multitude of places in northern Canada with a "1000' ceiling restriction for anything..........and Mr. Contrail "can take that to the Bank".

 

As far as "black-balling" or putting some company on a "do not hire list" that can be proven to be unjustified, be too lengthy and/or having contibuted to and/or be the main cause to a company's eventual demise, then that's another matter altogether. I'd suggest that there are a host of legal firms, representing various operators, who would have good reason to look upon that issue like a pack of dogs drooling over a piece of fresh meat. At SOME POINT there will be a company who will "stand and defend" and cause Mr. Contrail to defend his actions in a courtroom if they feel that they've been seriously hurt without good reason. There are many operators out there who will put up with "just so much crap" and at that point will confer with legal counsel. We exist in a day when people sue over a cup of coffee that they deem to be too hot.....and WIN.......so I'd suggest Mr. Contrail wants to "tred carefully.

[Phil Croucher]

Don't worry, I know the remark was a tongue-in-cheek, but I have always felt that the customer has way too much input in N America. If I get into a taxi, I don't routinely tell the guy how to do his job. Similarly, as a Chief Pilot, I don't see why I can't choose people who I think are best for the job in hand, as long as they are properly licensed and rated, of course. But then, that is my European background talking!

 

Phil