Wanpaku, maybe you should take a lesson in Reading. Yeah i'll admit my spelling and grammer isn't the best but i'm not a f#cking english teacher so who the hell cares.
They are the ones saying that transport should have shut them down, not me. They are saying they where operating unsafe, not me. I just said since that is what there defence is, that they are opening themselves up to a liability suit since they are admiting to operating unsafe and being aware of it at the time.
And where did I say anything about the people who work there, the accidents, or there aircraft? Sheesh I really think its you who should take a read at the "Reading for Dummies" books.
Keystone blames Transport Canada.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Here I go with the "I used to work with a fella that....."
Worked with a guy for a company and then he went to Keystone and I didn't. Now he's quit because of too many issues that just aren't safe. Let's see:
-flying all day and then being made to clean the plane and having to start your next day 5 hours from when you finished cleaning.
-pulling reverse on approach, while in flight, to get into strips up north where due to low fog the visibility was crap. "Look out the window and tell me if you see trees" says the PF to the PNF.
-when ground control asks a Keystone plane if they have enough fuel to complete their trip you know there's something dodgy going on.
But hey, I didn't work there so I must be full of sh$t. Tell me otherwise Wanapukeonu or whatever that name of your is.
Worked with a guy for a company and then he went to Keystone and I didn't. Now he's quit because of too many issues that just aren't safe. Let's see:
-flying all day and then being made to clean the plane and having to start your next day 5 hours from when you finished cleaning.
-pulling reverse on approach, while in flight, to get into strips up north where due to low fog the visibility was crap. "Look out the window and tell me if you see trees" says the PF to the PNF.
-when ground control asks a Keystone plane if they have enough fuel to complete their trip you know there's something dodgy going on.
But hey, I didn't work there so I must be full of sh$t. Tell me otherwise Wanapukeonu or whatever that name of your is.
Everything comes in threes....
Thank you Father - another hour and a half to my first beer! Enjoy your weekend Hey you said you were going flying and you insulted us! Did you get cancelled? Oooh I hate rudeness when its not me being rude.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
-
wanpaku
- Rank 2
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:06 pm
- Location: neither here nor there but not quite anywhere
Quite observant. I am now at an Esso Avitat, finishing up some stuff, so there. Overnighting with an early return tomorrow. Thanks for asking anyway. Ouch. I am only 18 minutes from beer, so there.......I mean wine which I converted from water, purified of course.
Ohh and Ol' McDonald, your buddy walked out on a training bond, soon after he completed his ride. He and people like him are the reason why we have training bonds to contend with today. I don't blame a small operator for having training bonds with people like that in the industry. I hope Keystone wins that if it goes to court.
Ohh and Ol' McDonald, your buddy walked out on a training bond, soon after he completed his ride. He and people like him are the reason why we have training bonds to contend with today. I don't blame a small operator for having training bonds with people like that in the industry. I hope Keystone wins that if it goes to court.
-
sprucemonkey
- Rank 8
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:31 pm
Be warned Doc .You may get sued for not stopping them from doing that.
"Ah @#$! it "it's no rules flying up north this year again .
The pressure will be on for the race to the bottom .
Those guys have a good head start .
What is the body count now ??
How will the good operators ever compete against the no rules teams ???
"Ah @#$! it "it's no rules flying up north this year again .
The pressure will be on for the race to the bottom .
Those guys have a good head start .
What is the body count now ??
How will the good operators ever compete against the no rules teams ???
-
Check Pilot
- Rank 6
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:26 am
-
YYZ_Instructor
- Rank 1
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:42 am
What the hell is wrong with the regulators here in canada?? I know at least 4 operators in Ontario alone that need to be shut down! I need to apply to Transport for a job....maybe I could get some work done! Maybe take a look at what other Aviation Authorities are doing and stop coming up with all these grey rules that they let slide into the CARS.
TC are you there?!?! Wake UP!!
I say no Tim Hortons until you fix the CARS!
TC are you there?!?! Wake UP!!
I say no Tim Hortons until you fix the CARS!
-
YYZ_Instructor
- Rank 1
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:42 am
Ha ha! The ultimate question!
The CARS need to be scrapped and redone! They are mostly full of baloney, like the stuff we mostly eat while in cruise. It is a disgrace that most of the rules can be deciphered in two different ways, depending if you are an employer or pilot. The fact that some air taxi operators don’t need to have MELs for their aircraft…I was shocked to find that out (basically everything is a go!). How about schedules and rest periods? What a mess…you couldn’t repair that stuff if you tried. Basically what I am saying is that everything you feel that is done illegally is not because no one enforces the rules and the rules can’t be read in any plain way, so who is there to tell you if its right or wrong?
