Hours
- Thread starter Toni
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #3
Hi Downwash!
I was just wondering if a Pilot flys 8 hours(I think thats what you are alowed to fly per day) fighting fires.Is he alowed to fly more hours if the fire is getting realy bad and there are no other Pilots available to replace him?And if yes how many and how long is that ok, till he has to get a day off or two.....
I hope that's better posted!
Thank's
Toni
I was just wondering if a Pilot flys 8 hours(I think thats what you are alowed to fly per day) fighting fires.Is he alowed to fly more hours if the fire is getting realy bad and there are no other Pilots available to replace him?And if yes how many and how long is that ok, till he has to get a day off or two.....
I hope that's better posted!
Thank's
Toni
Toni
Each province applies its own restrictions to the CARs limitations (e.g. Alberta allows 10 hours per day for the first 3 days of a fire, then reverts to 8 a day like most of the rest), so you need to check with the Air Ops type in your district for the provincial limitations.
Firefighting is generally done under '703' in which you can fly 60 hrs. in 7 days and 150 in 30 days, after which you require 5 days off. If you don't hit 150 in 30, you can fly to 210 hrs. in 42 days, after which the 5 days off are a must.
There's a lot more detail involved than this, and I recommend that, aside from studying the CARS on their web site, you get hold of a computer program called 'FltDuty XLS' designed by an ATR tanker pilot named Eric Bradley. He can be reached at:
EB Productions
453 Waterloo Row
Fredericton, NB E3B 1Z6
Cheers, DW
Each province applies its own restrictions to the CARs limitations (e.g. Alberta allows 10 hours per day for the first 3 days of a fire, then reverts to 8 a day like most of the rest), so you need to check with the Air Ops type in your district for the provincial limitations.
Firefighting is generally done under '703' in which you can fly 60 hrs. in 7 days and 150 in 30 days, after which you require 5 days off. If you don't hit 150 in 30, you can fly to 210 hrs. in 42 days, after which the 5 days off are a must.
There's a lot more detail involved than this, and I recommend that, aside from studying the CARS on their web site, you get hold of a computer program called 'FltDuty XLS' designed by an ATR tanker pilot named Eric Bradley. He can be reached at:
EB Productions
453 Waterloo Row
Fredericton, NB E3B 1Z6
Cheers, DW
DW I've used FLTDUTY.XLS and it works great.
As an addittion to what DW wrote, you still need to have 13 days off in any 90 day period. I also heard that TC has been going around checking to see if the flight time/duty time/days off records are up to date.
Cheers
As an addittion to what DW wrote, you still need to have 13 days off in any 90 day period. I also heard that TC has been going around checking to see if the flight time/duty time/days off records are up to date.
Cheers
deuce bigalow
Member
- Jul 18, 2003
- 60
- 0
FYI... due to the extreme fire conditions in BC and the possibility of double crewed machines being unable to work the max daylight hours TC has provided waivers to some companys on the duty times. I don't have the exact details at my fingertips but can post them later. Question. Didn't the duty restrictions come into play in the first place because of pilots crashing due to fatigue on fires. So we only have the restrictions in place when we don't need them. When the hours get high we get waivers. Now I'm really confused. :blink:
407 Driver
Veteran
- Mar 10, 2003
- 824
- 0
I received the TC waiver from BCFS. It basically reads....
-3 days off in 30 is out, replaced with 6 off in 60 (ie...54 days straight, 6 off). 13 days off in 90 remains.
-150 hours in 30 days is out, replaced by 300 hours in 60 days,
- 8 hour per day max, 12 hour duty day max.
This exemption expires on Sept 30, 03.
-3 days off in 30 is out, replaced with 6 off in 60 (ie...54 days straight, 6 off). 13 days off in 90 remains.
-150 hours in 30 days is out, replaced by 300 hours in 60 days,
- 8 hour per day max, 12 hour duty day max.
This exemption expires on Sept 30, 03.
I'm with Deuce and was going start a topic on this issue today myself.
I spoke to a pilot for a major operator the other night who told me his company's max of 150 hrs/ 30 days has been changed to 180/30 in light of the current fire situation. I must question this line of thinking as well.
Put yourself in the shoes of a 900 hour pilot in BC (where Prov contracts call for 1000 hrs pic) who is fresh and ready to bring his proficient longlining skill to the fire. She/he sees their co-workers nearing time expiry as the fires continue to rage so wonders if gov't policy will have to be changed to allow competent sub-1000 hr pilots into the fray. Instead, what happens is his 1300 hr co-worker is now told she/he can push it even further with extended hours as the 900 hr pilot sits in the hanger reading heli forums waiting for the odd non-gov't charter.
