Buffalo Joe temporary shut down?

[anofly]

any news?

[Redneck_pilot86]

I see the travel airs listed for sale on controller, not sure if that's related.

[toelessjoe]

I see the travel airs listed for sale on controller, not sure if that's related.

Probably not. He's still got the Barons for the run abouts. At least I think he does...

- Toeless.

[Gear Jerker]

Well, it's a good thing that some of you don't attempt to start an airline yourselves, as some of your comments/suggestions give a good indication that your business would fail.

Operating any business, let alone an airline for 40+ years speaks for itself. Joe is not an idiot, and in fact the opposite is quite apparent. All that matters is the economics of the situation; the actual numbers, not rhetoric and platitudes. Turbine vs not turbine, etc. are nice things as pilots, but all that matters is the ability to operate with compliance to regulations, and in a manner that is profitable over the long term.

With that said.... are they going to get their OC back, or is it over?

[Donald]

but all that matters is the ability to operate with compliance to regulations

This is the key for Buffalo.

[jspitfire]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/buf ... -1.3379716

Latest article says Joe is 'stepping away' and they're cancelling further passenger sked flights.

[North Shore]

I think from TC's point-of-view, Joe's departure is probably a positive event; Cxing the sked is probably a negative one for the company..

[CID]

Well, it's a good thing that some of you don't attempt to start an airline yourselves, as some of your comments/suggestions give a good indication that your business would fail.

Operating any business, let alone an airline for 40+ years speaks for itself. Joe is not an idiot, and in fact the opposite is quite apparent. All that matters is the economics of the situation; the actual numbers, not rhetoric and platitudes. Turbine vs not turbine, etc. are nice things as pilots, but all that matters is the ability to operate with compliance to regulations, and in a manner that is profitable over the long term.

With that said.... are they going to get their OC back, or is it over?

Citing the length of time a business has been operating doesn't add much to the discussion. Is a company awesome because it lasted so long or was it simply lucky? Were the operators good at hiding things so they could operate outside the regulations while others were much more diligent? Did the operator leverage their distance from civilization to side-slip the rules?

I'm not going to make any statements about this operator breaking rules or about the very public anti-establishment attitude of the owners but I've been in this business a long time and I will state without hesitation, I would never fly on an aircraft operated by Buffalo Airways. I don't care what the circumstances were.

[Rockie]

Joe might not be the "accountable executive" named in their FOM as far as SMS goes but he's the executive being held accountable. Perhaps it's about time that actually started happening and not just in our industry.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[Eric Janson]

I'm not going to make any statements about this operator breaking rules or about the very public anti-establishment attitude of the owners but I've been in this business a long time and I will state without hesitation, I would never fly on an aircraft operated by Buffalo Airways. I don't care what the circumstances were.

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.

[boeingboy]

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.

That's a mighty bold statement considering the independent expert they hired to clean the place up and get their OC back has admitted the companys paperwork is spotty, non-existent, incomplete and they do fly overweight!

It's about time these guys got what was coming to them.

[sstocker31]

You guys need to wake up and open your eyes.....everyone up north operates overweight at times.
I have to ask if any of you have ever taken off in your 172 with 20 degrees flap?

[Diadem]

So does that make it okay? If everybody does it, it's fine? In the case of Buffalo, these aren't hypotheticals; they had a crash in 2013 where they couldn't maintain altitude after an engine failure because they were overweight, which was a result of trying to tanker cheaper fuel. That's not an acceptable practice from any operator in my books.

[fish4life]

You guys need to wake up and open your eyes.....everyone up north operates overweight at times.
I have to ask if any of you have ever taken off in your 172 with 20 degrees flap?

Actually they don't, especially so in the 705 world. Even 703/704 because other people do it doesn't make it right or give you an excuse to.

[Rockie]

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

Then they're doing so in violation of the aircraft operating manual, their company operations manual and the CAR's.

Do you think that should be ignored by Transport Canada just because "everyone" is doing it?

[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.