Buffalo Joe temporary shut down?

[goingnowherefast]

A lot of people operated over weight in the past. Buffalo appears to be trying to keep that that tradition alive, and look where it got them. Now it's very rare, and I'm saying this from the 703 world where there's the least TC oversight.

[PilotDAR]

You guys need to wake up and open your eyes.....everyone up north operates overweight at times.

So there's a lot of self reporting in SMS for non compliance with a limitation and regulatory requirement? I've flown in the north many times, and the only times I have flown overweight was in accordance with the limitations of a flight permit to permit over the weight flights. I know that operators needing to fly overweight have the option to apply for a flight permit to do so - I have. Otherwise, fly within the limitations, and follow the rules.

I have to ask if any of you have ever taken off in your 172 with 20 degrees flap?

Is doing that prohibited, or exceeding a limitation for a 172? Does doing that in a 172 violate an air regulation? Apples to oranges.

[2R]

Very few operators in Canada have the full time paper people who can get increases to weights like the recent Basler weight increases paperwork exercise to get a payload increase like one northern operator just got approval for a huge increase in take off weight and increased payloads which make their Baslers' very desirable machines. Baslers with seating for Pax now as well .

Weight increases can be done legally in Canada ,you just have to jump through the loops like a trained seal.
The paperwork might be bullshit to some but if you have ever seen how clever some of the engineers truly are that consider the numbers and procedures ,you would respect the process ,and respect the numbers.
Just because the FAA approves twenty five percent weight increases for Alaska operators in winter ops, does not mean we should not respect the process our government chooses for our Northern operators .

The STC process has been simplified under the FAA FARS, perhaps after twenty five years since harmonization of air regulations between the two countries and the creation of TC CARS it might get easier in Canada to get quicker less painful STC approvals ?
Some folks cramp up holding their ankles waiting for STC approval under the present regime

[Kzanol]

I'm saying this from the 703 world where there's the least TC oversight.

Really? TC doesn't oversee anything, if they do they call you in advance to make sure you know they are coming.

[digits_]

IF the information from the article is correct, it seems very logical from a TC point of view they didn't lift the suspension. Looks like they are worried Joe is involved in the company.

Situation that got them suspended: Joe running everything even though he is not a manager/executive/...
Proposed fix: Joe will not be involved in the company anymore. He won't be a manager/executive/...
TC: What's the difference ?

[Rockie]

Situation that got them suspended: Joe running everything even though he is not a manager/executive/...Proposed fix: Joe will not be involved in the company anymore. He won't be a manager/executive/...TC: What's the difference ?

The difference will be in the consequences for the company the next time if they don't adhere to TC's conditions and clean up their act. Joe was the problem from their perspective and they are likely right (they aren't the idiots some people make them out to be) so Buffalo has been given a spank and told what they need to do to resume operations. If they are stupid enough to not comply then they truly do deserve to be closed for good.

[Donald]

From another forum, but bears repeating:

I wonder why they keep crashing planes?


Reading between the lines I'm picking up a strong getter done no matter what vibe from these guys. Combining that with old machines habitually flying very overweight seems like a recipe for disaster. To an admittedly far away observer with no first hand knowledge at least.

[CID]

I've been in this business a long time as well - unlike most of the posters on this thread I have actually worked for this company.

I'd fly on these aircraft anytime.

So, you've been immersed in a poisonous company culture that has been defined as unsafe and you expect me to value your assessment of the airworthiness of their aircraft? Sorry. I'm not buying what you're selling. But...I certainly respect your right to your opinion.

The STC process has been simplified under the FAA FARS, perhaps after twenty five years since harmonization of air regulations between the two countries and the creation of TC CARS it might get easier in Canada to get quicker less painful STC approvals ?
Some folks cramp up holding their ankles waiting for STC approval under the present regime

Sorry, this is absolutely incorrect. FAA STCs take MUCH longer to process than TCCA STCs. What Americans have under their sleeves however is that 8110-3 approval and field approval processes that allow them to approve certain major alterations without going with a full STC. Unfortunately, after decades of using these processes, the FAA is realizing that the lack of engineering oversight makes these alterations more likely to be non-compliant and less than "airworthy". They are currently clamping down on the use of these alternate methods of approval in favour of the more "Canadian" and "European" models.