Please offer any corrections or thoughts on this as I feel as though I am either mis-informed or just confused. If my facts are straight, is safety being put first here?
Is government again contributing to the industry's ever widening gap between veteran hightime pilots and the boatload of lowtimers at the other end with few mid-timers in between?
100'
I spoke to a pilot for a major operator the other night who told me his company's max of 150 hrs/ 30 days has been changed to 180/30 in light of the current fire situation. I must question this line of thinking as well.
Put yourself in the shoes of a 900 hour pilot in BC (where Prov contracts call for 1000 hrs pic) who is fresh and ready to bring his proficient longlining skill to the fire. She/he sees their co-workers nearing time expiry as the fires continue to rage so wonders if gov't policy will have to be changed to allow competent sub-1000 hr pilots into the fray. Instead, what happens is his 1300 hr co-worker is now told she/he can push it even further with extended hours as the 900 hr pilot sits in the hanger reading heli forums waiting for the odd non-gov't charter.
Please offer any corrections or thoughts on this as I feel as though I am either mis-informed or just confused. If my facts are straight, is safety being put first here?
Is government again contributing to the industry's ever widening gap between veteran hightime pilots and the boatload of lowtimers at the other end with few mid-timers in between?
100'
Valid point 100'. What about the mandatory 25 hour mountain course requirement ?? There are many of us who've done non-forestry work in several of the affected areas, but can't help out because of this requirement. I understand the reasoning behind their decision for the course, but refusing reasonably qualified crews is a little short-sighted in my opinion.
Cheers
Cheers
100 foots & Randy G.
Goods points both of you, you would think that HAC would look after the problem. OH, I forgot they are owners, not in there best interest.
It is the old question of supply and demand, think about it.
Someday all you guys will smarten up and form some kind of an assoc. to talk to the regulators on your behalf.
This not only a regulation problem by the people that are not doing the actual flying. It is also a safety concern that should be addressed by the insurance companies.
It doesn't take the preverbial rocket scientist to figure out that a pilot can only hack so much.
I can remember doing 8 hours/day on gravity survey, five days/week and the contractor was wondering why I would'nt fly Sat & Sun. I did this for three months. One of the stupid periods of my life.
Oh ya, I was also doing my own maint., 206B on floats.
Goods points both of you, you would think that HAC would look after the problem. OH, I forgot they are owners, not in there best interest.
It is the old question of supply and demand, think about it.
Someday all you guys will smarten up and form some kind of an assoc. to talk to the regulators on your behalf.
This not only a regulation problem by the people that are not doing the actual flying. It is also a safety concern that should be addressed by the insurance companies.
It doesn't take the preverbial rocket scientist to figure out that a pilot can only hack so much.
I can remember doing 8 hours/day on gravity survey, five days/week and the contractor was wondering why I would'nt fly Sat & Sun. I did this for three months. One of the stupid periods of my life.
Oh ya, I was also doing my own maint., 206B on floats.
407, old cock, a minor correction if I may to your breakdown of the exemption granted to operators fighting forest fires in B.C. in response to the request of the B.C. Minstry of Forests for the current declared emergency.
The six days off in sixty need not be consecutive but can be ANY six during any sixty-day period just as for the thirteen off in any ninety-day period.
We've six of our pilots on the exempt status, with a couple approaching the 300 hours and half coming up to compulsory time off in order to comply with the extended days. It's a 'double-edged' sword, and, as of Friday 8/29, T.C. still hadn't figured out how to get out of the exemption and back into the regular scheme. B)
The six days off in sixty need not be consecutive but can be ANY six during any sixty-day period just as for the thirteen off in any ninety-day period.
We've six of our pilots on the exempt status, with a couple approaching the 300 hours and half coming up to compulsory time off in order to comply with the extended days. It's a 'double-edged' sword, and, as of Friday 8/29, T.C. still hadn't figured out how to get out of the exemption and back into the regular scheme. B)
I should have read further before replying to 407's post.
Deuce, 100', Blackie and Randy. The limits you seem to be referring to mostly were saved from those that would have been much more drastic had CALPA had its way. They were salvaged by operators that, 30 - 40 years ago, were quite comfortable (me included) flying Bell 47's on fires 13 to 15 hours a day, dousing fire with 45-gal. drums of water often hauled several miles on the hook (and uphill both ways, of course).
I guess my point is that we all have our tolerance levels and, although I did bend a machine or two back in my callow youth, the incidents were absolutely unrelated to fatigue. I'll never criticize an individual or a company for maintaining strict duty and flight time standards, but I remember well when we could deal with a situation like today's by pushing that envelope to its limit, and with nothing close to today's accident rates (e.g. summer '02 in Alberta).
