Contrail

[shaggy]

not arguing with you cap, but if what's-his-name didn't change some of the rules, then he wouldn't be doing his job, would he? are the transport canada rules really unsafe? not that i am sticking up for MoT.

[twinstar_ca]

it seems to me that if mr contrail had his finger on the pulse of the industry, then he might have had the cojones to come visit the forum and defend/justify his views and recommendations... i'd like to offer him an invite to participate and not have the room rip his head off while doing so... would likely be some very interesting and informative discussions take place and he MIGHT end up with a whole new perspective...

[Vermouth]

Has anyone contacted Contrail and attempted to have a constructive discussion. I have not had any personal dealings with Brian but have with some of his staff and they were very reasonable.

 

V

[cap]

Shaggy --------I have the Manual by my side at this moment. Amongst other items of note, I'll give you an example of one that will be complied with as of January 1, 2006.

 

EACH time that I change course because of onsite radio directions to do so, a call MUST be made to company HQ in Calgary for permission to do so. IF a request to change destination is made from the field, then a CALL must first be made to company HQ in Calgary. Understand that I change course an average of about 24 times a day. Understand also that NOBODY onsite has permission to grant any request and that EVERYTHING must go through ONE person in Calgary before permission is granted.

 

I would love to go into their definition and requirements for "a helicopter pad".......but I have neither the time nor the patience.

 

My intentions are thus. I intend to say nothing because over a very short period of time this plan with "implode" on it's own. I do not operate in a "world" where I must conduct a complete and thorough safety briefing for EACH flight, even if it's with the same crew I flew yesterday and the day before. To this humble pilot, that is patently "pushing the envelope" AND, should I fly with that same crew for one month each and every day, I SHALL do that exact same thing each day before the commencement of flight.

 

I am all for safety, but there is a definte difference between "scratching your ***" and "tearing the **** out of it".

[N1]

This entire topic just shows the danger of companies attempting to absolve themselves from any risk, or any semblance of organizational control, by delegating the responsibility to someone else, who if they were only qualified to determine it, is even less qualified than themsleves to conduct this analysis. At least this means that if it doesn't work, then the blame can still be dumped on someone else!

 

It is a pitiful mess as it is quite apparent that they have not the faintest idea of the real world practicalities of running a safe and efficient and profitable operation -something that can be easily and effectively achieved.

 

The calibre of these plans are similar to those that are imposed by management teams that have no idea about how there business operates, what they do, or how they do it, yet speak in the current fashionable management vernacular!. Every employee always loves the manager that has not the faintest idea of what he is talking about, yet tells you how to do your job! Great moral booster that one!

 

I am thinking about setting up a consulting company that will specialise in auditing and qualifying auditing companies and then testing the efficiencies of the programmes they have created. I would then set about reorganising the operation to restore the safe, efficient, and practical side (probably by reintroducing all the good ideas that were previously discarded) and working with the people that actually do the job to achieve it! These are all the things I have ever done for my employers - which may have been why they hired me in the first place.

Edited December 10, 2005 by N1

[Phil Croucher]

The first thing any sensible management consultant does is to ask the guys on the shop floor what they would fix, put it in their own language and attach a large invoice on the back of the report!

 

Mr VH and his staff are entirely reasonable and pleasant when you talk to them, but I do question their credentials. I know they do 4-day audits and go into fine detail, and it all looks good, but at the end of the day you can get so lost in the minutiae that you lose the big picture.

 

I used to be Chief Pilot of a company in Alberta of whom the owner should never be allowed within 5 miles of a helicopter, but even though he was a total idiot as a pilot, some of the correspondence that went on and the criticisms that were levelled against the Company were quite unjustified and proved to me that the consultants didn't know what they were doing either! There were some good guys working there and that point seemed to be completely missed.

 

Phil

[sharkbait]

Hi Cap:

If you and your fellow crews follow the new and improved ( VS old and inferior ) rules methink that things will come to a grinding halt in a reasonable hurry, work will not get done and more flights will be called for.

This may lead to the customer taking a hard look at the new rules governing the operation and the person who came up with the darned things.

The term "Hoist on his own petard" comes to mind.

 

I remember when, in the early 80's it was once impossible to operate in the LG-2 ATZ if the ceiling was less than 1000 - no special VFR would be granted even though no IFR traffic was inbound for the next 6 to 12 hours. We would have helicopters stuck at the airport for days after using the SEBJ hangar for maintainance as the ceiling stuck at 500 to 700 ft with vis of 20 to 50 miles! You could stand on the ramp and watch your friends fly by just outside the zone! The FSS guys were most sympathetic but there was only so much they could do! Common sense finally prevailed but it took a few months!

I seem to recall that, at the time, there was even a required ceiling for IFR departures but don't remember what it was.

[cap]

Sharbait........Exactly! There are two things that I do know......1) there is no meed for me or others to do anything except witness what is going to happen......for it will "implode" all by itself, without any assistance from me and 2) I intend to investigate further, but I "smell" rules imported from Galveston, TX and their flight operations to the oil rigs.

[PerfectTrack]

will this thread ever die? No...cause I'm going to ask another question to keep it alive.

 

Say you are faced with a 1000' ceiling minimum requirement. The first day sucks as the the ceiling is only 800'. Since the company you work for is in agreement of the 1000' minimum, you elect to call it a day as per their rules. The second day, same ceiling, who calls it a day and goes home, and who makes a go of it, (keeping in mind the crews are getting antsy to get the work done). So those that kept it on the ground a second day, the third day comes along and doesn't look any different, would you go the third day or not?

[407 too]

i honestly don't get this

 

if the oil company head office signs on, and the guy in the field says "i don't care what head office says, i need to get to the site", and you have the 800 ft ceiling, it seems to me that you now have a waiver as long as you as the professional pilot fells the task can be accomplished safely, why would you fear contrail ??

 

is it YOU signing on or the oil company ?? if the guy in the field says "lets go", are you in compliance with the oil company because you have just received a waiver from a company representative??

 

if contrail has a beef with that, is it not the oil companies problem with contrail and not yours ??

 

if you get "off the list" cannot you talk to the company and explain you received the go-ahead from their own staff ??