Maintenance Positions

[ame206350]

Regardless, its tough for the majority of companies to find and keep the people they need and want. H

 

Quoted for truth.

[JustanAME]

A couple of things are coming out of the latest Pamea Symposium.

CAMC and a few others want to take control of your licence.

Watch TC hand this over within five years from now.

THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA. Support PAMEA first. At least they have engineers in their midst and they may now wake up and smell the bacon.

CAMC is NOT qualified to deal with us and will work against you with the companies funding them for back-up.

There IS a shortage out there, and it is serious. Don't waste your time with the likes of Acro or Heli-One, they just don't pay.

You will make far more over the summer than you will doing a full year with either one. Acro is almost back to being a full engine shop and NOTHING ELSE. Ask around and check it out.

Heli-One is not hiring anyone related to helicopter maintenance anymore. A friend of mine couldn't even go through the front door. But if you're a bean counter and can count to two you're in!

Have a safe summer!

[Blackmac]

JustanAme:

 

Welcome to the world of wake-up time. I've been trying for years to get engineers and drivers to form an association to look after their own welfare. thats why I started HEPAC.

 

I attended the AME Conference in Toronto last fall and in all honesty they leave a little bit to be desired. There idea is lookin after licensing basically in the Ontario region. Talked to CAMC on the same subject, but didn't get much of answer, they are looking for a new President. CAMC has always been involved with standards, manufacturing and airlines. The AME association's on a local basis is a good idea, keeps everybody informed and up to date. Remember 14,000 licensed AME's.

 

Everybody has their own idea including HEPAC.

 

HEPAC just submitted a proposal to look after the Safety Management System (SMS) on a national scale.

 

Also in the works once the SMS is in place by 2010, is Industry Self Management (ISM), HEPAC membership is comprised of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers, including Directors of Maintenance, Pilots, Instructors, and light, medium, heavy, Ifr, offshore crews, covering all aspects of the industry that require auditing. HEPAC is prepared to implement SMS using the CBAA/TCCA checklist adapted to the Canadian Helicopter Industry.

 

At present Helicopter Engineers and Pilots Association, Canada is the only non-profit aviation organization with a full compliment of personnel to meet the requirements for auditing the Safety Management System, meeting the full requirements against conflict of interest in any form. HEPAC will always endeavour to have the interests of the company(s) employees at the forefront of any safety issue.

 

Under ISM all aviation schools will be involved in licensing both Ame's and Pilots, we will have the people to implement this and whatever else TCCA wants to divest itself from.

 

I was advised by the Ontario AME Chairman that my vision was much larger than theirs.

 

If we want to get hold of the welfare of Ame's and Pilots, now is the time to do it.

 

2010 is not far away.

 

 

Cheers, Don

[212wrench]

Licencing

 

 

 

http://www.pamea.com/information/newsLetter_Jun07.pdf

[Blackmac]

Licencing

 

 

 

http://www.pamea.com/information/newsLetter_Jun07.pdf

 

212wrench:

 

Very interesting reading, seems a well put together association.

 

HEPAC is not and will not get into a pi##ing with any association already in existence. Most are local and we intend to be national.

 

CLARIFICATION: HEPAC was only requested to submit a proposal for the HELICOPTER INDUSTRY. From a piloting point of view we would be checking Helicopter Pilots and Helicopter Ame's under the SMS along with the companies.

 

After 2010 should Transport wish to impose ISM and divest itself from LICENSING, then and only then would HEPAC become involved in AME Licensing, this would be required because Ame's can work stiff or rotary wing aircraft.

 

Cheers, Don

[Lunchbox]

If we want to get hold of the welfare of Ame's and Pilots, now is the time to do it.

 

I attended the PAMEA conference, and there was a talk about the future of AME licencing. They, as well as you, Blackmac, mentioned that something needs to be done, and soon. I am unsure, however, what to do. What can I do, as one AME, to ensure that future AME licencing, when divested by TCCA, remains under the jurisdiction of a credible organization?

 

I am also confused as to the consequences of future licencing. It seems that some people are concerned over negative consequences, but I am unsure as to what these consequences are supposed to be. Are licencing regulations going to be loosened? Standards lowered? A private company trying to milk licencing fees? Are current TCCA licencing regulations relatively good/neutral/bad compared to what might happen in the future? Some people are talking about some kind of doom and gloom, but what exactly is this doom and gloom going to look like? I'm honestly confused.

