So, You Want to Be a Pilot, Eh?

How to be a pilot in the UK (BBC version)

2011-02-12T02:35:00.001-04:00

Apparently there is a new show in the UK on the BBC called "Come Fly with Me". The show's website has an excellent guide on how to become a pilot in the UK.

Take a look:

How do you become a Pilot: A Guide by Tommy

Penny For Your Thoughts (Ok, I Don't Really Have a Penny)

2010-11-02T00:32:00.003-03:00

So, You Want to be a Pilot, Eh? has now been out for three years. The response and interest in the book has been great and I am glad I wrote it. I do think, however, that it may be time to think about updating a few things in it, so, I've been contemplating writing a second edition.

It'll probably be a little before a new edition is out and I'm just in the brainstorming phase right now, however, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the book.

For those of you that have read it:

What did you like?
What did you dislike?
Was there anything that you felt was missing?
Was there anything that you wanted more of?
Were there any topics that I spent too much / not enough time on?

For those of you who haven't read the book but are looking to become a pilot in Canada, are there specific things that you're looking for in a book?

Please send these suggestions or other thoughts about the book to my e-mail: piloteh@gmail.com

Thanks!

Moves and New Adventures

2010-10-17T12:12:00.008-03:00

There have been a lot of changes in the past year. I finished articling, got called to the Nova Scotia Bar, moved to Vancouver, BC, got called to the British Columbia Bar and am now practising as an aviation lawyer in Vancouver.

The road to becoming a lawyer is challeging, and like flying, you learn something new everyday, though with new clients, different files and new events, everyday can seem like a check ride in the sim!

Moving from one coast to the other has not been without its challenges. Canada is a BIG country. I wouldn't say we were rushed on the drive as we did get to stop in Ontario for a few days to see relatives, but we didn't have the luxury of turning the drive into a 2 to 4 week sightseeing trip. It was amazing to see the changes in the country. We drove through a heat wave in New Brunswick and Quebec (with a car whose air conditioning wasn't working quite right); drove again through the expanse that is Northern Ontario; saw Manitoba for the first time since moving away from Thompson almost 6 years ago; stopped in Rouleau, Saskatchewan (a.k.a Dog River) to see the set of Corner Gas; drove through some massive thunderstorms in Southern Saskatchewan and Alberta; stopped in Banff National Park and visited Morraine Lake and Lake Louise; drove through the mountains of BC (and that's when the brakes started to squeal) and arrived in Vancouver on a glorious sunny day.

I will miss our view in Halifax. This is the U.S.S. Wasp entering port for the Canadian Naval Centennial Fleet Review

Leaving Nova Scotia and entering New Brunswick

Pumping Gas in Dog River

Morraine Lake, Banff National Park, Alberta

Vancouver from Stanley Park

I'm loving Vancouver so far. When I lived up north, a number of the other pilots I lived with were from Vancouver, or Vantopia as they called it. It is a gorgeous city.

I'm also quite excited about the new job. It is primarily actin for airlines or their insurers for various types of litigation issues. I've been extremely lucky to be able to combine aviation and law. The work is extremely interesting and having an aviation background is very helpful.

Fly At Your Own Risk - Article from The Walrus - November 2009

2009-11-24T19:53:00.002-04:00

I have read a number of articles in The Walrus and have always been impressed. The article below is one of the most well written aviation articles I've ever read. I highly recommend reading it as well as other Walrus articles.

THE WALRUS· NOVEMBER 2009
TRANSPORT

Fly At Your Own Risk

Why is Transport Canada moving toward self-regulation for the countrys airlines?

BY CAROL SHABEN

THE WIDOW

IN A SMALL BALLROOM at the Best Western Hotel near Vancouver's airport, Kirsten Stevens, a tattooed single mother of three, rises to take the podium, her hands trembling. Dressed casually in black cords and an emerald green shirt, the forty-two-year-old resident of Campbell River, BC, known as the Widow to many in attendance, stands out from the suit-clad presenters who preceded her. Petite-just five feet three and 115 pounds-with a barely tamed bob of cinnamon-coloured hair and brown eyes, she surveys the audience from behind stylish cat's-eye glasses.

"This is going to be my first time telling this story," she says, clearing her throat and glancing at the sheets clutched in her hands. "Four years ago, I could not have conceived of speaking at an aviation leadership forum. Four years ago, I was a housewife with two children and a newborn baby. In just under two weeks, it will be the fourth anniversary of the day I became a widow-the day the picket fence blew down."

On February 28, 2005, Stevens' husband, Dave, a professional logger, and four others were en route from Campbell River to a camp near Knight Inlet on BC's rugged west coast when their De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver float plane plunged into the water just six minutes after takeoff. Two days later, Dave's body, buoyed by the survival jacket Kirsten had bought him years before, washed up on Quadra Island, five kilometres from where the plane had taken off. His was the only body ever recovered. The autopsy showed that he had escaped the aircraft largely unharmed, only to succumb to severe hypothermia and drown while awaiting a rescue that never came. A resident of Quadra Island heard cries for help but couldn't see their source. It had taken four hours for the office of the air carrier (which has since shut down) to alert search and rescue teams, even though staff knew the plane was missing within twenty minutes of takeoff.

Dave's death opened a chasm of what-ifs for Stevens. "What if the aircraft was perfectly maintained?" she asks her audience. "What if aircraft were always tracked? What if there had been no delay in notifying authorities of the missing aircraft? Could the accident have been prevented? Could all five men have been rescued? Could they have rescued the only man wearing a life jacket-my husband? Could we have celebrated a successful emergency water landing like the one on the Hudson River, instead of mourning the losses of five families? Ten children left without their fathers?"

After a three-day search failed to turn up any trace of the downed plane or the victims, government authorities handed the matter over to the RCMP, which classified it as a missing persons case. A month later, all official searches were completely shut down. Stevens expected that a government agency would investigate the deaths of her husband and the four others as workplace fatalities, but none did. Pooling their meagre resources, the families recovered the wreckage and, later, the plane's engine. Stevens also appealed in vain to a wide and varied list of authorities: the federal minister of transport, infrastructure, and communities; BC's minister of transportation and infrastructure; Canada's Transportation Safety Board; the federal minister of labour; the provincial ministry of labour and citizens' services; the provincial ombudsman of justice; her provincial MLA; her federal MP; several BC senators; the standing committee on transport and communications; and BC's Workers' Compensation Board. Eventually, the families hired a private investigative firm, which found that the plane's floats were "leakers" long overdue for reskinning, that there were non-conforming parts on the aircraft, and that the plane was due for a major overhaul. The firm also speculated that the airline had not carried out mandatory 100-hour inspections of the plane's engine.

The only official report Stevens received came from BC's chief coroner's office-more than four years after the crash. The account, she says, was riddled with inaccuracies and omissions and failed to provide her or the other victims' families with any sense of closure. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada - the independent agency mandated to investigate crashes for cause and contributing factors-did not follow up, claiming there was nothing new to be learned. (Nor, says Stevens, is there any reference to the accident on the TSB's website, which lists only two passenger deaths by air taxi in 2005, the year of her husband's crash.) In a discussion with the coroner, Stevens learned that Bill Yearwood, the board's Pacific Region manager for aviation, had submitted a preliminary report on the accident, which she obtained by submitting an access to information request. In Yearwood's account, the TSB'S inspection showed no evidence of problems with the aircraft's engine, performance, or maintenance. Instead, it indicated that poor weather and the pilot's qualifications and experience may have been factors-an outcome Stevens refers to as "blaming the dead guy."

When she realized her husband's death might have been prevented, Stevens began reading everything she could about the aviation industry: Canadian aeronautics regulations, the Aeronautics Act, crash investigation reports, civil aviation studies and recommendations, and books with titles like Managing the Risks of Organ izationalA ccidents; Black Box: Why Air Safety Is No Accident; and Flying Blind, Flying Safe. She also joined AvCanada, Canada's busiest aviation employment website and discussion forum, where she discovered that many aviation professionals shared her concerns about the lack of oversight of Canada's commercial air carriers.

Then she got vocal. Fuelled by coffee and menthol cigarettes, she worked six hours a day out of a dimly lit den at the back of her three-storey house, not far from where her husband died. She wrote letters to unions and government officials, and launched QuestForJustice.ca and a blog called DHC2 Widow's Space, both dedicated to aviation safety. She initiated a petition to Stephen Harper's office, asking for a.public inquiry into her husband's accident and the air taxi industry in Canada. Slowly, others in the air safety community started paying attention.

Her mission has since broadened to encompass the overall decline in Canada's aviation safety standards, and especially recent federal legislation involving a cost-cutting approach called safety management systems. SMS is a form of industry self-regulation in which airlines develop and maintain their own safety protocols. Under SMS, the responsibility for hands-on monitoring largely shifts from the government to the airlines themselves. The legislation has been making its way through Parliament in various forms since 2001. Its latest incarnation, Bill C-7, An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act, died last September when Parliament was dissolved in advance of the federal election, but Transport Canada is moving ahead with SMS nonetheless. The department intends to have the protocol fully implemented across all regulated civil aviation organizations by November 2011. In concert with other critics, Stevens charges that the government is using self-regulation to justify extensive cutbacks to traditional oversight programs. She has mounted a spirited campaign to stop Transport Canada, garnering support from pilots, victims' families, whistleblowers, and organizations across the country.

When Stevens finishes speaking, the audience gives her the only standing ovation of the day. As she makes her way back to her table, the first person to offer a congratulatory hug is Yearwood. During the coffee break that follows, delegates surround her. Among them are two old-time pilots. “We learned something from you,” says Horst, a robust, greying man with a thick German accent. “We always have our life jackets in the back. We’re going to wear them.” Wilf, a former air force pilot with a wiry build, raises a finger in the air. “Accountability,” he says with conviction, “that’s what’s needed.”

THE PILOT

SMS has already been implemented in many corners of Canadian aviation, including at major airlines like Air Canada and WestJet. Next on the horizon are the country’s smaller operators, which have fewer resources and face greater risks than the big carriers. Transport Canada’s supervision of this sector has traditionally been lax, raising serious concerns about the 600 operators flying more than 2,000 small aircraft nationwide. This fleet encompasses air taxis (single- or multi-engine planes that can carry up to nine passengers) and commuter craft (multi-engine or turbo-powered planes, plus helicopters, carrying between ten and nine-teen passengers).

Collectively, such operators transport upwards of 100,000 passengers a year in Canada, serving as feeders for the major airlines, and providers of specialty services such as transporting tourists to fishing lodges and the injured to hospitals. They also conduct aerial work, carry workers to various service jobs in industry (logging, hydro, and district court services) and ferry food and freight to remote northern communities. The sector accounts for more than half the country’s commercial aviation — and a disproportionate number of its accidents and fatalities.

Bush flying, the forerunner of modern air taxi and commuter operations, originated in the Canadian North, where poor weather, harsh terrain, scant roads, and the isolation of communities made air transport essential. In his 2004 book, Bush Pilots: Canada’s Wilderness Daredevils, Peter Boer notes that early bush pilots “endured the aggravation of malfunctioning equipment, primitive living quarters and the constant threat of death for relatively low wages… They took satisfaction in surviving in the face of almost overwhelming odds. Landing a plane in the middle of a snowstorm, changing an engine in the middle of the dreaded Barren Lands of the Northwest Territories or hiking endless hours through the bush in search of aid were commonplace events.”

Today the bulk of Canadian aviation still happens in the North. The pilots who fly in the bush tend to be young and inexperienced, and they work in a highly competitive market subject to a kind of “go fever” that encourages them to take risks and push limits. And the conditions in which they fly remain as perilous as ever: bad weather and difficult terrain, not to mention poorly maintained planes. They also typically fly alone. Most rookie pilots cut their teeth with small operations — and since those who can’t make it here often don’t make it at all, the pressure to conform is high.

Owners of air taxi services, meanwhile, were typically bush pilots themselves, and they tend to run their businesses with the same hard-driving attitude, expecting their pilots to fly on a shoestring and to get the job done regardless of weather, fatigue, or cargo load. That they often operate in remote locations further erodes the government’s ability to oversee them.

Erik Vogel understands the perils as well as anyone. Standing six feet three, with broad shoulders, a full head of dark hair, and a neatly groomed moustache, he’s the picture of confidence in uniform. Today his uniform is a firefighter’s, but twenty-five years ago, in 1984, it was that of a rookie pilot with Wapiti Aviation, a small air taxi operation in northern Alberta. That year, his ten-seater Piper Navajo Chieftain slammed into a shrouded ridge, killing provincial NDP leader Grant Notley and five other passengers. (Disclosure: one of the four survivors of the crash was my father, Alberta housing minister Larry Shaben.)