[2R]

I take it from your response you are unfamiliar with AC21.101-1b .Easy reading and even easier application process if you go to a FSDO that has staff who like to take work breaks between coffee breaks
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today ... 24/?no-ist

The Basler 67 was certified under the old STC process. And now can carry 11,000 lbs of payload .
The Aircraft is classified as new when it leave the factory . The process seems to work for some
Joe should get some of his 3's converted and he will not have to worry about engine fires again.

[PilotDAR]

I expect that CID, as I, is familiar with AC21.101-1b. It's not really about "simplifying" the STC process in the U.S., but rather defining the basis upon which it is to be done, and whether a new TCDS could be required for a modification. STC's, be they Canadian or American, still follow the same comprehensive path. Up gross STC's are an immense amount of work, even for simple planes, and rightfully so. Flying at higher weights introduces many more variables to be considered. Yes, Basler has obtained a gross weight increase for the BT-67 DC-3C's and hats off to them for accomplishing that. I have quite encouraged one of my clients to purchase this Balser STC for their aircraft.

I can't speak to Buffalo Airways practices, as I am not associated with them, and only hear what is public, for better or worse. I do have multiple first hand experiences with TC staff going well out of their way to "allow" an aviation business to "find its way back", when it has been found to have strayed. For my experience, TC does not take certificate action lightly, or without good cause, and then as a last resort.

I wish the best for my aviation brethren, but I appreciate TC maintaining a standard of service for all certified aviation in Canada, of which we can be internationally proud.

[CID]

I take it from your response you are unfamiliar with AC21.101-1b .Easy reading and even easier application process if you go to a FSDO that has staff who like to take work breaks between coffee breaks
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today ... 24/?no-ist

The Basler 67 was certified under the old STC process. And now can carry 11,000 lbs of payload .
The Aircraft is classified as new when it leave the factory . The process seems to work for some
Joe should get some of his 3's converted and he will not have to worry about engine fires again.

I take it from your response that you're not familiar with CAR 521. And FSDOs don't have ANYTHING to do with STCs. You may want to study a bit more and learn what an ACO is.

[2R]

You can learn something every day ,even if you do not want too .
Thanks for that TC 521 thingy CID ,it reads like the old FAA 337 . Maybe that harmonization promised under NAFTA will happen after all

[pelmet]

You guys need to wake up and open your eyes.....everyone up north operates overweight at times.

It used to be just a normal way of operating to fly overweight up north in the smaller aircraft(Of course....I never did as I wouldn't want to incriminate myself). Not sure how it is now but.....

....if you were to decide to operate at a weight in excess of the maximum allowable, you have to calculate the risks just like on any flight. There are different things to consider but from an engine failure on a multi engine aircraft point of view, if in the 98% of the flight that is, the latter portion of the climb, cruise, and early portion of the descent point of view, you are definitely raising the stake if you can't maintain altitude after losing an engine. Now you have gone from being really vulnerable for a very small portion of the flight to the whole flight.

Then you add in the reality that you are not using fairly reliable turbines but instead are using engines that frequently have partial or complete failures and the risks get very high. Flying these aircraft overweight is a risky proposition in my point of view or perhaps I should say, a much higher risk than a much more reliable turbine aircraft.

Now someone might say that even if you are legally at gross weight and lose an engine, you still can't maintain altitude and therefore it is still risky. True, but there are different kinds of risk. The risk for those in the aircraft(and perhaps those in its flight path) and then there is the business risk. If the DC-3 that was overweight had been legal along with everything else, I don't think that could be used against you to ground your operation. You could show TC all the nice paperwork and documentation backed up by the evidence in the investigation and you should be clean. If you are significantly and intentionally overweight, you have a problem.

