Buffalo Joe temporary shut down?

[CID]

I take it from your response you are unfamiliar with AC21.101-1b .Easy reading and even easier application process if you go to a FSDO that has staff who like to take work breaks between coffee breaks
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today ... 24/?no-ist

The Basler 67 was certified under the old STC process. And now can carry 11,000 lbs of payload .
The Aircraft is classified as new when it leave the factory . The process seems to work for some
Joe should get some of his 3's converted and he will not have to worry about engine fires again.

I take it from your response that you're not familiar with CAR 521. And FSDOs don't have ANYTHING to do with STCs. You may want to study a bit more and learn what an ACO is.

[2R]

You can learn something every day ,even if you do not want too .
Thanks for that TC 521 thingy CID ,it reads like the old FAA 337 . Maybe that harmonization promised under NAFTA will happen after all

[pelmet]

You guys need to wake up and open your eyes.....everyone up north operates overweight at times.

It used to be just a normal way of operating to fly overweight up north in the smaller aircraft(Of course....I never did as I wouldn't want to incriminate myself). Not sure how it is now but.....

....if you were to decide to operate at a weight in excess of the maximum allowable, you have to calculate the risks just like on any flight. There are different things to consider but from an engine failure on a multi engine aircraft point of view, if in the 98% of the flight that is, the latter portion of the climb, cruise, and early portion of the descent point of view, you are definitely raising the stake if you can't maintain altitude after losing an engine. Now you have gone from being really vulnerable for a very small portion of the flight to the whole flight.

Then you add in the reality that you are not using fairly reliable turbines but instead are using engines that frequently have partial or complete failures and the risks get very high. Flying these aircraft overweight is a risky proposition in my point of view or perhaps I should say, a much higher risk than a much more reliable turbine aircraft.

Now someone might say that even if you are legally at gross weight and lose an engine, you still can't maintain altitude and therefore it is still risky. True, but there are different kinds of risk. The risk for those in the aircraft(and perhaps those in its flight path) and then there is the business risk. If the DC-3 that was overweight had been legal along with everything else, I don't think that could be used against you to ground your operation. You could show TC all the nice paperwork and documentation backed up by the evidence in the investigation and you should be clean. If you are significantly and intentionally overweight, you have a problem.

[pelmet]

Also heard a rumour of undocumented pax on the C-46. Any truth to this?

[RadicalRadial]

Also heard a rumour of undocumented pax on the C-46. Any truth to this?

No. This is incorrect information.

[Eric Janson]

I've been in this business a long time as well - unlike most of the posters on this thread I have actually worked for this company.

I'd fly on these aircraft anytime.

So, you've been immersed in a poisonous company culture that has been defined as unsafe and you expect me to value your assessment of the airworthiness of their aircraft? Sorry. I'm not buying what you're selling. But...I certainly respect your right to your opinion.

In 3400 hours of DC-3 flying I've had one engine failure.

I probably have 1000+ hours as Joe's co-pilot.

Things I learned while flying for Buffalo have kept me out of trouble flying large jets all over the world.

My opinions are based on my personal experiences.

I respect your right to your opinion.

If you want an example of poisonous company culture - this is the result of a six week investigation at my previous employer.

http://lankaherald.com/2015/04/09/the-w ... -airlines/

[CID]

You can learn something every day ,even if you do not want too .
Thanks for that TC 521 thingy CID ,it reads like the old FAA 337 . Maybe that harmonization promised under NAFTA will happen after all

2R, you are becoming famous for making bizarre statements then having a eureka moment. Is this a wind-up? CAR 521 isn't as much a "thingy" as the Transport Canada Regulation that provides the framework for airworthiness approvals. It's the Canadian counterpart to the FAA Part 21. Or at least parts of it.

The AC you referenced, almost randomly, deals with one of the first steps in applying for an airworthiness approval like a TC or an STC. Specifially, defining the basis of certification. The TCCA counterpart to FAA AC 21.101-1B is AC 521-004.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 4-1495.htm

For additional guidance on the STC process contained in CAR 521, you can check out AC 500-005.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 5-1484.htm

There is also guidance for RDAs and PDAs. You should have no problem finding those using the links provided.

The processes for obtaining STCs in the FAA world and the TCCA world are very similar but there are certainly some significant differences. The process in the US however is much more "sluggish" than in Canada. Without their field approval process things would grind to a halt down there.

[Donald]

http://www.myyellowknifenow.com/10588/i ... happening/

[PilotDAR]

My first hand experience with many different Transport Canada staff over the years has never left me thinking that either organizationally or individually they ever "had it in for anyone". Indeed, I have regularly found the opposite to be the case, where Transport Canada staff, when treated with the respect that any of us would appreciate human to human, will often make an extra effort, and "give" a little on compliance, where safety is not an issue. I very much doubt that TC staff would ever risk being shown to be applying pressure on a person or organization beyond what the regulations state is appropriate.

Perhaps if there is a perception that TC is being hard on someone, it is more a matter that they have decided to simply do their jobs to the degree, and in the timelines provided by regulation, and that the waiting times and actions are simply compliant with regulation. If something is taking a long time, TC are probably being very thorough to assure it is correct, before sending it back. If TC seems harsh, perhaps they are simply unwilling to extend themselves beyond the regulation, and are simply applying it.