Vogel hadn’t wanted to fly that night. The weather was bad, and his co-pilot had been bumped to accommodate another paying customer: Notley himself. Vogel had lost twenty-five pounds in the five weeks he’d been with Wapiti, and had flown seventeen flights the previous week. He’d also been on call for medevac flights. And he didn’t trust his plane. Its autopilot system had been acting erratically, one of its wing de-icers had broken during a flight earlier that day, and one of its automatic direction finders was also malfunctioning. Getting into the small, uncontrolled airstrips along his flight path would be treacherous. He was in way over his head, and he knew it. He also felt he had no choice but to fly. If he refused, he risked losing his job. Thirty-three pilots had quit or been fired from Wapiti in the previous year.

The crash ended his career. “There’s hardly a day that goes by that I don’t think about it,” he says, seated at a small table at a Vancouver Starbucks. Among the firefighters at Station 4 in Burnaby, he is known as Mr. Safety — a reputation that doesn’t bother him. “I don’t ever again want to be the one to have something bad happen on my watch,” he says.

Vogel still experiences déjà vu when news of other airplane crashes hits the media — for example, the Sonicblue Airways accident in January 2006 near Port Alberni, BC, in which the pilot of a small plane died along with two of his seven passengers. After the crash, the pilot’s father, Jonathan Huggett, com-plained publicly about conditions at Sonicblue, alleging that his son had been abused, grossly underpaid (junior co-pilots with the company normally earned a meagre $28 for a fourteen-hour shift, amounting to about $7,300 a year), and forced to fly in dangerous conditions. “It was Wapiti all over again,” says Vogel, shaking his head. Like Wapiti, Sonicblue had a history of safety violations, though Transport Canada did not suspend the carrier’s licence until after the fatalities occurred.

Whereas the Sonicblue crash was caused by a faulty engine part, Vogel acknowledges he made a mistake the night of his crash, descending below the minimum en route altitude through a bank of thick cloud in an attempt to spot the dim lights of a snow-covered airstrip. Talking about it, he curls his hands into fists then opens them wide, splaying his fingers. “Arthritis,” he says matter-of-factly. When he felt the trees hitting the plane, he instinctively raised his hands in front of his face. They were mangled in the crash, and he’s been losing feeling and mobility in them ever since.

"I run into burning buildings now, and I think my new career is much safer,” Vogel says. To support his three children, he also drives an eighteen-wheeler on his days off. When he’s trucking, he notes, he’s subject to constant checks to ensure he doesn’t exceed his duty time of fourteen hours a day, and his rig can be spot checked at any scale.

During the public inquiry into the crash, he asserted that Transport Canada was partially to blame for allowing airlines like Wapiti to cut corners, push their pilots, and put lives at risk. Then, in a precedent-setting case in 1990, the widows of two men killed in the crash sued the federal government and won. The judge in Swanson v. Canada (Minister of Transport) ruled that Transport Canada was one-third responsible for the deaths, having failed to sanction Wapiti for its repeated violations in the years preceding the crash.

Vogel hoped things would change for the better after Swanson, but he doesn’t think they have — a belief confirmed by “Jason,” a young pilot who declined to give his real name for fear of being blacklisted. Jason affirms that many of today’s bush pilots are cowboys, and says that those who promote a culture of safety are often dismissed. Last year, for example, he shared the cockpit with the owner and chief pilot of his company, during which he was expected to fly perhaps ten metres off the water with a planeload of passengers. “I told my boss I wasn’t comfortable flying below the minimums,” he says. His boss told him to lower them. This season, the company didn’t hire Jason back, saying he “hadn’t been helpful.” Another rookie pilot, who Jason says flew “like an idiot,” remained on the company’s roster.

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER

“Swanson meant a lot to me,” reflects Hugh Danford, a former aviation system safety inspector and course instructor with Transport Canada. Danford, who lives on a peaceful tract of farmland forty minutes from Ottawa, along the Rideau Canal, once taught new inspectors about Wapiti and the Swanson case as part of Transport Canada’s basic aviation enforcement course. “I used it as an example of why inspectors need to do their jobs,” he says, surveying his recently planted plot of garlic. Looking back, he now believes that Swanson, rather than ushering in an era of government responsibility, actually created a chill, marking the beginning of his department’s efforts to get out of the enforcement business.

Before he went to work for the government, Danford was a pilot. His career spanned thirty years and took him to places as far flung as the Arctic and Antarctic, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Maldives. Sixty-two, with a ruddy complexion, blue eyes that sparkle behind wire-rimmed glasses, and a full head of white hair, he’d be a shoo-in for a shopping mall Santa — if, that is, he weren’t so angry.

Danford started at Transport Canada in 1998. Shortly after being hired, he was appointed to a tri-national safety working group of Canadian, American, and Mexican aviation experts seeking to determine the root causes of North American airplane crashes. In 25 percent of the Canadian accidents he reviewed, lack of regulatory supervision appeared to be the problem. One of those accidents involved the “controlled flight into terrain” (literally, flying a plane into the ground) of a De Havilland dhc-6 Twin Otter off Davis Inlet, Labrador, in 1999. Marcel Jaspar, the pilot in command on the flight, which killed its twenty-two-year-old first officer, Damien Hancock, had been in four previous crashes and had a lengthy enforcement record with Transport Canada.

In spite of this, the department took no action against the pilot or the airline immediately following the Davis Inlet crash. Nor did it investigate the incident (it wasn’t until 2002, after Danford submitted a report, that Jaspar’s licence was suspended). The accident report released by the Transportation Safety Board in 2001 stated, “In certain areas of commercial operations, the safety oversight efforts of Transport Canada have been somewhat ineffective.” As a result of these findings, in June of that year the tsb issued Recommendation A01-01, which Danford calls one of the most important safety regulations in years. It urged that “the Department of Transport undertake a review of its safety oversight methodology, resources and practices particularly as they relate to smaller operators and those operators who fly in or into remote areas to ensure that air operators and crews consistently operate within the safety regulations.”

When he checked the government database that tracks Transport Canada’s responses to tsb recommendations (which the department is required to submit within ninety days), Danford found that the department was on record as having satisfied Recommendation A01-01. One of the initiatives cited as proof was a plan to implement a new safety protocol known as SMS. Another involved the hiring of a consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive review of the department’s safety oversight program for commercial operations.

Danford went looking for a copy of the review. And that, he says, is when the trouble began. His superiors told him to leave it alone; one, he says, referred to it as “worthless.” Eventually, he located the report — conducted by Montreal’s dmr Consulting Group at a cost to taxpayers of $690,000 — and discovered that it had nothing to do with Recommendation A01-01. “Transport Canada lied to Parliament,” he says.

His attempts to bring the situation to light made for some heated discussions. He had his mental health questioned, was arrested for uttering threats, and was ultimately forced to resign in 2004. The days that followed were dark ones, and he didn’t emerge until three years after his resignation, when a friend encouraged him to testify before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Community. Danford managed to get himself on the agenda for a review of Bill C-6, An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act — the legislation sanctioning the controversial aviation safety management systems protocol.

The minute he entered the political fray, Stevens found him, and the two have been collaborating ever since. “She’s like a sister to me,” he says. His involvement in the campaign and the relationships it has forged have helped him overcome his anger. “Who knows?” he adds, scuffing the dirt under which 900 cloves lay buried. “If this garlic comes up, maybe I can make a living.”

THE PROTOCOL

Canada’s civil aviation fleet is the world’s second-largest, with close to 3,000 operators. It currently carries upward of 99 million passengers annually — a number that is expected to grow by 40 percent as of 2015. Like airlines in other countries, Canadian carriers are under intense pressure to cut costs and keep planes flying without interruption. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization — the UN agency responsible for supervising the safe and orderly growth of international aviation — the rapid expansion of the industry is making it increasingly difficult to manage safety with traditional methods. The icao has concluded that the solution is safety management systems, and has asked its member states to require airlines to establish them by 2012.

Safety management systems originated in the chemical industry in the early 1980s, with the aim of shifting to a focus on overall processes — that is, the interaction of human, organizational, technical, and environmental factors — rather than individual events. Presumably, this would allow organizations to identify potential hazards early on and take appropriate preventive measures. The approach has since gained favour in other industries. In 2001, for example, the Chrétien government introduced safety management systems into the Canadian rail sector.

Transport Canada has been promoting SMS for the civil aviation industry since at least 1999. One of the leading voices supporting the push is Merlin Preuss, who recently retired after a lengthy tenure as Canada’s director general of civil aviation. Preuss, who declined to be interviewed for this piece, has long maintained that SMS will allow for more thorough identification and resolution of potential problems. He describes the traditional regulatory approach as reactive, and suggests that SMS will make companies more responsive and proactive.

However, NDP MP and former transportation critic Peter Julian believes the experience of Canada’s rail system shows otherwise. “We saw derailments increase,” he says. Indeed, a 2008 report on the rail industry’s safety management policy, quietly tabled in Parliament last year, found that implementation had been inconsistent, and that Transport Canada hadn’t dedicated enough resources to the initiative. More recent data from the Canada Safety Council shows that fifteen major incidents had taken place on Canadian railways between January 7, 2007, and March 5, 2008 — more than in the previous six years combined. “The problem of SMS all along,” says Julian, has been that “theoretically, it’s a more intelligent way of approaching safety because companies are involved as well,” but in reality governments have tended to use the protocol to justify cutbacks.

Transport Canada has already introduced SMS to the business aviation sector, granting rule-setting responsibility to the Canadian Business Aviation Association in 2003. The decision in effect gave an industry trade association and lobby group oversight of the safety of its own members’ aircraft. In 2007, Transport Canada reviewed the changes the association had introduced and found a system plagued with problems. No structured system had been put in place, nor any procedures for cancelling or suspending an airline’s certificate. And some member companies had been operating without safety management protocols for five years.

“It’s the listeriosis of the aviation industry,” Danford says, referring to SMS implementation. Last year’s tainted meat scandal, which resulted in twenty-two deaths, occurred after the Canadian Food Inspection Agency shifted responsibility for food testing to the meat-packing industry. Following the outbreak, Richard Arsenault, a manager at the cfia, said, “It’s like in aviation: we can’t look under each jet engine of an airline, but we can make sure the maintenance service works.” As it turned out, not only had inspectors failed to swab for listeria on the plant floor, they had failed to check company records properly, to ensure that packers had performed the necessary tests and that their results were above board.

Ultimate responsibility for the transition to SMS lies with John Baird, Canada’s minister of transportation and infrastructure. According to a department insider, Baird has been especially wary of allowing civil servants to speak to the media about SMS, a subject the insider acknowledges is a “hot potato” for the ministry. Baird declined repeated requests for an interview, but in a letter to Ottawa’s Hill Times newspaper in March, he wrote, “Safety Management Systems are about adding more accountability to the inspection system, while maintaining the responsibilities of the federal government. In fact, the government continues to conduct independent audits and has access to more information than ever before. What SMS does is add another layer of accountability.” In a written response to an interview question for Baird, Transport Canada’s manager of media relations and monitoring, Patrick Charette, referred to SMS as “another layer of safety.”

“That is an absolute fabrication,” responds retired Alberta judge Virgil Moshansky, an internationally respected aviation authority. Lean and distinguished, the straight-talking former justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench is also a long-time pilot. Nearly two decades ago, that combination of credentials landed him the signature appointment of his career: head of the commission of inquiry into the 1989 Air Ontario crash at Dryden, a commuter airline accident in which twenty-four people died. Though tasked primarily with investigating the causes of the crash, Moshansky saw the commission as an exceptional opportunity for an in-depth review of the entire Canadian aviation system. His groundbreaking 2,000-page report, released in 1992, was arguably the most exhaustive judicial review in Canada’s aviation history. Its findings resulted in a number of significant aviation safety improvements, including stringent new de-icing procedures. It also helped earn him the Order of Canada in 2004, for singular dedication to enhancing aviation safety.

Moshansky now fears the gains he helped win are being eroded. Canada is the only country in the world introducing SMS without maintaining regulatory oversight,” he says from his Calgary home. He alleges that implementation of the new system is motivated primarily by budget concerns. “Transport Canada management is well rewarded for cost cutting,” he says. “And they save money by cutting the number of inspectors.”

He also notes that the government’s civil aviation inspectorate is significantly smaller than it was at the time of the Dryden inquiry, and has grave doubts that Transport Canada can ensure a safe aviation environment for the travelling public as a result. The department’s solution to this shortfall, he says, has been to axe its oversight programs, notably its national audit program. Under that system, cancelled a few years ago, federal inspectors conducted detailed checks and on-site monitoring of airline operations, meaning they boarded planes, rode along on flights, and studied maintenance logbooks. Moshansky’s paper also mentions a November 2006 directive from Transport Canada to its inspectors, which instructed that no enforcement action be taken against an SMS-covered enterprise except in rare circumstances. The judge tells of receiving confidential notes from the department’s inspectors expressing serious concerns about these trends. “The time is past due for a commission of inquiry to investigate the state of aviation in this country,” he says.

