Contrails should dissappear
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Contrails should dissappear
I know that contrails are not every where, but the city(s) that has them should dump them. They don't make the industry safer or better they are just a big pain in the rump. But they do let companies say no to you in a nice way "sorry but you don't meet contrail requirements".
-
R2000/1830
- Rank 4
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 6:24 pm
- Location: Canada
Don't like it? Take ball, go home. Simple as that. The oil companies don't care what you think either. As far as making flying safer directly, probably not, but corporations really like statistics. There is a correlation between accident rate and number of hours.
Pain in the ass is a relative term. For you, maybe, for other people, not so much. As mentioned, it probably does help keep the pay above the poverty line and eliminates the shiny jet syndrome (SJS)/will be the Heidi Fleiss of the industry.
If you don't have a service or qualification that directly enhances a company you will be denied. There are of course exceptions to the rule that we need not digress into. If you don't have the qualifications, service to offer or meet the exception criteria, out the door of that company you go. Move along until you find a company that you do meet the qualifications for. Don't like it? Take ball, go home. Complaining might get you a nice pat on the head and a PFO if you're really persistent.But they do let companies say no to you in a nice way "sorry but you don't meet contrail requirements".
They don't make the industry safer or better they are just a big pain in the rump
Pain in the ass is a relative term. For you, maybe, for other people, not so much. As mentioned, it probably does help keep the pay above the poverty line and eliminates the shiny jet syndrome (SJS)/will be the Heidi Fleiss of the industry.
JUGGS-A waypoint in Idaho too!
-
Mitch Cronin
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
If you want to see some Contrail rants, head on over to the Canadian fling wing forum. The gent running contrail is/was advocating a 1000' minimum ceiling for all VFR ops - which obviously makes operating impossible for weeks at a time in NE BC and NW Alberta.
Given that Mr. Contrail has a fixed-wing background, his blanket reccomendations (collared white shirts with epaulets, oxfords, etc.) seem to have been recieved with a fair amount of hostility by the VFR ops oriented rotary wing community.
I'm not positive about what his current reccomendations/standards are, but I know that if the 1000' minimum ceiling nonsense persists, there will be about 5 times as many "weather" days each year as there currently are. That's going to get VERY expensive for the oil companies.
Disco: Contrail is a company set up by an ex-pilot. He sets up his own "standards" and then audits operators to see if they meet those standards. He then tells oil companies who passed and who did not.
Oversimplification - yes, it is. But that's the basics. There are a lot of people out there that don't really like the guy.
I don't really know what's going to happen on the fixed wing side of things. Maybe the guys that have the hours will just end up in higher demand. I do think that on the rotary wing side, he will either have to change his reccomendations to something more realistic, or have them ignored by the oil companies within a month of attemtping to implement them. I've worked on heli-port and heli-assist jobs in the patch, I know the type of weather that will move in and sit for a week, and I know how much money that the clients will be losing during that week.
Given that Mr. Contrail has a fixed-wing background, his blanket reccomendations (collared white shirts with epaulets, oxfords, etc.) seem to have been recieved with a fair amount of hostility by the VFR ops oriented rotary wing community.
I'm not positive about what his current reccomendations/standards are, but I know that if the 1000' minimum ceiling nonsense persists, there will be about 5 times as many "weather" days each year as there currently are. That's going to get VERY expensive for the oil companies.
Disco: Contrail is a company set up by an ex-pilot. He sets up his own "standards" and then audits operators to see if they meet those standards. He then tells oil companies who passed and who did not.
Oversimplification - yes, it is. But that's the basics. There are a lot of people out there that don't really like the guy.
