Float Plane Standards

[SeptRepair]

I dont think there is a reason they cant have them, We operate a 206, and this discussion got me to thinking of ways to incorporate a quick release system. When I have time, and when the aircraft is available, I will be working on a solution to this problem. Fortunately I have a good company backing me, and through them access to a DAR who is very helpful when developing STCs and LSTCs. I will let you all know if I get an emergency door release system approved.

[ASL]

All we can do, outside of fixing obvious technical flaws, is education of risk. Dunk training for pilots is a great idea. Making dunk training a part of the float rating, perhaps? Adding lifeguard skills to the rating maybe? But before any of that, float pilots need to look in the mirror and acknowledge the risk to themselves and to their passengers, that they face every day....
....If you are tempted to cry for standards to TC (a possibly futile effort) or to operators, or to industry, might I suggest checking your own standards first.

Good post. I have been championing underwater egress training since 1998 - non-stop - and I will keep doing so. I was involved in the effort to redesign and issue the poster to all seaplane operators in Canada, and sending tons of pamphlets. Should every float plane pilot in Canada take this training? Excellent idea. Should specific dunk training be made mandatory or part of the float rating? I personally dont think so - refer to BigWillyStyle's post. The float rating includes underwater egress theory and briefings to passenger as an important topic, but last thing you guys want is more mandatory stuff and a mandatory dunking. This complex and often unavailable setup would delay float plane ratings unjustifiably. COPA also champions underwater egress and has a regular column on the subject in their COPA Flight magazine. All operators - private and commercial - know very well about this. The TC Aviation Safety Award in 2007 was awarded to an underwater egress training provider for plugging the subject away to all who will hear it and take the training. The subject has been hammered in everyone's consciousness. But yet, refer again to the quote above, we need to acknowledge the risk and deal with it.

Paul Marquis
Editor, Aviation Safety Letter

[Widow]

Thank you for visiting Mr. Marquis. I don't think there has ever been a TCCA employee who has visited and freely given his/her name!

While I personally believe that all float pilots should take underwater egress training (see Fatal Float Plane Crash in PQ, May 26, 2008), I also understand the comments made by both bigwilly and yourself. That being said, I also believe that for working float pilots, egress training should be a requirement - as part of their Occupational Health and Safety. I would have thought that making it a requirement would feed TCCA's coffers, which could hardly be a bad thing!

As I posted on the other thread:

Float-flying is often an integral part of the career path of Canadian pilots. The TCCA requirement for a float endorsement is 7 hours of flight time … which most agree is a joke. Many pilots build hours by flying privately. Training, however does not include egress training, which is recognized by Transport as being “invaluable for any pilot who flies regularly over water, regardless of the type of aircraft flown. As a matter of fact, passengers or non-pilot crews who also fly regularly over water should consider underwater escape training. Once you have had the training, you will also be in a better position to brief your passengers about what to expect... should the unexpected occur.” (Reference: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Syste ... 98/008.htm).

As pilots you need to acknowledge the risk. As the Ministry of Transport, responsible for the safety of flying pax (including working pax), TCCA needs to acknowledge that the current method of promulgating information with respect to egress training is not effective enough. Other industry safety associations (e.g. BC Forest Safety Council) have recognized the danger and are considering making egress training a requirement for SAFE certificates at companies that fly regularly over water. This is a result of fatalities (like my husband) and not a result of any Transport Canada initiative.

[Cat Driver]

Other industry safety associations (e.g. BC Forest Safety Council) have recognized the danger and are considering making egress training a requirement for SAFE certificates at companies that fly regularly over water. This is a result of fatalities (like my husband) and not a result of any Transport Canada initiative.

I believe that voluntary egress training is the way to go and companies having a certificate to display to the public would be an asset.

And giving passengers a life vest as a boarding card, something I suggested years ago....then again few ever listen to what I suggest.

However I'm with Paul M. on this one as far as making it part of the sea plane rating goes it would be a real nightmare for the training industry.

Maybe " egress light " as part of the ground training portion would work....everything except the actual dunking process?

[Widow]

Why would it be a nightmare for the training industry? Egress trainers like Bryan Webster, travel around the country with their equipment making the training available everywhere, at any time.