Last year, the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, examined Transport Canada’s handling of air transportation safety. In her annual report to Parliament in May 2008, she commended the department for its leadership in introducing safety management systems, noting that Canada is one of the first countries in the world to do so in the aviation sector. However, she also raised a number of concerns. In reallocating resources from traditional oversight activities to SMS activities, she wrote, “the Department did not document risks, such as the impact of the transition on oversight of air transportation safety, or identify actions to mitigate the risks. Nor did it forecast the overall costs of managing the change. In addition, it has not measured the impact of shifting resources from traditional oversight to the new approach.”

Fraser later told a parliamentary committee that “Transport Canada could not demonstrate to us that it is carrying out a sufficient number of inspections during the transition.” She also noted that the number of inspectors and engineers in the department has decreased by 8 percent in the past five years, that “Transport Canada has not yet identified how many inspectors and engineers it needs, with what competencies, during and after the transition,” and that there is a “risk that the Department will not be able to recruit the people it needs in a timely manner.”

Greg Holbrook, former national chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association — the bargaining organization representing approximately 470 professional pilots who work as Transport Canada inspectors, tsb investigators, and civil air navigation professionals — asserted in an interview earlier this year (prior to taking a job as a Transport Canada inspector himself) that the International Civil Aviation Organization never intended for safety management systems to replace regulatory monitoring. “It’s like jumping into the water without a life preserver,” he said. He further contended, in concert with Moshansky, that SMS implementation wasn’t about safety. “If we go back to the documentation Transport Canada put together in 2001 [the same time Recommendation A01-01 was issued],” he said, “the proposal to implement SMS was justified to senior staff based on saving dollars, reducing the number of employees, and ultimately reducing the liability to the minister of transport.”

As pilots working in safety and enforcement at Transport Canada retire, he continued, the government is replacing them with “accountants” focused on inspecting paperwork rather than planes. His members were concerned. A survey commissioned by the cfpa in 2007 showed that while almost all respondents thought SMS could improve aviation safety in theory, two-thirds said that SMS as it was being implemented by Transport Canada would increase the likelihood of an aviation accident. One surveyed federal employee complained, “If the general public knew the amount of decisions made by Transport Canada supervisors regarding the safety of the air travel system in this country who are not professional members of the aviation community there would be a mass revolt.”

THE HUSH-UP

Transport Canada’s below-the-radar implementation of SMS has underscored long-standing concerns about the secretive nature of the department. In a 2007 paper presented to the Royal Aeronautical Society, Justice Moshansky revealed for the first time the challenges his commission faced during its three-year investigation into the Air Ontario crash in Dryden. Among other revelations, he wrote that the commission had contended with the sheltering of evidence, a lack of access to witnesses, widespread opposition, and threats of a Federal Court injunction by Transport Canada counsel for allegedly going beyond the terms of his mandate.

Twenty years on from the inquiry, he noted, “the public still continues to be without direct representation in aviation concerns. When the system breaks, the executive branch of government determines causality and identifies violations of legislative branch requirements. No one accountable to the public acts to establish the basis and appropriateness of these requirements and whether executive branch actions are sufficient and competently performed.” The result, according to Moshansky’s paper, is that “reporters and investigators are often unaware of significant aspects known only to airline safety managers.”

None of this surprises Robb Cribb, a reporter with the Toronto Star and former head of the Canadian Association of Journalists. Speaking from Toronto, he described Transport Canada as “one of the most resistant ministries when it comes to public accountability.” Cribb worked alongside colleagues from the Hamilton Spectator and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on a major investigation into Canada’s aviation industry, published over 2006 and 2007. He and his fellow journalists were forced to wait four years for aviation accident data they requested from Transport Canada in 2001. It wasn’t until 2005, after they took their case to Canada’s information commissioner, and just days before the two sides were scheduled to go to court over the matter, that Transport Canada finally released the information. “I was astounded at how far they would go to protect data that is readily available in the US,” says Fred Vallance-Jones, a twenty-four-year veteran journalist who worked with Cribb on the investigation.

Last year, the CAJ nominated Transport Canada for its Code of Silence Award, for “proposed draconian secrecy provisions in amendments to the Aeronautics Act” — the same legislation that includes SMS. According to the CAJ, “If implemented, these will see a veil of secrecy fall over all information reported by airlines about performance, safety violations, aviation safety problems and their resolution.” Under the proposed legislation, voluntary reporting about safety-related incidents — including material from flight data recorders and self-reported violations — will remain confidential. Transport Canada argues that these measures are a necessary cornerstone of trust in a successful SMS. However, such legislation allows the department to shield information from public scrutiny by designating safety reports as “mandatory exclusions” under the Access to Information Act. Safety reports would therefore not be subject to access to information requests; they could never be released, nor reviewed by the Access to Information commissioner.

Most troubling of all to Transport Canada’s detractors, however, is that it is moving ahead with SMS even though the Conservatives have twice failed to pass supporting legislation in the House of Commons. “This is just contrary to democracy,” says the NDP’s Peter Julian. “One of the oldest rules of Parliament is that the government may not act without the legislative authority granted by the House of Commons and the Senate.” With opposition mounting, it has become unlikely that Bill C-7 will be reintroduced.

Transport Canada’s Patrick Charette responds to such complaints by saying, “Legislative powers are already in place for SMS expansion.” And indeed, the Aeronautics Act allows Transport Canada to introduce amendments to Canadian aeronautics regulations without parliamentary approval. Critics of SMS have therefore turned to the only recourse they feel they have left: capturing the public’s attention.

THE SUMMIT

This past April, Kirsten Stevens orchestrated an unprecedented gathering of parliamentarians, professional pilots, aviation experts, accident survivors, victims’ families, and whistle-blowers on Parliament Hill. The purpose was a round-table discussion on the decline of air safety in Canada. Fourteen people spoke for more than three hours on the crisis facing Canadian aviation, among them Stevens, Hugh Danford, Peter Julian, Greg Holbrook, and Jonathan Huggett, as well as representatives from the Canada Safety Council, Teamsters Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform, and Canadians for Accountability. At a press conference afterward, NDP transportation critic Dennis Bevington remarked, “From what I heard, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board have developed a culture of secrecy, where whistle-blowers are persecuted and fatal accidents are seen as just a cost of doing business.

Also present in Ottawa this year, if a bit earlier in the spring, was a woman named Freda Hancock, the mother of the twenty-two-year-old pilot killed in the Davis Inlet crash that first attracted Hugh Danford’s attention. The 1,500-kilometre flight west from her tiny Labrador community was the first time in the decade since her son’s death that the soft-spoken, elegant woman had found the strength to speak personally with the former Transport Canada inspector. Hancock said that when he first contacted her, five years after the crash, she wasn’t able to hear what he was telling her — that the system had killed her son. “They’re the people who were supposed to protect you and keep you safe, and you realize they failed you,” she said from Danford’s home, where she was staying. “I took all of this for granted. I didn’t stop to think that somebody wasn’t doing their job.”

In the wake of the round table, Danford was left feeling optimistic that the hardship he’d inflicted on his family and himself might not have been in vain. “All 900 heads of garlic came up,” he said in a recent phone conversation. He’d just mailed a box of bulbs from his harvest to Stevens, who was still putting in full days on her campaign. She’d just launched SafeSkies.ca,designed as a virtual rallying point for aviation safety advocates, and a watchdog for transparency and public accountability at Transport Canada. “We need people who are willing to stand up and be vocal and tell the truth,” she told me, “or we’ll see more victims — like those at Davis Inlet, like those at Dryden, like those at Wapiti, like those in my accident. It’s people like me who can remind everyone why it’s so important to do it right the first time.”

Pilots on Food Stamps

2009-10-12T09:12:00.002-03:00

The route to becoming a pilot in Canada is slightly different than in the US. Because there is less of an isolated area in the US, low time pilots are exploited by regional airlines and paid exessively low amounts of money to fly relatively large (30-75 seat) aircraft. In Canada, the regional airlines do pay more than in the US, however, entry level and 'tier 3' type airlines still pay very low amounts of money.

On the one hand, the question is - well why should airlines pay any more than they need to? There are pilots that are willing to work for that pay. I worked as a substitute teacher when I lived up north, but that was only on days off, and even then, I could afford (just barely) to live comfortably as the cost of living was very low when I lived up north (i.e. I only paid about $250 a month in rent).

The problem is the perception that airline pilots are rich. Once you make it to Air Canada, everything will be solved. Getting low pay is just paying your dues. In Canada, the major airlines still offer a pretty good rate of pay and life style. In the states however, things are different, the major airlines have not been hiring and they've also been drastically cutting salaries. Honestly, if I lived in the US, I would not become a pilot.

From Michael Moore's blog:

Pilots on Food Stamps
By Michael Moore

We're on the descent from 20,000 feet in the air when the flight attendant leans over the elderly woman next to me and taps me on the shoulder.

"I'm listening to Lady Gaga," I say as I remove just one of the ear buds. I know not this Lady Gaga, but her performance last week on SNL was fascinating.

"The pilots would like to see you in the cockpit when we land," she says with a southern drawl.

"Did I do something wrong?"

"No. They have something to show you." (The last time an employee of an airline wanted to show me something it was her written reprimand for eating an in-flight meal without paying for it. "Yes," she said, "we have to pay for our own meals on board now.")

The plane landed and I stepped into the cockpit. "Read this," the first officer said. He handed me a letter from the airline to him. It was headlined "LETTER OF CONCERN." It seems this poor fellow had taken three sick days in the past year. The letter was a warning not to take another one -- or else.

"Great," I said. "Just what I want -- you coming to work sick, flying me up in the air and asking to borrow the barf bag from my seatback pocket."

He then showed me his pay stub. He took home $405 this week. My life was completely and totally in his hands for the past hour and he's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza.

I told the guys that I have a whole section in my new movie about how pilots are treated (using pilots as only one example of how people's wages have been slashed and the middle class decimated). In the movie I interview a pilot for a major airline who made $17,000 last year. For four months he was eligible -- and received -- food stamps. Another pilot in the film has a second job as a dog walker.

"I have a second job!," the two pilots said in unison. One is a substitute teacher. The other works in a coffee shop. You know, maybe it's just me, but the two occupations whose workers shouldn't be humpin' a second job are brain surgeons and airline pilots. Call me crazy.

I told them about how Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger (the pilot who safely landed the jet in the Hudson River) had testified in Congress that no pilot he knows wants any of their children to become a pilot. Pilots, he said, are completely demoralized. He spoke of how his pay has been cut 40% and his own pension eliminated. Most of the TV news didn't cover his remarks and the congressmen quickly forgot them. They just wanted him to play the role of "HERO," but he was on a more important mission. He's in my movie.

"I hadn't heard anywhere that this stuff about the airlines is in this new movie," the pilot said.

"No, you wouldn't," I replied. "The press likes to talk about me, not the movie."

And it's true. I've been surprised (and slightly annoyed) that, with all that's been written and talked about "Capitalism: A Love Story," very little attention has been paid the mind-blowing stuff in the film: pilots on food stamps, companies secretly taking out life insurance policies on employees and hoping they die young so the company can collect, judges getting kickbacks from the private prison industry for sending innocent people (kids) to be locked up. The profit motive -- it's a killer.

Especially when your pilot started his day at 6am working at the local Starbucks.

Bring Out Your Dead

2009-10-11T09:39:00.003-03:00

“Is this turning into a dead blog?” writes the comment. (I'm reminded of the "Bring out your dead" Monty Pyhton Sketch from The Holy Grail - "I'm not dead" - "yes, you are!" - "No, I'm not, I'm getting better!")

The answer is complex. I would definitely not call it dead, but I will admit that it has been sitting silently on the backburner for quite some time. It hasn’t been out of laziness or lack of interest, but I will say there’s been a lack of inspiration on my part.

There are a number of pilot blogs on the internet that are of a very high quality. Some pilots have a great ability to write interesting, technical but personal blogs about their job and reflections on life that, because the spend much of their time perched thousands of feet above the earth by themselves with their thoughts, make for great blog entries. This solitude while experiencing the wonders of flight essentially cries out for a cathartic blog post to share the experience. It has been quite a while since I have been flying, and as a result, I haven’t had quite so many of these experiences.

It seems a little strange really: I have a book which outlines how to become a pilot and be successful in the industry, yet it’s now been quite a while since I’ve flown. So what’s the deal?

I think that on one hand, not flying and not working in the aviation industry makes for a challenge in trying to promote my book and add blog posts. I don’t have the ability to be inspired by an event that occurred while I was flying and I don’t get to meet as many people in the industry and talk flying (which would also spread the word about my book and give me ideas for a blog post or possible changes to the book in the future). On the other hand however, I think that it offers me a unique perspective on the industry and the career as a pilot – both pros and cons.

