Globe&Mail: Lives Could Have Already Been Saved

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Huh???

I don't get what you're saying, you think it is the controllers fault? Give your head a shake!!!

Scrambled-legs why should I give my head a shake?

Open your own eyes and read what I said.

To my simplistic mind that is not proactive thinking on the part of whoever makes these regulations up.

If you make up the regulations then I guess you have the right to disagree.

The truth is SVFR has been used as a method to fly in weather that is just plain fu.kin dangerous for as long as I can remember.

I clearly understand the position of a Nav Can employee and what they are required to do....but if there is a Nav Can employee who does not recognize how this SVFR thing is used to fly into crap weather out of the Vancouver CZ then I can't explain it to you.

My comment was that I personally am against SVFR for departures in this area for float planes because it results in to many CFIT.

[Offset]

I think it is time to look at banning SVFR for departures period. If this was the case this accident would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this conversation. On too many occasions I have been a spectator watching aircraft takeoff at bare minimum SVFR and flying into what is obviously worse weather. However, if I deny SVFR for any other reason than traffic the customer would be asking my Manager some questions and my Manager asking some questions of me.

[Keepitsafe]

Offset,

My feelings exactly. Get rid of SPECIAL FOR DEPARTURES. What is the point?

I have been in the situation where the weather report and the tower is calling less than 1 mile in some kind of bad weather on the airport but I could see for miles on the river in YVR and the weather was 6 miles plus everywhere else - I would have no problems going...... but those days are far and few between. Sacrifice a few departures like that when you think the rules are screwed for the days when guys are taking off and you are thinking - what are they doing?

Transport Canda please wake up - Special VFR is for weather pushers, and pilots being pushed.

I've been preaching this "Special VFR is BS - don't go" for years and I just get looked at like "I know what I'm doing - see yah!" - some listen and its great to see the younger guys saying no.

As I see the 1000 hour pilot dissapear into the crap I think to myself ... yep that was me quite a few years ago.... glad I'm still here.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Finally I'm getting a few to speak up and tell it like it is.

Banning SVFR has far more positives than negatives.

But it won't happen because the industry is run by greed and not a desire for safety to be improved.

Maybe ATAC will take the iniatiave and get the ball rolling to lobby the government to ban SVFR departures?

[CD]

This is the process to follow if someone wants to recommend a regulatory change:

REQUESTS FOR REGULATORY ACTION
(INVOKING CARAC)

3.1 General

Anyone may request the CARAC to consider issuing, amending or revoking a regulation, standard or advisory material. Accordingly, the following details the procedures for "Invoking CARAC". These procedures are illustrated in Appendix 13.

Anyone wishing to "Invoke CARAC" shall do so, in writing, to

Transport Canada
Civil Aviation
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0N8
Attn.: Chief, Regulatory Affairs (AARBH)

Requests are to be accompanied by appropriate documentation in order to ensure a prompt and concise review of the proposal. The following details the information that should be provided:

* historical and technical background;
* the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal containing any information, views or arguments available to the petitioner to support the action sought, including reasons why the granting of the request would be in the interest of aviation safety or the public;
* the expected impact on aviation safety and the environment;
* where possible, consideration of the approach of other aviation authorities to the same issue;
* the anticipated economic impact; and
* any other related material.

CARAC Management Charter and Procedures (2008 Edition)

[Old Dog Flying]

So far there have been comments about SVFR being used for departures...BUT...it is also used for arrivals, IFR traffic taken into consideration. A great many times I have approved SVFR for aircraft that have departed another airport with good VFR only to have reduced ceiling/visibility at destination.

Admittedly I too really hated approving SVFR departures into unknown conditions and have seen fatalities as a result of poor pilot decision making. SpecialVFR departures on the we(s)t coast should not be an option.

[wantok]

I don’t think banning SVFR is the answer. If that was the case we would have to wait for 1000’/3 miles to depart a control zone. Would you want to delay/cancel a trip when the ceiling is 800’ with unlimited vis underneath?

SVFR requirements need to be reevaluated though. The SVFR rules should not have changed from the old ANO standard when the CARs were implemented. Remember the old add up to 8 rules for SVFR? 500’/3, 600’/2, 700/1. The lower the ceiling the more vis you needed. Makes more sense than just having 1 mile. These limits at least make some sense with regards to what is allowed VFR in uncontrolled outside the control zone; 2 miles vis unless you have the ops spec for 1 mile (702/703 only) and 300’ ceiling for 703 and 500’ for 704.

Thoughts?

[Flying Nutcracker]

I am not disagreeing here, but what is the difference by being authorized by someone else to dep svfr out of YVR and authorizing yourself to depart in less than favourable wx at an uncontrolled site? Does CFITs happen in controlled or uncontrolled airspace???

[Old Dog Flying]

There was a time when we were allowed to approve SVFR at night and on one occasion a friend who was instructing at ZBB requested SVFR to depart with a student in a C152. I "suggested" that the weather was not condusive for departing the zone but he wanted to "have a look". How many times have we heard that comment?

He departed SVFR and within 5 minutes was in the crud with a 500' ceiling and about 2 miles vis. A cloud breaking over the bay and a few shakey minutes later he was back on the ground safely....BUT this was at the same time that an instructor and 5 commercial students in 2 C172s pounded into the ground just a few miles south east of Bellingham.

It was shortly after this incident that night SVFR was terminated.

I would never worry about a manager reaming my ass out for denying SVFR. It is far easier than having to look at the faces of grieving family members.

As a pilot, if the weather is crappy I can wait for better times. Going into Oklahoma City the Approach Controller asked me what my flight conditions were and I responded that the yellow streak up my back was about 3 feet wide and growing. He said " there is an uncontrolled airport at your six for three miles advise on the ground" . .. running on the bald prairies is one thing but not here on the west coast.

[Offset]

I understand that changing the rules for SVFR will not make any difference for those wishing to push weather at uncontrolled airports. It will prevent some from departing controlled airports and would make a difference in that respect. No amount of rule changes will stop some people from pushing weather outside of controlled airspace or wherever nothing could ever be "proven" by TC or anyone else. The only thing that will change that is a change in attitude among those that do it on a regular basis and that will never be easy.

[scrambled_legs]

My comment was that I personally am against SVFR for departures in this area for float planes because it results in to many CFIT.

., you're missing the point.

SVFR is only denied to prevent two planes from running into each other NOT the ground. VFR minimums on the other hand, are the regulations enacted, to minimize CFIT. I can't recall of a single CFIT that occured in a control zone, and often they occur after departing uncontrolled airports or ones that are cavok. They occur after they're cleared enroute and continue to fly in marginal or below minimum weather. If you're saying that these VFR minimums are not safe, then petition the VFR minimum's outside of control airspace to be raised and more regulation to ensure that they're followed, don't just eliminate SVFR! SVFR has nothing to do with this.

If you restrict flights into controlled airspace and let them flog around outside of it, you'll just encourage more operators to locate off base. Hell I've seen float planes land outside the zone and step taxi in while people were going missed on the ILS, after being denied special. If you think following the minimum regulations is stupid, then you should petition the min to be changed and as a result, SVFR will be raised along with it. If 3sm and 1000' is required for a safe flight in the Control Zone, then it's required for a safe flight outside of the zone as well.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Scrambled, I understand the reason for SVFR in fact I would hazzard a guess I understood it before you were old enough to even read a regulation.

My concern is with SVFR for departures not arrivals in control zones.

Vancouver is an excellent example of the need for a change in the regulation due to the weather and terrain mix in this area.

It makes perfect sense to approve SVFR to a sea plane that has safely navigated from wherever to the edge of the control zone because it is fairly certain they can fly ten feet above the water to get into the river sea plane base.

Conversely issuing a SVFR to a sea plane to depart the Vancouver control when the weather is right at SVFR is like giving them another bullet to put in their revolver to play Russian Roulette.

If you think following the minimum regulations is stupid, then you should petition the min to be changed and as a result,

I have no desire to petition the regulator on any issue for two reasons.

(1) I am retired.

(2) Having spent three years dealing with the numb nutted cretins who run TCCA on legal matters I do not want to have to get back into that arena again because the next time I will probably be charged with mass murder.

[petpad]

[]

[scrambled_legs]

., encouraging a plane to press on to Vancouver rather than turning back, by allowing them to have SVFR into the control zone, is just as bad as allowing them to leave. If it is too dangerous to fly at minimums, then the minimums should be raised. The carriers that routinely fly into the zone when it is minimum VFR, are just as accident prone as the ones that routinely leave in the same conditions. Do you really want TC, or worse yet, ATC to be the ones that decide whether or not it is safe to fly? Whatever happened to the "Captain" knows best and is responsible?

I know some of you will say that the weather changes too rapidly in the west and if you weren't allowed into the control zone, then you would often be stuck in a serious low fuel, bad weather scenario. If you ever require a landing, you will never be denied entrance into a control zone, no matter what the rules or conditions are. You just have to explain yourself afterward. Those that are constantly explaining themselves, won't be flying very long.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

O.K. scrambled_legs you win.

Fu.k it leave everything the way it is and let the loss of lives just keep piling up.

I getting to the point that it would appear that having seen more of how it is done in aviation than most here will ever see my opinions and suggestions are not worth the effort of presenting here.

By the way I did survive so that must mean something as far as good decision making as a pilot goes.....or do some of you disagree with that also?

[_dwj_]

.: I think everyone agrees with you that something needs to be done. It's just that more regulation isn't necessarily the answer. I certainly think you are a good example to pilots that following the rules and not pushing the weather will let you live to a ripe old age. The question is, how to convince younger pilots of this?

My own opinion is that TC needs to do more to enforce the existing rules by going after persistent offenders. Although the controllers cannot prevent pilots from flying into below VFR weather outside the control zone, they perhaps should be reporting the people who do this for TC to investigate.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

My own opinion is that TC needs to do more to enforce the existing rules by going after persistent offenders.

Exactly.

[scrambled_legs]

_dwj_ exactly. I don't think we should have more people running into rocks and that changes should be made. Making a controller determine what the weather is outside of 5miles, when they can only see 1 and have no knowledge or weather briefing of the 100's of routes being flown, is probably not a logical one. I don't know how many times I can say this, but we know nothing about the weather outside the zone, especially when we can't see more than a mile in any direction. CFIT's aren't common in the zone.

Maybe we need a rat program for people to let TC know who is always going when no-one else is, or have ATC file a report for every aircraft using special so TC can look over those that are constantly requesting it when everyone else flying that route is staying on the ground. Either way it's pretty hard to prove what the flight vis was and fine the operator, unless you were sitting in the cockpit. Even then it's a personal judgment as to how far you can see.

[beaverboy]

Most aircraft are equipped with FM radios and can communicate with fishing boats and other ships

When I was the CP of a coastal floatplane company, I tried to get FM radios installed in all our A/C. Transport said no...not without a STC because it wasn't an approved radio..go figure.

As for SVFR...I don't get the point really. These are VFR companies not SVFR companys. Keep it simple and safe at the same time. TC should put an end to SVFR departues for sure...arrivals I think should be permitted but the pilot AND company must file an incident report as to why they failed to check the weather or if it was unforseen circumstances. This may ease some pressure.

Keep it safe out there people.

[scrambled_legs]

So is everyone saying that we shouldn't fly in less than 3sm and 1000' ceilings anywhere, or just in the control zone?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When I was the CP of a coastal floatplane company, I tried to get FM radios installed in all our A/C. Transport said no...not without a STC because it wasn't an approved radio..go figure.

TC are fuc.ing idiots, why even bother communicating with them.

When I had my float plane charter company I just bought a marine Icom FM radio and installed it in the airplane as a portable unit.

One inspector asked me if I had an approval for it and I told him yes I approved it, furthermore it is not installed it is portable...end of conversation.

To deny you something as important as FM communications on the west coast is mindboggling..so fu.k TC.

*****************************************************

beaverboy, nice to see there are still people in aviation who understand the issues..

[Flying Nutcracker]

Seems to me after reading a few comments... such as not passing up a flight in bad wx because there's always another pilot who will take it and fly it........

Isn't that the same philosophy and thinking when it came to certain outfits on the westcoast that totally ripped off the workforce by letting them pay to fly because they knew there would always be pilots willing to do it if one wouldn't???

Seems to me that pilots, no matter how early or late in their career, are the nemesis of themselves... of course they are always in the minority but always make for good writing!

And as far as FM in airplanes... had the same problem in Europe when trying to install one for SAR. Not a certified radio for airplanes... what a load of (insert prophanity as suited).

[Keepitsafe]

Another thing on the West Coast that no one really talks about is how big the swells are out there even at 20 to 25 knots - take a ride on the ferry when its blowing 25 and ask yourself if you think you could land and stay upright in those swells out in the open Straight in a Beaver or Otter with a full load.

40 used to be my cut off - because thats what everyone else was saying.

I agree on a day with unlimited vis and a ceiling of 900 feet then banning a SVFR departure might sound a little hard to take but at low altitude and high wind in a Beaver where are you going to go when the engine quits? And yes they do quit. There has been a few engine failures over water in recent years but luckily not out in the Straight when its windy.

I guess it really doesn't matter too much what the ceiling is because at 3000 feet you are screwed as well. Not that you'd ever be that high with Transport Canada's low level transit routes. If it happens low level lets just hope you are heading into wind.

We have been lucky on the Coast that this type of accident hasn't happened yet but its only a matter of time as I see it.

You can buy a 6 man inflatable raft that will fit under the back seat of a Beaver http://www.lifesupportintl.com/marine/p ... 36&cID=617 - I'd sure like to hear that an operator on the coast has one but "safety first" only goes so far I know - they weigh 50 pounds and cost over a thousand bucks - Where would you put that oversize bag with that thing in the way? What a life worth?

What is the excuse for not having one of these, regardless of what the CARs says, just like having an FM to talk to the boat that is right by you but didn't see you ditch.

All this is so simple.

[scrambled_legs]

The thing I don't get, is everyone on here seems to be in agreement that flying in conditions under 1,000' and 3sm, is too dangerous. Yet instead of saying that VFR limits be raised, we're just focusing on raising the limits inside 5 miles of a contolled airport. I know lots of pilots are proud of making it in marginal conditions, and embarassed to say that it's too dangerous to go. I've been guilty of it myself but why mask what you're saying. Don't just put the responsibility on the controller to decide whether or not someone can go in marginal conditions, change what is and isn't acceptable to fly in. Petition TC to change the OC's on the west coast to only allow flight in 3sm and 1000' for the entire route. If flying in SVFR inside the control zone is unsafe, then flying in 1sm clear of cloud, outside the control zone, is even less safe.

[Cat Driver]

The thing I don't get, is everyone on here seems to be in agreement that flying in conditions under 1,000' and 3sm, is too dangerous.

Everybody here said that?

It can be perfectly safe flying in weather below 1,000 feet and 3 miles vis.

However when there is a low ceiling and low visibility in fog in the whole area then it becomes dangerous.

Specifically in the Vancouver area where there is no excuse for not knowing the weather on the route you are planning to fly.