[Cat Driver]

Why would it be a nightmare for the training industry? Egress trainers like Bryan Webster, travel around the country with their equipment making the training available everywhere, at any time.

widow, as I understand your suggestion it was to make egress training part of the sea plane rating....

.....that would limit sea plane ratings to only those who had access to the egress training.

How about all the people who give sea plane ratings outside of FTU's?

Maybe the training should only be done by FTU's ?

How much does it cost to have Brian travel to say Corner Brook NFLD and give one course?

[Widow]

... all part of the reason why we are working on an video (with a professional production company) that can be used for training purposes - both for pilots and regular pax.

[Cat Driver]

A video would be an excellent addition to the training.

There should be several changes made... ( only my opinion of course, which means SFA to those in charge of making changes. )

Two levels of a sea plane rating.

Sea plane PPL....

Sea plane CPL....

The training for the CPL sea plane rating should require a higher level of experience for the instructor giving said rating...a good start would be ....oh lets say 1000 hours of sea plane flying in the industry and lets say two years minimum of commercial sea plane flying outside of the FTU sector of flying.

And also......ahhhh fu.k it I'm wasting my time here.....

I'm from a different mindset when it comes to how these things should be done, to me it makes more sense to train to prevent accidents and have the after the accident training follow that in the importance of what is needed. The way it is now a pilot with 50 hours on sea planes can teach someone else how to do it.....

The reality is TC is happy with that level of experience to teach...and they actively discourage and or prevent us experienced pilots from teaching.....so fu.k it , because nothing will change anyhow.

[cessnafloatflyer]

Two levels of a sea plane rating.

Sea plane PPL....

Sea plane CPL....

The training for the CPL sea plane rating should require a higher level of experience for the instructor giving said rating...a good start would be ....oh lets say 1000 hours of sea plane flying in the industry and lets say two years minimum of commercial sea plane flying outside of the FTU sector of flying.

Now, that is an idea that has real value!

[Cat Driver]

Now, that is an idea that has real value!

Thanks Dave:

It is one of the suggestions that I am putting forward in Europe as an adviser for the Greek HCAA.

I am sure that you in your business would be delighted with improved teaching standards that would allow you to make the training part of your business more profitable.

I had better not use big words like " profit " here though just in case TC is reading this.....we have to try and not suggest something they don't understand.

[BigWillyStyle]

Cat said:

"Sea plane PPL....

Sea plane CPL....

The training for the CPL sea plane rating should require a higher level of experience for the instructor giving said rating...a good start would be ....oh lets say 1000 hours of sea plane flying in the industry and lets say two years minimum of commercial sea plane flying outside of the FTU sector of flying."

Cat, that is a hell of an idea. Best one I've heard in a long while. That's the kind of teaching I'd like to do some years down the road. It might even have the additional benefit of keeping the "I'll work for free" prostitutes out of the industry.

I like it. How do we get it to happen? When are you going to run for office?

BWS

[Cat Driver]

I like it. How do we get it to happen? When are you going to run for office?

There is no way for those of us on the outside to " Run for office " TCCA and especially the training department is a closed shop that operates on another planet outside of our universe.

I would settle for being able to work in aviation in my region, never mind run for office.

However as long as the present Regional Director Dave Nowzek is in charge it is not possible for me to even work in this industry let alone have any chance of bringing about positive changes to the system.

Here is the reality of how they work to bring about positive changes to their training system.

I first received my sea plane rating in 1954, in that era we needed five hours of flight instruction for the rating.......fifty four years later the only changes to their requirements is they added two hours to the time required, and put in place the requirement for five solo take off's and landings, which drove the cost of insurance through the roof for insuring airplanes used in sea plane training.

Nothing else of substance has changed because the status quo is paramount within TCCA, why would they change anything when their jobs and pay and perks remain the same even if they play games on their computers all day.

TCCA flight training is stuck in the stone age and there is no need for accountability so it will remain in the stone age.

Can you imagine how some of their inspectors would feel if they had to deal with pilots who actually know how to fly?

The word is threatened ....through their own ignorance.

[Widow]

----- Original Message -----
From: Eley, Martin
To: Kirsten Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: CAIRS MA-7047 - Floatplane Safety Review


Mrs. Stevens,

I regret that you find my response to be wholly unsatisfactory. I can assure you that the review was undertaken by a well qualified team of Transport Canada personnel. If you were able to share the details of your research with us, either directly or by putting us in contact with your experts, it would help us to identify anything that we may have failed to consider.