[pelmet]

Also heard a rumour of undocumented pax on the C-46. Any truth to this?

[RadicalRadial]

Also heard a rumour of undocumented pax on the C-46. Any truth to this?

No. This is incorrect information.

[Eric Janson]

I've been in this business a long time as well - unlike most of the posters on this thread I have actually worked for this company.

I'd fly on these aircraft anytime.

So, you've been immersed in a poisonous company culture that has been defined as unsafe and you expect me to value your assessment of the airworthiness of their aircraft? Sorry. I'm not buying what you're selling. But...I certainly respect your right to your opinion.

In 3400 hours of DC-3 flying I've had one engine failure.

I probably have 1000+ hours as Joe's co-pilot.

Things I learned while flying for Buffalo have kept me out of trouble flying large jets all over the world.

My opinions are based on my personal experiences.

I respect your right to your opinion.

If you want an example of poisonous company culture - this is the result of a six week investigation at my previous employer.

http://lankaherald.com/2015/04/09/the-w ... -airlines/

[CID]

You can learn something every day ,even if you do not want too .
Thanks for that TC 521 thingy CID ,it reads like the old FAA 337 . Maybe that harmonization promised under NAFTA will happen after all

2R, you are becoming famous for making bizarre statements then having a eureka moment. Is this a wind-up? CAR 521 isn't as much a "thingy" as the Transport Canada Regulation that provides the framework for airworthiness approvals. It's the Canadian counterpart to the FAA Part 21. Or at least parts of it.

The AC you referenced, almost randomly, deals with one of the first steps in applying for an airworthiness approval like a TC or an STC. Specifially, defining the basis of certification. The TCCA counterpart to FAA AC 21.101-1B is AC 521-004.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 4-1495.htm

For additional guidance on the STC process contained in CAR 521, you can check out AC 500-005.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 5-1484.htm

There is also guidance for RDAs and PDAs. You should have no problem finding those using the links provided.

The processes for obtaining STCs in the FAA world and the TCCA world are very similar but there are certainly some significant differences. The process in the US however is much more "sluggish" than in Canada. Without their field approval process things would grind to a halt down there.

[Donald]

http://www.myyellowknifenow.com/10588/i ... happening/

[PilotDAR]

My first hand experience with many different Transport Canada staff over the years has never left me thinking that either organizationally or individually they ever "had it in for anyone". Indeed, I have regularly found the opposite to be the case, where Transport Canada staff, when treated with the respect that any of us would appreciate human to human, will often make an extra effort, and "give" a little on compliance, where safety is not an issue. I very much doubt that TC staff would ever risk being shown to be applying pressure on a person or organization beyond what the regulations state is appropriate.

Perhaps if there is a perception that TC is being hard on someone, it is more a matter that they have decided to simply do their jobs to the degree, and in the timelines provided by regulation, and that the waiting times and actions are simply compliant with regulation. If something is taking a long time, TC are probably being very thorough to assure it is correct, before sending it back. If TC seems harsh, perhaps they are simply unwilling to extend themselves beyond the regulation, and are simply applying it.

As much as readers probably think I'm commenting from a skewed alternate universe, I find TC service to generally be above what I expect, and their stated levels of service. If I think something is slipping, or being applied too firmly, I review the actual standard, and find they're within their mandate. And then I hush up, for fear of degrading the regular service which is above and beyond. I have received replies to inquiries at 10:30PM, and when I know that the TC staff member was actually away on a family holiday. I do know people who have struggled to find a personal or organizational harmony with TC and its staff, some relationships are just a bit more challenging. But TC does our collective national job in applying the regulations we choose to have.

I wish Buffalo the best, but I wish them to be nationally compliant and operating on a level playing field with their peers too...

[photofly]

TC is made up of individuals, just like for instance AvCanada. Just because you work for government doesn't make you an asshole, but it doesn't make you a better person either.