What exactly does this mean?

[Hedley]

What exactly is going on to have TC harassing you?

You don't need to believe me. Ask them yourself. Start with
the fact that I am (completely illegally) "banned for life" from
every flying at another airshow in Canada, ever again.

Call up your regional office, and tell them you are putting on
an airshow, and thus require an SFOC IAW CAR 603, and
you want to put these guys on the list:

http://www.pittspecials.com

who are experienced, qualified, and have a perfect
safety record.

Transport, completely illegally, will not issue an airshow
SFOC with our names on it.

I am a Canadian citizen, I pay very hefty Canadian taxes,
and I can fly airshows in the USA, Mexico, Central America
and the Caribbean, but not in the country of which I am
a citizen.

Don't take my word for it. Call Transport yourself.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Ok, so you're suggesting it's jealousy that makes them ride you... again, based on what I see of you here, I think it's probably more like your attitude and your behaviour.

I have been in aviation for over half a century and many years of my career were as an owner of aviation companies and in management of other companies.

I am also very familiar with the regulations and rules that govern aviation.

Nowhere have I found any written regulation or rule that outlines the requirements for TC to make decisions based on ones " Attitude and behaviour " unless there the person being judged was charged with a violation of law.

So enlighten us Mitch, what in your opinion would justify TC taking punitive action against someone based on attitude?

[MrWings]

Start with he fact that I am (completely illegally) "banned for life" from
every flying at another airshow in Canada, ever again.

I believe you. But why were you banned? There must have been some hoop you refused to jump through or some rule you broke.

[Hedley]

Please tell me what rule you can break, which
results in a lifetime ban from airshows in Canada.

I would really appreciate a CAR reference, or a
quote from the Aeronautics Act.

My airshow team is impeccably qualified,
highly experienced, with a perfect safety record,
and completely illegally banned for life from
ever performing again in Canada.

Please, call up Transport yourself.

The hilarious irony is that Transport is
clearly "not in good standing" with
the Charter of Rights, which it so
freely and frequently violates.

The incongruence of the regulator
breaking all the rules - think public
sector criminal vs private sector
criminal - is what drives . wild

[Mitch Cronin]

.... Talk to a cop about what they can learn from attitude and behaviour, and ask them if such things ever help them decide who to watch or not. Give your head a shake please. You're not daft. As for what they've done directly to Hedley... ? If he's done nothing wrong then I have difficulty believing they'd treat him as if he has.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm not twisting a knife, I'm smacking your noggin' with that one comment to you... You're on it all the time and you often don't seem to give any thought to the influence you may have on lesser experienced minds (that's a polite way of avoiding reminding you again that you're a crusty old curmudgeon)

te

Mitch, you are entiled to having what ever opinion you want as to my being a crusty old crumudgeon if that makes you happy.....however having never met me your opinion is only that....an opinion.

You have hit the nail right on the head though with this bit.

You're on it all the time and you often don't seem to give any thought to the influence you may have on lesser experienced minds

Oh but I do give lots of thought to how my opinion may influence the less experienced minds, I am giving them things to ponder and examine.

Things such as this subject which asks a serious question such as since when has there been a need to show you are in good standing with Transport Canada to be employable in aviation.

You obviously can not grasp the ramifications of that issue but I'm betting that there are many younger ones out there who can.

And that Mitch is why I ask these questions....to get people to examine what is going on in aviation.

[MrWings]

Please tell me what rule you can break, which
results in a lifetime ban from airshows in Canada.

So, what I am inferring is that you did break a rule and paid your fine and/or suspension.

Your argument is that you paid the price and now should be able to go about normal operation.

TC must feel that you have not acknowledged the serverity of your error and are a great risk to reoffend and can prove such. Is that within their mandate? If their mandate is to ensure aviation safety to the public, then probably.

[Hedley]

TC must feel that you have not acknowledged
the serverity of your error and are a great risk to reoffend
and can prove such

That's a good guess, but if it's true, why does Transport
issue me a "Statement of Aerobatic Competency" every
year, which is the required document to perform aerobatics
at airshows, as per CAR 603?

I am qualified, but not eligible, according to Transport.

Don't see where in the CARs this is spelled out.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

TC must feel that you have not acknowledged the serverity of your error and are a great risk to reoffend and can prove such. Is that within their mandate? If their mandate is to ensure aviation safety to the public, then probably.

WOW, so you are of the opinion that once convicted of any offense and having paid the penalty you are now fair game for harrassment by TCCA?

Wow, maybe you would like TCCA to dress their people in Nazi uniforms also?

[Rockie]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... ydA468.htm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... ydA418.htm
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/200 ... ca422.html

Well, here's some more reading. Let's let people decide for themselves when it comes to Hed.

Reading through these gives a lot of insight into why you came to TC's attention in the first place. Everything in there, and what you broadcast on this website screams out that you still do not recognize what you did was wrong. This quote from the record says it perfectly:

The universal expression of reluctance to testify against a fellow pilot came forth from all of the pilot eyewitnesses, coupled with their observations about his arrogance. They were present here today to protect their sport, and hopefully to make Mr. XXXXX realise that his actions were dangerous and prejudicial to the aerobatic fraternity.

You fail the litmus test given by your peers and they have turned their backs on you. The fact that you got a good lawyer to reduce some of the regulatory damage doesn't diminish the arrogance, recklessness and disregard for authority you displayed then, and continue to display today. You don't exactly fill anyone with confidence that you won't do it again, and given that any aviation document is a privilege (not a right) your inability to get a SFOC is hardly surprising.

[Mitch Cronin]

You obviously can not grasp the ramifications of that issue but I'm betting that there are many younger ones out there who can

It's interesting that you're so ready to believe you know a damned thing about me, yet so unwilling to recognize how much you've exposed of yourself here.

You have no freaking idea what I can grasp ., and with that, and all the rest of these darts from you to me, I'm done.

[MrWings]

WOW, so you are of the opinion that once convicted of any offense and having paid the penalty you are now fair game for harrassment by TCCA?

How exactly did you make that leap?

[MrWings]

I am qualified, but not eligible, according to Transport.

They are the ones to answer this. What do they say?

If you are refused because of a personality clash, well, that is wrong. If they don't have more than this then you'd think the court would be your friend, albeit a costly one.

Have you tried telling them, yes I made a mistake, I did my time and I'll never to it again?

[pushyboss]

In my years in aviation (28) I have found that respect given when due, is returned. I neither bend over for TC or do I go out and look for a fight. I have also found that those who come looking for a fight will usually find one.

If you have been in non-compliance and subsequently found guilty through DUE PROCESS, and you continue to shout your innocence without showing any remorse or accepting any responsibility, then it is no wonder that the regulator hangs around and watches. If you speed through a school zone, get caught, and then refuse to accept responsibility, the cops will keep an eye on you every time you drive through the school zone. It all has to do with attitude.

I am also in good standing with Transport Canada and proud of it. Being in a constant state of war with the regulator is nothing to be proud of and is not a badge of honor.

[MrWings]

If you have been in non-compliance and subsequently found guilty through DUE PROCESS, and you continue to shout your innocence without showing any remorse or accepting any responsibility, then it is no wonder that the regulator hangs around and watches.

Great post.

The guy that pleads guilty gets off lighter than the guy that goes to trial and is convicted.

The guy that refuses treatment in jail will end up doing his complete sentence while the guy that enrolls in a corrective program gets parole.

The alcoholic that doesn't admit to a problem will get into more trouble while the guy that says he's an alcoholic will get help.

[Hedley]

Can someone point to where in the Canadian Aviation Regulation
this is all specified?

If safety is not an issue, and no regulations are being broken,
what is the justification?

Being in a constant state of war with the regulator is nothing to be proud of

I'm not in a state of war with anyone. I do find it
interesting that the regulator feels it is under no
obligation to comply with the law.

your inability to get a SFOC is hardly surprising.

Your reading comprehension, as usual Rockie, is quite
poor. Transport refuses to list me on an Airshow SFOC,
but I hold an Individual SFOC issued as per CAR 603.67.

The inconsistencies here are mind-boggling.

BTW Rockie, the idiotic quote was from a Member
who was somewhat incredibly found to be Partial
during the Tribunal Appeal. Keep reading.

It is a fact that some people that were there liked
the flight, and some people didn't. Story of my
life. Some people like me, and some people don't.

But you get old enough, you realize that life,
unlike a high school election for student council
president, isn't a popularity contest.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am also in good standing with Transport Canada and proud of it. Being in a constant state of war with the regulator is nothing to be proud of and is not a badge of honor.

As was I for fifty years, however when faced with an inspector who was acting far outside of his power of office I did exactly as is required in the CAR's, I contacted my regional TCCA office and requested their help in solving the problem with said inspector.

Their response was to deny there was any problem and protect the inspector, from that point in time my business was effectively brought to a complete stop.

After about three years and going through every possible department in the government my case was finally settled by TCCA being found guilty of all the issues that were being denied by TCCA.

So am I to now believe that I should never have followed what the CAR's dictate I should have done, but just have submitted to wrongdoing by a TCCA inspector?

[Hedley]

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but
my opinion is that if you don't bend tin - i.e.
there is no safety issue - and you obey the
CARs, well, that should really be sufficient
to be in "good standing" with the regulator
because it is both sensible and in compliant
with the applicable regulations.

But what I read here is that safety and compliance
with the regulations is neither necessary or
sufficient for a happy relationship with the
regulator.

I know a flight instructor who crashes all
the time. But he is never charged, because
he is tightly hooked into Tower C. Clearly
he has mastered the high school popularity
angle, and as a result is permitted to crash
airplanes all the time.

Hm. Sorry to disappoint anyone, but I
think I will continue not bending any tin,
or breaking any regulations, even if this
behaviour engrages the regulator. I'm
too old and cranky to buy into your high
school popularity crap.

[Rockie]

Sorry Hedley. I should have said your inability to get listed on any airshow SFOC. Much the same thing to me because it means TC won't let you fly in airshows which is the bottom line. As for your individual SFOC, you beat the rap on the 3 mile visibility thanks to your clever lawyer, but you were still considered negligent, and still violated this:

3) Prior to conducting aerobatic manoeuvres below 2,000 feet AGL the certificate holder shall ensure that

(a) where the operation is to take place at an airport or an aerodrome, the airport manager or aerodrome operator have been made aware of the proposed operation and has no objection,

The display director in this case shut down flying due to weather. But clearly there are rules, and then there are Hedley's rules because you don't recognize the display director's authority. Your assertion that if you don't bend metal it must be safe is absurd and you shouldn't be driving a car much less flying airplanes.

[CID]

This thread is a shining example of the extreme rhetoric of the two biggest morons on the site. I won't mention any "names" lest I be threatened with bodily harm or legal action (again).

When companies openly put this requirement in an add for employees you should be concerned.

Yes. Concerned that they won't hire people who have no regard for the regulations. Or old bitter hacks.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

And once again we have come full circle with CID's usual comments.

Tell me CID in that you are unable to show that anywhere during my career I acted in any other way other than professional does it make you feel better that you can have the satisfaction of calling me an old bitter hack?

I guess that would put me outside of this morally superior group you live with huh?

[CID]

Tell me CID in that you are unable to show that anywhere during my career I acted in any other way other than professional does it make you feel better that you can have the satisfaction of calling me an old bitter hack?

I didn't mention any names. What makes you think I was referring to you?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sorry CID I must have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[Hedley]

The display director in this case shut down flying due to weather

Again, Rockie, you don't let a complete lack of knowledge
on something stop you from having a strong opinion

The aerobatic contest was cancelled because the ceiling
was below 3,500 AGL as per CAR 603. However, I might
add that an airshow can legally be conducted with a ceiling
of 1,500 AGL, also as per CAR 603. I might add that
this was NOT an air show, merely a practice conducted
within the terms of my individual SFOC which has no ceiling
requirement at all - merely 3 miles vis - which there was,
even according to the Minister's own witnesses - and that
I remained clear of cloud, which I did.

Before I did the practice flight, I talked to the contest
director, and he had no problem with my flight - it
actually did not involve him, he just wanted to make
sure that his contest SFOC was cancelled. He made
the phone call, and literally gave me the "thumbs up"
signal afterwards. This is all in his testimony and
the transcript.

I also had the airport operator's permission for the
flight.

All applicable regulations were complied with during
the flight.

Some people liked it, and some people didn't.

You weren't there, Rockie, and as usual for
an airline pilot, you haven't a clue what you
are talking about.

As for the other internet coward that likes
to throw rocks and then hide in the shadows,
well, if I'm a "moron", why do I have an
Engineeering degree from Queen's University
with patents in the field of computer network
protocol design?

How many patents do you hold?

[Frank Uckër]

Being in a constant state of war with the regulator is nothing to be proud of and is not a badge of honor.

If no one's suing you, you're nobody.