I’m currently articling to become a lawyer. I graduated law school in May, passed the Nova Scotia bar exam and now have to finish my 12 months of articling (like an apprenticeship) and then I’m a real lawyer (fancy robe and all!). It’s been interesting to compare the steps involved in becoming a pilot verses becoming a lawyer. There are standard norms in each profession and it’s interesting to see what one profession does as compared to the other. I’m also good friends with Anne Berndl, author of “So, You Want to be a Doctor, Eh?” so I get a pretty good idea of what’s required to become a doctor as well.

There are some things that are great about aviation:
-the fact that you have to work your way up;
-the fact that you need to take the initiative to get your own first job and those that are not able to do so will likely not stay in the industry (as opposed to getting a bunch of people who don’t like their job, but it was easier to just get a job then do something else);
-the fact that you use many different routes to train; and
-the fact that, while you don’t believe it at the time, the lower time jobs with their experiences and stories are things you will remember your whole life.

There are some things that I think should be improved:
-the fact that the entry level pay is so low;
-the fact that everyone excepts this because they want to get to bigger and ‘better’ aircraft, but that life isn’t as good as it used to be;
-the fact that there isn’t an official apprenticeship stage and that even after spend tens of thousands of dollars on a licence, you’re still just a dime a dozen 200 hour wonder.
-the fact that there’s a disconnect between the costs of the new super expensive University and College aviation programs and the actual skills and low pay of the first few years in the industry. It’s really hard to pay back $90,000 in student loans when you’re making less than $20,000 a year!

This blog isn’t dead. Keep checking from time to time and when I am feeling inspired, I will write.

The Quickest Route to Flying an Airliner?

2009-05-28T18:04:00.003-03:00

I'll comment on this more later, but sometimes the quickest route to flying for an airline isn't the best option.

Florida's Pilot Factory

Tailplane Icing

2009-02-14T10:01:00.002-04:00

Although the cause of the Continental Flight 3407 in Buffalo the other night is unknown, there's been discussion that tailplane icing is involved. This is a great video from NASA that explains the effects of tailplane icing.

The whole video can be found on Google Video

Or it can be found on youtube in 3 parts:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

This is not meant as speculation - we must wait for the final NTSB report to determine what really happened. Regardless, this is a very informative video for all pilots.

My thoughts are with all those affected by the accident.

And Now for Something Completely Different

2008-12-11T17:54:00.003-04:00

I'm Back!

The past month I have been occupied with studying for my last set of law school exams. They are intense. They are a different type of intense than any flight test (i.e. you can't die), but the amount of information that you need to know and the way in which it must be conveyed is very challenging. I've got one more semester left, but my schedule is set up that I will not have any more law school exams!

I will get into some more substantive posts in the near future, but for now, here's a skit from John Cleese and some of the other Monty Python crew depicting how airline pilots keep themselves occupied on long flights. Enjoy!

Attitude: part I

2008-11-02T10:22:00.003-04:00

During flight training, instructors will often advise students (sometimes more urgently than others): "Watch Your Attitude!"

If the aircraft's nose is too high or too low (not an exact definition of attitude, but sufficient for this post), it will affect the quality of the journey and how you impact other objects (the goal of which is to obviously land on the ground, safely, on your wheels, in one piece and with a sufficiently low descent rate that you don't bruise your tailbone!). Your personal attitude can also have an affect on how you impact others around you.

A few years ago, while I was writing this book actually, I was flying as a passenger over the Christmas Holidays. I was talking with the lady working behind the counter at the aiport Tim Horton's. There had been lots of delays during this busy holiday season and when I asked if most of the passengers had been cranky, she replied "no, for the most part people have been in pretty good spirits. In fact, most people are usually pretty polite and friendly when they're traveling ... except for pilots. They're all jerks!" She didn't know that I was a pilot.

I'd like to believe that all pilots are not jerks. I'd like to think that what happened was that because pilots (and flight attendants to a certain extent) are generally the people that stand out at airports with a distinctive unifrom, this poor Tim Horton's women got a few bad apples (who were likely jsut having a bad day)and formed a generalized opinion. It's difficult to distinguish between lawyers, doctors, teachers, steel workers, bus drivers etc. when as passengers, they're all dressed the same.

I'm not sure if this will really negatively impact the public perception of pilots. If he or she flies me safely to my destination, what do I care if their a jerk? But at the same time, I'm of the opinion that being rude to people is not necessary. Being a pilot is hard work and carries a lot of responsibility. You ARE NOT better than someone else simply because you are a pilot. I don't think that everyone has the ability to be a pilot, but I do believe that most people in the world, if they had the financial resources and educational background, would be able to pilot an aircraft.

Being a jerk will not make you a better pilot or a better person.

You Think You've Got it Tough?

2008-10-17T02:54:00.003-03:00

This was in this week's AvWeb AvFlash. All I can say is WOW! that's incredible. How's that for being a role-model and overcoming adversity!

Armless Pilot Proves Her Capabilities

Jessica Cox, of Tucson, Ariz., was born without arms, but she hasn't let that define her role in life, and last week she scored a first when she earned her Sport Pilot certificate using only her feet to manipulate the controls of an Ercoupe. "I highly encourage people with disabilities to consider flying," Cox said. "It helps reverse the stereotype that people with disabilities are powerless into the belief that they are powerful and capable of setting high goals and achieving them." Cox, who is 25, won an Able Flight scholarship and trained with instructor Parrish Traweek in his Ercoupe 415C. "What is most incredible about Able Flight is the relentless faith and support not only from the board but also from the other pilots who have succeeded in the program," Cox said. "Thank you, Able Flight, for helping me make history as the first licensed pilot to fly with only her feet!" Since the Ercoupe design has no rudder pedals, no special modifications were required for Cox to fly it.

The rudder and aileron systems are linked, and both are controlled with a single control yoke. The yoke also controls nosewheel steering on the ground. Cox also drives a car and types on a computer using her feet. She works as a motivational speaker and is writing a book about her life.

Century after first fatality, safety is in the air

2008-09-17T21:36:00.003-03:00

Special thanks to Sulako for posting this on AvCanada. When you think how much the world relies on air travel, it is hard to imagine that it is still barely over 100 years old.

This is a picture of the accident from Wikipedia

From Yahoo News

Century after first fatality, safety is in the air

By CHRIS KAHN, AP Business Writer
Tue Sep 16, 5:49 PM ET

PHOENIX - It was called an "aeroplane," but the contraption Orville Wright piloted on Sept. 17, 1908 was hardly more than a big box kite with a motor. And unlike his famous first flight in 1903, this one was doomed.

Less than five minutes after takeoff, Wright's plane lay smashed, his passenger mortally injured, and the world got an early taste of the perils of flying. It was the first fatal airplane crash in history, according to the Flight Safety Foundation.

"The aeroplane is still far within the experimental stage," a New York Times writer lamented three days later. "The perfected machine will doubtless be different from it in everything from principle to motive power."

A hundred years later modern jets have indeed made air travel the safest way to get around. Yet, to the consternation of the airline industry, flying still generates for many the same rush of anxiety that onlookers must have felt when Wright's plane dove into the parade ground at Ft. Myer, Va.

"There's still this mystique about flying," said Ron Nielsen, a retired US Airways pilot who's found a second career counseling people who are afraid to fly. "There's a fear of being closed in, and there's a fear of dying."

It doesn't help when airlines are caught failing to follow government safety regulations, as was the case with American Airlines and Southwest Airlines earlier this year.

Anxiety levels may also rise when members of Congress accuse the Federal Aviation Administration of an inappropriately cozy relationship with the airlines it regulates. In response to reports of lapses in FAA oversight, the House passed a law in July that would force federal aviation inspectors to wait two years before taking airline jobs.

But the facts remain: In the U.S., no one has died in a commercial jet crash in two years. Before that, the safety record for airlines has been close to perfect.

According to a 10-year average of National Safety Council statistics from 1996 to 2005, only two people died in commercial airline crashes per 10 billion miles traveled.

That compares to a death rate of five people per 10 billion miles on passenger trains. And in cars, 81 people died for every 10 billion miles traveled.

Accidents in the air have become so rare that investigators no longer find common reasons why commercial airplanes crash, FAA spokesman Les Dorr said.

"If you try to say, what's the next common cause (of airline accidents) that we can address, the answer is there isn't one," Dorr said.

It took a lot of work to get to this point.

Aviation has always been an intensively reactive field, with many of its safety enhancements kick-started following major aircraft accidents.

It was this way even in 1908. A few days after the first fatal crash, Wright woke from his hospital bed and asked to see his mechanic.

"I'd like to have his view on just what happened to cause our spill," he said.

The plane was circling about 100 feet above the parade grounds during a demonstration flight for the U.S. Army Signal Corps when it suddenly dropped nose first and crashed. Wright's passenger for the experimental trip, Lt. Thomas Selfridge, was killed.

From the hospital, Wright picked through the scattered remnants of his plane and eventually decided what caused it to drop.

"Mr. Wright finds the accident to the aeroplane was due to the blade of the propeller coming in contact with one of the wires of the machine," C.S. Taylor, Wright's associate, told news reporters. A report by the Signal Corps Aeronautical Board said the propeller blade looked like it struck a wire supporting the rudder.

Aircraft safety investigations have become formalized in the years that followed. The National Transportation Safety Board, founded in 1967, deploys teams of investigators to major accidents and spends months examining each crash. It eventually recommends ways for the airline industry to keep the accident from happening again.

For example, airports were equipped with better weather tracking equipment and wind-shear alert systems following a number of crashes, including one in 1985 when a Delta Air Lines L-1011 tried to land during a thunderstorm at Dallas/Fort Worth airport, killing 135 people.

More safety improvements have followed other major accidents.

It can take months or even years before investigators come up with recommendations from a crash. But "if something happens during the investigation that really strikes fear in someone's heart, we'll send out urgent recommendations," said Bridget Ann Serchak, an NTSB spokeswoman.

Airlines also deal with several hundred new FAA air-worthiness directives each year that are recommended by aircraft manufacturers and other authorities. The FAA occasionally conducts safety audits like one that forced American to cancel hundreds of MD-80 flights this spring and submit to inspections related to electrical wiring.

Sometimes airlines will install safety features on their own. Alaska Air Group Inc., for example, recently said it will equip its entire fleet with a runway-awareness system aimed at preventing collisions on the ground.

"We realized we're flying out of some of the busiest airports in the U.S. and we saw the value of an additional safety measure," said Caroline Boren, spokeswoman for Alaska Airlines.

The systems will cost about $20,000 per aircraft to install, and Alaska's entire fleet is expected to be fully equipped with the alert software by the end of the month.

The FAA and airlines have not always worked well together, Dorr said, but increasingly they are sharing information about safety and maintenance.

That means that in the future, aircraft safety will become more automated with inspectors and airline crews contributing to the FAA's Air Transportation Oversight System, Dorr said. The system brings together maintenance and safety reports, and looks for any safety issues on the horizon.

The fear of flying may never leave some travelers, but as the industry continues to tweak its safety net, more of them may realize many fears are only in their heads.

"Everyone that I know that flies, when they get on the airplane, they're worrying about 'Will I get there on time?' Not, 'is the plane going to crash,'" Dorr said.

Seneca flight instructor lands on N.Y. highway

2008-09-05T12:34:00.004-03:00

This was an article in today's Toronto Star. Good job to the flight instructor for getting this plane safely down. I've actually flown that Bonanza, SCZ, a number of times. Glad to hear everyone is ok. Reminds you why you practice your emergency procedures.

T.J. HOOKER PHOTO/THE POST-STAR

Seneca College flight instructor Michael Denning safely landed the plane he was piloting on a stretch of highway in eastern New York state on Sept. 3, 2008.

Pilot with two students lands safely after plane loses power over U.S.

Sep 05, 2008 04:30 AM

John Goddard
staff reporter

A Seneca College flight instructor with two students on board a single-engine plane over New York's Adirondack Mountains landed safely on a highway after the type of emergency "some people don't walk away from," he said last night.

Michael Denning, 24, said he glided the plane above two transport trucks 15 metres above the road after the engine died. He landed in the two northbound lanes of Interstate 87 with no injuries and no damage to the plane.

"When (the truck drivers) saw us they stopped, which helped us out because it blocked traffic," Denning said after getting off a bus in Montreal for a commercial flight home to Toronto.

"Luckily it happened when it did," said Ray Thatcher, emergency services director for Essex County. "This is a high tourist area ... but the main tourist season is behind us now and the fall foliage season isn't here yet."

"He did an outstanding job," said New York State Police Capt. Michael Girard. "It's a very mountainous region. It's not like you can find an open field."

"He set it down perfectly – dead centre," said Ryan Bessey, captain of the volunteer fire department from the nearby hamlet of North Hudson, N.Y., 150 kilometres north of Albany.

The students, both in their third year of a four-year program, are not being identified "to protect their privacy," said Dominic Totino, head of Seneca's School of Aviation and Flight Technology.

Denning was leading a training exercise at about 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, with one student at the controls of a single-engine Beechcraft F-33 Bonanza, seating four, owned by the college.