I discussed, on another thread, some of the questionable fire-fighting that's done, but the folks in Barriere, Chase, Cranbrook, Kelowna and Osoyoos are thankful that so many of our friends were able to make a big difference in their lives. B)
Deuce, 100', Blackie and Randy. The limits you seem to be referring to mostly were saved from those that would have been much more drastic had CALPA had its way. They were salvaged by operators that, 30 - 40 years ago, were quite comfortable (me included) flying Bell 47's on fires 13 to 15 hours a day, dousing fire with 45-gal. drums of water often hauled several miles on the hook (and uphill both ways, of course).
I guess my point is that we all have our tolerance levels and, although I did bend a machine or two back in my callow youth, the incidents were absolutely unrelated to fatigue. I'll never criticize an individual or a company for maintaining strict duty and flight time standards, but I remember well when we could deal with a situation like today's by pushing that envelope to its limit, and with nothing close to today's accident rates (e.g. summer '02 in Alberta).
I discussed, on another thread, some of the questionable fire-fighting that's done, but the folks in Barriere, Chase, Cranbrook, Kelowna and Osoyoos are thankful that so many of our friends were able to make a big difference in their lives. B)
I'm not one to dwell on blame over solutions, so I should follow-up on my earlier post now that we've heard from a few learned sources.
I don't believe that the BC prov gov't is trying to put it to the industry; rather I sincerely trust that they are doing the best job they can in the circumstances. It's apparent that they simply want qualified pilots and their helicopters to stay in the air as much as possible. I would too. What I keep hearing on the newscasts are BCFS personnel stating that they've never seen a situation like this before so they are obviously charting new territory and the pilot issue is part in parcel with that.
How did the decision to extend duty hours then come about? Decisions are made using information at hand. What information did they receive and from whom? I venture to guess that the operators gave Forestry the heads-up that their available 1000hr+ / mountain trained pilots were certainly approaching a widespread time-ex. Someone in BC Forestry presumably then requested extensions to limits by TC and were granted same.
Perhaps BC Forestry and Transport Canada would have been open to other options such as implied above by Randy or myself but were never asked. Maybe the gov't(s) can be educated by the helicopter industry's grassroots on "our perspectives" and changes made for the betterment of all. The latest issue of Heli Ops magazine has an article touching on the issue of experience disparity in the industry.
Just a thought
100'
I don't believe that the BC prov gov't is trying to put it to the industry; rather I sincerely trust that they are doing the best job they can in the circumstances. It's apparent that they simply want qualified pilots and their helicopters to stay in the air as much as possible. I would too. What I keep hearing on the newscasts are BCFS personnel stating that they've never seen a situation like this before so they are obviously charting new territory and the pilot issue is part in parcel with that.
How did the decision to extend duty hours then come about? Decisions are made using information at hand. What information did they receive and from whom? I venture to guess that the operators gave Forestry the heads-up that their available 1000hr+ / mountain trained pilots were certainly approaching a widespread time-ex. Someone in BC Forestry presumably then requested extensions to limits by TC and were granted same.
Perhaps BC Forestry and Transport Canada would have been open to other options such as implied above by Randy or myself but were never asked. Maybe the gov't(s) can be educated by the helicopter industry's grassroots on "our perspectives" and changes made for the betterment of all. The latest issue of Heli Ops magazine has an article touching on the issue of experience disparity in the industry.
Just a thought
100'
deuce bigalow
Member
- Jul 18, 2003
- 60
- 0
Quite right 407. I also was able to make a decent buck in the good old days before our ability to earn was restricted by the rules. I wasn't saying it was a bad thing to extend the hours. I was just pointing out the inconsistency. Either it is or it is not safe to fly more than 150 hours per month. I would just like to know which it is. Ah jeez.... Now I'm confused again. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:downwash said:
HOURS: In my opinion the government should not be involved in setting hours for the pilots flying helicopters.
This much the same as Canada going to war and restricting the pilots to ex number of hours, once the hours were reached and no replacement pilots are available we stop the war until everybody has the required rest, dictated by a bunch of bureacrats who are behind the lines.
As pilots you do not have a collective SAY into how you are employed, each company has a different set of rules.
The "PILOT INDUSTRY" in conjunction with the insurance companies should set the rules for pilot experience (flying) not the local governments, including federal.
Where a fire is threatening local communities I can see using pilots with experience. Use low time pilots were the fire is not a hazard to anything and use a co-pilot in helicopters (twins) to train low time and in-experienced pilots.