The conclusions from any review of this type are the starting point for any rulemaking activity and they are then subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment before being drafted as proposed changes to the regulations.

Martin J. Eley
Director, National Aircraft Certification/Directeur, Certification des aéronefs nationale
eleym@tc.gc.ca (613) 952-4338 http://www.tc.gc.ca <<http://www.tc.gc.ca/>>
facsimile / télécopieur (613) 996-9178 TTY / ATS (613) 990-4500
Transport Canada/Transports Canada, Place de Ville (AARD), Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 Government of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada

This guy just put himself on my nasty list. Where is the information I asked of him????

[Cat Driver]

Mrs. Stevens,

I regret that you find my response to be wholly unsatisfactory. I can assure you that the review was undertaken by a well qualified team of Transport Canada personnel.

widow he has given you his answer, these people are a law onto their own and their arrogance is evident from this creatures response.

Keep after him and force him to answer you.

Doesen't this kind of response make you want to walk in his office and shove your next letter where the sun don't shine?

[Widow]

----- Original Message -----
From: Kirsten Stevens
To: Eley, Martin
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: CAIRS MA-7047 - Floatplane Safety Review


Mr. Eley,

I would accept your assurances more easily if you would provide me with the information I requested, namely:

• who was involved with the the review?
  where and when did the meetings take place?
  what solutions were examined?
  why were those solutions rejected?

I shall look forward to receiving this information such that I may determine what solutions you have failed to consider, and thus what information it would be appropriate for me to forward. I would be surprised if a well qualified team had failed to identify the same issues and solutions that my research has uncovered.

Kirsten Stevens

[Cat Driver]

widow, if nothing else you are exposing just how these cretins hold the general public in contempt.

Keep after them, there are thousands of people who read your posts and there is one thing these cockroaches fear and that is being caught in a spotlight.


We should talk soon as something else has come up concerning Nowzek that will interest you.

[petpad]

houba

[Cat Driver]

... wow, heavy words Cat...

I am pleased you recognized that petpad, to many of the management at the top of TCCA are moral degenerates.

The more public exposure they get the better for the industry.

Like I just said to widow the internet has finally given us a vehicle to communicate and share our experiences.

And that petpad is what I am doing.

You do agree that shining a light on things makes them quite visible don't you?

[Widow]

I'll call you in the morning ..

[petpad]

houba

[Cat Driver]

.sure, they are accountable, so its OK to challenge them...

petpad the above is not true, they are not accountable.

Even when they are found to be guilty of deliberate wrongdoing that involves breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold they are not held accountable.

I agree with you intent ., but your negative energy and bitterness for past events comes across into all your posts.

I see, but I guess if you lost your business along with all your retirement savings because several pieces of human garbage in TCCA broke every rule in the book trying to protect their own who were abusing their power you would be a bigger man than me and just suck it up and smile?

Others may feel somewhat like you do, but: 1) they for the most part check their street vocabulary at the door before hitting send;

Give me a fuc.in break, street vocabulary? I learned to be a street fighter because I lived in environments where you either learned to be a street fighter or you did not survive.

It is because I am a street fighter that I stood up for myself and eventually won my case against several TCCA top management, including Merlin Preuss a moral degenerate that is a disgrace to the office he holds. I find it incredible that the DGCA 's moral compass is so far off that he would not meet the qualifications to be a member of the mafia, yet he is in charge of TCCA.

You have me all wrong petpad, I'm not bitter in the context you think I am.

I am just determined to show the industry these cockroaches can be exposed, if only there was some way to hold them accountable that would be the end of it.

[petpad]

houba

[Widow]

What region are you in petpad? Do you have any experience with Pacific? TCCA internal reports have identified Pacific region as a problem, although of course, those reports have all been "disappeared". I have spoken personally, however, with people (from TCCA) who have worked with these reports, and I know this to be a fact - besides it having been exemplified by my own experience.

I also cannot help but wonder if you work for TCCA (or the TSB) as your knowledge of the NCAP was far from what could be called "public knowledge".

[Cat Driver]

petpad I am so pleased that you make these posts because you are doing exactly what I want, you are making assumptions either through ignorance of the facts or through a vested interest in protecting people like Preuss and Nowzek. And thereby allowing me to expand on the issue.