The idea was to fly from Buttonville airport to Burlington, Vt., on a flight that involved crossing into U.S. airspace, customs clearance and flying over hilly terrain.

They heard a clicking noise from the engine – "not something I've ever heard before," said Denning, a recent course graduate who began instructing last year.

The gauges showed nothing wrong. A minute later, a loud bang and loss of power prompted Denning to seize duplicate controls.

Below he saw mountains, trees and water. Then he saw the highway. At 1,200 metres (4,000 feet) the motor failed completely and the propeller stopped. He radioed a mayday call and touched down.

"It was a surreal feeling afterward," Denning said. "We were just standing there (outside the plane) making a few jokes."

Northbound traffic was rerouted for several hours until the plane was pushed to a crossover on the median of the divided highway, where it remained overnight.

Two U.S. Federal Aviation Administration inspectors arrived early yesterday to investigate the cause of the engine failure, an FAA spokesperson said.

Seneca's maintenance workers are all professionals, not students, Denning said.

"We've had these planes since 1992 and never had any engine issues with them," said department head Totino.

"They followed the way they were taught to land for emergency procedures," he said.

UPDATE:

Here are a few photos posted on AvCanada by one of the students involved

Video - Space Shuttle Launch as viewed from an Air Canada Flight

2008-08-18T09:14:00.002-03:00

I saw a link to this video on AvCanada and thought it was pretty cool. I always enjoy watching the world go by when I'm a passenger on an aircraft, but this would have been quite the site to see!

Ah, the joys of flying.

2008-08-06T22:37:00.003-03:00

I’m currently in seat 15A of an Air Canada 767-300 (without the new interior). I’ve already finished the book I brought to read and don’t feel like starting another one at the moment.

When I was younger, flying as a passenger on an airliner used to be more fun than the actual vacation itself. Now, things are not quite as fun, however, there’s still something to be said for air travel. In this situation, this flight is bringing me back home away from the unpleasant sprawling urbanity that is Canada’s largest city.

The flight was delayed. The Thunderstorms started about an hour and a half before we were scheduled to depart. The ‘strobes’ at Pearson were flashing when I made it to the boarding lounge. That meant that lightening had been reported in the vicinity and ground personnel were not permitted to work on the ramp. This meant no loading or unloading of bags, no marshalling of aircraft, no fuelling. The airport essentially comes to a stand still.

Despite the fact that we boarded the plane at the proper time, once everyone was seated, we got an announcement that there would be a 15 minute delay for push back. After about 20 minutes, it was announced that there would be further delay as there had been a problem with getting the plane unloaded and loaded. After about 45 minutes of waiting at the gate, we got push back, after which time the Captain (poor guy) informed us that there we were roughly #20 for take-off. There was a collective groan from the passengers and on cue, that’s when two babies started loudly crying in stereo. We made the slow trip up taxiway Alpha. At least I got to watch the departing aircraft out the window as they were using 15L for departures.

An hour and 45 minutes later we were airborne. We got a spectacular view of the different layers of clouds with the sunset peeking through at various times. The post take-off announcement was made and included the apology that the main screen for the inflight entertainment wasn’t working this particular flight. The passenger next to me and I shared a good laugh.

This post is not meant as a rant. The Air Canada employees have acted professionally despite the fact that they are Halifax based flight attendants and they’re facing a base closure as of Nov 1st. The passengers have been pretty good as well. Although there was general disappointment about taking off an hour and 45 minutes late for a 2 hour flight, there was no self-righteous idiot demanding that the plane leave, in the middle of a thunderstorm, because the business meeting she needed to get to the next morning was so important. But still, it’s tough. Dealing with the realities of the airline system today can be quite frustrating. There are certain aspects where you have to think “this could be done better” – either more efficiently, more comfortable for the passengers or better for the environment – but getting upset about it doesn’t do much.

We’ve started our descent into Halifax so I’ll finish off this post. It’s still been a fun experience, but travelling as a passenger, or a crew member on the airlines today requires a large helping of patience.

The Best Flight School in Canada

2008-07-27T01:32:00.002-03:00

I have received a number of questions in the past little while basically asking which flight school in Canada is the best. The question makes sense and I do not wish to criticise the askers. In fact, I would applaud their conviction for wanting to strive to be the best that they can be in order to succeed at their career.

In my opinion however, there is no one best flight school or college in Canada.

Choosing a flight school is a very personal issue. What would be the best school for one candidate could be an awful choice for another. There are sundry factors that can determine which school or type of school is best for each person. Most important thing to remember when deciding where to complete your flight training is that no one school in Canada will allow you to skip directly to flying for the airlines.

As I outline in my book, there are different routes to getting your licence. In this post I will not be looking at the military route, but that is still an option. For strictly civilian flying, there are a number of options:
-a traditional flight school
-an organized commercial pilot course at a traditional flight school not associated with an accredited college or university
-a college program that contracts out the flying portion of their program with a local flight school.
-a college program that operates its own fleet of aircraft
-a university program that contracts out the flying portion of their program with a local flight school

The questions still come up though:
So which is the best? Surely a university degree is the best option? Wouldn’t the training from a recognized college with their own fleet give me the best quality training? Wouldn’t doing it through a traditional flight school give me the most flexibility in my training? Wouldn’t doing an accelerated organized program through a flight school get me out in the industry quicker? Does the most expensive program mean it’s the best?

The answer of course to all these questions is: It depends.

In this past post I talked about the benefits of getting a degree for persons interested in becoming a pilot. Overall I think getting a degree is a good idea. But when deciding on whether to get one, you must take a hard look at what you want to do with your career, if you would succeed in such an atmosphere and if having a degree is really worth the extra money and time you’ll spend getting it. I think a degree opens up a lot of doors, especially outside of aviation, but it will not automatically mean you’ll succeed.

The cost of a program can be an issue too. I wish it wasn’t the case, but entry level flying jobs do not pay well. Things are really tight financially for the first few years and if you have a huge debt to pay off at the same time, it will be hard to survive.

Going through one of the subsidized colleges in Ontario (Sault, Confederation and Seneca) could help alleviate that problem, however, they can be very academically demanding and can take extra time to complete compared to going through a traditional flight school.

Taking an accelerated program through a local flight school could be a great way to get out into the industry quicker while still having extra ground school classes. But these programs can be expensive and just because a flight school calls these programs ‘college programs’ doesn’t mean that you’ll be able to receive student loans or have the program be recognized as a college program by the airlines.

Finally, the location of the flight school can play a major role in determining if it is a good fit for a particular individual.

Obtaining quality flight training and getting your licences is an important factor in finding your first (and subsequent) job in the industry. But once getting the minimum requirements, the most important factors, often more important than where you went to school is your personality and attitude. Are you someone that would fit in well with this airline? Are you a team player? Can you be responsible and professional in your decisions? Will you be safe and make the company money?

I have met pilots from all different backgrounds. Their attitude and skills have varied across the board, but so too has their training background. Some pilots who went to college or university are great pilots, easy to get a long with and responsible in their decisions. Others are difficult to get along with or not that skilled. The same can be said about pilots who did their training through a local flight school.

Although the airlines like to see a degree on a person’s resume, the smaller airlines that hirer low time pilots generally don’t care.

So, there really isn’t one best school to do your training in Canada.

The Future of Aviation?

2008-07-05T09:33:00.003-03:00

More bad news from the Canadian Airline Industry with Air Canada Jazz announcing that they'll be laying off approximately 270 employees. This is a blow to pilot movement in the industry as up until just a couple of weeks ago. Typical of the industry is that from grapevine it seems that Jazz is still training new hire pilots even after they've announced layoffs. While to a certain extent this makes sense as a half trained pilot is of no benefit to you, it shows how quickly things can change in the industry.

In the US, a number of the major airlines announced massive job cuts and fleet reduction to save fuel costs. So while I won't harp too much, be wary if your main goal for being a pilot is to be an airline pilot - there looks to be some unsettling times ahead.

News from General Aviation seems to be better. In the past week, both Piper and Cirrus have made advances in the developments of their single engine jet and Diamond continues to develop it's light jet.

Here's a video of the PiperJet's first taxi tests:

Here's a video of the Cirrus The-Jet's First Flight:

And's here's an information video about Diamond's D-Jet:

So, will these new single engine jets transform the nature of the industry? Will flying in the future be reserved for the wealthy who can afford to pay higher airline fares or own their own personal jet? I wish I knew.

Refreshing

2008-06-19T20:18:00.002-03:00

It's been a rough couple of weeks for the Aviation Industry. What seemed like boom times has come to a sudden stop with the increasing price of fuel and Air Canada's announcement that it's going to cut up to 2000 jobs. Kind of depressing actually. Although in my book I always suggest that people considering becoming a pilot should have a good back up plan, when you look at all the doom and gloom forecasted for the industry, it's tough to even suggest that people should consider becoming a pilot.

Luckily, I read Ramiel's post at Pilot's Discretion about his very first flight. It was refreshing to read. I remember back to my first flight, the butterflies in my stomach, the shear exhileration of my first take-off and the high after landing and trying to figure out how an hour went by so quickly! There is something beyond words that describes the freedom of flight.

Ramiel's a student at Seneca College. At Seneca, you generally have to wait a year before you actually start the flying portion of the program. While this might be a drawback of the program, it also makes the taste of that first flight that much sweeter.

There are uncertain times ahead for the aviation industry. The old economic model of airlines doesn't seem feasible if the price of gas keeps rising. But that in and of itself should not discourage someone from being a pilot. It should force anyone considering becoming a pilot to take a long hard look at the realities of the job and the high price of oil, but it should also be weighed with the thrill of that first flight and the indescribable satisfaction of piloting an aircraft.

Air Cadets

2008-05-28T20:23:00.003-03:00

On Monday night I gave a talk to a local Air Cadet Squadron about becoming a pilot in Canada. Over all I think it went pretty well. While there were some poor cadets who had no interest whatsoever in becoming a pilot (and hence probably didn't find the talk that interesting) it was refreshing to see the enthusiasm that a number of the cadets had about flying. The Squadron's Warrant Officer (highest ranking cadet) had recently been accepted for a Power Course (getting his Private Pilot's Licence) and you could tell how excited he was. Mixed in with the excitement, I was very pleased to see that most of the cadets were very level headed and realistic about the realities of a career as a pilot. You can tell that they are going to be successful with whatever they decide to do with their lives.

It's been called one of Canada's best kept secrets and I have to agree. The Royal Canadian Air Cadets is a really interesting organization that I think all young teenagers should look into if they have even the slightest interest in aviation. When I was growing up, I unfortunately didn't have any friends in Air Cadets and didn't really hear about them until I was in my mid to late teens by which time it would have been very difficult to earn a flying scholarship.

The Schweizer 2-33 Glider used for the Royal Canadian Air Cadets gliding program

From a flying perspective, the biggest draw to the Air Cadets is the opportunity to be selected for a Power and/or Glider Course. The Cadets who are accepted for these courses are able to earn their Glider or Private Pilot (Aeroplane) Licence paid for by the cadets organization. This is a great deal.

Not only do cadets get the opportunity to earn their licences, there are also many other courses and skills camps that they can go to in the summer and chances for international exchanges - all generally free of cost.

Best of all is the networking opportunities that will be there for you later in your life. When I lived in Thompson, I lived in a house with 4 other pilots, all of whom had been Air Cadets. They had known a lot of the same people and it definitely helped them in the job hunt.

Air Cadets is not all fun and games though. The Air Cadets are a branch of the Department of National Defence. While there isn't really any pressure for cadets to join the Armed Forces when they get older, military ideals for discipline are taught. Uniforms must be ironed and boots have to be shined. There are drills and parade where cadets have to march in step and follow commands. While I feel that this type of discpline is helpful to learn, it is not for everybody.

Although cadets are open to young adults from the ages fo 12 to 18 years old, it may be difficult to be selected to get your glider or Private Licence if you join later. I would highly recommend that anybody between the ages of 12 and 16 who is thinking about being a pilot, look into the Royal Canadian Air Cadets.

To Go, or Not to Go - That is the Question

2008-05-20T21:25:00.004-03:00

I returned from a much needed vacation on the weekend to find that my most recent issue of Flying Magazine had arrived in the mail. I quite enjoy reading Flying. Although it is an American publication, most of the articles are very interesting and relevant to non-US aviators. As well, being able to briefly ignore the fact that I owe lots of student loans, their aircraft reviews allow me to dream about what aircraft I'll purchase when I'm independently wealthy - whenever that happens. It's funny, I'm not that into buying 'stuff', but I sure would love to own an airplane.

One of the articles this month was No, No, I Won't Go by Tom Benson. It outlines Tom's decision of whether or not to make a trip in his own personal aircraft to have some scheduled maintenance work done. Tom makes some really interesting points on how to determine whether to go or not.