As an ex-contracting officer with the feds we had numerous requiremnets and regs in our contracts. Using a little bit of common sence, these were broken as required on behalf of the operator.
One of the easiest places for a low time pilot to fly is above the tree line. The only problem there is navigation and with the advent of GPS, no problem.
For your information I was the one that implemented GPS on all federal contracts in the arctic, when they first came out. I was also instrumental in the application of having the flight notification being considered an actual flight plan if it was made with a ETA for the same day.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN IMPLIMENT CHANGE IS THRU DIALOGUE AND SOME FORUM THAT REPRESENTS ALL PARTIES.
The reasoning behind alot of the government requirements (i.e hours) is that the companies low bidding on contracts tried to cut their costs for years by using low time pilots. Some area's it worked, and alot it didn't.
REMEMBER THE CUSTOMER WANTS A PILOT THAT IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB HE HIRED THE HELICOPTER FOR.
IF COMPANIES TOOK THE TIME TO CHECK PILOTS OUT ON A PARTICULAR JOB PRIOR TO THE BEGINING OF THE CONTRACT, THEY WOULD HAVE LESS PROBLEMS PLACING LOW TIME PILOTS AND THE COMPANIES (hiring the hel.)WOULD QUIT DEMANDING MINIMUM HOURS IN THE HOPE THAT THEY DONOT HAVE TO TRAIN THE PILOT AT THEIR COST.
An TC license does not automatically qualify a person to do anything, except learn,
the company has the onus to make sure that person is the right person for the job.
As you can see most of my approach is a radical change in the way things should be accomplished for all concerned.
THE BEAN COUNTERS THAT BELONG TO HAC, HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR OUTLOOK.
TC SHOULD BECOME AN ENFORCEMENT FOR RULES SET BY THE PILOT INDUSTRY AND HAC.
As previously stated by a well known person, "I HAVE A DREAM"
P.S.: In accordance with BC rules, allthough I have a few thousand hours mtn, not in this country, I wouldn't qualify. :down:
This much the same as Canada going to war and restricting the pilots to ex number of hours, once the hours were reached and no replacement pilots are available we stop the war until everybody has the required rest, dictated by a bunch of bureacrats who are behind the lines.
As pilots you do not have a collective SAY into how you are employed, each company has a different set of rules.
The "PILOT INDUSTRY" in conjunction with the insurance companies should set the rules for pilot experience (flying) not the local governments, including federal.
Where a fire is threatening local communities I can see using pilots with experience. Use low time pilots were the fire is not a hazard to anything and use a co-pilot in helicopters (twins) to train low time and in-experienced pilots.
As an ex-contracting officer with the feds we had numerous requiremnets and regs in our contracts. Using a little bit of common sence, these were broken as required on behalf of the operator.
One of the easiest places for a low time pilot to fly is above the tree line. The only problem there is navigation and with the advent of GPS, no problem.
For your information I was the one that implemented GPS on all federal contracts in the arctic, when they first came out. I was also instrumental in the application of having the flight notification being considered an actual flight plan if it was made with a ETA for the same day.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN IMPLIMENT CHANGE IS THRU DIALOGUE AND SOME FORUM THAT REPRESENTS ALL PARTIES.
The reasoning behind alot of the government requirements (i.e hours) is that the companies low bidding on contracts tried to cut their costs for years by using low time pilots. Some area's it worked, and alot it didn't.
REMEMBER THE CUSTOMER WANTS A PILOT THAT IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB HE HIRED THE HELICOPTER FOR.
IF COMPANIES TOOK THE TIME TO CHECK PILOTS OUT ON A PARTICULAR JOB PRIOR TO THE BEGINING OF THE CONTRACT, THEY WOULD HAVE LESS PROBLEMS PLACING LOW TIME PILOTS AND THE COMPANIES (hiring the hel.)WOULD QUIT DEMANDING MINIMUM HOURS IN THE HOPE THAT THEY DONOT HAVE TO TRAIN THE PILOT AT THEIR COST.
An TC license does not automatically qualify a person to do anything, except learn,
the company has the onus to make sure that person is the right person for the job.
As you can see most of my approach is a radical change in the way things should be accomplished for all concerned.
THE BEAN COUNTERS THAT BELONG TO HAC, HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR OUTLOOK.
TC SHOULD BECOME AN ENFORCEMENT FOR RULES SET BY THE PILOT INDUSTRY AND HAC.
As previously stated by a well known person, "I HAVE A DREAM"
P.S.: In accordance with BC rules, allthough I have a few thousand hours mtn, not in this country, I wouldn't qualify. :down:
