How To Get Rid Of Contrail?

[Jet B]

It's all a case of the big corporate management letting lawyers get carried away with 'cover your *** rules'...

 

I have talked with some big company consultants that actually do realize that Contrails way of things is kind of fishy and unrealistic.

 

Downwash is completely right, once they realize that production is going to suffer and that 'our' way of doing things is actually just as safe or more so, they will stop listening to contrail.

 

Management of helicopter companies should get their own safety programs approved by the big oil companies, after all Contrail only exists so that big wigs in Houston and Calgary can feel secure that their company won't get in trouble for unsafe work conditions.

[hurler]

Excellent point Jet B, Cap too. I can see all the dimensions of the matter now. Money seems to rule so matters that adversly affect money are squeezed out and the old conservative ways of doing things resurface as the status quo. Ahh how delightfull!

[PerfectTrack]

"Management of helicopter companies should get their own safety programs approved by the big oil companies, after all Contrail only exists so that big wigs in Houston and Calgary can feel secure that their company won't get in trouble for unsafe work conditions"

 

Unfortunately, the oil companies won't want 10, 15, 20 or more, different safety programs on the table. Far easier to have one that is the standard across the board so that those who want to play obviously have to follow.

[hurler]

Perfect Track

 

I may be wrong but these standards are prescribed by Transport Canada and come in the form of the CARS and other regulatory based publications.

 

H

[cap]

Hurler -------there is NOT ONE of the present rules that we fly by that are "conservative". Ditch the idea that if something is "new" it is automatically better than something "old". Every rule, whether it be "old" or "new" should be based on it's merits, is it workable for all involved, is it reasonable, does it prevent or counter something bad that is happening now AND should be arrived at AFTER "due diligence" has taken place by the person(s) or orgainzation presenting it. I can tell you for a FACT that no "due diligence" took place in or on any of the gas fields in my corner of BC......and they number many.

 

To determine whether these new ideas are worthy and workable, all one has to do is obey them to the "letter of the law" and if they are worthy, they will stand the test of time. If not, they will fail and all the anger and frustration will all have been for naught. There are very few occasions in this business where one is afforded the opportunity of obeying a regulation exactly and in doing so cause it to fail. I will therefore obey these new rules exactly and witness the industry in my corner of BC attempt to almost hang itself. I know this to be a fact because it is totally impossible for them to do what has to be done and obey all those rules. Even if they find some impossible way to do so, they are totally "castrated" as far as doing crew changes twice a week with F/W........and if they can't.......they loose the Operators and crews on those fields and THEN they are at a complete standstill.

 

If perchance, you or anyone else has questions pertaining to these new rules and would like exact quotes from said rules, then by all means ask away because I have the book within arm's reach for reference. On Jan 1, 2006 unless directed otherwise, I have numerous parts to sign and submit for Contrail that I have in fact read and understood these new rules. So they are "covering their butts" all across the board. They are therfore not stupid.......just plain wrong on MANY, but not ALL of their new rules.

[John Moore]

The people Contrail works for are not stupid. They have been using helicopters for a long

time. They know in advance if the new rules will negatively impact their opertions and it seems they don’t think they will.

 

Rather then costing money, it will likely save money. No longer will pilots depart in marginal weather only to return and present the customer with a bill for aimlessly flying about. We all know that helicopter pilots in particular push weather horribly and will use any excuse for ‘giving it a try to see what happens’.

 

Inexperienced pilots should welcome these rules. Insurance companies certainly will. Perhaps it will enable low time pilots to more readily find work.

 

I don’t hear anyone complaining but helicopter pilots. Perhaps it is because these new rules will deprive them of an opportunity to show what a gift they are to aviation.

 

The work will still get done. It will be safer and more cost effective.

[jetbox]

No longer will pilots depart in marginal weather only to return and present the customer with a bill for aimlessly flying about. We all know that helicopter pilots in particular push weather horribly and will use any excuse for ‘giving it a try to see what happens’.

 

I take exception to this statement sir! First of all, don't paint all pilots with the same brush, that would be like us putting all safety consultants in the same bucket.

Second, I can tell you for a fact that our pilots do not take off in marginal weather; it is unsafe and it is a waste of money. That my friend is dictated and expected by the owner/management and does not come from an outside "rule". Basically it goes like this: we all want to come home alive and we don't want to screw our customers! Pretty simple really!

 

Also, the only times our customers get a bill for taking off and coming back without getting the job done is in situations where the weather is good at our point of departure but we are unsure of what it will be like at our point of arrival. In these cases, the customer gets to make the call weather he/she wants to take a chance and waste his/her money. They are always made aware that there is a chance "we may not be able to go past that ridge" etc. and it is then up to them to decide if they want to try it or not.

 

If all these new rules are being put in place because Contrail customers don't feel they are safe flying with their current operators, or they feel their operators are screwing them somehow, then maybe those customers should look for safe and honest operators instead.

 

P.S. Why are oil companies paying these safety consultants for in the first place if the operators they "approve" to fly for them do things like "take off in marginal weather" and "hand them a bill for aimlessly flying about"????? I thought the point of these safety consulting companies was to shield their customers from such operators in the first place?????

[67november]

well put JB, pilots and mechanics ALWAYS put safety first.

 

this JM charcater seems to want to come in and stir the pot without having the knowledge of what it takes to go home every night unscaved. :down:

[CoastalTrader]

Inexperienced pilots should welcome these rules. Insurance companies certainly will. Perhaps it will enable low time pilots to more readily find work.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... if you actually read the "Standards" you will see that inexperienced pilots are not allowed to fly any of these companies.

 

Therein lies the biggest problem... the O&G E&P industry actually hold one of the last areas of work where a low time pilot can "SAFELY" enter the industry and build his/her experience and polish their skills.

 

It's not as if flying across flat terrain with multitudes of emergency landing sites is a great challenge (minus a few weather cancellations)..

 

Pilot minimums should read more along the line of: "Having been given dual controlled instruction with one or more landings at each site and approved by a company check pilot."

 

If they want special requirements for the Houston and Calgary egos, then that can be written in separately.

 

It seems as some people get older thay forget how they got into this industry and the skill that they brought to the table when they started their careers.

 

It is a shame.

 

Coastal.

:down:

[T tail]

Was gonna put in my 2 cents but i think jetbox, coastal Trader and 67 November said it all

 

Cheers TT