He states: The go/no go decision is an easy one to make when the conditions are so ominous that the choice is obvious. The hardest decisions occur when things "aren't that bad," "might improve" or "this isn't that much worse than the time I did it before." This quote hits the nail right on the head. When I was flying the C206 and C207 VFR doing charter work it was the days that were just on the cusp on being bad weather days that I hated the most. Especially when you have paying passengers who need to get to an important meeting, simiply deciding not to go because the weather is borderline is not always a good solution.

There is an oft used saying in Aviation "The hardest part about flying is knowing when to say 'No'"

So, when do you say 'No'?

In his article, Tom outlines some ways in which he decides if he wants to go or not - flipping a coin but then examining if that was the answer he wanted. Different things work for different people. I had a couple of different methods for deciding when to go or not (in a VFR scenario). If you're an experienced pilot and have other strategies I'd be interested to hear them in the comments section.

For me, the first thing I would do, if possible, would be to talk to the passengers. Let them know that the weather is so/so and there may be the possibility that we'd have to turn back, or it'll be really bumpy etc. Sometimes the passengers were fairly nervous flyers, so they'd decide that they didn't want to go.

As an aside, I once had a flight instructor who was flying corporate charters. He had a passenger that really really wanted to get to a meeting. Along the flight path however, there were some thunderstorms building up and the whole flight looked to be very turbulent. The passenger wanted to go anyways and threatened to take his business somewhere else if my instructor didn't do the flight. Right near the departure airport, the turbulence wasn't too bad. So, my instructor took off and then after leveling off, created some turbulence of his own by osillating the controls causing a very unpleasant ride for the passenger. After a couple of minutes, the passenger called to the pilot "you were right, this turbulence is really bad - let's go back!" While I don't necessarily recommend purposely trying to make your passengers sick, sometimes being a pilot requires you to find creative ways to say 'No'.

After checking with the passengers, I'd then go and look at my back up plans. The thing about flying is to always have 'an Ace up your sleeve'. I'd always be thinking about what my options were once I was in the air. If the weather got crappy at a particular point, what would I have to do to make it safely to the ground? Were there alternate airports near by? What's the terrain like? What's my way out? If I wasn't comfortable with those answers, that's when I'd say No.

There have unfortunately been many young pilots who didn't say No when they should have and they and their passengers paid the ultimate price.

Owning Up

2008-05-07T03:29:00.003-03:00

In early November 2002, I had just found out that after working on the 'ramp' for 15 months loading bags, cargo, setting up seats and cleaning, that I would finally be moving up to a flying position as a First Officer on one of my airline's medevac Cessna Conquest II's. I was excited!

Working the ramp was a challenge and was hard work, but it was not what I spent 3 years in College training towards. I was training towards being a pilot. I still tried to do a good job though.

At my airline, cargo was a separate department. I was technically responsible for baggage, not the cargo. Although I did try and help the cargo guys load, there was often a lack of communication between departments.

One evening, after cargo had gone home, I was checking the aircraft to make sure they were empty. I noticed that there was still a big tool bag on the plane. "Hmmm, that's not right" I thought. There were no more scheduled departures that I knew about so I unloaded the bag and placed it in the cargo warehouse.

The next day I was chatting with a colleague on MSN Messenger. He mentioned that the other night there was an emergency charter flight by some workers from the Hydro company to a remote reserve that had lost all it's power. There were only two passengers and a bag of tools, but when they arrived at the destination, the bag of tools wasn't there. This was a very expensive charter and made the company look really bad. According to my colleague, 'heads were going to roll in cargo'.

After the conversation, I was thinking.
"Wow, that's not good, I thought ...... wait a second..... oh no..... oh CRAP!....I was the one who unloaded the bag!"

Now I had to figure out what to do. Although I had been the cause of the screw up, I didn't technically do anything wrong. The cargo and charter division did not tell me about another flight and I was supposed to check the planes before I left. But still, being just a week away from starting as a pilot, I didn't want to risk being fired. At the same time, I didn't want to risk having one of my friends fired.

I called the Charter Supervisor. I explained that I was the one that took the tools out of the aircraft. I approached it as simply explaining what I had been doing. I didn't try to make excuses, but at the same time I made it clear that no one had told me about this extra flight. Although she was upset, she knew that I was a good worker and that I wasn't being careless in doing what I did.

In the end, I made the right choice to explain what happened. In this situation it was going to be trouble if the proper explanation didn't get out. In many situations, covering things up will usually make the consequences worse. But still, in an industry like aviation, it can be tough to admit your mistakes when you screw up. It might not be necessary to try and recount every mistake you've ever made to someone else - Aviation is all about learning from your mistakes. But as a pilot, when something goes wrong, it is your duty to take responsibility for it.

Layovers

2008-05-05T14:34:00.004-03:00

A couple of days ago I was lying on the beach at Platis Gialos in Mykonos, Greece. (Also the reason why I haven't blogged in a while)

While there, by fluke, we ran into another law student from Dalhousie. She was mentioning that earlier that day she had met some people on the beach who were corporate pilots based in Italy. They flew a private jet for the owner of a popular retail clothing line and they were currently relaxing on the beach waiting to fly him back. Must be nice!

The ability to travel and see interesting places is one of the biggest perks of being a pilot. Often, this travel takes place while you're essentially still working - a layover. To save money, airlines are generally reducing the amount of layovers pilots get, however, pilots still get to travel and spend a lot more time in distance places than the average person.

In his book, From The Flightdeck: Plane Talk and Sky Science, Doug Morris talks about a few of the interesting layovers that he's had. The most exciting of which is his trip to the Taj Mahal. These trips can be interesting and a great way to go exploring.

The pilot's life isn't all fun travel though. There are downsides to having layovers. You're often not able to travel with your signifcant other, your timeisn't necessarily your own, you're away from home and in reality, most layovers involve a lot of waiting around at various airport hotels not close to the action.

But still, getting paid to lay on the beach would be nice!

Harrison Ford - Just Another Pilot

2008-04-17T12:48:00.002-03:00

Found this video through a post on AvCanada. It's a neat little video about Harrison Ford who has his pilot licence. The difference between him and most recreational pilots is that he has piles of cash so he's able to "buy an occasional airplane." Regardless of the tinge of jealousy I feel, it's good to see that he enjoys flying and really outlines some of the great feelings of flying that are sometimes hard to put into words.

One other quick comment, although I didn't have my first solo in a 206, my first landing in one was similar to how he describes his. Because I had been flying a plane that had a lower landing attitude, on my first landing in the 206, I let the nose get to low and the nose wheel touched down first and I porpoised down the runway. After about 3 big bounces I added power and had my first overshoot in the 206!

Jet Pilots - As seen by Helicopter Pilots

2008-04-13T15:45:00.003-03:00

There's always been a bit of friendly competition between airplane and helicopter pilots. There's probably even more in the military. Here's a funny music video by some New Zealand Air Force Helicopter Pilots singing about Military Jet Pilots.

Perimeter Aviation

2008-04-12T13:14:00.004-03:00

I apologize for the lack of posts. I'm currently in the middle of exams so I have been a little pre-occupied.

I have a counter this blog which tells me how much traffic I get and also where it comes from and in some instances, the search terms that people use to find it. A large number of people find this blog when searching for 'sexy flight attendants!' I had one recent person find this blog while searching for 'perimeter aviation dangerous' which sent them to the previous post: Drinking And Flying.

While I felt it was important to post so that young pilots know how important it is to be very careful with their alcohol consumption, I did not want the post to be seen as being negative towards Perimeter Aviation. Perimeter is a good, safe airline. I have numerous friends that fly for them and I would fly on them no problem. It's a great spot for young pilots to get their start. You will work hard on the ramp for a fair amount of time, but once you get flying, you get lots of hours and lots of great experience. There is the opportunity to move up from a First Officer to Captain and even the opportunity to move up to a Dash 8. The multi-IFR flight school is very well known and they often offer the ability for instructors to eventually move over to the airline side of things.

Most pilots don't make a career of flying for Perimieter or airlines like it, however, Perimeter does offer very competitive salaries for their Medevac Captains.
Overall, it's a good company - even if the Metro's look like lawn darts :)

Drinking and Flying

2008-04-04T17:27:00.005-03:00

Although pilots are stereo-typical heavy drinkers, pilot alcohol consumption is strictly regulated. Transport Canada's Rule is that you are not to have had a drink within 8 hours of acting as a crew member or still be under the influence of any alcohol. "8 hours bottle to throttle". Some airlines have even stricter policies. There can be serious reprecusions for breaking that rule. In the US, two airline pilots who had been drinking prior to their flight were sentenced to 2 1/2 and 5 years in jail!

These were not them - this is Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla from the Man show - take this skit with a grain of salt:

Drinking before flying is no laughing matter. This is one of the most important rules that you must follow in your flying career. There is NO reason why you should be in a position where you have had a drink less than 8 hours before your flight.

The pilots in the article below were lucky to only be suspended for 3 weeks. There has been quite an uproar on AvCanada about this incident. While some people may argue that "it was only 1 beer and it was only 7.5 hours before the flight" I would argue that this is unacceptable. You know when you are on-call and when you're scheduled to depart. As a pilot you're required to know how to tell time and know how long 8 hours is. If you have had a drink within those 8 hours it is your responsibility to be a professional and not fly until you are within the rule. While sure, it's nice to have a beer with dinner, but is it worth your career? I don't think any beer tastes that good. I do not know the exact situation that these pilots were in so I'm not going to pass judgement, but for new pilots, it's something you have to be very careful about - it could have serious reprecusions.

Post-flight beers prove costly for three pilots

By: Aldo Santin

Updated: April 3 at 02:00 AM CDT

Having a beer with their dinner has cost three young pilots a suspension without pay.

Mark Wehrle, general manager of Perimeter Aviation, confirmed Wednesday night that Transport Canada had suspended the licences of three pilots for a three-week period stemming from an incident in September.

Wehrle said the three pilots -- one has since moved on to a larger airline -- had flown a cargo run to Fargo. While having dinner down there after they arrived, they each had a beer. Wehrle said the three young men brought their planes home the next morning. However, Wehrle said that pilots are prohibited from consuming alcohol for eight hours before they take-off.

"It turns out that this was at the 7.5-hour mark," Wehrle said. "Someone on the flight crew reported it to us and they confirmed that it happened."

Wehrle said he didn't think the actions of the three young pilots, all believed to be in their mid-20s, had put their aircraft or the public at risk but added it was a violation of the rules nonetheless and Perimeter suspended them for three weeks without pay at the time, adding the company also reported it to Transport Canada.

Wehrle said Transport Canada investigated the incident and informed Perimeter this week that the three men would be formally sanctioned with a further three-week suspension of their licences.

"We didn't consider what they had done to be reckless," Wehrle said. "They admitted what they had done wrong and realized it was a mistake. It's part of growing up."

Wehrle said the third pilot left Perimeter for an opportunity to fly larger aircraft, adding he told the other airline about the incident when they made a background check.

"They weren't too concerned about it because they hired him on," Wehrle said. "His current employer was informed of the Transport Canada sanction and he won't be flying either."

Perimeter Aviation is a locally owned firm with more than 100 pilots, and operates a flight training school, charter and contract flying and a full-service maintenance bureau for other small airlines. Its website boasts that its clients include Great-West Life, Canwest Global, Reimer Express, James Richardson Sons, United Parcel Service, Air Canada, Purolator Courier and Brinks Canada.

Wehrle said that two of the pilots were first officers at the time and the other was a recently promoted captain. He said that all three are now captains.

"They've worked hard to get where they are but they made a mistake," Wehrle said. "It was poor judgment on their part but it wasn't a heinous crime."

aldo.santin@freepress.mb.ca

Guns and Planes

2008-03-27T13:39:00.006-03:00

After September 11th, US airline pilots pushed for allowing pilots to carry guns on an aircraft to guard against terrorist threats under the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. While I understand the reasoning behind this, I can't say I agree with it. To me, firearms in a pressurized metal tube just seem like a bad idea. I haven't examined this issue much further as Canada doesn't allow pilots to carry firearms. The debate surrounding firearm use and the differences between Canada and the US's attitude on guns is an explosive one (pardon the pun) and isn't really the topic of this post.

On a recent US Airways flight, a pilot had his firearm accidentally discharge. Check out the pictures that have been posted on many news sites. I think that this could have had far worse results.

Pilot's gun fired during flight

An investigation is under way into how a gun carried by a US Airways pilot was discharged during a flight.
No-one was hurt when the gun went off as the plane was preparing to land at Charlotte, North Carolina, on Saturday.

A hole in a cockpit wall apparently caused by the shot is visible in photos obtained by AP news agency.

Under a programme implemented after the 9/11 attacks, US airline pilots are allowed to carry guns on domestic flights following a training course.

Passengers 'unaware'

The gun discharged just before noon on Saturday aboard Flight 1536 from Denver to Charlotte, as the Airbus A319 plane was at about 8,000 feet (2,440m) and was approaching to land.