I don't really know what's going to happen on the fixed wing side of things. Maybe the guys that have the hours will just end up in higher demand. I do think that on the rotary wing side, he will either have to change his reccomendations to something more realistic, or have them ignored by the oil companies within a month of attemtping to implement them. I've worked on heli-port and heli-assist jobs in the patch, I know the type of weather that will move in and sit for a week, and I know how much money that the clients will be losing during that week.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
From previous experience with companies similar to Contrail, it is not so much Contrail that sets the standards or limits but rather the CEO's of the major customers who have to answer to their shareholders and investors all over the world. Having an independent aviation risk analysis done by a consultant is a big factor when you go to New York and London and so forth to find the funds to drill holes in Mother Earth. Imagine if you are and oil baron sitting in your office in Abba Dabba or Meleborne and someone says they have a plan to move people. There is a B 747SP sitting idle in CYQT. How would you know if it was a good deal or not? Call Contrail and they will provide the answers. That is the service these companies provide. There are a few of them around. Contrail just happens to be the larger one.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Contrail requirements are just the fact of life for any company and pilot involved with the oil industry in western Canada. Get used to it. The oil companies are only going to get stricter with their requirements due to legal liabilities and risk factors. They will only demand higher and higher minimums of the aviation companies that they contract to. They can do this because they are the life blood of most aviation companies in western Canada.
What contrail does not do:
Mandate what equipment is onboard the aircraft. IE: EGPWS, TCAS ,RNAV, EFIS and other safety devices. If he is so concerned about safety...why are these left out? These items certainly contribute alot to the safety of an aircraft regardless of the crews experience.
Oversee and promote solid CRM training. Yes, they want you to have it but the quality, content of the course and person teaching it are not of great concern to them. One course a year is hardly enough. Breakdown of CRM is one large contributer to accidents.
Ensure proper training: If the forms are filled out they are happy. So and so got Icing training last week. Yah, they read the 10 page handout and checked the same boxes as last year...If they wanted pilots as safe as the airlines, why are we not in the sim every 6 months....Why are they not being given constant courses on different topics related to safety? It is easier for them to sell experieince as the king pin of safety.
Looking at all the factors of a pilot applying for acceptance: Hours are not always the only story. There are good pilots that are short of the requirments. There are pilots with half the time piloting 737's around the globe, and there are not a ton of smoking holes over there. They train them well, ensure solid SOP's and CRM giving them the tools to do the job safely. Not look and see if that person has survived long enough to warrant a contrail position even though they have had alot of close calls but never got the silver bullet.
There approach is reactive, not proactive. Using hours to judge a pilots chance of being safe is one of many measuring sticks. It is their right to pick and choose as they like, providing the market allows them. All this aside though, their method is not exactly scientific. There may be correlation to hours and safety, but all of the other factors that they do not look at can quickly adjust things back down to an less safe level.
Oh well, for the time being...that guy has sold the oil companies...but i would love him to justify his approach to safety!
Mandate what equipment is onboard the aircraft. IE: EGPWS, TCAS ,RNAV, EFIS and other safety devices. If he is so concerned about safety...why are these left out? These items certainly contribute alot to the safety of an aircraft regardless of the crews experience.
Oversee and promote solid CRM training. Yes, they want you to have it but the quality, content of the course and person teaching it are not of great concern to them. One course a year is hardly enough. Breakdown of CRM is one large contributer to accidents.
Ensure proper training: If the forms are filled out they are happy. So and so got Icing training last week. Yah, they read the 10 page handout and checked the same boxes as last year...If they wanted pilots as safe as the airlines, why are we not in the sim every 6 months....Why are they not being given constant courses on different topics related to safety? It is easier for them to sell experieince as the king pin of safety.
Looking at all the factors of a pilot applying for acceptance: Hours are not always the only story. There are good pilots that are short of the requirments. There are pilots with half the time piloting 737's around the globe, and there are not a ton of smoking holes over there. They train them well, ensure solid SOP's and CRM giving them the tools to do the job safely. Not look and see if that person has survived long enough to warrant a contrail position even though they have had alot of close calls but never got the silver bullet.
There approach is reactive, not proactive. Using hours to judge a pilots chance of being safe is one of many measuring sticks. It is their right to pick and choose as they like, providing the market allows them. All this aside though, their method is not exactly scientific. There may be correlation to hours and safety, but all of the other factors that they do not look at can quickly adjust things back down to an less safe level.
Oh well, for the time being...that guy has sold the oil companies...but i would love him to justify his approach to safety!
Wrong, the proper utilization of the equipment MAY enhance the safety of the flight.EGPWS, TCAS ,RNAV, EFIS and other safety devices...These items certainly contribute alot to the safety of an aircraft regardless of the crews experience.
Overseeing every single facet of training for all companies is physically impossible. At some point, you read the training manual and hope that the company is following the training program laid out within.Ensure proper training...
What other requirements do you think contrail should be dictated by? Height, weight, eye color, place of birth? The pilot with more hours will generally have more and varied experience than a new 250 commercial pilot. Experience would come into the hiring decision. I would rather hire someone with 1000 hours of up north experience than 1000 hours of instructing time. That's just me though. This is not to say that a 1000 hour bush guy is a better driver than a 1000 hour instructor, rather from the environment the bush driver has operated in gives him a more varied background to draw from.
What approach would you take then? Screen every pilot at each 500 hour increment and pick the best ones from there? Contrail seems pretty proactive to me.There approach is reactive, not proactive
I'm willing to bet that those guys aren't in the left seat though.There are pilots with half the time piloting 737's around the globe
JUGGS-A waypoint in Idaho too!
-
twinpratts
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:38 am
- Location: The Wild Wild West.
- Contact:
Here's something I don't get about the Contrail requirements? They have very specific requirements for Crews, but none for the places they fly into. What I mean is, if the oil compnaies where so concerned about safety you think they would build descent strips up North, or at least improve the ones already there. You can't tell me that landing over another aircaft in Helmut is the safest thing in the world to do, I mean how hard would it be to make a ramp off the side of runway. The oil companies concern for safety only runs so far until it makes a large dent in thier pocketbooks.
Wrong, the proper utilization of the equipment MAY enhance the safety of the flight
Wrong, the proper utilization of this equipment DOES enhance safety.
Overseeing every single facet of training for all companies is physically impossible. At some point, you read the training manual and hope that the company is following the training program laid out within.
Is that your approach to safety. Hand them the manuals and hope that they read them? Hardly a safe approach if you ask me. I would rather have comprehensive training programs that continually enhance the knowledge of my pilots. What is in the training manual and what is actually done by a company can actually differ a great amount. Besides, what is in the training manual is generally mandated by TC. These guys are the most reactive of the bunch! Next time someone tries to fly under a bridge and dies, I will have to write a seperate exam on why flying under bridges is unsafe along with an 8 hour course.
What approach would you take then? Screen every pilot at each 500 hour increment and pick the best ones from there? Contrail seems pretty proactive to me.
Proactive: Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty
Simply corelating hours to safety is a cop out. Actually anazlyzing what makes a safe cockpit, like what the airlines continually do is a more proactive approach. Choosing people based on their experience because it is easier to sell to the oil companies makes easier work for Mr. Van'whatever.
Young crews captain aircraft all over the world. European countries have captains on airliners at 2000 hours and at young ages. They get upgraded with little or no command...The military is another example. 400 hours and in a CF-18? How does this happen...proper training!
I appreciate your argument, but are you honestly trying to sell me this? Hours are a factor in safety, but hardly a definative answer.
Wrong, the proper utilization of this equipment DOES enhance safety.
Overseeing every single facet of training for all companies is physically impossible. At some point, you read the training manual and hope that the company is following the training program laid out within.
Is that your approach to safety. Hand them the manuals and hope that they read them? Hardly a safe approach if you ask me. I would rather have comprehensive training programs that continually enhance the knowledge of my pilots. What is in the training manual and what is actually done by a company can actually differ a great amount. Besides, what is in the training manual is generally mandated by TC. These guys are the most reactive of the bunch! Next time someone tries to fly under a bridge and dies, I will have to write a seperate exam on why flying under bridges is unsafe along with an 8 hour course.
What approach would you take then? Screen every pilot at each 500 hour increment and pick the best ones from there? Contrail seems pretty proactive to me.
Proactive: Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty
Simply corelating hours to safety is a cop out. Actually anazlyzing what makes a safe cockpit, like what the airlines continually do is a more proactive approach. Choosing people based on their experience because it is easier to sell to the oil companies makes easier work for Mr. Van'whatever.
Young crews captain aircraft all over the world. European countries have captains on airliners at 2000 hours and at young ages. They get upgraded with little or no command...The military is another example. 400 hours and in a CF-18? How does this happen...proper training!
I appreciate your argument, but are you honestly trying to sell me this? Hours are a factor in safety, but hardly a definative answer.
I would never had someone a manual and ask them to read it and hope they were safe. This was made in reference to someone at Contrail going to every single company and sitting through every safety and training related event that ever occurs at the company.Hand them the manuals and hope that they read them?
Help us all if this ever happens.Next time someone tries to fly under a bridge and dies, I will have to write a seperate exam on why flying under bridges is unsafe along with an 8 hour course.
Is this not something that Contrail tries to do? Have the most "experienced" pilots so that difficulties don't arise.Proactive: Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty
Most of these airlines have their own training and sponsorship programs. In Europe there is a very limited GA scene unlike North America. There are no stepping stones to airlines. Since there is no GA scene a good traning program is a necessity.Young crews captain aircraft all over the world. European countries have captains on airliners at 2000 hours and at young ages.
400 hours of flight time and a lot more sim time. Proper training is essential, however, when running a company there is also a need to make money. Going to Flight Safety every month would be great but is not feasible if you want to make money.The military is another example. 400 hours and in a CF-18? How does this happen...proper training!
JUGGS-A waypoint in Idaho too!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" Quote:
Next time someone tries to fly under a bridge and dies, I will have to write a seperate exam on why flying under bridges is unsafe along with an 8 hour course.
Help us all if this ever happens. "
Yes, I agree if someone flew under a bridge and died that would be sheer stupidity.
But flying under a bridge is no big deal as long as you have sufficient clearance between the water and the bridge structure.
For instance take the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver, that sucker is so high above the water a coastal dog scudrunning in low ceilings could fly right under that bridge and never know the f.cker was there.
So lets not get to exercised over what is safe and what is legal, because sometimes there is no relationship between the two.
Cat
Next time someone tries to fly under a bridge and dies, I will have to write a seperate exam on why flying under bridges is unsafe along with an 8 hour course.
Help us all if this ever happens. "
Yes, I agree if someone flew under a bridge and died that would be sheer stupidity.
But flying under a bridge is no big deal as long as you have sufficient clearance between the water and the bridge structure.
For instance take the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver, that sucker is so high above the water a coastal dog scudrunning in low ceilings could fly right under that bridge and never know the f.cker was there.
So lets not get to exercised over what is safe and what is legal, because sometimes there is no relationship between the two.
Cat
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.
My take on Contrail:
It's garbage. Contrail is run (owned) by a 45 year old guy who flies a Lear for a living and was looking for additional ways to suppliment his income. Remember that anyone can become a 'consultant' these days!
Irony # 1:
I now know pilots flying for WJ, AC, and Jazz that don't meet Contrail requirements!
Irony # 2:
Contrail's requirements go up from year to year. So is it really so much 'safer' flying today out of CYYC than it was this time last year?
And...
the pool of 3,000h - 5,000h pilots is quickly drying-up. So, will this force Contrail to 'drop' it's requirements? If the airline-hiring continues they will have to! And if they do drop the requirements will it be more 'dangerous' to fly out of CYYC this time next year?
G
P.S. For the record, I am Contrail approved! (Lucky me!!)
It's garbage. Contrail is run (owned) by a 45 year old guy who flies a Lear for a living and was looking for additional ways to suppliment his income. Remember that anyone can become a 'consultant' these days!
Irony # 1:
I now know pilots flying for WJ, AC, and Jazz that don't meet Contrail requirements!
Irony # 2:
Contrail's requirements go up from year to year. So is it really so much 'safer' flying today out of CYYC than it was this time last year?
And...
the pool of 3,000h - 5,000h pilots is quickly drying-up. So, will this force Contrail to 'drop' it's requirements? If the airline-hiring continues they will have to! And if they do drop the requirements will it be more 'dangerous' to fly out of CYYC this time next year?
G
P.S. For the record, I am Contrail approved! (Lucky me!!)
"Slow and steady wins the race"
