Can we improve safety on the west coast in sea planes?

[Cat Driver]

beechnut, for sure there are many places on the west coast where a down wind take off is the only safe choice.

How did you get your training to learn how to judge when you can safely do these departures?

I got mine the hard way...self taught and very carefully.

The west coast of course is not the only area with these inlets and wind patterns the east coast has its share and of course there is Greenland with the added danger of floating ice and iceberg chunks that clog many inlets and the weather can change so fast it is amazing.

I have some neat pictures of the ice in the inlets of eastern Greenland but my fu.kin computer will not copy and paste.

[Cat Driver]

I would like more discussion about an association of chief pilots.

What negative issues can you all think of that would make this not a good idea to improve safety?

[photocaver]

So is there such a thing as a simulator for floatplane operations?

It seems that land plane commercial people get to practice their skills, and emergency scenarios in the virtual world, but seaplane pilots get to try them for real.
Wouldn't it be worthwhile to be able to practice downwind takeoffs on floats in a simulator?

[MichaelP]

Irrelevant?
Here are my points:

1. Original training. Illusions created by drift done properly and in real winds will leave an impression that will last.
Float pilots start as wheel pilots and the original lessons they learn they go back to when things go awry.

When I learned to fly I learned in the Cessna 150 but I was taught to fly aeroplanes and not the Cessna 150!
It doesn't matter what you learn in it's the decisions you make.

2. We have few experienced instructors who can ingrain real experience into their students.
So read, read all the books you can and learn from others who live and who have died in our world.
There's nothing new to learn in flying but there's a lot to be relearned by a new generation of pilots.

Downwind takeoffs.

I know little about float flying in comparison to many on this forum.
But it is apparent to me that hydrodynamics while similar to aerodynamics are far more violent. This means that if you move floats across the water at higher speeds the wear and tear and the potential damage has to be greater.
So taking off downwind has to subject the floats and the airframe to much higher stresses.
So it's down to your knowledge of your aircraft structure and wave conditions to determine whether a takeoff should be safe.

Bear in mind that there will be people who try things written on this forum.

Taking off downwind also reduces your chance of surviving an engine failure after takeoff.

Then there's weight.
There's the maximum takeoff weight, but there also a weight which will give you sufficient performance to overcome the circumstances during your takeoff.

Takeoff down wind at a light weight might impose the same loads as an into wind takeoff at MTOW.
Takeoff downwind at MTOW and the exponential increase in shock loads to the floats together with the momentum of a subsequent crash should be considered very carefully.

Combine taking off with the Illusions as the wind shifts and the shear takes it's effect and you can have total confusion and now you need luck.

Luck is not something to be relied upon.

[Cat Driver]

A simulator for sea plane training would be great, however the problems involved to measure hydrodynamic drag might prove to be a challenge for the software writers...then again my knowledge of computer software is about as in depth as my understanding of the female mind.

[skybaron]

We get lulled in to a false sense of security by having "done it before" and may refuse to acknowledge our own vulnerability when limits are slowly increased over time by either a group or individual. (lack of enforcement, or operational control) What becomes normal for one, could be considered insanity by another.

Well said

Some of my most hair-raising experiences on floats - is when you're debating whether or not to take a trip, some douche standing beside you who's been with the company a little more than a day from you - looks out the window, and says "it's fine"....
Next thing you see your passengers, dispatchers, and other pilots who've heard this comment made from the "o'superior one", all stare to see what will your decision be.
(western movie soundtrack plays in the background)

Safety can start by fixing our flying culture.

[viccoastdog]

I feel that better operational control and more professional peer pressure can improve this situation.

I especially agree with the second part of your sentence. Peer pressure that does not reward a 'get 'er done' attitude but instead dissuades dangerous practises. As for better operational control, I know it often happens that when I pilot gets to a destination the loads and pax numbers have increased to what was originally envisioned, without perhaps any correspondence with staff who have knowledge about if the extra loads are feasible, not just legal.

I also suggest that some places really aren't appropriate for scheduled float plane operations because of localised and unpredictable weather conditions.

As for downwind take offs, if when on the slide it feels like the plane is getting beat up in the waves, it probably is getting beat up! It's kind of easy to tell. Many (though not all) of the places where downwind take offs are practised also have a way of doing it with a cross wind. If a pilot would take a downwind wind strength stronger than what they would accept for a cross wind, then they're asking for trouble.

[viccoastdog]

This is the type of issue that a chief pilot needs to be sure his guys/girls are aware of limitations, especially the local knowledge part.

Do operators make use of the NavCanada Local Knowledge Documents?

http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?L ... efault.xml

(Sorry, I can't get the link to work properly)

I have many of those documents in hard copy, plus also marine weather related books. But I like books and learning about the weather. I was never given any weather books or documents to read and nor was I never tested on weather by anyone I've worked for previously on the coast. It seemed to have been left up to the individual to seek out the written knowledge, if they wanted it.