As much as readers probably think I'm commenting from a skewed alternate universe, I find TC service to generally be above what I expect, and their stated levels of service. If I think something is slipping, or being applied too firmly, I review the actual standard, and find they're within their mandate. And then I hush up, for fear of degrading the regular service which is above and beyond. I have received replies to inquiries at 10:30PM, and when I know that the TC staff member was actually away on a family holiday. I do know people who have struggled to find a personal or organizational harmony with TC and its staff, some relationships are just a bit more challenging. But TC does our collective national job in applying the regulations we choose to have.

I wish Buffalo the best, but I wish them to be nationally compliant and operating on a level playing field with their peers too...

[photofly]

TC is made up of individuals, just like for instance AvCanada. Just because you work for government doesn't make you an asshole, but it doesn't make you a better person either.

[switchflicker]

PilotDAR and photofly:

Between the two of you, the year 2016 has started in an absolutely most positive way. Excellent posts! Although it may be a bit too much to hope for, I still do hope that we AvCanadians can try our best to stay on the right side of the rules and more importantly on the right side of the grass. Happiness, health and prosperity to all.

[rigpiggy]

biggest problem dealing with TC is nobody will give a plain answer, always refer back to the CAR's. Some are so open to "translation" that you ask 5 people in 5 different regions, and you'll get 5 answers, all different?

[CpnCrunch]

biggest problem dealing with TC is nobody will give a plain answer, always refer back to the CAR's. Some are so open to "translation" that you ask 5 people in 5 different regions, and you'll get 5 answers, all different?

Yeah, that's true if you ask them "is it legal to land straight in at an uncontrolled airport" or something that is similarly ambiguously defined. However it seems that Buffalo's CARs issues are more cut and dried...

[rigpiggy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/buf ... -1.3389253

[jayceehi]

I've been in this business a long time as well - unlike most of the posters on this thread I have actually worked for this company.

I'd fly on these aircraft anytime.

So, you've been immersed in a poisonous company culture that has been defined as unsafe and you expect me to value your assessment of the airworthiness of their aircraft? Sorry. I'm not buying what you're selling. But...I certainly respect your right to your opinion.

In 3400 hours of DC-3 flying I've had one engine failure.

I probably have 1000+ hours as Joe's co-pilot.

Things I learned while flying for Buffalo have kept me out of trouble flying large jets all over the world.

My opinions are based on my personal experiences.

I respect your right to your opinion.

If you want an example of poisonous company culture - this is the result of a six week investigation at my previous employer.

http://lankaherald.com/2015/04/09/the-w ... -airlines/

Right on Eric!!!
jc

[anofly]

Buffalo cleared to fly. CBC.

[oldyellr]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/buf ... -1.3401130

[cpknight]

http://www.hayriverhub.com/2016/01/buff ... e-flights/

[co-joe]

Welcome back boys. Fly safe now eh.

Say what you will about Joe's ops but paying your guys through this is a classy move. Straight up.

[anofly]

Kudos for Buffalo hanging in there for the staff. Top Drawer. Thanks to the staff for hanging in for Buffalo, also class act. Hope they used the time to get some of those inspections out of the way so the planes are ready to rock. Fly Safe. I hope the sched comes back up too.

[crazyaviator]

Employees are a dime a dozen but Owners who fly/fix/ make a living in the far north are few and far between ! Kudos to Joe for keepin the staff flush during x-mas AND for staying somewhat sane in a incredibly difficult part of the industry Now that we have that out of the way , Im sure Joe is a pain in the ASS for TC, breaks the rules, Makes it hard for safety/ legal minded employees and really does owe it to many employees over the holiday season to not throw them under the bus, because at the end of the day, only Joe can look at himself in the mirror and say " Well, i run the show here, and Im the accountable executive and Im at fault, a part of the chain leading to the suspension or the accident etc !!!

[square]

Forget Basler conversions and flying overweight, the easiest way to make that company safer is to pull that maniac's licence. I did an ILS to minimums on 16 in ZF one time, missed, then Joe comes in for a VFR approach onto 10 and makes it.. He even took off in a Baron in Lutsel'ke on one engine. Because of vapor lock!

[Donald]

Now that we have that out of the way , Im sure Joe is a pain in the ASS for TC, breaks the rules, Makes it hard for safety/ legal minded employees

Is this a pro-Buffalo, or anti-Buffalo post?

[crazyaviator]

What is wrong with human beings ????????? Why cant a person look at all the evidence and be truthful ? WHY must every person pick a side and lie, cheat and deceive to hold onto their chosen opinion ??? Whatever happened to being a balanced person and "reporting" the facts ?

Dont you understand that Im fully aware of all the SHIT and EVIL that company leaders do EVERYDAY
to cheat the odds and undercut safety and backstab the morals and good intentions of pilots and AME s alike ??? I hate it ALLLLL with a passion ,,,,My feelings dont change a single thing though !!

[pelmet]

Say what you will about Joe's ops but paying your guys through this is a classy move. Straight up.

Rumour has it that it was the longest period of time ever where Joe didn't fire anyone.