Operators are a different story. They have their own rules which look like the CARS but are really an interpretation of them so that they can keep pilots and airplanes in the sky for the maximum period they can to generate revenue. I know pilots who go over their duty times because the company is forcing them (otherwise look for another job elsewhere). Planning into the 15th hour too. It goes on and on….so I won’t bore you with anymore.
Take it easy CID…this is not alarming…we have gone past that point already.
The CARS need to be scrapped and redone! They are mostly full of baloney, like the stuff we mostly eat while in cruise. It is a disgrace that most of the rules can be deciphered in two different ways, depending if you are an employer or pilot. The fact that some air taxi operators don’t need to have MELs for their aircraft…I was shocked to find that out (basically everything is a go!). How about schedules and rest periods? What a mess…you couldn’t repair that stuff if you tried. Basically what I am saying is that everything you feel that is done illegally is not because no one enforces the rules and the rules can’t be read in any plain way, so who is there to tell you if its right or wrong?
Operators are a different story. They have their own rules which look like the CARS but are really an interpretation of them so that they can keep pilots and airplanes in the sky for the maximum period they can to generate revenue. I know pilots who go over their duty times because the company is forcing them (otherwise look for another job elsewhere). Planning into the 15th hour too. It goes on and on….so I won’t bore you with anymore.
Take it easy CID…this is not alarming…we have gone past that point already.
-
highlander
- Rank 4
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:53 pm
Although this may be for another topic. My only concern is the precedent or implications that this case may have on Canadian Aviation or specifically pilots.
I wonder if the only reason this is getting this far is because the PAX were american?
Is this the first time a pilot is being charged in Canada with criminal negligence?
I wonder if the only reason this is getting this far is because the PAX were american?
Is this the first time a pilot is being charged in Canada with criminal negligence?
YYZ_Instructor,
My question wasn't intended to be adversarial. I just wanted to understand your very general complaint.
With all due respect, it appears you haven’t done much training when it comes to the CARS however.
An MEL is a must for large aircraft with complex systems and the aircraft manufacturers and the various airworthiness authorities work together to generate MMELs for operators to use as a basis.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applicatio ... p?x_lang=e
The MEL allows the operator to defer maintenance while maintaining safe operation. The MEL contains supplemental information regarding the acceptable time before repair has to be done and procedures that the maintainer and flight crew need to be aware of.
When it comes to deferring maintenance on small aircraft, an AME must be consulted.
For example, the certification standards for little airplanes require a gear warning horn if it has retractable gear. If it is broken, it must be fixed. There is no relief under the regulations.
If the airplane is going to operate in known icing, then the de-ice system better be working. If it’s going IFR, it better have the minimum equipment required. For example, if you’re launching in IMC to somewhere that is serviced only by an NDB approach with no available GPS approach, you better have 2 functional ADFs.
I suspect your overall suggestion that the CARS be scrapped and rewritten are based on similar misunderstandgings.
I sincerely recommend that your company offer CARs courses. I think you’ll benefit tremendously.
P.S. I hope I didn’t come off smarmy here. Its tough to sound sincere in these forums.
Cheers
My question wasn't intended to be adversarial. I just wanted to understand your very general complaint.
With all due respect, it appears you haven’t done much training when it comes to the CARS however.
That would be alarming if that was the whole story. An MEL is a convenient method of compiling system faults where operational relief is available. (A book with a list of stuff that can be broken)The fact that some air taxi operators don’t need to have MELs for their aircraft…I was shocked to find that out (basically everything is a go!).
An MEL is a must for large aircraft with complex systems and the aircraft manufacturers and the various airworthiness authorities work together to generate MMELs for operators to use as a basis.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applicatio ... p?x_lang=e
The MEL allows the operator to defer maintenance while maintaining safe operation. The MEL contains supplemental information regarding the acceptable time before repair has to be done and procedures that the maintainer and flight crew need to be aware of.
When it comes to deferring maintenance on small aircraft, an AME must be consulted.
So, in reality it is far from “everything is a go”. If the broken part is required by the type design then it certainly is not a “go” and must be repaired. Furthermore if the system is required for that particular flight it is not a “go”.625.10 Unserviceable Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List
Information Notes:
The following provisions, although considered advisory in nature, have been included in the main body of these standards due to their importance. They are not standards.
