CVR/Black Box Req'd?

[Widow]

Split thread from viewtopic.php?f=54&t=68540

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2 ... 44471.html

Since when does a King Air 100 have a black box... Media is dumb.

[modi13]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2 ... 44471.html

Since when does a King Air 100 have a black box... Media is dumb.

They do when the company installs them.

[the professional]

Sounds like the media was just quoting the investigator.

[J31]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2 ... 44471.html

Since when does a King Air 100 have a black box... Media is dumb.

Maybe not so dumb .....I believe they are referring to the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) as required by regulation per CAR 603.33

2) Subject to section 605.34, no person shall conduct a take-off in a multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft that is configured for six or more passenger seats and for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate or by the subpart under which the aircraft is operated, unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit voice recorder that conforms to section 551.101 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual and section625.33 of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.
(amended 2003/09/01; previous version

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#605_33

Also information may be downloaded from the GPS memory.

A sad day, my condolences to the folks affected by the crash.

J31

[impress]

Maybe not so dumb .....I believe they are referring to the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) as required by regulation per CAR 603.33

2) Subject to section 605.34, no person shall conduct a take-off in a multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft that is configured for six or more passenger seats and for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate or by the subpart under which the aircraft is operated, unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit voice recorder that conforms to section 551.101 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual and section625.33 of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.
(amended 2003/09/01; previous version

I think using this same quote, it being a King Air (Single Pilot certified) and having only 8 passengers could have been plausibly been operating 703 and would therefore have been legal to operate without CVR.

[modi13]

Maybe not so dumb .....I believe they are referring to the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) as required by regulation per CAR 603.33

2) Subject to section 605.34, no person shall conduct a take-off in a multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft that is configured for six or more passenger seats and for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate or by the subpart under which the aircraft is operated, unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit voice recorder that conforms to section 551.101 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual and section625.33 of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.
(amended 2003/09/01; previous version

I think using this same quote, it being a King Air (Single Pilot certified) and having only 8 passengers could have been plausibly been operating 703 and would therefore have been legal to operate without CVR.

True, but since King Air 100s can carry up to 13 passengers, depending on cabin configuration, and most carry ten, they would be equipped for 704 ops. I very much doubt they would have a CVR installed for flights with ten passengers, but take it out when they have less than nine.

[Heliian]

Just because it's law for some doesn't mean they can't install it if it isn't required, the guy said they recovered a black box whether it's a cvr or fdr doesn't matter. Hopefully this tragedy can be averted in the future with the data acquired.

My condolences to the family and friends.

[oldtimer]

The point is that if the aircraft is carrying 6 or more passenger and is operated by 2 pilots, a CVR is required.

[madcapmagition]

@modi13

As a avionics tech who worked at KB on all their A/C. I can tell you for a fact that every A/C has a CVR installed and working properly. They don't take them out "just because" when there are fewer than ten people on board .

[modi13]

@modi13

As a avionics tech who worked at KB on all their A/C. I can tell you for a fact that every A/C has a CVR installed and working properly. They don't take them out "just because" when there are fewer than ten people on board .

Perhaps I punctuated it poorly; let me rephrase. I very much doubt they would have a CVR installed for flights with ten passengers, only to take it out when they carry fewer than nine.

[The Hammer]

The point is that if the aircraft is carrying 6 or more passenger and is operated by 2 pilots, a CVR is required.

You are incorrect, it states:

2) Subject to section 605.34, no person shall conduct a take-off in a multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft that is configured for six or more passenger seats and for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate or by the subpart under which the aircraft is operated, unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit voice recorder that conforms to section 551.101 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual and section625.33 of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.
(amended 2003/09/01; previous version

This demonstrates that if you operate the aircraft under 703 and it requires only ONE pilot by type certificate (eg B200 is typed for one pilot and 15 pax), you DO NOT require a CVR even if you operate two crew. You can operate 703 or 704 on a leg per leg basis, based on pax load as per TC.

[snoopy]

He or she is not incorrect: ... or by the subpart under which the aircraft is operated...

DIVISION VII - PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Crew

703.86 No air operator shall operate an aircraft with passengers on board in IFR flight with fewer than two pilots unless the air operator

(a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[foxmoth]

yes, Snoopy.