If in fact you are protecting the status quo within TCCA that makes you part of the problem.

So lets dissect your comments and clarify them.

I empathize with your situation, even though one would have to walk a mile in your shoes to fully understand the extent of the grief you experienced.

I'll save you the walk, I have experienced no grief as I knew when I took them on that I was running a great risk of losing my business.....I have proof of this in the records that are in TCCA's file # 5015-12391.

There you can find my first letter to Art Laflamme where I told him that I was aware that by taking Nowzek on I was at risk of losing my business.....of course Art denied that was even possible.

So there has been no grief as such, just revulsion when I think that we have a regulator that is unaccountable because there are moral degenerates in charge.

This being said however, I doubt that your story is representative and typical of how this aviation system is run.

It is reperesentative of the Pacific Region under Nowzek.

I personally know of several other owner operators in this region who were screwed over big time in this region and were put out of business with no legal reason to do so except they were guilty of not kissing ass.

At the moment I am personally involved with a couple of other operators who are at risk of suffering damage to their companies....one has the exact same problem that started my battle with TCCA.....

I just find that in most of your posts, no matter what the topic is, always end-up being TC's fault and that of those idiots who run it. It gets old, real old, and it says that your analysis is always tainted and cannot be expected to be fair - even though you have so much knowledge and experience to share. Your personal vendetta (defined as "a bitter, destructive feud") seems to involve just you, your keyboard and virtual foes - but it destructs only you. I hope you can break free of the hatred and bitterness. I will keep reading. All the best,

You are correct in one way, I do have much knowledge and understanding of the business, and I decided to use it to try and bring about changes within TCCA's culture, unfortunately I have made little progress because I underestimated the disinterest and sheep mentality within the industry in Canada.....

...but the up side is I was very successful in my career outside of Canada so by making the decision not to be bullied by some rouges in TCCA I advanced my career....and can look in the mirror and not be ashamed of what I see.

I will keep reading. All the best

You should keep reading, because you may come to the conclusion that what I am saying is true.

I hope you can break free of the hatred and bitterness.

Once again you are all mixed up petpad, I am quite satisfied with life and am as happy as a clam, especially now that I can describe some of the top officials in TCCA as moral degenerates knowing they dare not bring me into court to answer to said description.....it was winning my case against them that broke me free.

[Widow]

Wow, I guess petpad had second thoughts about his/her posts.

Check out the reply I had to that email above ...

----- Original Message -----
From: Preuss, Merlin
To: kis.ca@telus.net
Cc: Eley, Martin ; CAIRS / SSQAC_National ; Kamal, Lucille
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:35 AM
Subject: CAIRS MA-7047 - Floatplane Safety Review


Mrs. Stevens, I am replying to your latest email given that Martin Eley is away on leave.

We are always open to reviewing our work in light of new information that comes to our attention. Mr. Eley has asked that you share any new information that you have with respect to the issues you have raised or put us in contact with those that might have additional information.

Without this new information, it is my considered opinion that there is no additional work that we can do on these issues at this time.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Merlin Preuss
Director General/Directeur général
Civil Aviation/Aviation civile
Tel 613-990-1322/Cell 613-286-9153
preussm@tc.gc.ca
Place de Ville, 330 rue Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0N8

So I can't get answers without "ratting out" my sources of info??? Oh, wait ... wanna bet I wouldn't get answers even if I did "rat"?!

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: CAIRS MA-7047 - Floatplane Safety Review


Mr. Preuss,

I have asked very specific questions about the work that has already been done. Why am I not entitled to this information? I have read, with great interest, the recommendations contained within "A Safety Study of Survivability in Seaplane Accidents" and "A Safety Study of Piloting Skills, Abilities and Knowledge in Seaplane Operations", as well as a number of other Recommendations, Safety Advisory Letters and Safety Information Letters produced by the TSB. I have noted that many of these recommendations have not been adequately addressed. Do you really need me to tell you which ones? I would like to know why these recommendations have not been adopted, and do not believe that it should be required of me to divulge private information about my industry contacts in order to get a satisfactory response. If you had lost a loved one to an unnecessarily fatal floatplane accident, would you not have similar expectations of your "public service" representatives?

I shall await details of your recent "Floatplane Safety Review".


Kirsten Stevens