[Blackmac]

I attended the PAMEA conference, and there was a talk about the future of AME licencing. They, as well as you, Blackmac, mentioned that something needs to be done, and soon. I am unsure, however, what to do. What can I do, as one AME, to ensure that future AME licencing, when divested by TCCA, remains under the jurisdiction of a credible organization?

 

I am also confused as to the consequences of future licencing. It seems that some people are concerned over negative consequences, but I am unsure as to what these consequences are supposed to be. Are licencing regulations going to be loosened? Standards lowered? A private company trying to milk licencing fees? Are current TCCA licencing regulations relatively good/neutral/bad compared to what might happen in the future? Some people are talking about some kind of doom and gloom, but what exactly is this doom and gloom going to look like? I'm honestly confused.

 

Without going into a lot of detail and using the KISS it is as follows:

 

Treasury Board has flatly stated that there is no more money in the pot and has established a new management framework based on affordability. The Board advocates partnerships with not for profit organizations within the aviation community to provide these services.

Assuming the SMS or Licensing was given to an association to look after, they would be doing it in accordance with TC regs. Transport will always be making the regs in conjunction with the industry, but through the representing association. The industry will be auditing itself in accordance with the established regs. Each company will be responsible for maintaining its own SMS and will be audited by the association with auditors from the industry. The association will report to Transport and transport will audit the association and companies (spot check) as required, depending on the feed back and findings in general. It's called Auditing the Auditors, I wrote a paper to Transport on this subject in 1993.

 

If you have been in the industry over twenty years, you will also be aware that there has always been a shortage of qualified inspectors.

 

I have always advocated to Transport that the Helicopter Industry could do a better job of monitoring itself.

 

I firmly believe that now is the chance to look after our own welfare.

 

This is far from being a done deal and it will take allot of work from everybody to make it happen, but it can be done, cheaper and I believe better than what Transport is doing now. HAC operators will be invited to join for reasons that will be obvious later. The OC holders will have no auditing function, just the employees.

 

Should our proposal be acceptable to Transport you can look forward to changes for the better over time.

 

I hope this explains some of your concerns.

 

Cheers, Don

[skullcap]

Blackmac;

 

As long as things are "better" for all. In recent months have had numerous people tell me that am crazy to be an operator as there are better ways to make a living in helicopters. My answer was " you know what? You can sell/lease helicopters, sell parts and make all the money you want, but if there are no operators, YOU will not be in business" so I ask that you keep that in mind when going about evening some scores.

 

Many times as an operator I've have had to battle accountants and banks to do things which I don't have financial business proof, but I know will work, the passion that many of us had when learning to fly carries on to operating the business and the last thing we need is our own "brothers and sisters" not on the same side.

 

Have said this before and will say again that rates for aircraft are at a high, saleries are at at high, aircraft prices are at a high, watch out for the low. We need to make a few changes but really we need checks and BALANCES. Mentoring, and "gently" getting thru to gov agencies and oil companies that a pilot with 100 hours can indeed fly many jobs safely.

 

Do I really need a system to have Joel tell me he is not happy with the conditions in camp with e-mails and me responding by going to our customer with final ultimatums? I didn't need CARS or SMS, just a polite but consise response stating our refusal to work in the same conditions as a much larger conglomerate whose employees have vested interests in the claims they are drilling....hmmm

 

Start people on the bandwagon they will be auditing the company they work for may cause an inverse power trend. I worked at a large company for over 10 years and there was absolutely no worry of keeping the company afloat by employees, thus they not only didn't give a crap about the bottom line(cause they were lied to about it all the time) that they also didn't know they weren't paid equally within the same industry sector. If employees are treated fairly and paid fairly and understand the econmics of the company then it is a win win, start the ball rolling with internal power struggles and not alocating decision making responsibly then it matters not who's doing the auditing, as we will end up with one company, and drive most others by way of the family farm.

 

My biggest fear with SMS is not how it will change our company but how will we have to change the procedures and system we have in place to accomodate it. Many company's H & Safety manual are very similiar to sms, but now we have to either intergrate it into the policy, parellel sms or some bastardized combination of the two.....am sincerely confused to how to make it work without causing a huge loss in personpower to dedicate to the program which could be utilized in a more productive manner. Maybe am alone on this thought.

