Fress Press story - Thursday Sept 3 2009

[revr]

Faulty fuel gauges cannot be deferred on some aircraft, such as the C208 -

just a note, fuel quantity indicators can be deffered on a C208 as per transport canada MMEL supplement dated sept 15,2003, Page 28-1.
but 1 out of 2 has to be working. balance must be verified prior to each flight.

[The Other Kind]

just a note, fuel quantity indicators can be deffered on a C208 as per transport canada MMEL supplement dated sept 15,2003, Page 28-1.
but 1 out of 2 has to be working. balance must be verified prior to each flight.

You used to be able to defer the gauge, but not anymore. The MMEL was changed on Rev 7A dated 3/30/09.

[_dwj_]

Black Cat you say some interesting things....offers of immunity...lol. From what I hear those pilots at Fast that were willing to purger (sp?) themselves, or basically lie...got off of their charges. The pilots that told the truth got nailed.

I don't really have much sympathy for them. Was someone holding a gun to their heads forcing them to fly?

The correct thing to do is NOT to break the law in the first place. Then, if you get fired for not breaking the law, you can bring a wrongful dismissal action against your employer.

And I'm guessing that there are a lot of safety conscious operators out there who would be keen to hire pilots who have been fired for not breaking the law.

[Hedley]

Everyone here is always whining how they want
to break their bond.

Heck, I can't think of a better way to get out of
a bond than to honestly claim that your employer
was trying to force you to fly a dangerously
unairworthy aircraft - esp if you have evidence of
same.

I'm guessing your employer would never get
around to taking you to court, where your
evidence would be entered.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

This forum should be the best means of communication that those in aviation could have to get to the truth of some of these very troubling issues.

What I have problems sorting out is the difference in how companies are handled by TCCA.

In the Winnipeg area I can not really understand how things work, is Fast Air that much worse than some of the other companies there who have a history of many complaints from pilots and engineers?

This post needs more focus to find out where the truth lies.

Black Cat you say some interesting things....offers of immunity...lol. From what I hear those pilots at Fast that were willing to purger (sp?) themselves, or basically lie...got off of their charges. The pilots that told the truth got nailed.

That is a very serious allegation and we need to know the truth.

TC has not been interested in safety for a long time now, or with working with operators to improve safety. It's just a paper game now, and it's a little scary the tactics TC is taking with this.

The above really does not need much more examination as it is factual.

CYA folks.

You can take your guidance from TCCA's own top management and when all else fails you tell whatever lie is necessary to cover your own ass, we have one of the best examples of that kind of personality out here on the west coast in TCCA's top management.

No wonder the industry is dysfunctional.

[Pratt X 3]

*EDIT* - I could be wrong about the SPIFR and rad alt...it might be only required for SEIFR, it's one or the other...or maybe both? It's been a while since I worked in that segment of the industry.

It is SEIFR only.

Transport of Passengers in Single-Engined Aeroplanes
723.22 The standard for transport of passengers in a single-engined aeroplane under IFR or VFR at night is:...
(2) Aeroplane Equipment Requirements...
(e) a radar altimeter;

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... tm#723a_22

SPIFR additional equipment requirement

Additional Equipment for Single-pilot Operations
703.66 No person shall operate an aircraft on a single-pilot operation in IMC unless the aircraft is equipped with
(a) an auto-pilot that is capable of operating the aircraft controls to maintain flight and manoeuvre the aircraft about the lateral and longitudinal axes;
(b) a headset with a boom microphone or equivalent and a transmit button on the control column; and
(c) a chart holder that is placed in an easily readable position and a means of illumination for the chart holder.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#703_66

[Black Cat]

[/quote]

The correct thing to do is NOT to break the law in the first place. Then, if you get fired for not breaking the law, you can bring a wrongful dismissal action against your employer.

And I'm guessing that there are a lot of safety conscious operators out there who would be keen to hire pilots who have been fired for not breaking the law.[/quote]


So are you an instructor or a college student? This industry doesn't work like that my friend! It is a poisoned culture of desperate low time pilots working ground positions for years sometimes, then onto a plane just to make slightly less than a McDonald's employee.... Only to find out he is working for a rule bending cheat who cares about $$$ more than safety.

Now what? Go work on the ground for another 2 years just to possibly find out the same thing? Or stick it out for a year and hope you can get out? See where im going bud? Maybe you got lucky but I assure you this is the NORM. If its not maintenance, its pressure to push weather, if its not weather its duty time. If its not duty time, the owner wants you to baby sit his kid on your time off. Bottom line; FLAWED!

As for the bond comment.....Its been tried before, a keystone pilot quit for the same reason a few years ago, went to court, claimed unsafe practices and unsafe workplace and LOST. Had to pay his bond. BTW, who has more money to spend on lawyers, a pilot making 23 grand to fly a Navajo or the operator who is saving big buck on cheating on maintenance and underpaying pilots? Duh.

The cards are stacked against low time pilots who stand up in this biz. The options are; quit, fired, or browbeaten til you leave if you dare stand up. No protection from TC. No protection from the labour board. Good luck and my you work for a company that offers some protection soon!



Transport is not interested in safety, if they were there would be 90% less 703 operators.