204B Driver
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 0
Sounds like a good Idea to me to have (CHE&PA). I would like to see something like that before I retire in a few years.Helicopter Engineers & Pilot Association
- Thread starter Blackmac
- Start date
Sounds like a good Idea to me to have (CHE&PA). I would like to see something like that before I retire in a few years.204B Driver,
Hey, ya old fart..... I thought you were already retired???
Just kiddin.. 😛 😛 Haven't seen ya for a while, stop by the hanger for a coffee one day, we can yack about the summer.
Anyways, I think an association would be a great way to address some of those nagging issues we've had for years... I'm definately in, I like option #3.
Kevin H.
Hey, ya old fart..... I thought you were already retired???
Just kiddin.. 😛 😛 Haven't seen ya for a while, stop by the hanger for a coffee one day, we can yack about the summer.Anyways, I think an association would be a great way to address some of those nagging issues we've had for years... I'm definately in, I like option #3.
Kevin H.
Rotor-Head
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
Count me in 100% and let me know where to send the check. Maybe it should called the Helicopter Flight Crew Association of Canada that way it pretty much covers all the bases and knowbodies feelings will be hurt , just a thought.
I've stayed out of this one as long as I can, so here are a couple of views.
1. The comment about 'brown-nosing' to CTD was about as far out of line as anything I've seen on this forum. The source may consider his cheek has been slapped with my glove, and may choose weapons.
2. Although several responders to Blackie's seemingly worthwhile idea have (inadvertently?) mentioned a 'PILOTS and ENGINEERS' association, the 'ENGINEERS and PILOTS' association was, and seems to remain, the basic idea. For what it's worth, I think it would be very constructive to lead with neither - rather, to perhaps call it something like the Assocation of Canadian Helicopter Crews. While my concern may seem to many like nit-picking, I've seen far too many deep schisms created by this very problem, and sincerely believe we need to keep doing everything we can to shore up the concept of equality between our 'crafts,' rather than any suggestion of hierarchy. And, yes, I agree that it needs to at least start out as 'Canadian.' As one who was intimately involved with the teeth-grinding evolution of the Helicopter Association of America into the Helicopter Association International, I remain, nonetheless, convinced that starting modestly allows indicated growth as and when it becomes appropriate.
Although we often seem at odds, Blackie, kudos for this effort, and I hope you can get behind the equality idea in both name and spirit.
1. The comment about 'brown-nosing' to CTD was about as far out of line as anything I've seen on this forum. The source may consider his cheek has been slapped with my glove, and may choose weapons.
2. Although several responders to Blackie's seemingly worthwhile idea have (inadvertently?) mentioned a 'PILOTS and ENGINEERS' association, the 'ENGINEERS and PILOTS' association was, and seems to remain, the basic idea. For what it's worth, I think it would be very constructive to lead with neither - rather, to perhaps call it something like the Assocation of Canadian Helicopter Crews. While my concern may seem to many like nit-picking, I've seen far too many deep schisms created by this very problem, and sincerely believe we need to keep doing everything we can to shore up the concept of equality between our 'crafts,' rather than any suggestion of hierarchy. And, yes, I agree that it needs to at least start out as 'Canadian.' As one who was intimately involved with the teeth-grinding evolution of the Helicopter Association of America into the Helicopter Association International, I remain, nonetheless, convinced that starting modestly allows indicated growth as and when it becomes appropriate.
Although we often seem at odds, Blackie, kudos for this effort, and I hope you can get behind the equality idea in both name and spirit.
Charles W.
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 0
Downwash:
Very fair comment, make it generic.
Even though we all secretly think "OUR" job is more important that is not in fact really true.
We should all be equal.
Chas W. Your President...Bullet said so.
Very fair comment, make it generic.
Even though we all secretly think "OUR" job is more important that is not in fact really true.
We should all be equal.
Chas W. Your President...Bullet said so.
Keep us posted Mr Blacks on how things are coming along. I've spoken to many of my peers (ame's and pilots) and to say they're very encouraged, and in total favor would be an understatement.
Don't forget my availability and willingness to help out in any way I can.
Downswash: that was extremely well said.