The plane was sequestered and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is looking into the incident, spokesman Dwayne Baird said.

He said the airline was co-operating and that the FBI would also probably be involved.

The pilot has been put on leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Mr Baird said he believed the 124 passengers on board at the time were not aware of the incident.

Aeronautical experts disagree on how much risk there is that such a stray bullet could bring down an aircraft.

Psychological tests

Under the TSA's Federal Flight Deck Officer programme, pilots may apply for a licence to carry a gun on board for domestic flights.

They must undergo a week-long training course and psychological tests.

Since April 2003, about 5,000 flight deck officers - captains or first officers - have been authorised to carry weapons, Capt Bob Hesselbein, chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association's National Security Committee, told the Associated Press.

All pilots who qualify from the programme are said to carry the same weapon - a .40-calibre semiautomatic H&K USP - which experts say is extremely unlikely to go off on its own.

Pilot to Serve His Sentence in the Community

2008-03-20T18:43:00.003-03:00

As a follow up to yesterday's post.

Pilot avoids jail term
By: Mike McIntyre

Updated: March 20 at 03:42 PM CDT

Print Article E-mail Article Mark Tayfel crashed an airplane in a busy Winnipeg intersection and lived to tell about it. Now the former pilot has escaped a jail sentence for negligent actions that killed an elderly passenger.

Queen's Bench Justice Holly Beard ruled this afternoon Tayfel could remain in the community under a two year conditional sentence for the June 2002 tragedy. His conditions include a daily curfew and 240 hours of community service work which Beard hopes will involve speaking to young pilots about the errors he made during that fateful flight.

"The accused is a fine person who's made some terrible mistakes in an otherwise good life. The events are truly tragic and have affected many lives. It's a no win situation for all involved," Beard told court.

"Nothing in this case suggests a need to separate this offender from the community."

Beard lashed out at the airline industry for a "culture" of negligence which allows -- or perhaps even forces -- pilots to often cut corners.

"It's clear the failure to follow aeronautics regulations is very prevalent. The culture shouldn't be one that pressures young pilots to break the law," said Beard.

"Despite that culture, it doesn't excuse pilots who break the law and engage in risky behaviour. Society will not sit by and allow our safety and security to be put at risk."

Tayfel and six American fishers were injured when both of the plane's engines cut out shortly after Tayfel missed his first attempt at landing at Winnipeg International Airport. The plane came to rest on Logan Avenue just west of McPhillips Street.

Tayfel had taken off earlier that morning from a northern fishing lodge without enough fuel on board to get to his destination.

Everyone survived the crash, but Kansas resident Chester Jones, 79, died a few weeks later from his injuries.

"I was very moved by the description of Chester Jones. The loss to his family and community is immense and can never be replaced," Beard said today/

Crown attorney Brian Wilford told court yesterday that Tayfel should spend time behind bars for the reckless risk-taking of not carrying enough fuel and then attempting to land the plane without telling anyone on the ground about his problem until it was too late.

"The moral culpability of Mr. Tayfel is extreme. He had so many opportunities to rectify the situation. And yet he did nothing," Wilford said.

"He endangered so many people... because his concern was his reputation. It is an absolute miracle no one on the ground was seriously injured or killed. I'd say a landing like that couldn't be done again in a million years."

Defence lawyer Balfour Der said putting a good man like Tayfel behind bars wouldn't accomplish anything.

"This man did not set out to crash that airplane, to run out of fuel, to put anyone, including himself, in danger," Der said.

He told court Tayfel could be utilized as a mentor to young pilots in training, speaking to them about his deadly mistake and preaching the value in following aviation regulations.

Tayfel, 42, gave a tearful apology to his victims yesterday, including family members of the man who died.

"I was in charge of that aircraft. It was my responsibility to get the passengers safely back to Winnipeg. I failed to do that," he told a packed courtroom.

Tayfel declined to speak with reporters following court today. Der said his client is "still in a state of shock" over what happened but thankful he's going home to Calgary.

Der said they are considering an appeal of Beard's decision to convict Tayfel of criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of an aircraft in one of the first cases of its kind in Canada.

He suggested Tayfel's employer at the time of the crash, Keystone Air, should have also been held liable and that his client has been made the "whipping boy" for an industry fraught with problems.

"They're not here in court supporting Mr. Tayfel. They headed for the hills," Der said outside court. He was encouraged by Beard's critical comments about the airline industry and hopes this case sends a strong message.

"These young pilots are really being forced into a tough situation," he said.

An aviation expert called by the defence claimed at trial that the real blame for the disaster should rest with Keystone Air. Robert Lemieux said the company "pressured" Tayfel into doing his flight, despite the fact he'd raised concerns with the chief pilot that his Piper Navajo wasn't equipped with a mandatory auto-pilot.

The device likely would have helped Tayfel make a safe landing in Winnipeg. Instead, he came out of the clouds too high and too fast -- with both engines on the verge of cutting out -- and missed the runway completely. Tayfel then crashed as he tried to swing around to make another landing attempt.

A retired Air Canada pilot took the witness stand yesterday on behalf of the defence and said too many shortcuts are being taken by employers focused on making money, at the expense of young pilots who feel there is no choice but to quietly obey orders.

"These kids get out there and they're expected to do things they know aren't by the book. There's a culture in that sector of the industry where it's get the job done, and if somebody bends the rules a little bit, nobody says anything about it," Dale Andersen said.

He now works as a mentor and counselor to pilots through the airline union and recently spent time with Tayfel, calling him a "mild-mannered, compliant" person who lacks the ego many pilots often possess.

Andersen told court allowing Tayfel to speak about his experience to others would be making "something positive" out of a tragic situation.

Tayfel has no prior criminal record, strong family and community support and is unlikely to find work again as a pilot because nobody wants to hire him, court was told.

Wilford said that's not enough.

"Mr. Tayfel got caught doing what other pilots seem to do quite regularly. Other pilots didn't get caught because they didn't crash. But other pilots must be deterred from even thinking about it," he said.

Update: Pilot to Face Sentencing

2008-03-19T16:54:00.003-03:00

In November, I wrote a post entitled The Captain's Decision about how pilots have to be vary of the consequences of being pressured to fly.

Just a quick update on the pilot who was found guilty last November of four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, one count of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of an aircraft.

From CBC.ca

Sentence expected Thursday for pilot in fatal Winnipeg crash

Last Updated: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | 1:52 PM CT

A Winnipeg judge will hand down her sentence Thursday in the case of a pilot convicted of criminal negligence after he crash-landed his plane on a high-traffic Winnipeg intersection in 2002, killing one man and hurting several others.

Calgary-based commercial pilot Mark Tayfel was found guilty last November of four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, one count of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of an aircraft.

The Crown and defence in his case made sentencing arguments in Court of Queen's Bench on Tuesday morning.

Tayfel also spoke, making an emotional apology to the passengers of the Keystone Air flight six years ago. With a trembling voice, he said he was responsible for getting them back to Winnipeg safely, and he failed to do that.

He said he was deeply saddened when he heard of the death of one of the men several months later, describing it as the "worst news ever."

Tayfel described how difficult the last six years have been for him and his family, including his new wife, although he acknowledged the pain of the passengers' families have been surely worse.

He said he doubted he would fly again.

Crown attorney Brian Wilford asked for a sentence of "real jail time" for what he described as Tayfel's "utter disregard for his passengers' safety."

But defence lawyer Balfour Derr argued that Tayfel does not deserve jail time, saying he has already been punished enough. A suspended sentence with probation or house arrest would be more appropriate, he said.

Tayfel could use his experiences to teach student pilots about the risks and pressures associated with flying for small companies, Derr said.

Tayfel, 42, had been flying six American fishermen from a remote Manitoba fishing lodge on June 11, 2002, when his twin-engine plane ran out of fuel.

Both engines cut out shortly after he missed the runway on his first attempt to land at Winnipeg's airport, and the plane eventually came to a rest in the middle of McPhillips Street and Logan Avenue, a busy downtown Winnipeg intersection.

Passenger Chester Jones, 79, died from his injuries in hospital several weeks after the crash.

Counter to Tayfel's claims that he should not have been held responsible for what happened, Justice Holly Beard concluded in November that he made too many misjudgments and showed a reckless disregard for the lives of others.

He miscalculated the amount of fuel needed given the weather conditions and also decided to press on with the flight despite being aware of the possibility that the Piper Navajo aircraft was not equipped with a mandatory auto-pilot system, she ruled.

Any thoughts on what the judge should do?

Question - Re: Minimum Age to Start Flying Lessons

2008-03-19T00:12:00.004-03:00

The question was asked: How old do you have to be to begin flying lessons to eventually become a Pilot?

My Response

In Canada, there is no minimum age to start your flight training. The two restrictions for starting your flight training really young may be:

1- Individual flight schools may have bottom age limits that are dictated by policy or insurance requirements; and,
2- You have to be tall enough to be able to reach all the controls and rudder pedals.

When you first start your training, you'll be flying with a flight instructor and except for the above possibilities, there are no minimum limits for that. However, there are age limits involved if you want to get your licence and fly by yourself.

In order to solo, or fly by yourself in an aircraft, you need to obtain a student pilot permit. You must be 14 years old and you are also required to write and pass an exam called the PSTAR in order to obtain this. A great study guide for this exam can be found at Robin's Flying Start

If you want to carry passengers, your two options are to get a Recreational Pilot Permit, which allows you to carry one other passenger, or a Private Pilot Licence which will allow you to carry more than one passenger and allow you to add other ratings to your licence.

The minimum age for a Rec Permit is 16 years old and the minimum age to obtain a Private Licence is 17 years old.

If you want to continue on and are considering a career as a pilot, the minimum age in Canada to obtain a Commercial Licence is 18 and the minimum age to obtain an Airline Transport Pilot Licence is 21.

Check out Flight Crew Licensing for all the different requirements for each licence and rating.

If you can afford it, getting an early start on flying is a great idea. The quicker you have your licences, the quicker you'll be able to build up experience. I wish that I started earlier than I did.

Flying Exhausted

2008-03-18T19:27:00.005-03:00

Just a quick follow up to the last post. There's a new thread on AvCanada about Flying Exhausted. They've included a poll the results of which as of March 18th, 2008 @ 7:28pm Halifax time were:

I have fallen asleep while flying before. There was another pilot and I had discussed with him that I was just going to close my eyes for a few minutes. In my opinion at least, it's better to be upfront with the other pilot about what you're doing. I felt I would be much safer if I had a short nap than if I struggled to stay awake.

I have also had it a couple of times where one of the Captains I was flying with fell asleep. He told me ahead of time that he was going to close his eyes for a bit, although he ended up sleeping for a couple of hours. I was alright with that though and the peace and quiet was nice. If there were any problems it would have been easy to wake him up and I didn't feel tired at all.

When I was flying the C207 as the only pilot, I did have one day where I had to fight very very hard to keep my eyes open. It wasn't late at night, but for whatever reason, I was feeling very tired. It was tough, but I turned on all the air vents, got cold air blowing, tried to sing to myself - anything to keep me awake. It worked, but it can be tough sometimes.

Night Flights

2008-03-14T17:13:00.004-03:00

I've recently found the web service Yahoo Answers and the section that deals with aircraft questions. I've been answering a few questions there. One question I recently answered was:

On an overnight (Red Eye flight) what do you do to keep awake?
Are you able to get coffee from the cabin?
Is it true that when you start with an airline, it is more likely that you will have to do overnights?

The reason i am asking these questions is because i am currently studying to get my commercial license and airline transport permit with Transport Canada.

Here is my answer:
Overnight flights can be one of the most challenging aspects of being a pilot. Although I am not an airline pilot, I used to fly Air Ambulance flights, many of which were overnight, and found them to be very tough on the body.

There are a number of ways that pilots and airlines deal with this situation.

As a pilot, most (but not all) of the time, you’ll know in advance when you’re going to be doing an overnight flight. As a result, you’re able to adjust your sleep schedule accordingly. Having a nap in the afternoon prior to your flight and/or making sure you stay up late the night before. Eating healthy and not smoking also helps a little bit, but these are more general lifestyle factors than specific mechanisms to help you stay awake.

During the flight itself, pilots stay awake by chatting, reading, eating, drinking coffee and listening to different radio frequencies. Although cockpit doors are now locked, pilots have a flight attendant ‘call’ button and the flight attendants are able to access the cockpit to bring coffee, food or just chat. (And also deal with important inflight information).

Airlines deal with the situation with different policies. On the longer flights, there will be one or two Cruise Relief Pilots assigned to the flight. “Creeps” are usually junior pilots who sit in the flight deck during the cruise portion of the flight. The original Captain and First Officer do the Take-Off and Landings and then take turns relaxing in the crew rest area. On some aircraft, there are a couple of seats in first class that are reserved for the crew. On other aircraft, like the newer Boeing 777s, there are private crew rest areas on top of the main cabin.

