VFR in IMC - Kasper Aviation

[Simcom]

Well this turned dark in a hurry.

Hey Simcom, what happens when your battery shits the bed?

E

I never said I agreed with everything they did. Would I fly IFR at night without a standby battery? NO plus the boss is ****** and screams to much.

[esp803]

The last camp demob I did in the real north, I flew in a scale, when the weather was shitty I dropped what I allowed the clients to take so I could carry extra fuel. The funny thing is, the client was okay with doing an extra trip (safety AND legality are key) and the company I was working for made more money from the two trips.

As long as it's done safely that's all that matters. It doesn't have to be legal to be safe.....

Like come on? Have you never ever ever taken off 10lbs overweight? That's illegal too!! I am sorry not everyone flys for a 705 regional operator.....

Safety is paramount. A good pilot knows his limits and knows when to say NO.

As to this garbage,

If you fly illegally and something happens, it's your ass, and assets, and trust me, you won't have any of those left. You don't have to fly 705 to fly legally. You are not a good pilot. You are an idiot.

Finally, since you replied before I could respond to your latest waste of electricity:

Unfortunately the reality of the industry is that you have to do illegal stuff to stay competitive, beacuse everyone else is doing it too.... But within reason.

States that you agree that flying illegally is okay, as long as it's within reason. You are an Idiot.

E

[DanWEC]

I agree with your last line esp..... Guys like this......I'm just shaking my head right now.
Clients will prefer to fly with a safe operator, that's the bottom line. Pretty simple logic. We don't die? Smashing!

I get it, so an airplane won't fall out if the sky 10 lbs over, but now you have to fake a w&b, and what happens if something else happens en route and you ditch? How is the insurance company going to feel about you flying outside the cert? Based on this, what else are you willing to stretch? I don't trust your judgement and I hope that you don't do anything stupider than just posting these opinions.

[Simcom]

Make this thread about being safe vs. unsafe! What Kasper did was unsafe! I don't care if it was illegal. I just care that it was unsafe.

[esp803]

I rest my case.

E

[andy_mtl]

Looks like Simcom is gonna become the new nickynick!

What you wrote blows my mind !

Good thinks 3/4 of the users remain anonymous on here cause if only people knew you.....

Andy

[Meatservo]

Anyway, what they were observed doing is NOT safe, whether the plane is equipped for IMC or not. Sioux Lookout is in controlled airspace, which means the planes who are coming and going legally in IMC are talking to centre and operating on clearances and following published procedures for separation, so when a little VFR fart-cart goes floundering around in clouds in controlled airspace he's relying on luck to stay out of everybody's way. I don't care how many gadgets the thing has on board to keep it right-side up and pointing in the right direction. Safe flight in IMC depends on everybody knowing where everybody else is, and everybody following the same procedures. There is nothing safe about what that guy did.

Also there's also a good reason we don't permit single-engine piston driven aeroplanes from flying IFR commercially. Didn't that company already have an emergency landing because of an oil-pressure issue? They're already playing with house money as it is.

If anybody at Transport Canada was interested in safety, they'd be taking a real close look at this. Maybe Kasper's SMS will pick it up, if he reports himself and issues a corrective action to himself.

[tipsails]

Why do I have a feeling simcom is related to the company, bashing it over the top and justifying illegal activity in an effort to have this thread removed?

[goingnowherefast]

Safe isn't always legal. Legal isn't always safe.

I try and do safe and legal. If I can't do both at the same time, I don't go flying.

Busting mins by 100' with LNAV+V is perfectly safe, but it's illegal, so I don't do it. My reputation as a professional isn't worth somebody's pop and chips. Following the rules is part of being a professional, whether we agree with said rules or not.

Tools like pseudo glideslopes, synthetic vision, etc. are designed to improve safety. Not for us to justify breaking rules because it's "safe".

Now back to this CADOR.
Flying around in IMC, in controlled airspace without a clearance is illegal and unsafe, no matter what sort of gizmos are in the plane. Never mind the potential icing issue.

I hope enforcement slaps them with violations of 602.121 (15,000 fine for the company) and 703.22 (25,000 fine for the company). We all know money is what speaks.

[Blueontop]

Make this thread about being safe vs. unsafe! What Kasper did was unsafe! I don't care if it was illegal. I just care that it was unsafe. The owner is ******

Fine! It's unsafe AND illegal so now that everyone is in agreement , you also should realize that the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Think about it, all these "silly/useless" rules that you and operations choose to ignore are in place because sometime/somewhere metal got bent and/or people died and in hindsight if these regulations had been in place the accident may not have happened!

there is a reason that this industry is the safest means of travel statistically because it has too! if it wasn't the public wouldn't fly. They would drive or take a boat and we would be out of jobs. It is safe because of the rules that have been payed for in metal and blood and when certain operators choose to ignore them to be be "competitive" they are benefiting from a concept that relates to the anti-vaccination situation which is herd immunity. That is to say that they are benefiting both in terms of profit but also in safety.