Cheers
Biggs
Don't forget my availability and willingness to help out in any way I can.
Downswash: that was extremely well said.
Cheers
Biggs
helicopper
Advanced
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 0
roger on all the above re our association name not continuing to draw this ongoing and problematic distinction between aircraft maintenance engineering professionals and pilot professionals... my personal preference would be to incorporate the word professionals within our name.
i'm seeing names & profiles here i've yet to see... i suggest that speaks volumes re this initiative, MR. Blackmac!
😉
i'm seeing names & profiles here i've yet to see... i suggest that speaks volumes re this initiative, MR. Blackmac!
😉
I got through the job-jar at home that seems to get fuller when you go away, so I can come out and play for awhile.
I think most of you know how I feel about an association, no need for me to elaborate on that.
A BIG THANK-YOU Blackmac for taking the initiative on all our behalfs in establishing a professional association. I have been through the NPO documents, and I believe you have quite a task ahead of you, so I appreciate your efforts.
I have been busy in the last couple of months encouraging people to work outside this forum in recruiting interest, I would ask that those people continue to do so, but send your results to Blackmac, as he will need to see some membership numbers.
Blackmac, here are some ideas that you might want to consider:
I think we all appreciate this forum and the opportunity it affords some of us to post our ideas, but I am convinced the internet only reaches a minority of potential members. 100% of the people I spoke to on my last tour did not know this forum and association discussion even existed!! You are probably already looking into this, but our industry publications would be a great way to get this out there. A fax campaign might also be a good way to reach both owners and potential members.
I was looking into a 1 800 number. This all costs money I know, but it looks like you have a few people who want to send some money, myself included.
I will probably get my pee-pee slapped for this, but save yourself some grief by just getting this thing up and running with some basic by-laws. The NPO guidelines allow you to go in later and adopt the more definitive structure once you have your directors and a quorum. To get every "i" dotted and "t" crossed at the start would be difficult and time consuming, especially when you are attempting to bring all the special groups under one professional hat. As somebody told me, "build it and they will come". I agree though; we are a industry that does not work without the efforts of all our specialized groups, therefore one should not have precedence over the other - as long as the pilots get more recognition - kidding, just kidding!
Once you have your directors and basic association in place, you might want to approach HAC or a group of owners and let them know what the goals of the association will be. There are bound to be a few who think this is a "U" word. As you correctly mentioned in your first post, the Corporations Act prevents an association from acting in that capacity, but it will probably take some convincing. The owners need to be on-side to a certain degree. We can be as professional as we want, but if they are un-willing to recoginize those efforts and implement them into the way the industry does business, whats the point?
Just some thoughts, please give me a shout if you need a hand, or a cheque, or whatever.
Cheers!
p.s: I would like to see donairs adopted as the official food of the association!
I think most of you know how I feel about an association, no need for me to elaborate on that.
A BIG THANK-YOU Blackmac for taking the initiative on all our behalfs in establishing a professional association. I have been through the NPO documents, and I believe you have quite a task ahead of you, so I appreciate your efforts.
I have been busy in the last couple of months encouraging people to work outside this forum in recruiting interest, I would ask that those people continue to do so, but send your results to Blackmac, as he will need to see some membership numbers.
Blackmac, here are some ideas that you might want to consider:
I think we all appreciate this forum and the opportunity it affords some of us to post our ideas, but I am convinced the internet only reaches a minority of potential members. 100% of the people I spoke to on my last tour did not know this forum and association discussion even existed!! You are probably already looking into this, but our industry publications would be a great way to get this out there. A fax campaign might also be a good way to reach both owners and potential members.
I was looking into a 1 800 number. This all costs money I know, but it looks like you have a few people who want to send some money, myself included.
I will probably get my pee-pee slapped for this, but save yourself some grief by just getting this thing up and running with some basic by-laws. The NPO guidelines allow you to go in later and adopt the more definitive structure once you have your directors and a quorum. To get every "i" dotted and "t" crossed at the start would be difficult and time consuming, especially when you are attempting to bring all the special groups under one professional hat. As somebody told me, "build it and they will come". I agree though; we are a industry that does not work without the efforts of all our specialized groups, therefore one should not have precedence over the other - as long as the pilots get more recognition - kidding, just kidding!
