Mountain Courses
- Thread starter FIRECHOOK69
- Start date
VERTICAL REF
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 0
I have a question, whats makes and approved or recognized mountain course? And by whom? What standards have been set and what guidelines are followed. I sure hope AFS and BCFS are not the deciding factor. What basis does TC have to set program reqiurements? Curious! I personally have never been asked by any forestry agency in north america if i have a mountain course, let alone an approved one? Has anyone else?
Hey skully,
Hey skully,
"when you have upslope illusion keep your eyes down and infront, don't ever look up unless you want to ..........oh well try again, this time maintain your altitude and not climb more than 50'......" Just like yesterday!What no yelling, no hitting, no physical or mental abuse...what kind of a mountain course is that? 😉
"60 MPH, 60 MPH, BALL IN THE MIDDLE. STRING IN THE CENTER. CLOSER TO THE HILL. COME ON, ONE ROTOR DIAMETER. AHHH!!! MAINTAIN 60 MPH THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONTOUR CRAWL OR WERE ALL GOING TO DIE...! thats it, just like yesterday!
😀
Your not going soft on us are you? 😉
Last time I checked it was a BCFS requirement, not TC. The only agency that 'approves' the course is BCFS. The pilot isn't asked by BCFS, they ask the operator. You know the forestry pilot form you fill out in late winter/ early spring. The policy of approved mountain courses came about in 1997. If you had flown for BCFS prior to that year, they had to 'grandfather' you.
VERTICAL REF
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 0
Again what basis/authorityrequirements does BCFS have to set the requirements for an approved mountain course? That sheet that you fill out for BCFS is a joke!
So a tree hugger from forestry tells the helicopter industry if it is OK for them to fly in the mountains. Sounds like another Contrail scam to me. Where's Brex and Enron when you need them! :down:
So a tree hugger from forestry tells the helicopter industry if it is OK for them to fly in the mountains. Sounds like another Contrail scam to me. Where's Brex and Enron when you need them! :down:
Well they pay the bill, so they feel they can dictate the qualifications of those who are allowed to work for them. What galls me, is when BC was burning, they had the nerve to tell TC to waive the flight time regs, when there were fresh pilots available, but who didn't have an "approved" mountain course. So they thought having tired crews preferable/safer to fresh crews. 🙄
VERTICAL REF
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 0
So I have 1.7 hours of self taught mountain training in an R22 in the La Loche area - guess I'm good to go then! Has not seemed to be a problem yet?
I think they most definately made the right call on the air regs thing!
I think they most definately made the right call on the air regs thing!
You guys are tending to paint things blacker than they maybe really are.
Firstly, VR, like any major user, BC's Ministry of Forests has the right to decide, with or without industry or TC consultation (although there was such, and with some of the most qualified mountain folk around), what standards they'll apply to their considerably riskier fire-fighting environment. And, procedurally, all an operator has to do is submit to them the proposed syllabus, including a minimum of 20 hours flight instruction and references for your ground syllabus. This is neither onerous nor ominous, IMOH.
And Randy, I don't believe the MOF 'told' TC to waive the regs, they requested recognition of the dire circumstances, at the same time maintaining the very defensible minimum standard of mountain pilot they've established. Where situations permitted, they did, in fact, quite reasonably relax the standard in less demanding roles operating at lower elevations.
Firstly, VR, like any major user, BC's Ministry of Forests has the right to decide, with or without industry or TC consultation (although there was such, and with some of the most qualified mountain folk around), what standards they'll apply to their considerably riskier fire-fighting environment. And, procedurally, all an operator has to do is submit to them the proposed syllabus, including a minimum of 20 hours flight instruction and references for your ground syllabus. This is neither onerous nor ominous, IMOH.
And Randy, I don't believe the MOF 'told' TC to waive the regs, they requested recognition of the dire circumstances, at the same time maintaining the very defensible minimum standard of mountain pilot they've established. Where situations permitted, they did, in fact, quite reasonably relax the standard in less demanding roles operating at lower elevations.
VERTICAL REF
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 0
DW,
Thats what I'm looking for! So now we know it has to be a min of 20 hrs and contain documented ground school! So where does one find the rest of the BCFS requirements and who is the contact person for the syllabus approval? What does the 20 hours have to include?
Thats what I'm looking for! So now we know it has to be a min of 20 hrs and contain documented ground school! So where does one find the rest of the BCFS requirements and who is the contact person for the syllabus approval? What does the 20 hours have to include?
VR, your best bets would be Gord Bell in MOF's Victoria HQ, phone 250 356 5403, or Wayne Stuklberger, out of the Smithers office, phone 250 847 6615. You can probably get all the info you need there. If not, PM me, and I'll do some digging. B)
VERTICAL REF
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 0
I'll start with that DW, thanks.
Do you or anyone else know if they have this info on a web site that can be accessed?
Do you or anyone else know if they have this info on a web site that can be accessed?
From an ex-contracting officer point of view (federal) I do not believe a government entity can demand compliance with an approved course unless it is accepted by the general public (the government) and has to meet certain criteria as set down by the government. Such criteria is to be avalaible to all contractors.
Answer: CALL A LAWYER.
Answer: CALL A LAWYER.
Blackie, I'm not sure whether you're referring to their requiring a specific course, or to the requirement for an approved syllabus, as in the case in question. Regardless, I think most would agree that any reasonable standard imposed by a major user, e.g. oil companies and provinces, is quite tolerable, and I believe this mountain training requirement, given the lack of industry or regulatory alternatives, is eminently reasonable. I'd have to question the agenda of anyone that had serious resistance, and I didn't read that into any of the comments on this thread, including those that I believe were somewhat 'tongue in cheek.'
And, VR, I'm not aware of any, but I'll keep looking. B)
And, VR, I'm not aware of any, but I'll keep looking. B)
Sir Downwash, government entities, wether provincial or federal are governed by the public and the contracts put out by these entities have to abide by certain regulations.
If the government wishes to set a standard, every operator must have an opportunity to meet the standard by knowing what the h..ll the standard is.
Stating that every pilot must have an approved mountain course, they must so state what course they are referring to.
As for the oil companies or any other company, they can ask for what ever they want, in any language they want and if you are willing to provide it, go for it.
It's called de-regulation.
Government contracting is different than private. Governments can still take advantage of de-regulation, but has to be open to the general public.
Private entities can set their own standards and contract with who ever they want.
Cheers, Don
If the government wishes to set a standard, every operator must have an opportunity to meet the standard by knowing what the h..ll the standard is.
Stating that every pilot must have an approved mountain course, they must so state what course they are referring to.
As for the oil companies or any other company, they can ask for what ever they want, in any language they want and if you are willing to provide it, go for it.
It's called de-regulation.
Government contracting is different than private. Governments can still take advantage of de-regulation, but has to be open to the general public.
Private entities can set their own standards and contract with who ever they want.
Cheers, Don
At the risk of beating a dead horse, BC's Ministry of Forests requires that their personnel fly in helicopters flown by pilots on their 'approved list.' Getting on the list requires that pilots have a minimum of 500 hours PIC and be graduates of a mountain flying training course with a syllabus approved by the Ministry. All of the information is public, so it's hopefully obvious that operators not having previously worked for the Ministry will be more than welcome to the requisite information on request. If that doesn't allow equal access, what does? Hansard, anyone? B)