Often the local knowledge was passed down verbally by a more seasoned and experienced pilot before going to a new and challenging location. That's all well and good, but it doesn't guarantee that every pilot going to a new and challenging place is going to get the briefing unless it is formalized in some sort of company training.

[Cat Driver]

When I flew the west coast VFR on floats I tried to have five miles vis when learning new areas, of course the five miles frequently ended up being far less...which was why I started with five miles in the first place.

The Turbo Goose and the PBY allowed for far more comfortable trips as we could file IFR and do a cloud breaking procedure using NDB's that are in many areas of the coast and if we could not get visual to complete the trip we could go to an airport and fly the published IFR approach and land on the runway...ya gotta love amphibians.

When is someone going to point out why a chief pilots association would not work for policing 703 sea plane operations?

[phillyfan]

As long as there are pilots willing to do sketchy shit in order to get the airplane into the air and back onto the ground, bad things will continue to happen. The most important lesson that should be taught is how to say "no". Instead the lesson being taught is that float flying is a real man's game, full of haywire shit. From day one on the dock you are told tales of great aviators who could fly faster, lower and with more shit on there plane then you could ever hope to. Of course most of those guys also left a trail of bent steel and broken bodies in there wake.

[snoopy]

"..bent steel..."

Well, we can be thankful we've progressed to aluminum aircraft at least...

[Cat Driver]

You have hit the nail on the head Philly, the question is why has this moronic mindset been kept alive all these decades?

The rest of aviation has evolved and accepted safe operations practices why has the bush flying sector remained in the dark ages when it comes to operating airplanes with due regard to the rules and good decision making?

( I personally think it is the operators who like to see the macho, hero type personality set the pace so they make more money while the pilots take the risks. Which allows this mindset to live on.)

A well run association of chief pilots could soon bend these operators over the barrel and either change the way they operate or put them out of business.

[beechnut]

. I got a bare float endorsement on a J-3 out of Pat Bay in 1975 . My instructor was a fellow by the name of Tom Tillotson he was killed in an accident in Africa soon after we met. My private was acquired in Nanaimo my instructor was Bill Anderson one of the finest fellows I have ever known, he to was killed in an IFR to VFR accident near Castle Rock Washington. I mention the deaths of both of these guys so the younger upstarts will realize how serious flying can really be . I have made float flying my career and I would not trade a minute of it in for a real job. Most of these accidents on the coast that we are seeing are preventable but it is a real challenge to implement an avenue for the up and comers a safe and viable learning platform . I think we have a good start right here right now. Some of these posters on this forum are guilty of some real screwups but if we can get some of these stories out and prevent a few accidents that will be a good starting point. Beechnut

[viccoastdog]

You have hit the nail on the head Philly, the question is why has this moronic mindset been kept alive all these decades?

The rest of aviation has evolved and accepted safe operations practices why has the bush flying sector remained in the dark ages when it comes to operating airplanes with due regard to the rules and good decision making?

Could it be that most of the seaplane ops around are single pilot into remote areas where no one really sees what they're doing (and getting away with)?

As Snoopy mentioned in a post on the topic that influenced the start of this thread, the seaplane passenger can be an influence in changing the culture of seaplane operation by dint of their refusing to fly when they don't feel safe. But often many passengers seem to profess a desire to fly with someone who in the past has got them through to their destination when in reality the pilot took great risks to do so. I bet everyone flying floats on the coast, and across the country, has heard something similar from their passengers. Especially if they're flying a sked.

[Cat Driver]

I knew Bill very well and helped him fuel up for the trip that evening for a trip later that night.

He had left Transport to fly for Madill and I had agreed to work for them so the airplane could be operated two crew as I had been flying with Stan for a couple of years part time.....the airplane he was flying was a loaner as the company machine was getting winglets put on it in Hillsboro, Bill was concerned about a pressurization problem he was having with it and said he would be happy when the company machine was finished and back in Nanaimo.

I had the opportunity to listen to the last twenty minutes of the Seattle ATC recordings and will never forget the sense of fear I felt listening to his last communications with Seattle....he had asked for a descent due to pressurization problems and for some reason cancelled the IFR south west of Olympia.

Terrible accident especially knowing how careful Bill had always been.

[Hot Fuel]

Mr. . has asked when someone is going to point out why a chief pilots association would not work for policing 703 sea plane operations.

First let me begin with saying my comments are in no way meant to slight anybody holding, held or wishing to hold a chief pilots portfolio. I’m of the opinion that most, if not all 703 chief pilots I’ve encountered over the years took on the position with the best of intentions. Yet at the same time more times than not the deciding factor in applying for the position is the perceived career advancement or more directly, a good resume builder and bump in the take home pay.