Once you have your directors and basic association in place, you might want to approach HAC or a group of owners and let them know what the goals of the association will be. There are bound to be a few who think this is a "U" word. As you correctly mentioned in your first post, the Corporations Act prevents an association from acting in that capacity, but it will probably take some convincing. The owners need to be on-side to a certain degree. We can be as professional as we want, but if they are un-willing to recoginize those efforts and implement them into the way the industry does business, whats the point?
Just some thoughts, please give me a shout if you need a hand, or a cheque, or whatever.
Cheers!
p.s: I would like to see donairs adopted as the official food of the association!
You must be a Halifax boy to be that much in love with Donairs. Mmmmmmmmm.
Downwash - you are a true gentleman - which I already knew, but it's nice to see you prove it again. Thanks.
You guys are looking for a name. From what I have seen here:
-You want to include both pilots and engineers, but some object to placing one before the other. Fair game.
-It should be Canadian, but not be too close to a certain company with a big bird on the door.
-Someone said 'professional'. Again, fair game. These folks do it for a living.
How about the Canadian Association of Professional Helicopter Aircrews (CAPHA)
If you want to include the tilty-thing for future expansion, then you could be the Canadian Association of Professional Rotorcraft Aircrews (CAPRA)
Downwash - you are a true gentleman - which I already knew, but it's nice to see you prove it again. Thanks.
You guys are looking for a name. From what I have seen here:
-You want to include both pilots and engineers, but some object to placing one before the other. Fair game.
-It should be Canadian, but not be too close to a certain company with a big bird on the door.
-Someone said 'professional'. Again, fair game. These folks do it for a living.
How about the Canadian Association of Professional Helicopter Aircrews (CAPHA)
If you want to include the tilty-thing for future expansion, then you could be the Canadian Association of Professional Rotorcraft Aircrews (CAPRA)
A rose by any other name...CAPRA does seem to walk the line between so many things, but would Aircrew be inclusive enough? I agree we need Canadian, Professional, Association, and Rotorcraft/Helicopter its just the descriptor for the people who would inhabit this association that is tricky. Kind of like the difference between gyros and donairs....to the uneducated.
🙄
Let us try this for size!
C Canadian
A Association of
P Professional
RO ROtorcraft
C Crews
Pronounced "cap rock"
If you think the RO from ROtorcraft is a stretch then throw in 'O' for 'Operating' and keep the 'R' from Rotorcraft. This way the acronym is reasonably pronounceable.
Just a thought, but it works for me.
Let us try this for size!
C Canadian
A Association of
P Professional
RO ROtorcraft
C Crews
Pronounced "cap rock"
If you think the RO from ROtorcraft is a stretch then throw in 'O' for 'Operating' and keep the 'R' from Rotorcraft. This way the acronym is reasonably pronounceable.
Just a thought, but it works for me.
bubbles - haven't tried the Edm version of my favourite food, but have yet to find a good one in central Canada...(jealous icon missing)
Gannet - By 'inclusive', what do you mean? That AMEs would not be recognised? I see your point, but the way I understand it, both are considered aircrew and afforded the privileges associated with that such as ramp access, signing authority, etc. Also, both disciplines require a federally regulated licence that must be maintained.
I intentionally avoided the term 'Crew' for that reason. Crews could be loadmasters, sling crews, etc., or even medics. I don't think the former need be included, and the latter are usually represented by a union.
What say you?
Spinny, isn't yours the same thing in a different order? Brings back memories of drilling 😀
Gannet - By 'inclusive', what do you mean? That AMEs would not be recognised? I see your point, but the way I understand it, both are considered aircrew and afforded the privileges associated with that such as ramp access, signing authority, etc. Also, both disciplines require a federally regulated licence that must be maintained.
I intentionally avoided the term 'Crew' for that reason. Crews could be loadmasters, sling crews, etc., or even medics. I don't think the former need be included, and the latter are usually represented by a union.
What say you?
Spinny, isn't yours the same thing in a different order? Brings back memories of drilling 😀
