Hours

[downwash]

407, old ****, a minor correction if I may to your breakdown of the exemption granted to operators fighting forest fires in B.C. in response to the request of the B.C. Minstry of Forests for the current declared emergency.

 

The six days off in sixty need not be consecutive but can be ANY six during any sixty-day period just as for the thirteen off in any ninety-day period.

 

We've six of our pilots on the exempt status, with a couple approaching the 300 hours and half coming up to compulsory time off in order to comply with the extended days. It's a 'double-edged' sword, and, as of Friday 8/29, T.C. still hadn't figured out how to get out of the exemption and back into the regular scheme.

[downwash]

I should have read further before replying to 407's post.

 

Deuce, 100', Blackie and Randy. The limits you seem to be referring to mostly were saved from those that would have been much more drastic had CALPA had its way. They were salvaged by operators that, 30 - 40 years ago, were quite comfortable (me included) flying Bell 47's on fires 13 to 15 hours a day, dousing fire with 45-gal. drums of water often hauled several miles on the hook (and uphill both ways, of course).

 

I guess my point is that we all have our tolerance levels and, although I did bend a machine or two back in my callow youth, the incidents were absolutely unrelated to fatigue. I'll never criticize an individual or a company for maintaining strict duty and flight time standards, but I remember well when we could deal with a situation like today's by pushing that envelope to its limit, and with nothing close to today's accident rates (e.g. summer '02 in Alberta).

 

I discussed, on another thread, some of the questionable fire-fighting that's done, but the folks in Barriere, Chase, Cranbrook, Kelowna and Osoyoos are thankful that so many of our friends were able to make a big difference in their lives.

[100ft]

I'm not one to dwell on blame over solutions, so I should follow-up on my earlier post now that we've heard from a few learned sources.

 

I don't believe that the BC prov gov't is trying to put it to the industry; rather I sincerely trust that they are doing the best job they can in the circumstances. It's apparent that they simply want qualified pilots and their helicopters to stay in the air as much as possible. I would too. What I keep hearing on the newscasts are BCFS personnel stating that they've never seen a situation like this before so they are obviously charting new territory and the pilot issue is part in parcel with that.

 

How did the decision to extend duty hours then come about? Decisions are made using information at hand. What information did they receive and from whom? I venture to guess that the operators gave Forestry the heads-up that their available 1000hr+ / mountain trained pilots were certainly approaching a widespread time-ex. Someone in BC Forestry presumably then requested extensions to limits by TC and were granted same.

 

Perhaps BC Forestry and Transport Canada would have been open to other options such as implied above by Randy or myself but were never asked. Maybe the gov't(s) can be educated by the helicopter industry's grassroots on "our perspectives" and changes made for the betterment of all. The latest issue of Heli Ops magazine has an article touching on the issue of experience disparity in the industry.

 

Just a thought

 

100'

[deuce bigalow]

Deuce, 100', Blackie and Randy. The limits you seem to be referring to mostly were saved from those that would have been much more drastic had CALPA had its way.

Quite right 407. I also was able to make a decent buck in the good old days before our ability to earn was restricted by the rules. I wasn't saying it was a bad thing to extend the hours. I was just pointing out the inconsistency. Either it is or it is not safe to fly more than 150 hours per month. I would just like to know which it is. Ah jeez.... Now I'm confused again.

[Blackmac]

HOURS: In my opinion the government should not be involved in setting hours for the pilots flying helicopters.

 

This much the same as Canada going to war and restricting the pilots to ex number of hours, once the hours were reached and no replacement pilots are available we stop the war until everybody has the required rest, dictated by a bunch of bureacrats who are behind the lines.

 

As pilots you do not have a collective SAY into how you are employed, each company has a different set of rules.

 

The "PILOT INDUSTRY" in conjunction with the insurance companies should set the rules for pilot experience (flying) not the local governments, including federal.

 

Where a fire is threatening local communities I can see using pilots with experience. Use low time pilots were the fire is not a hazard to anything and use a co-pilot in helicopters (twins) to train low time and in-experienced pilots.

 

As an ex-contracting officer with the feds we had numerous requiremnets and regs in our contracts. Using a little bit of common sence, these were broken as required on behalf of the operator.

 

One of the easiest places for a low time pilot to fly is above the tree line. The only problem there is navigation and with the advent of GPS, no problem.

 

For your information I was the one that implemented GPS on all federal contracts in the arctic, when they first came out. I was also instrumental in the application of having the flight notification being considered an actual flight plan if it was made with a ETA for the same day.

 

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN IMPLIMENT CHANGE IS THRU DIALOGUE AND SOME FORUM THAT REPRESENTS ALL PARTIES.

 

The reasoning behind alot of the government requirements (i.e hours) is that the companies low bidding on contracts tried to cut their costs for years by using low time pilots. Some area's it worked, and alot it didn't.

 

REMEMBER THE CUSTOMER WANTS A PILOT THAT IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB HE HIRED THE HELICOPTER FOR.

 

IF COMPANIES TOOK THE TIME TO CHECK PILOTS OUT ON A PARTICULAR JOB PRIOR TO THE BEGINING OF THE CONTRACT, THEY WOULD HAVE LESS PROBLEMS PLACING LOW TIME PILOTS AND THE COMPANIES (hiring the hel.)WOULD QUIT DEMANDING MINIMUM HOURS IN THE HOPE THAT THEY DONOT HAVE TO TRAIN THE PILOT AT THEIR COST.

 

An TC license does not automatically qualify a person to do anything, except learn,

the company has the onus to make sure that person is the right person for the job.

 

As you can see most of my approach is a radical change in the way things should be accomplished for all concerned.

 

THE BEAN COUNTERS THAT BELONG TO HAC, HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR OUTLOOK.

 

TC SHOULD BECOME AN ENFORCEMENT FOR RULES SET BY THE PILOT INDUSTRY AND HAC.

 

As previously stated by a well known person, "I HAVE A DREAM"

 

 

P.S.: In accordance with BC rules, allthough I have a few thousand hours mtn, not in this country, I wouldn't qualify. :down:

[Skids Up]

I believe that an extension was done back in 93/94?? when I was in Sask. Pilots were timing out so they raise the bar.

 

Can't quite figure out why it is when we are going about our normal jobs(?) we are held to the hours per 30, but when it gets busy, emotional, stressful, (homes burning, loss of livehood etc,) we can raise the bar to a whole new standard.

 

What will happen now when some one gets "busted" in the normal job? Will we be able to fight it by showing we can handle the added responsibility , stress and emotional baggage....?

 

Maybe it's time for changes to be pushed for.

[otooley]

deleted by Otooley as it was off topic.

[downwash]

I think a government-declared State of Emergency qualifies as a little more than 'getting busy' Skids. That was the criterion for T.C. allowing the exemption (which ends on Sept. 30th., unless cancelled earlier, presumably because the emergency ends).

 

Maybe it's a generational thing, but I've always considered such a condition as calling for action 'above and beyond' and hardly suggestive that it should set the standard for normal activities. That smacks somewhat of a 'dog in the manger' attitude to me, and seems hardly reflective of the honored standards established in the aviation industry for many generations past, few, if any, of which would appear to call for the kind of measures suggested above.

[Blackmac]

Downwash: I'm surprised at your outlook on TC being able to grant pilots the capability of flying longer under state of emergency conditions.

 

When flying under emergency conditions such as "Fire Fighting" and /or shooting at somebody, there is normally only the pilot on board. Under those conditions he is not exposing any body else to harm. It would be up to the company or if left up to the pilot to set the limitations. Should these limits cause incidents, the insurance company will advise asap.

 

The only time the government should be involved is a concern for passengers.

 

Firefighting: Designate fire fighting a/c and passenger carrying a/c.

 

It's called the KISS principle.

 

Rules should be made by people actually governed by them.

[sharkbait]

I do not want any of my friends hurt either alone or with passengers aboard.

( "Its OK - your loved one died alone and didn't hit anyone on the ground!" - give me a break!!!!!)

This is not a war this is a bad fire season.

Human life is worth considerably more than trees or houses or anything else

Where human life is in danger we will be there in a flash but trees and houses?

They translate into money and money can be replaced. I don't think anyone who has been evacuated ( to safeguard their lives ) wants to see anyone hurt trying to save their house.

Adding fatigue an already difficult environment is asking for trouble.

We have seen the skill degradation caused by lack of sleep, long hours,dehydration, hurried food, substandard acommodation, stress and strain.

Fires lead to a rush attitude and one starts to feel indespensable.

Even when operating with extended hours sometimes you, or hopefully your boss, should say enough - take a day off.

We have seen people when fatigued - remember the bad old days when people got bushed - You would have a hard time convincing him to get on the plane out as he felt fine and was raring to go. The fact he had a 100 mile stare, had tried to start with the tiedown on, forgot to refuel once or twice or dropped a load or was flying in worse, worser, worstest weather notwithstanding.

Granted I am not there so maybe I don't know what I am talking about but I have seen some accidents caused directly by fatigue and don't want to see or hear about anymore!

Sometimes the last person who should be deciding if they are fatiqued is the person concerned.

Let's take a step back and look at what we are doing.

Please fly safe everyone.

And that's alll I have to say about that.

You may fire at will.

There is not a clickable smile to denote how I feel about this -