Firehawk In Canada ?

[helicopterjim]

Firehawk is an overrated piece of junk that can't do what they say it can. All you have to do is read through the flight manual and you will find that to do what they say it can do it will be 18 percent overgross - at sealevel and 15 degrees. But it sure looks pretty.......

 

[N1]

Are the LA County machines Restricted or Public aircraft?

I think may find they fall into the latter category - which is why they can do, what they do?

If the former HK machines were operated by the military (or a branch of the military), they are ineligible for Restricted Category Certification in the US.

Restricted Category is limited to aircraft that were formerly operated by the US military only - no foreign military aircraft permitted.

AS an aside, didn't Helicopter Transport have a Restricted CH-54B on a fire in Canada last summer?

 

[Heli Ops]

N1 - They ARE restricted catergory.

The Govt Flying Service in HK is treated as quasi military operation.

Heli Ops

 

[Randy_G]

Thanks for the update Ned. I was going by info that was 6-7 months old. We all know things never change in this biz. 😉 😀

As far as the 212 argument goes, if you read my post, Bell would only sell 6, so your math is a bit off.

Why have their own aircraft, well look at last July/August. BC and Alberta had tied up almost every medium in the country. I was in Kenora on an IA machine with an active 400 Ha fire, and Ont couldn't find a medium anywhere. Besides, it isn't the Cdn taxpayer who will be supporting these a/c, just those from Ont. My taxmoney goes to King Ralph, and the breweries that he supports. 😉

Cheers

 

[skullcap]

Then buy 412's or used 212's.


If the logic is that they need the aircraft when it is hot, where did the one you were flying come from, long term contract or short? Either way you would not have been there theoretically as the Firehawk would have taken your place. Where then do you think you have been, lounging around Dryden waiting for a call, beans, your machine probably would have been located somewhere working. Last summer was an anomoly in that many aircraft were required in part of July and August to fight urban interface fires. This consumed way more aircraft than if these fires were to have occured in remote country. The first part of the summer was dismal. To my way of thinking is if they need more aircraft hire more aircraft. This way the gov't would have much more control of what they want to use and can flex one way or the other depending on budget contraints within the province. What would happen if a new gov came in as said "these firehawks cost too much" and sell em all. That would just prove that the money is wasted. If there are good contracts out to operators it is very easily justified as where the money is spent. Of course maybe they could put ems kits in the firehawks and turf part of the "bandag" program. really screw things up.

If the arguement is that they need more aircraft in Ontario then put out a long term contract, let the operators find them. Look how many 205A-1++ are in Canada now compared to 10 years ago. The helicopters are out there.

As far as only Ontario tax dollars used then this is even more of an argument to use commercial operators, as mentioned there are few mediums in Ontario(more all the time) but one of the reasons is, that the local operators do not have winter work to offset the gamble of getting a medium for summer as some operators in the west have. Get out some descent contracts for the local operators to bid on and watch them get more aircraft. This benfits the local economy more than spending MILLIONS of dollars outside the province procurring NEW aircraft. By the way Canada is a whole and we don't need to get into whose tax dollars do what, CANADORE COLLEGE, remember how just that was to any pilot who didn't come from Ontario. This is not meant as a jab but as reminder that helicopters are federally regulated thus federally used(some exceptions I know).

In my opinion this ridiculous, justify in numbers, (dollars and sense) why buy firehawks. Statements in the LA proposal of "need safer aircraft" are blanket statements to gov't bureucrats who know nothing of the such.


The visibility out of a Firehawk is not a problem when tanking a fire as are going forward, have had the pleasure of having many brewskies with military pilots who will attest to the poor visabilty while doing confined area ops. No problem with spotter!

 

[mawddawg]

N1: Are the LA County machines Restricted or Public aircraft?

I think may find they fall into the latter category - which is why they can do, what they do?

If the former HK machines were operated by the military (or a branch of the military), they are ineligible for Restricted Category Certification in the US.

Restricted Category is limited to aircraft that were formerly operated by the US military only - no foreign military aircraft permitted.

AS an aside, didn't Helicopter Transport have a Restricted CH-54B on a fire in Canada last summer?

Some thoughts on this:
-You are correct on the statement that only former US military a/c are permitted
EXCEPT when the good old USA GOV does not follow the rules? Point in question?
Who do you think bought the ex Canadian Gov military CH what ever? A private US company brokered the deal to the US state Dept. Which then had Dyna Corp
refurb them to give them to Columbia I think? Now are they former US a/c after all US state Dept owned them at one time?

in Canada we do not have Public cat of a/c that I'm aware of? anybody know?

-Yes you are correct in HTS CH-54B was in Canada .How ? anybody know?
nothing wrong with the aircraft or crews but I thought it was a reg to have
only stand cat a/c in Canada?

 

[torqued]

From what I hear the Firehawks are to replace the 415's. Apperently the MNR is feed up with the 415 pilots and wants to get rid of them and the machines. But the Firehawks would not be able to take IA crews. And as of this time the Firehawks are not allowed out of the US. Now this is only hear say.