 

 

 

paul

[RTR]

You are not alone with those thoughts Paul. There are inherent faults with the idea that we can self regulate to the point where we have employees responsible for the "audit" of our company. I don't see the benefit to having "my" employees, or "auditors" from another competing company rake me through the coals.

 

As far as HEPAC goes?..I dunno yet, maybe there is something there, but how do you delineate (SP?) what's good for me and what's good for the industry? That is going to be the tough part, and the breaking point for any future associations.

 

Like you said, without the operator there really is no need for any regulation, or association, to dictate terms.

 

Here's a couple of thoughts from a slightly twisted mind:

 

SMS / IMS: Here's a template for a manual for you..............

 

"421 Tactical Bird Towing / Bag Swinging Helicopter Squadron opertates it's flying and maintenance opertaions IAW all the applicable CAR's, AWM ( where applicable), OHS, WCB and all the other XYZ derivatives on an ongoing and continual basis. We rely on the fact that we are a Federally regulated industry, we have the utmost desire to operate safely and not cause any undue strife to those that we hold most dear (our passenegers, and bean counters of our passengers<who pay the bills> and anybody else who needs our services....and it IS a service).

 

All other requirements from 421 are adequately covered in said regulations and requirements of a Tactical Helicopter Company all ready published. References available on request."

 

Thought #2: The day that I can get 2 "safety Inspectors" from 2 different regions (or even 2 different geographical locations) I shall take thier word as LAW. Until that time comes I shall continue to apply my interpretation (which always end up costing the boss money..alas..) in all things aviation safety related. I like my kids coming home to swim in the pool.

 

cheers,

 

Chevy

[carholme]

With all due respect to everyones' position concerning licencing and all of the new changes which are coming, all I see are varying concerns about what is going to happen after the fact. What I don't see is any part of the helicopter industry actively involved in trying to stop process in the first place.

When we appeared at the Bill C-6 hearings on Parliament Hill in May of 2007, there was virtually no representation from the helicopter industry other than those who were only interested in what they could gain from the process.

As C-6 collapsed on the table due to political shenanigans, it has arisen again in C-7and we are actively engaged with others from the fixed wing industry to try and stop the process in the Senate.

 

SMS is a tool which can provide some useful productivity and other data points for those businesses which choose to use it but it is going to require manpower no matter if you are an Air Canada or a single aircraft operator. More and more, you hear the terms "self regulation" being used in the media and now even by some TC spokespersons.

 

In our brief to the committee dealing with C-6 we used the term "self regulation" to describe SMS but our complaint was that it was being imposed politically to reduce the number of inspectors at TC and thus reduce overall oversight of the industry by the regulator, thus letting the foxes in the henhouse. That is, it is dollars related only, without any real safety foresight.

 

So no matter what all of the concern is on this thread, my question is why all of the concerned parties seem to have capitulated to the fact that it will happen, rather than make any attempt attempt to stop it. No matter what the politicians may feel, this is our industry,not theirs but if we are not at the table to state our concerns and show them that we do know what we are talking about, they are going to do the politically expedient thing and push it through.

 

Here is an example of how I see the futility of the flowery SMS speak.

 

A recent accident report of a Bell 206B in Northern BC was proved to be the result of a failed transmission support, a component which has a problem history going back to the early days of the 206. BHC issued an OSN stating that there were no repairs allowed to this component but a Canadian MRO was given repair authority from TC in spite of the OSN. This particular 206 crashed and again the component failure led to deaths. TC then issued an AD calling for the removal of all the affected components.

The clever manipulation of SMS reasoning by an auditor will ask the operator why he installed the component in the first place and the answer might be that the component was repaired with TC approval by an TC approved repair facility. The inspector is not going to be too concerned with that, more to the point, his focus is going to be why did you ignore the OSN which was issued by the manufacturer of the part in the first place? TC's present position is that the OSN is not a mandatory publication by the manufacturer, therefore we do not have to abide by it. Organizations who have that mentality and are tring to impose SMS as a system of "self regulation" are already contributing to lining up the holes in the swiss cheese, exactly as they did in this case by issuing the repair approval in the first place.

 

To me, we have failed to be upfront and take control of our industry and are in a position to have to address everything after the fact. It is absolutely no wonder that there is so much confusion.

 

Regards

 

carholme