(i) CAR 605 requires that all equipment listed in the applicable airworthiness standard, and all equipment required for the particular flight or type of operation, must be functioning correctly prior to flight. The requirement for a particular system or component to be operative can be determined by reference to the type certificate data sheet, operating regulations or the applicable equipment list in the aircraft operating manual.
(ii) Although the responsibility for deciding whether an aircraft may be operated with outstanding defects rests with the pilot in command, an error in this determination could result in a contravention under these regulations. It is for this reason that the regulations require that full details of all defects be entered in the journey log. The pilot in command must be fully aware of the condition of the aircraft if he is to make the correct decision regarding the intended flight. The manner in which the pilot makes this decision, however, will vary according to the type of operation of the aircraft. In the following paragraphs, private and commercial aircraft are considered separately.
(iii) Defects (e.g. buckling, cracks, extensive corrosion) of the skin or structure of the aircraft or of the pressure hull of a pressurized aircraft beyond the safe limits established by the manufacturer in his maintenance manual or other approved maintenance instructions will render that aircraft unfit for safe operation.
(iv) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter not operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft not operated pursuant to Part VII, the pilot must review the log prior to flight and decide whether any of the defects recorded affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. Reference may be made to the type certificate data sheet, the aircraft operating manual, or any list provided by the aircraft manufacturer respecting equipment that must be operational for the intended flight. The Minister may also approve a minimum equipment list for use by an owner. Any or all of these may indicate that particular items of equipment are mandatory.
(v) In the case of an aircraft operated pursuant to CAR 604, specific instructions must be provided in the operations manual to facilitate this assessment.
(vi) Where in doubt, the pilot should obtain the advice of an AME. This is best done by requesting the AME to inspect the defective system or component to determine its effect upon the aircraft's fitness for flight. By following this procedure and obtaining the AME's signature in the log book in the form of a maintenance release, the pilot will be able to demonstrate, if necessary, that he has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft. Inspection of defective systems by an AME, although advisable, is not a legal requirment. As stated earlier, it is the pilot's responsibility to determine whether the aircraft is fit for the intended flight.
(vii) In the case of an aeroplane or helicopter operated pursuant to Part IV, or an aircraft operated pursuant to Part VII, it is not always practicable for the pilot to personally undertake all actions required to determine the airworthiness status, because of the high levels of utilization, complexity of the aircraft, and the limited time available for all the various aspects of pre-flight preparation required. A common standard must be applied to all aircraft of a fleet. For these reasons, the flight training unit and the air operator regulations require the establishment of a formal system for the control of defects.
(viii) Such systems provide a greater degree of confidence that the airworthiness effects of defects have been taken into account, and ensure consistency of application of the standards. They also set limits on the periods for which the repair of a defect may be deferred. For aircraft operated in commercial air service, this system is normally based on the use of Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL), thereby providing the pilot with a sound basis on which to make his decision regarding the intended flight.
(ix) The final decision, however, still rests with the pilot. A pilot who accepts an aircraft with defects, the repair of which has been deferred in accordance with an approved system, has a good defence against any possible charge of flying an unairworthy aircraft, whereas a pilot who undertakes a flight with an aircraft that is not in compliance with the approved system to control the deferral of repairs to defects commits an offence.
(x) The complexity of a system used to control the deferral of repairs to defects will vary according to the type of aircraft operated and the size and nature of the operation and may include reference to an approved minimum equipment list and/or configuration deviation list. In all cases the control system must be described in the air operator's maintenance control manual. Once approved, compliance with those procedures is mandatory.
For example, the certification standards for little airplanes require a gear warning horn if it has retractable gear. If it is broken, it must be fixed. There is no relief under the regulations.
If the airplane is going to operate in known icing, then the de-ice system better be working. If it’s going IFR, it better have the minimum equipment required. For example, if you’re launching in IMC to somewhere that is serviced only by an NDB approach with no available GPS approach, you better have 2 functional ADFs.
I suspect your overall suggestion that the CARS be scrapped and rewritten are based on similar misunderstandgings.
I sincerely recommend that your company offer CARs courses. I think you’ll benefit tremendously.
P.S. I hope I didn’t come off smarmy here. Its tough to sound sincere in these forums.
Cheers
highlander,
If it was me, I'd consider suing this pilot. He knew he was low on fuel and had plenty of chances to fess up and do the right thing like land at a closer airport or declare an emergency.
His decision to take a chance and try to make it to Winnipeg endangered the passengers and caused injury.
This isn't a subtle or understandable pilot error based on the complexity of his airplane or adverse operating conditions. This commercial pilot ran out of gas and was well aware of the situation and the possible consequences. In my opinion that is criminal behavior.
If you do your best to fly your airplane and take all the neccessary precautions and still have an accident, there is little chance that this court case will affect you.
If it was me, I'd consider suing this pilot. He knew he was low on fuel and had plenty of chances to fess up and do the right thing like land at a closer airport or declare an emergency.
His decision to take a chance and try to make it to Winnipeg endangered the passengers and caused injury.
This isn't a subtle or understandable pilot error based on the complexity of his airplane or adverse operating conditions. This commercial pilot ran out of gas and was well aware of the situation and the possible consequences. In my opinion that is criminal behavior.
If you do your best to fly your airplane and take all the neccessary precautions and still have an accident, there is little chance that this court case will affect you.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I completely agree.If you do your best to fly your airplane and take all the neccessary precautions and still have an accident, there is little chance that this court case will affect you.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Here's a joke I just thought of;
Why wasnt the owner of keystoned in this court?
....cos he was attending another one...
Not sure of all the details, however I am sure that the pilot was pressured by the owner of this company. The only thing I can tell young pilots who do fly under pressure from owners like these, don't do it! tell them to shove it. While they drive their brand new cars, young guys who do @#$! up eventually are rotting somewhere, and you guessed it, they will throw you out like yesterday's garbage.
I'd call him a buffoon, but that would be giving the buffoon a bad name.
Why wasnt the owner of keystoned in this court?
....cos he was attending another one...
Not sure of all the details, however I am sure that the pilot was pressured by the owner of this company. The only thing I can tell young pilots who do fly under pressure from owners like these, don't do it! tell them to shove it. While they drive their brand new cars, young guys who do @#$! up eventually are rotting somewhere, and you guessed it, they will throw you out like yesterday's garbage.
I'd call him a buffoon, but that would be giving the buffoon a bad name.
-
YYZ_Instructor
- Rank 1
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:42 am
In no way did it come across as "smarsy"and in no way was my reply intended to sound adversarial. In all due respect I haven't only flown in Canada and therfore cannot know all the CARS, but in other countries where i have operated even smaller aircraft an MEL, not MMEL as we know smaller aircraft such as pipers don't produce them, was always present if it was operated commercial in any respect.
I have been told that its ok to go several times here in Ontario with the left side Attitude indicator not working 100%. It works, but not showing level....is that U/S? What i'm talking about is who will check if it is serviceable or not? The maintenance doesn't have the part, but the company says you need to go, but you know that the ADF points when tuned, but not in the right direction? Not until an accident occurs does the problem get resolved, luckily it doesn't lead to that everytime.
When i flew in europe there were no questions. Plane grounded until it was like new. No joking around with anything, but the rules in their regs were straight as can be...u just need to look it up and it says go or no go!
I personally just believe that the CARS should be copied from other countries....not an adversary opinion.
I have been told that its ok to go several times here in Ontario with the left side Attitude indicator not working 100%. It works, but not showing level....is that U/S? What i'm talking about is who will check if it is serviceable or not? The maintenance doesn't have the part, but the company says you need to go, but you know that the ADF points when tuned, but not in the right direction? Not until an accident occurs does the problem get resolved, luckily it doesn't lead to that everytime.
When i flew in europe there were no questions. Plane grounded until it was like new. No joking around with anything, but the rules in their regs were straight as can be...u just need to look it up and it says go or no go!
I personally just believe that the CARS should be copied from other countries....not an adversary opinion.
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Re: keystone sues transport
Hey fanny, care to explain this most stringent training in the industry?fanny wrote:as to training keystone has some of the most stringent training in the industry even t.c agrees with that as evidenced in some of their comments.
Last I heard, you do 4 hours in a ho and maybe an hour or two of 'groundschool'. All this for single pilot IFR, wow, that is stringent!
The way I see it, you're full of bullshit about this training, hence, all of your post is full of bullshit, hence, you're just full of bullshit.
You can't bullshit your way outta this one fanny.
-
Flat Ass Broke
- Rank 0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:42 am
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