[Heliian]

Flight Service

They CADORS stupid shit like this to justify their existence and exert what little 'controlling' power they actually have.

Well don't fly illegally then! Don't cut people off, fly in restricted areas or bust minimums. Geez, who pissed in your cheerios this morning.

[ragbagflyer]

Did you mean VFR in IMC?

Indeed I did! Changed it.

Keep the discussion around the issue here folks and not the company, and the thread might stick around. The CADORS already speaks for itself.

[goingnowherefast]

Flight Service

They CADORS stupid shit like this to justify their existence and exert what little 'controlling' power they actually have.

Well don't fly illegally then! Don't cut people off, fly in restricted areas or bust minimums. Geez, who pissed in your cheerios this morning.

I had the understanding Shady McSly made that comment was made in sarcasm. I hope so at least. Flight Service is wonderfully helpful.
I've never worked at a FSS, but I don't think they have a "CADORs quota", I doubt they sit there and think "wonder what I can CADORs somebody for today". I bet they don't like filling out the extra paperwork, only do it when they're forced to, and in the interest of safety. Occasionally I f-up, and deserve a CADOR, but if you're nice and be professional about it, most of the time they'll let it slide.

[Roar]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a CADORS is.

Definition

Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System
Description

CADORS is the name given to the Canadian national ATS safety data reporting system which collects information about operational occurrences within the Canadian National Civil Air Transportation System. It is used to assist the early identification of potential aviation hazards and system deficiencies. Under the Canadian Aeronautics Act, there is a mandatory requirement for ATS certificate holders to report items listed in the CADORS Manual. CADORS reports are collected from a number of sources. The main information provider is ANSP NAV CANADA, which supplies close to 80% of all reports. Other information providers include the Transportation Safety Board, airports, police forces, public, etc.
CADORS captures a wide scope of safety related events including:
ATC operating irregularities
Communication, navigation, surveillance, and other air traffic systems failures
Controlled airspace violations
etc.
Included in the collection are occurrences related to aircraft, aerodromes, security (e.g. bomb threats, strike actions) and environment (e.g. fuel spills)

They are not a witch hunt to try an violate pilots for making a mistake, that's not to say TC couldn't use one to launch an investigation in the event of a blatent violation of the CARS but as we've seen in the example of this thread, an obvious breaking of rules had a no further action required result.
Think of it as an SMS system that uses the CADORS to identity problem areas. For example a CADOR could be submitted for a missed approach, now there is nothing illegal about a missed approach but it is out of the ordinary, now let's say over the course of a few years at that airport it's found that the missed approach rate is high than at other airports with the same approach aids and minimum, then that may spur an investigation as to why.

[goingnowherefast]

A pilot causes a CADOR to be issued. You bet TC will be in contact with your chief pilot asking for more details. For the most part, it will be "sorry our mistake, we will make sure it doesn't happen again".

ATC issues a clearance that causes two aircraft to loose the required separation, you as the pilot may never even hear about.

You file a certain airport as an alternate, and the glide path goes down unexpectedly rendering the airport unusable as an alternate. CADOR gets issued, but you probably won't even know.

I'd love to hear Kasper try and talk their way out of this particular one.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Clients will prefer to fly with a safe operator, that's the bottom line. Pretty simple logic.

You are right, it is simple logic but sadly that is not the case!

A few weeks ago we delayed and subsequently canceled most of our flights. The weather was below minima and our CSA's explained it clearly to our passengers in our departure lounge.

Low and behold some of them got together and went to the operator next door who gladly took their money and flew them to their intended destination.
Needless to say I was shocked that passengers would actually think to themselves "Ummm if Company A says it's not safe or legal to get us home, let's go see if Company B might be able to do it!!!"

The need to get home to loved ones obviously trumps safety and the basic human instinct of survival!

TPC

[CpnCrunch]

Kasper Aviation Inc.
November 4 at 8:21am

To our valued customers:
Due to low clouds and visibility, and freezing precipitation, we will be experiencing some delays and potentially some cancellations with our schedule today. Please feel free to contact us at 1-844-952-7354 with any questions, or to reschedule your flights.
Thanks for Flying with Kasper!