The requirements to be eligible for the position are frankly too low. In order to satisfy Transport Canada all one needs to do is the following;

1) Meet the flight hour’s standards, a minimum of 500 hours of flight time of which 250 hours were acquired within the preceding three (3) years on the same category of an aircraft operated by the air operator." (This was changed from the standard of at least one (1) year experience within the preceding three (3) years as pilot-in-command of an aircraft operated by the air operator.)
2) The company recommends their choice for the position to their POI who in turn
verifies the applicant’s qualifications listed above.
3) The POI issues the applicant a letter of recommendation to attempt the written examination.
4) Completion of a 50 question multiple choice exam.
5) An interview with the POI specific to the company operations.

The exams are a walk in the park; the study guide is a published document that identifies every area that you are going to be tested on, a couple days of study at best to be prepared to achieve the 80% passing grade. Today’s up and comers have or are taught the study techniques to get it right on the first or second attempt.

It’s not unlike the instructor debate; the least experienced teaching those with no experience.

The transition from “pilot” to “management pilot” can be a difficult one. Generally speaking the 703 sector is a small operation with a couple or three aircraft. One goes from being your buddy to being the boss virtually overnight. Somebody said in another thread that just because you are pilot it doesn’t necessarily make you a good manager. I think that plays a role.

A situation is created that often puts a person with minimal experience in life, flying and people management under the gun. Like I said earlier the intention to perform well in the position is there however the tool box might not be all that it needs to be.

When push comes to shove the new appointee gets lost in who he is really supposed to be working for, the pilot group and arguably Transport Canada. Its not easy to stand-up and potentially face-off against the very people that sign your cheque or to some degree hold the key to your career progression.

Experience is the key, both in matters of aviation, safety and the ability to manage people at all levels. I think that experience level for the most part isn't there because nobody races for the bottom of the pile, lets face it the vast majority want the big tin and 703 flying is viewed as entry level by almost everybody.

With respect to forming an association, bottomline...a room full of inexperience is simply that, intentions will only take you so far.

[Cat Driver]

You made valid points Hot Fuel and have pointed out how the system works in far to many companies.

However if we examine the power a chief pilot holds under legislation we will find that the chief pilot is responsible for the safety of all flying performed by the company he/she has been approved as chief pilot for.

I have a very extensive background in the duties of a chief pilot in 703/704 and 705 companies and have proven that if the chief pilot identifies a problem with non compliance to the rules and can not get support and back up from TCCA said chief pilot can use the courts to force TC to take action in support of the chief pilot.

I was expecting someone to point out how ineffective most chief pilots are in the 703/704 sector of aviation because generally speaking it is nothing short of a charade played between the companies and TCCA using inexperienced young people as scape goats on paper as smoke screens to blur what really goes on in the day to day operations of a lot of companies.

It can be changed by changing the mind set of chief pilots and once that is accomplished the legislation is already in place to change how companies operate.

What say thee to that Hot Fuel?

I would like to think that part of the reason my career was so successful is because I think and act in a positive mindset and do not meekly shrug my shoulders and say it can't be done because everyone else does not bother to do it right.

[Hot Fuel]

I think were on the same page, I don’t view the chief pilot position as a resume or time builder position. Yes men need not apply as they do nothing for the industry as a whole.

The bigger question is what steps need to be taken to change that?

Correct me if I’m wrong but utilizing the courts to force change takes more balls than simply standing up to the issue that brought you to the courts to begin with. Let me pull a number out of my ass and say that if only 1 in 10 new appointees have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand on an issue with their ownership or boss because of fearing for their job, what do you think the odds would be to find one willing to really go the distance?

You might be living proof of the ruin to follow when one chooses that route.

Personal integrity is a dying trait, and frankly should be a requirement for the job.

Heres a crazy thought, perhaps the chief pilot should fall under Transport Canada’s payroll and that a formula devised that would see all carriers funnel funds into the Transport kitty? The company is free to hire whomever they want for the position but once the nomination and acceptance process is complete the chief pilot falls under Transports payroll and the appointee answers to Transport not the carrier.

[Cat Driver]

Quote:

" You might be living proof of the ruin to follow when one chooses that route. "

I have to get a new computer or get this one declusterfu.ked because it the right click copy and paste will not work.

Hot fuel we have a lot of people reading this and if I am going to try and better aviation we need to examine comments such as that one, would you be kind enough to explain what you mean?

Then I shall relate what happened to my career when I went to the courts for a decision as to the power of a chief pilot to uphold the law.

There is no need to have a chief pilot under TC's payroll because the legislation is already in place that allows the chief pilot to enforce the law.

[Hot Fuel]

In the spirit of the new direction this forum is trying to take I’m trying to keep the discussion positive as are you.