How to read the CARS:

Ya see, you have to read EVERY word, every comma, every nuance as if you are a lawyer (defending yourself on a murder charge and the jurisdicton has a mandatry death penalty.)

[The Hammer]

OPS SPEC 11 allows:

EXEMPTION FROM PARAGRAPH 703.86(b) AND SUBSECTION 723.86 (1) OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS
Pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, and after taking into account that the exemption is in the public interest and not likely to affect aviation safety, I hereby exempt pilots-in-command and air operators from the requirements of subsection 723.86(1) of the Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS) made pursuant to paragraph 703.86(b) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations(CARs), subject to the following conditions.

Subsection 723.86(1) of the CASS establishes the minimum single pilot IFR requirements for air operators of aeroplanes with passengers on board in IFR flight without a second-in-command. These requirements stipulate that the pilot shall have a minimum of 1,000 hours of flight time which shall include, if the type to be flown is multi-engined, 100 hours on multi-engined aeroplanes. In addition, the pilot shall have 50 hours of simulated or actual flight in IMC, and a total of 50 hours flight time on the aeroplane type.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this exemption is to permit pilots-in-command to acquire the 50 hours of flight time on the aeroplane type as required by subsection 723.86(1) of the CASS by using the total of the flight time gained on similar aeroplanes grouped as a single type for the purposes of pilot proficiency check (PPC).

APPLICATION

This exemption applies to pilots-in-command and to air operators who operate aeroplanes pursuant to Subpart 703 of the CARs and are authorized to group similar aeroplanes as a single type for the purposes of PPC pursuant to subsection 703.88(2) of the CARs.

CONDITION

This exemption is subject to the following conditions:

In order to form part of the 50 hours of flight time on the aeroplane type, a minimum of five (5) hours must be flown on each of the allowable grouped aeroplane types, as specified in subsection 703.88(2) of the CARs.
The pilot-in-command must have a minimum of 1,000 hours of flight time which shall include, if the type to be flown is multi-engined, 100 hours on multi-engined aeroplanes.
The pilot-in-command must have 50 hours of simulated or actual flight in IMC.


STILL NO CVR REQUIRED

[bezerker]

Oldtimer will remember when we fought TC on needing a CVR in the B350 back in 2000. The only way around it was to pull out the seats/render them unavailable (leaving only 6), fly single pilot, or install the CVR. I have since had the arguement with TC on 2 other occasions. The same results each time (two different regions).

The bottom line is that in TC's eyes, it is apparently safer to fly single pilot IFR than 2 crew without a CVR.

Hammer has either found a POI that goes against the grain, or the only remaining twin turbine, single pilot IFR customer in the country.

[CD]

Just as a point of information, the exemption that The Hammer refers to above is a separate document from Operations Specification 011.

[Flybaby]

This matter has already been decided by the courts in Max Aviation Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Transport), 2004 FC 1410 (CanLII) — 2004-10-14
and later in Max Aviation Inc. v. Canada (Transport Canada), 2005 FCA 335 (CanLII) — 2005-10-17. I will save you reading the whole thing and just give you the good bits.

JUDGMENT

The appeals are allowed, the decisions of the Federal Court are set aside and it is declared that the appellants can operate their BE10 aircraft as a commercial air taxi service voluntarily and at their discretion with two pilots without being required to equip their aircraft with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR).

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... ca335.html

[bezerker]

Thanks flybaby. Unfortunately since this ruling we have had a POI enforce the CVR rule on us (but not with a BE10). I have to ask myself why.

Reading through the court record for Aeropro, the judgment is not cut and dried. From the record:

"neither the aircraft type certificate, nor the Subpart under which that aircraft is used requires two pilots"

You don't need two pilots for the subpart because:

"In Subpart 3, there is the authorization to operate a BE10 with a single pilot ("with fewer than two pilots") if the operator is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate and if it complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards"

So, it stands to reason, that if you do not comply with CASS 723.86, then this ruling does not apply to you.

Which is what we were always told was ok by TC. Basically you fly the plane by single pilot rules, you can add a passenger/monkey with epaulettes in the right seat for passenger optics if you desire, you can block off/remove some seats, or you can install a CVR.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find how this this topic is going rather disappointing. The CVR is an extremely valuable accident investigation tool and CVR information has resulted in specific and measurable improvements in avaition safety. I think it is wrong that TC has caved on this issue and IMO every 703/704 turbine aircraft should have one, regardless of how many pilots comprise the crew, or what arbitrary number of pax is the magic number that determines what subpart of CAR's the aircraft is being operated under.

