Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To those oil/gas field companies and helicopter companies trying to observe a 1000' celing in northern AB/BC.........good luck. I'd personally like to know how you're going to do it. Road building costs as of Nov 2/05 are estimated at $1M/mile and without those roads or without those helicopters, you loose money big time. Try explaining to the shareholders that you had a compessor go down and it cost you $250,000/day while you attempted to "quad" there. If the 1000' celing rule applied at present, then I would have flown for ONE day out of the last 14. Sorry, but some of the other proposed "safety rules" might possible apply, but THAT ONE "doesn't fly". :lol:

 

 

Methinks "Contrail et al' had better come up with a way to get the job done when the ceiling is less than 1000' or that part of their plan isn't going anywhere. While they're figuring that one out, they might also want to advise North Caribou Air, Ft. St. John, BC that their 400' ceiling minimum is "Unsafe" because they are transporting gas field workers. They do that twice a week and are breaking YOUR rues as I speak. They are "professional" by the way and DON'T wear "high-collared shirts" either.

 

OPEN LETTER TO 'Contrail et al':

 

Be advised that VASIS and ILS sytems are REAL difficult to find anywhere east of Ft. Nelson to the AB border and north to the NWT border. Figure all that out and maybe you got a winner. Until then, it's best you realize that what works at McCall Field in Calgary may be great and "safe", but up where all those gas fields are and where all the exploration takes place "high-collared shirts" don't necessarily indicate safety and quite a bit of safe and **** good flying is done UNDER 1000' by both F/W and R/W. Lastly, also be advised that lonnnnnnnng before you came into existance with your own thoughts on what YOU consider "safe flying practices", there was one **** of a lot of "safe" flying done UNDER 1000' celings. Some of that flying was done by folks that didn't wear "high-collared shirts", were VERY professional and are now members of the AB and Canadian Aviation Halls of Fame. You can start with two pilots from your own AB Aviation Hall of Fame if you wish........Bill and Molly Riley (she was "professsional" enough to be Chief Pilot for Shell Oil). When you get as good as they were, wearing their jeans and T-shirts, then you let me know and this pilot will "be all ears" to your suggestions about "safety". Until then, as of last Friday, you got a whole bunch of gas field companies laughing at your 1000' ceiling rules and I'd say you have a fair amount of work ahead of you want to get their business. Your ideas are well-intended I'm sure, but you better do your "due diligence" on an area first before you venture forth again, lest you look and sound like fools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To those oil/gas field companies and helicopter companies trying to observe a 1000' celing in northern AB/BC.........good luck. I'd personally like to know how you're going to do it. Road building costs as of Nov 2/05 are estimated at $1M/mile and without those roads or without those helicopters, you loose money big time. Try explaining to the shareholders that you had a compessor go down and it cost you $250,000/day while you attempted to "quad" there. If the 1000' celing rule applied at present, then I would have flown for ONE day out of the last 14. Sorry, but some of the other proposed "safety rules" might possible apply, but THAT ONE "doesn't fly". :lol:

Methinks "Contrail et al' had better come up with a way to get the job done when the ceiling is less than 1000' or that part of their plan isn't going anywhere. While they're figuring that one out, they might also want to advise North Caribou Air, Ft. St. John, BC that their 400' ceiling minimum is "Unsafe" because they are transporting gas field workers. They do that twice a week and are breaking YOUR rues as I speak. They are "professional" by the way and DON'T wear "high-collared shirts" either.

 

OPEN LETTER TO 'Contrail et al':

 

Be advised that VASIS and ILS sytems are REAL difficult to find anywhere east of Ft. Nelson to the AB border and north to the NWT border. Figure all that out and maybe you got a winner. Until then, it's best you realize that what works at McCall Field in Calgary may be great and "safe", but up where all those gas fields are and where all the exploration takes place "high-collared shirts" don't necessarily indicate safety and quite a bit of safe and **** good flying is done UNDER 1000' by both F/W and R/W. Lastly, also be advised that lonnnnnnnng before you came into existance with your own thoughts on what YOU consider "safe flying practices", there was one **** of a lot of "safe" flying done UNDER 1000' celings. Some of that flying was done by folks that didn't wear "high-collared shirts", were VERY professional and are now members of the AB and Canadian Aviation Halls of Fame. You can start with two pilots from your own AB Aviation Hall of Fame if you wish........Bill and Molly Riley (she was "professsional" enough to be Chief Pilot for Shell Oil). When you get as good as they were, wearing their jeans and T-shirts, then you let me know and this pilot will "be all ears" to your suggestions about "safety". Until then, as of last Friday, you got a whole bunch of gas field companies laughing at your 1000' ceiling rules and I'd say you have a fair amount of work ahead of you want to get their business. Your ideas are well-intended I'm sure, but you better do your "due diligence" on an area first before you venture forth again, lest you look and sound like fools.