Perhaps lesson learned?

[Maynard]

Ha! That's what we would put or tell people and we fly a 19 seat twin turbine. Lesson learned? That's straight funny!

[cdnpilot77]

A pilot causes a CADOR to be issued. You bet TC will be in contact with your chief pilot asking for more details. For the most part, it will be "sorry our mistake, we will make sure it doesn't happen again".

ATC issues a clearance that causes two aircraft to loose the required separation, you as the pilot may never even hear about.

Part of "successful" SMS is having a dutiful safety officer to manage the SMS and other safety aspects of the operation.

I do a weekly cador search of our operation and our oft used airports. Even if you do it monthly, It takes 15-20mins out of a day TOPS. There is no excuse for not knowing and bringing it to the attention of the affected pilots, whether significant or not. If I find anything of particular interest to our ops, they are then addressed in my quarterly safety letters to flight crews, operations and management.

SMS sure ain't perfect, but used to its potential it can be a very helpful tool to weed out poor company or industry practices.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Okay, I've pretty much given up posting here because stuff like this happens and some of you make excuses and defend the guilty.
Well, I've been watching these guys. Overloads. Flight in weather they should never be in. On and on. The stupid in this industry never ends. Why. Because nobody who can do anything about it gives a rat's ass.
Hey TC! Remember Keystone? Here's a golden opportunity to be proactive. Look it up! You have the opportunity to prevent the death of some poor fool who doesn't a) know any better, b) is being forced into flights over their heads, c) both of the above. C'MON......do SOMETHING! Pull this OC before somebody dies. And when (not IF) someone loses their life in an accident, that anyone with any experience in this industry knows could have been prevented by a proactive regulator, I'll sign back in with a big fat "I told you so".
Illya

[SuperchargedRS]

Flying under VFR and landed in 500' overcast, after going IMC on final?

I got some nice avionics in the plane I fly, including a PT6, boots, heats, etc, I'm legal to fly VFR or IFR and I'm not even going to play the VFR in IMC game, you're ether flying under IFR or not, shades of grey in these areas easily turns into scorched ground, bent metal and hamburger meat.

[goingnowherefast]

Clients will prefer to fly with a safe operator, that's the bottom line. Pretty simple logic.

You are right, it is simple logic but sadly that is not the case!

A few weeks ago we delayed and subsequently canceled most of our flights. The weather was below minima and our CSA's explained it clearly to our passengers in our departure lounge.

Low and behold some of them got together and went to the operator next door who gladly took their money and flew them to their intended destination.
Needless to say I was shocked that passengers would actually think to themselves "Ummm if Company A says it's not safe or legal to get us home, let's go see if Company B might be able to do it!!!"

The need to get home to loved ones obviously trumps safety and the basic human instinct of survival!

TPC

How many planes did Keystone crash? It's morbid, but despite numerous serious injuries and several people dying, it wasn't the shortage of customers that forced them to stop flying.
Maybe this is a lesson in human nature.

[phillyfan]

Hey, they did say they will "reinvent aviation". So far they have put the airplane down on a frozen lake in the winter and shot an IFR approach into Sioux Lookout at night. All that while offering pax fares illegally. TC budget cuts have allowed them to reinvent aviation alright! Not sure why the CTA has allowed the passenger fares?

[2R]

Is it hard to work the rudders when wearing clown shoes ?

[trey kule]

I think anyone who has read my posts over the years knows I have some issues with some of the things TC has done, and probably may still be doing.

But , to be fair, this whole proactive things is unfair to them. They make the regulations. After that their hands are really tied until there is an accident (or two) or a very serious viloation.
And postings on AvCanada, I would not expect to be considered justifiable reason to act...be they true or not.

Yes its tragic people will probably have to die before a sleazy operator gets shut down...

But lets look at something that really is proactive. Lets try and convince these pilot whores that are flying overweight, underfueled aircraft outside their personal skill level and the aircrafts limitations to stop it.
How..?..all the legitimate companies can start by never ever hiring a pilot who has worked for more than 4 weeks at any of these companies...harsh yes. But once word gets out that the only people that will hire you are another sleazy operator, maybe pilots will start to think twice.
Regret after the fact is not an acceptable excuse. Career rationalizations is not an acceptable excuse.
Of course, absolutely none of those who work for those companies and post here ever do any of these things...you are part of the gang, kids, and you should be expected to be painted with the same brush.



I agree about the pax mentality. Spent enough time in my career in the north to witness the ultimate stupidity of pax when someone says no go to them...and it was not the local folks. They had witnessed enough accidents and understood the risk.