[KK7]

I find how this this topic is going rather disappointing. The CVR is an extremely valuable accident investigation tool and CVR information has resulted in specific and measurable improvements in avaition safety. I think it is wrong that TC has caved on this issue and IMO every 703/704 turbine aircraft regardless of how many pilots comprise the crew, or what arbitrary number of pax is the magic number that determines what subpart of CAR's the aircraft is being operated under.

Agreed 100%

Every aircraft should have one, but the problem is cost. Initial cost of getting a unit, installed, maintenance and recertification. The reason why the number of pax matters, is because in real life, although we don't like to admit it, a life has a price tag to it. It's just like in aircraft certification, manufacturers are allowed to kill so many people in some large number of hours for a design to be acceptable. Although they may strive to build the safest aircraft because that's good for business, it is cost prohibitive to design an aircraft that will never fail mechanically (outside of human error in maintenance and piloting). The truth is, operators who fly planes with very small number of pax generally don't have the money to afford putting CVRs in all their planes.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find how this this topic is going rather disappointing. The CVR is an extremely valuable accident investigation tool and CVR information has resulted in specific and measurable improvements in avaition safety. I think it is wrong that TC has caved on this issue and IMO every 703/704 turbine aircraft regardless of how many pilots comprise the crew, or what arbitrary number of pax is the magic number that determines what subpart of CAR's the aircraft is being operated under.

Agreed 100%
Every aircraft should have one, but the problem is cost. Initial cost of getting a unit, installed, maintenance and recertification. The reason why the number of pax matters, is because in real life, although we don't like to admit it, a life has a price tag to it. It's just like in aircraft certification, manufacturers are allowed to kill so many people in some large number of hours for a design to be acceptable. Although they may strive to build the safest aircraft because that's good for business, it is cost prohibitive to design an aircraft that will never fail mechanically (outside of human error in maintenance and piloting). The truth is, operators who fly planes with very small number of pax generally don't have the money to afford putting CVRs in all their planes.

A CVR is $15,000 to purchase and about $1500 a year to maintain. At the risk of being rude, IMO If you are running a pressurized turbine aircraft and can't afford this level of outlay then I question the viability of the operation and wonder what else is getting let go.

[Bede]

Just to play devil's advocate, what if the $15,000 was spend on something else like EGPWS? Wouldn't that save more lives? What about if we spent $30K and installed both? Where would it stop?

[The Old Fogducker]

Just to muddy the waters further, as a result of the aforementioned court case, the regulation has been declared unenforceable by Transport HQ folks.

There is a proposed corrected reg before CARAC, but in the meantime, no CVR is required by law as a result of the Judge's decision, and subsequent enquiries made of TC HQ by the President of ATAC. If you'd like to know more, thats the group to contact for follow up.

Be aware however, that there will be no grace period once the amended reg goes into effect, it will be open season on Turbine powered ac configured for more than 6 pax.

One of my clients was recently quoted 25 grand to have one installed on a Beech 100.

The Old Fogducker

[Big Pistons Forever]

[quote="Bede"]Just to play devil's advocate, what if the $15,000 was spend on something else like EGPWS? Wouldn't that save more lives? What about if we spent $30K and installed both? Where would it stop?[/quote]

Well it would make for safer operations. I am struggling to see how that is a bad thing........

The central issue IMO is safety equipment like CVR's and TAWS/EGPWS have to be blanket requirements that apply to every airplane and operator. As soon as you give operators wiggle room, those that choose to invest in equipment which demonstrably increases safety will be at an economic disadvantage over those who figure out a way to duck the requirement.

[The Old Fogducker]

BPF ... forgive my cynisim, but it would make it easier for accident invstigations, not for safety.

If CVRs were reviewed for compliance to SOPs there may ... just maybe, be some enhancement of safety, but most pilots I know have a fear ... real or imagined, that CVR and FDR info is like having a Check Pilot on board for every flight, using the info exclusively for the purpose of building up negatives on their personnel file to get them fired..

OFD