|
"Bringing the Industry Together"
Volume 2, Edition
3 Friday January
14, 2005
Un-cooperative Rule Making
(again)
At least one Transport Canada Regional Office has
requested that helicopter operators submit amendments to their operations
manual establishing: policies and procedures in regard to resetting tripped
circuit breakers (in accordance with Policy Letter #161); a new Weight
& Balance System section (in compliance with CBAAC 0235); and a new
sample of Weight & Balance Calculations for hover exit (for God knows
what reason).
HAC has determined that such amendments are not required
by CARs. The Association has also determined that the source of the
discrepancies between CARs and TC policy is not the usual regional
disparity but rather Headquarters’ own misunderstanding of the regulatory
cadre.
When Policy Letter #161 was first published in March
2004, HAC advised Headquarters officials that it was not only inconsistent
with the realities of the vast majority of helicopter operations but also
constitutionally unfounded (see attached letter to TC). HAC News did not
publish the TC response because it only served to demonstrate
Headquarters’ capacity to turn a deaf ear to advise is as great as
its ability to turn a blind eye to the legal limits placed on its powers.
That being said, HAC remains of the opinion that CARs do
not require most helicopter operators to establish any specific policy with
regard to resetting circuit breakers. Unfortunately, TC regional officials
are obliged to comply with Policy Letter #161 whether or not it makes sense
and whether or not it is legally binding on operators. Air Operators can
therefore expect continued pressure from regional officials to amend their
manuals.
HAC members wishing to stand their ground against unwarranted
changes to their manuals can depend on the Association to actively support
them in their resistance. Others who would just as soon stop arguing about
the issue can contact HAC to receive wording for a simple amendment, that
should satisfy even the most inspired bureaucrats.
As for new standard weights published in the AIP, they
are for the amateurs. Nothing in the AIP should be incorporated wholesale
into an operations manual. Commercial operations are governed by CASS
which, contrary to the affirmation in CBAAC 0235, are fully incorporated
into CARs. CASS allows the use of “approved” passenger weights
instead of actual passenger weights. Those standard weights are
“approved” when the operations manual is “approved”;
and although they may be inspired by weights found in the AIP they have no
official connection to the AIP Canada, Statistics Canada surveys of airline
passenger weights, or any other source.
Once again, like it or not, regional officials are
constrained by this Headquarters policy. Nonetheless, HAC members who
do not wish to change the standard weights "approved"
in their manuals (without regard to the AIP let
alone changes to the AIP) can depend on the
Association’s full support. Those that want to amend their Weight
& Balance Systems can, by virtue of the CASS, seek TC
“approval” for whatever standard weights they can reasonably
justify given the realities of their clientel.
As for changing sample weight and balance calculations
for hover exit, they are neither mentioned in CBAAC 0235 nor are
they based on standard passenger weights. Add a passenger take away a
passenger, add or subtract cargo, affects the aircraft gross weight and
centre of gravity. That does not change the effect of any specific sample
weight placed on a skid.
Hover exit sample calculations are just that, samples.
Since variations in standard weights do not change the instructive value of
the samples per se, operators who change the standard weights
“approved” in their operations manual should not need to change
the sample calculations of weight and balance for hover exit. For that
matter it is doubtful that sample weight and balance for hover exit are a
CARs requirement in the first place.
In publishing CBAAC 0235 - Weight & Balance Control
Procedures and Policy Letter #161 “Resetting Tripped Circuit
Breakers” Headquarters has ignored the rules governing rule making.
In doing so without prior discussion with industry TC has also turned
its back on the principle of co-operative rule making which, to be fully
effective, must be part of the post regulatory process for interpreting the
regulations. And by the way, good intentions are no excuse.
Unfortunately, given Headquarters past reaction to
criticism, operators can expect the beatings to continue until moral
improves.
www.h-a-c.ca
We proudly salute our 2005 Corporate Sponsors
ACROHELIPRO Global Services, Agusta Aerospace,
Aon Reed Stenhouse,
Bell Helicopter Canada, Eurocopter Canada, Marsh Canada,
Pratt & Whitney Canada, Standard Aero, Turbomeca Canada Inc.
HAC's 9th Annual Convention & Trade Show
April
10 - 12, 2005 Vancouver, BC, Canada
The Hyatt Regency Vancouver Hotel
|