 

Oh come on Cap. Cut the bull s--t and stop antagonizing poor Mr Van H--b--k.

 

You know full well that the gas companies are going to setup VORs and ADFs and ILS approaches to all the well heads. It makes complete caotic sense. B)

 

Personally I think that this guy has gotten or will be getting his pink slip soon. I think that he will be looking at doing safety audits at Safeway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

transientorque ........I hear ya, but don't mistake me either. We all need all the safety measures in F/W and R/W that we can consume, BUT they have to relate to the realities of our flying and apply to the areas in which we do that flying. Millions of hours of very safe flying has been done by both groups of pilots in northern Canadian airspace......AND without GPS. To state it as "Unsafe" is erroneous and a gross insult to a legion of AAA Class pilots that preceded me and my peers. I can hear gales of laughter concerning the 1000' ceiling restriction from the likes of Max Ward et al and other supposedly "Unsafe" pilots who operated at those lower altitudes quite often. If I was flying a 737 at those altitudes all the time then I'm "Unsafe" and the fuel-burn on a 737 at low altitudes is a ***** anyway. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

" Your ideas are well-intended I'm sure, but you better do your "due diligence" on an area first before you venture forth again, lest you look and sound like fools. "

 

It is simply amazing to me that such idiotic ideas actually are proposed ...then I guess when one examines the way aviation is headed there will be more and more morons telling all you poor souls how to fly.

 

As far as safety goes I have thousands and thousands of hours flying in weather below 1000 feet and never put a scratch on an aircraft, how in **** does anyone think we managed to fly in the high arctic for decades without all these stupid idiots telling us how to do it?

 

The more I read this topic the more I fear for your industry.

 

( By the way Cap Molly was one of my first instructors in 1953 at Toronto Island Airport..that is where she met Jack...Her name then was Molly Beale...Jack was no where near the pilot Molly was...but he could sure talk a good line.. :D )

 

Rev.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was told today by one of the oilfeild company reps that remote has been taken off the contrail safety list because of the recent incident/ accident. There isnt supposed to be a review for them to be back on the list for one year, and guess who's doing the audit??? Mr. B V H B. Not sure how anyone is going to get surveyors into the bush with the new guidelines for length and width setout in the new safety standards (start walking boys :blink: ). Ive got to agree with alot of points that cap has made. How have we all managed to survive this long without a white shirt and below a thousand feet.

 

The new flight hours and days on days off is going to give us all bankers hours ( And Im pretty sure none of us wants to be bankers). Ive emailed Mr. Jenner and his board members, no reply yet! (suprise suprise :shock: ). I hope that HRDC is a head in their paper work because theyre going to have a lot of foreign applications to process!!!! 1500 hours with a thousand pic seems a little crazy when BC forestry has five hundred hours and a mountain course. Seems like going into a lease site is harder and alot more dangerous than flying in the rockies! OR into smoke with a bucket on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Helipro ------I'm still trying to figure out how crews will be changed by the F/W a/c with a 1000' ceiling restriction........or does he actually believe that they descend on some invisible glidescope somehow. Popping out of the clag at 800', 10 miles back and proceeding to land is "flying below a 1000' ceiling". It has been stated that Mr. Contrail knows nothing about the R/W world. That may be so, but he also "stuck-it-to" his peers in the F/W world when he made that proposal. When explaining his reasoning for that to many experienced and good F/W drivers, I think his explanation will begin something like, "abba, abba, abba......well, ahhhhh......." :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Helipro......

 

Just to set the story straight and dispel any rumors that your connection had told you. First of all Remote did not have it's operation with the oil company in question suspended due to the latest accident. That accident is currently under investigation with TSB and just for information was not related to pilot or maintenance error, there was an FCU mechanical failure on an FCU that had only 26 hours on it and yet to be determined. The pilot did an absolutely outstanding job getting it down without any injuries taking into consideration when the FCU started to go south. The reason was for the suspension is something entirely different other than the accident, and where your connection rec'd 1 year off the list is also unfounded.

 

You might want to pass on some factual information to your oilfield connection that there is a local operator in the Slave Lake area also on Contrail's preferred customer list that is currently under investigation from TC Enforcement for various violations for the second time in the last few years. The oil company in question that has ceased it's operation with Remote for the time being is flying with violating company. Contrails generic Safety Standards Manuals state that violations are unacceptable to the client, yet they still being used. Seems to be a double standard here.

 

HBD

Edited by highbladedown
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TSB detemines what has happened in an accident not the peanut gallery. It takes up to 7 years for an investigation to be completed. As for companies being visited by the TC enforcement boy's, until an actual charge has been laid and made public everything is speculation and hear say.

Putting the hold on flying with a company after and incident is routine and shouldn't be blow out of proportion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...