Cheers

 

[Randy_G]

Just to clarify, regardless of whether Ont buys a/c, there will still be long term contracts.

Last summer was an anomoly

Yes it was, as was 95, 98, 2001, 2002, when finding a medium was darn near impossible at times. Many of the operators who do have mediums don't even bother to bid for long-term contracts in Ont. They either have them tied up on seismic, logging, etc out west. Regardless there is a new gov't in T'ronna, and they will be on a cost cutting kick soon. I would imagine that the Firehawks, or any new a/c ideas will be shelved fairly soon. Especially since the Firehawk was an idea brought in from the previous administration.

Torqued, an interesting concept, except that the OMNR would need them to be certified anyways in order to operate them. So just having them fly empty to the fire would be a n incredible waste. As far as the tanker pilots are concerned, they won't be getting rid of any of them. Most likely they would be retiring the twinotters from bombing duties, and possibly leasing them out like they did the turbo beavs.

Cheers

 

[skullcap]

Exactly my point Randy G; they don't usually bid on them because most of the long term contracts SUCK. When I say descent contracts I mean descent, if the LA proposal for Firehawks says 600 hours and the numbers are based on that then why not do something similar where an operator can bid on a contract that starts in the spring and goes til fall and make the equivalent number of hours, oh I can hear it now, TOO MUCH MONEY. If a contract is put out to supply the right aircraft and if the thing needs to be double crewed then it is nothing to do 600 hours. Usually these contracts are lowest number of hours for the longest amount of time, so what happens when it is busy, aircraft is flown until hours used up then sent off to middle of nowwhere, ask any rap pilot in the west how much shuttling they do to get outr of the way of hot spots when there contracts hour are nearly runout. If the payed extra for potential high useage of aircraft then is a win win for all when there is bad fire year, if it is pouring rain then put the machine up for grabs to other provinces. What the h is wrong with that?

High speed helicopter to replace 415's, I think it would be cheaper to get new pilots for the 415's.

Worked up north a bunch of years ago with the Buffalo Airways tankers and were excellant to work with, helos worked one side they the other. No conflicts no primadonnas just put the fire out. Maybe mnr should phone Buffalo Joe.

 

[cyclic monkey]

HERE'S THE LATEST RUMOUR................

The Department has contracted a large helicopter company to supply V-22 Ospreys with dual-rope rappel capability, and with side-mounted water tanks that are filled by a snorkel.

This photo was snapped near an undisclosed military base in Maritime Canada today, where crews were being given type endorsements.

When reached for comment on this matter, the Premier said, " I can neither confirm nor deny this rumour, however we are looking at several options, and cost is not a barrier here because we have a long history of borrowing huge amounts of money for this type of project".

 

[Puddle Jumper]

oops

 

[skullcap]

cyclic monkey;

either you are very good at this stuff or have waaaaaay too much time on you hands. But you know what, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than a Firehawk.

thanks for keeping it light
sc

 

[Vortex Ring]

OMNR can have our old Sea Kings for a song.

They've only got an average of 11,000 hours on the clock and with AMEs looking after them instead of DNDs ill-trained, ill-supported, ill-paid technicians and chronic lack of spare parts they might actually stay serviceable enough to do work.

Take all our ASW crap out of' em and just put in a big tank. Cheap as borsch and voila.....a reborn dinosaur.. Sea King Tankersaurus.

PS: Stick Monkey, good work dude. What software you using for those?

 

[cyclic monkey]

Thanks,

Windows 95, Microsoft Paint, 1996 IBM Aptiva, 64K, Pentium 166, 8G Drive, Dial-up internet.

(If you think that is surprising, you should remember how old and underpowered most of the helicopters are that we fly. My Aptiva starts to look pretty good in comparison).

 

[hotsection]

What is the "real" reason that this rumour has struck a nerve? Is it truly another case of government waste or is it an issue of job security for medium operators?

If it is the latter, why is it that one of the first methods of recourse is to get HAC invloved to deal with the perceived unfairness? A look into the past will reveal this will solve nothing. As some of you may know this issue was already tackled a few years ago in an HAC brief with no result.

In this industry we are often the "victims" of our own actions. Lets put this into the perspective of the customer, in this case the OMNR. Why shouldn't they or any one else for that matter try to negotiate the best deal for themselves? Wouldn't you? After all isn't this what deregulation is all about? If we constantly complain that hourly rates are not where they should be, then why do operators slit their own throats, undercut each other or offer up the same aircraft at different rates depending on the time of year? Isn't an hour of Astar time worth the same $ in December doing a moose survey as it is in July working a fire or am I missing the boat here? Bottom line is that no government agency or private company makes an operator enter into a contract. We negotiate the rate (exception Alberta Forestry)) ourselves, enter long term contracts and agree to ferry for free. If unsatisfied we should either fix it ourselves or accept the deal agreed to and may the strongest survive. The point is that there is no consistency or standard so why should the OMNR or any seismic company for that matter treat it as such. The industry has let this happen to itself so perhaps its time to look inward and quit biting the hand that feeds so many of us!!!