My recollection of your previous posts on pushing TC to support your efforts relating to a chief pilots position was that you achieved the desired effect of your challenge, I don’t recall the issue.

That said one has to realise that when one publicly challenges authority, any authority, to achieve a goal, win or lose inevitably “authority” will hold a grudge. I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to connect the dots and consider the notion those previous efforts to make TC do something they didn’t initially want to remained in somebody’s memory and they exercised their authority or influence to cause you grief much later in life. Your TC troubles are well documented on this site and I’m suggesting choices earlier in your career may have influenced actions taken against you later in life.

Back to my first comments…not a positive picture but it is a reality of human emotion.

I agree completely that the regulations clearly give the power to the chief pilot; however it comes back to the experience level of the person in the seat and his position on life’s ladder. More times than not when he or she is faced with a `me or them` decision and in the early stages of ones career regrettably it will be `them` and he or she’s integrity that will be sacrificed to ensure ones livelihood and progression.

Which is why I suggest that once in the position they answer to the people that make the regulations and not the profit? Yeah I know...adding sharks to the kettle of fish but at least the sharks don't have accountants asking questions.

[pilotidentity]

I'd agree that one of the best contributions to safety is a pilot group that frowns upon risky behavior and uses all psychological methods as a group to get that message across to the offending pilot - basically making a risk taker feel that to become or remain part of the group he has to conform to safety.

[pilotidentity]

And I should add to my above post that when you find yourself in the opposite position, the position of being the only person that has a safety mind set in a group of risk takers, then you will most likely have to find a new job.

[Cat Driver]

Hot Fuel my decision to use the court route to achieve the results that the law required was when I was chief pilot for Air West Airlines and it took place in the spring of 1975.

For sure there were TC employees in the management level who were very angry with me and what I did, however the law ruled and they lost.

I went from there to chief pilot for a 705 operation and on down the years TC here on the west coast put me in a couple of companies that badly needed cleaning up regulation wise.

The problem I had with Nowzek in 2001 had no connection to what transpired in 1975 as I very much doubt that Nowzek would have any real connection with that era.

However you are basically 100% correct that when one decides to buck the system even when you are on the correct side of the law you will be open to revenge somewhere down the line when they get the opportunity to try and teach you a lesson for having had the temerity to force them to comply with the law.

Was I wise to have done what I did?

I think I was because in the final analysis I did what the position required me to do which was to ensure safety in flight operations.

Am I better off or worse off for having gone against some of their management?

I think so because regardless of what Nowzek and his bosses did to me my career only went upward even though it was not in Canada.

Would I advise others to do the same?

It all depends on how each individual preceives right and wrong and what sacrifices they are willing to accept to do what they think is the right thing.

The only other option is be a " team player " and go with the flow hoping that nothing serious happens during the time you are responsible for oversight of flight operations.....team players usually get the bat up the whazoo when the umpires decide they want to show you who runs the game.

This conversation is arguably about one of the most serious issues that any member of the aviation team can have because it forces us to look inside our true character.

[Hot Fuel]

Absolutely…a healthy `company culture` that promotes safety, adhering to regulations, policies and procedures is the nirvana. I’ve said it before I’ll say it again.

Company culture only works from the bottom up; it absolutely needs the support of the management at the highest levels. However, the person at the top can talk a good game and be as supportive as possible but in the end it’s the people on the working end of shovel that get the job done.

An unhealthy company culture gets changed by a management that has the desire and will to see it change; they have to publicly support the culture. But it’s the grass root effort from `the little people`` that actually make the changes by not accepting and offering solutions to actions that are determined to be unacceptable risk.

A healthy company culture is one that collectively offers solutions to potential problems in an effort to achieve acceptable levels of risk for all parties. The ranks have to be involved, if you leave it up to somebody else to decide odds are you won’t be very happy.

[Hot Fuel]

Mr . I think we are still on the same page, integrity and a desire to maintain your sense of personal pride or dignity is at the end of the day the only thing we truly have control over.

In my books nothing worse than going home knowing that I caved or compromised my sense of right and wrong. In the process, potentially damaging my credibility with a host of people that were watching and waiting for me to stand up for them too.

I can’t say I’ve come to this position overnight, I’m nearing retirement and it took years to find my backbone or perhaps my limits, today I’ll walk out the door and never look back if I’m put in a situation that is forcing me to compromise my personal integrity.

Are you better off standing up for doing the right thing? Well it’s certainly easier to look at yourself in the mirror, the loans officer not so much. Would I recommend for everybody? In a perfect world, yes. Sadly this world is far from perfect.

Under our current system it seems it’s a risk vs reward scenario and thus become personal choices these individuals are inevitably going to have to make when the rubber hits the road.

Out of curiosity, who picked up the costs of the legal fight with transport back in 1975?

Do you think anybody else has any ideas or is it just me and you left to sort out the mess?