Other airlines have implemented official monitored or planned cockpit rest procedures where only one pilot at a time can have a nap. The big problem is when both pilots fall asleep! This is somewhat controversial as some airlines want both pilots awake the whole time they’re in the cockpit, whereas others recognize that giving the pilots the opportunity for short naps will allow them to be more awake for the challenging approach and landing phase of flight.

Depending on the airline you work for, you may end up doing more night flights when you first start out. Seniority is a big factor for airline scheduling. The pilots that have been at an airline longer get first choice at choosing their flights. Sometimes, overnight flights may be less desirable and the more junior pilots get stuck with flying them.

The issue is slightly more complicated however. At most airlines, pilots get paid more the larger the plane they fly. The larger planes typically fly more long haul routes. Therefore, it is usually the higher seniority pilots (those who have been there the longest) that fly the biggest planes. There will likely be the requirement to fly more long overnight flights on the bigger planes than on the smaller planes. Therefore, higher seniority pilots might fly at night more.

One of the best pieces of advice given to me when I was training was to “Guard your Sleep”. Going to a flight, either at night or during the day if you’re not well rested can be a safety concern. It requires planning ahead, but it can be done.

The great thing about flying at night though is that you get to see some amazing Northern Lights!

Question - Re: University Degrees for Pilots

2008-03-05T15:04:00.004-04:00

I received a question from a reader the other day:

Hey! I am looking into getting into the industry. My question is do you suggest getting a university degree these days on top of everything else? My mom works for Air Canada so she knows many pilots and many have told me that having a university degree makes you a lot likelier of landing a job with a major airline.

Getting a university degree en route to becoming a pilot is a tough decision. I don't think that there's an overwhelming right or wrong answer and what will work best for a person depends on a number of factors.

Major Airlines, specifically Air Canada, use a 'points' system when determining who they will interview. Points will be awarded based on education, flying experience (both hours flown and type of aircraft those hours were acquired on), language proficiency, work experience, leadership qualities etc. I do not know how many points get awarded for each category.

About 8 years ago now when I was just finishing my training, I was able to meet the pilot hiring coordinator for Air Canada. When I asked if she had any tips, her response was "get a degree." What I have heard however, is that a university degree is granted the same number of points as a diploma from a recognized Aviation College such as Confederation, Sault College or Mount Royal. This is not confirmed though.

Even for Air Canada, having a degree will not automatically get you a job at an airline. It is also imperative to have a lot of flight experience. Depending on about a million different factors, when you're done your training, it will generally be 5 to 10 years before you have the experience to be hired by Air Canada. Even though their stated minimum hour requirements are 1000 hours, most successful candidates have at least 2000 hours, with most having more.

Having a degree will also not really help you in getting your first flying job. Operators that hire low time pilots generally don't care if you have a college diploma or a degree, rather, they want to see that you have a good attitude and can work hard. Having some work experience, being in the right place at the right time and making good connections will all help in finding the first flying job.

I am a proponent of getting a degree. I think that having a degree (or two) will open a lot of doors in life when combined with experience. It not only opens up options outside of aviation if you lose your medical or get laid off, it allows you to possibly move into management roles within an airline later on. I also think that taking some time to go to school and enjoy the 'university experience' is a benefit to every one. It gives people a couple years to grow up and learn responsibility. Obviously, not everyone needs this though. Though I personally have really enjoyed my university experience.

On the other hand, there are people who don't really think it is worth getting a degree if you want to be a pilot. Their point of view makes sense and I do believe that getting a degree isn't right for everyone.

Getting a degree, whether it is in conjunction with your flight training at schools such as University of Western Ontario, Waterloo, Seneca College or University College of the Fraser Valley or separately, usually takes 4 years and can be quite expensive. During this time, you generally don't do much flying. If however, you did you flight training independently through a local flight school or through a shorter, 2 year college program, you would be finished your training a lot quicker and out flying sooner. Once flying, most pilots building experience can get anywhere between 500 and 1000 hours a year and be earning money at the same time. Most airlines hire pilots with between 2000 and 4000 hours of experience and the quicker you're out flying, the sooner you'll have that experience.

Of the pilots that I know that are working at Air Canada, some have degrees and some do not. I know pilots who have been hired on at Air Canada Jazz both with and without a degree or Aviation College Diploma. I know pilots working for WestJet, some of whom have a degree and some don't. I know a pilot with an Economics Degree, lots of turbo-prop and jet Captain experience who was turned down by Air Canada but is working at WestJet. I also know a pilot who has two degrees that was turned down by Jazz.

So, as you can tell by the somewhat rambling response, there is no right or wrong answer.

Things to consider:

Are you the type of person that likes education?

What is your financial situation like?

Are you ready to jump into the work force, or will a couple of years at university or college be good for you?

What are the options of flight schools, colleges or Universities near where you live?

The main thing to know though is that getting a degree from a particular school will not guarantee you a job at an airline or let you skip the generally low paying, not glamorous first few years of flying.

Selling Seats

2008-02-29T09:12:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, to celebrate their 12th birthday, WestJet had a pretty good seat sale on routes in Eastern Canada offering fares between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal for as low as $12. Some other routes were only $39 each way. While they still added all the surchrages such as taxes, airport improvement fees, NavCanada fees and the security tax, the flights were still a great deal. Air Canada matched most of the fares. Combined, my girlfriend and I bought a total of 5 one way flights for roughly $420.

Three of these were flights that we knew we needed to make in the next few months so we would have eventually bought tickets. Two legs were a flight that I was probably going to make, but hadn't completely committed to yet. The sale solidified my decision. Although, for that particular trip I booked on WestJet before I knew that Air Canada had matched the prices. Air Canada had flights at more convenient times, so I would have picked their flight had I done some more research.

The excitment of getting a pretty good deal aside, this raises some really interesting issues about the economics of the airline industry. Aircraft are complex, expensive machines. They are operated by skilled crews who are paid a relatively comfortable salary. Yet, with a sale like this, the actual cost of the airfare from Toronto to Halifax is less than the cab ride home from the airport!

This was just a one day sale. Fares that low are not sustainable as the former airline Jetsgo showed. But this does raise some interesting questions. What is a good price for airfare? Most customers will argue that airfare should be lower, yet, airlines in Canada go bankrupt on a regular basis. In fact, there's an article in the Globe & Mail's Report On Business on Air Transat and how it's amazing that an airline has survived for 20 years in Canada!

This issue is too complex to examine in a short blog post. In fact, airline executives with MBA's haven't managed to get it right over the past few decades. But, on the surface at least, the public's desire for low airfares generally conflicts with pilots' desires for a high income.

Flying For Free

2008-02-23T13:47:00.003-04:00

A recent Job Post by a Sky Diving Company on the AvCanada Message Boards has sparked quite a bit of online controversy. There have been a number of threads in response to this job post: Here , and Here , and Here , and Here.

The problem with this job ad is that the ad is not for a real job. The skydive company runs a skydive 'course' where it charges roughly $1000 to the dozen or so pilots who sign up. From there, the company will take only a few of the 'graduates' of this course and allow them to fly skydivers for the summer and not get paid for it.

There are a number of problems with this.

To begin with, I have talked to a couple different new pilots over the years who have signed up for this course under the promise that everyone who passes the course gets 'hired' on. However, unless things have changed, it sounds as if the reality of the situation is that very few of the pilots who complete the course actually get hired on. A couple of years ago, one friend of mine signed up for the course. The company knew in advance that he had only 200 hours, however, after the course had finished, they gave him an excuse that the couldn't 'hire' him because their minimum was 250 hours. Another pilot I talked to claims he was promised that everyone who takes the course gets hired, however, after he had paid for and attended the course, they said, thanks, but we have enough pilots and don't need your help - they were still more than happy to take his money for the course though.

At first blush this course and promise of flying can actually sound like a good deal for a new pilot who has just spent tens of thousands of dollars getting his or her licence.

The thinking goes - the promise of 200-300 hours over a summer for 'only' the cost of a $1000 course is a small price to pay compared to the cost of getting a licence. Besides, working for free or 'volunteering' to get these hours will give them experience and a leg up to get a real job.

While I completely understand the reasoning for this type of thinking, it is based on false logic. Although flight training is expensive, the primary purpose of the flight is so that you can learn to fly. At the Sky Dive company, the primary purpose of the flight is to fly skydivers and ultimately make money for the owner. This company is not a skydiving club or a not-for-profit organization (there are, for example, non profit gliding clubs where volunteering would be a slightly different endeavour). This company's purpose is to make money and they need pilots to fly the skydiving planes in order to make money, therefore, the pilot involved should be making money.

Hours in and of themselves are not a form of payment. While true that most entry level jobs are low paying and the primary purpose is to gain experience, you are a commercial pilot and providing your services so that the owner of the company can make money, you should therefore be paid. Skydiving companies are never going to be high paying jobs. In fact, there are a lot of places where pilots only get $1 of every jumper they fly whereas they get $2 for every parachute they roll up! While I think that this is still very low pay, at least it is pay.

As a new pilot, you may think that spending money on this type of course and getting this type of experience will help you in the long run. On an individual level it actually might help someone get ahead. However, there are a few things to think about before deciding to take a non-paying position. This operator, and others like it are known across the industry. This could potentially hinder you in a serach for a job later on. The second thing to consider is that it hurts the pilot profession as a whole. If no new pilots would take a course like this, the operator would be forced to actually pay the pilots that he employs.

Pilots will often take jobs where they don't get paid in order to get experience for jobs that do pay. But, the rub is that the operators that do pay their pilots have to compete with the companies that don't. This could ultimately lead to more unpaid positions.

DO NOT SIGN UP FOR THIS COURSE OR FLY FOR FREE (if it is for a for-profit company)

English Language Proficiency now Required for Pilots

2008-02-18T16:23:00.003-04:00

I received an e-mail from a flight school in Ontario that I used to rent from reminding students that English Language proficiency is now required for all pilots.

As an aside, the title of the e-mail was "Aviation Engilsih Language Proficiency requirement for Licensing‏" - Not knocking the sender, as I know that I don't have perfect grammar or spelling, but I just thought that it's a funny place for a spelling error. But I digress.

English is the International Language of Aviation. While this is not without some controversy, having a universal language that everyone talks on the radio in is vital for aviation safety. I don't know the exact history of how and why English is the Universal Language of aviation but I assume that it has to do with the fact that both the US and the UK were the initial leaders in aircraft development and they were the victorious parties in WWII. Regardless, pilots flying Internationally are required to speak English to air traffic control. It would be extremely difficult if every pilot had to learn multiple languages for every different country they flew to. As it is, it can be difficult for non-English speakers to learn English proficiently to fly to English speaking countries. Although, I've found that in general, non-English speakers in general are much better at knowing English than English speakers are at knowing other languages.

Here's a recording from an exchange between an Air China pilot and a ground controller at New York's JFK airport.

This is not to suggest that the pilot is not intelligent because he doesn't know English (besides, his English is far better than my command of any of the Chinese languages), but it shows that there could be very real potential safety concerns if pilots and air traffic control cannot communicate.

While initially the interaction of English speaking air traffic control and non-English speaking pilots was reserved for international airlines which theoretically would be able to control the language proficiency of their pilots, flight training itself is becoming more international. Canadian flight schools specifically market themselves toward international students where flight training is either less accessibly or prohibitively expensive. While this can be great business for Canadian Schools, it could increase the possibility that communication barriers could jeopardise aviation safety.

To address this, ICAO has implemented language proficiency guidelines. Transport Canada in complying with these guidelines has created a new language proficiency requirement in obtaining a pilot licence.

Here is a description by a Transport Canada employee that was posted on AvCanada. The full thread can be found HERE

The Facts regarding the Aviation Language Proficiency Test

As of March 5th, 2008, all licensed pilots in Canada (excluding permits, glider, gyroplane and ornithopter) will be required to meet a minimum language proficiency. Although this will be an ICAO requirement, every jurisdiction (country) has had the freedom to decide how their pilots will meet it. So -- this means that Canada and the USA (for example) will have different ways of assessing this proficiency. How language proficiency will be recognized when converting licenses from one country to another has not yet (that I am aware of) been decided.

The Aviation Language Proficiency Test (hereafter called ALPT) is a 20 question oral examination that is administered either over the phone or in person without the "Test Taker" and "Examiner" having direct visual contact (divider or back-to-back). It is not a test of aviation knowledge, but a test of the candidate's ability to understand and speak english in an aviation context. It can be taken prior to having any flight experience, prior to solo, etc. -- it just must be completed before the license is issued.

It has been decided that Pilot Examiners that test PPL candidates will be offered the opportunity to become ALPT Examiners. They will be required to attend a workshop put on by Transport Canada, and provide an example of 3 examinations (in person or recorded) in order to be delegated. Transport Canada Inspectors will NOT be conducting the examinations, just the initial and recurrent training for the Examiners.

The test can be administered in English or French, depending on the delegation of the examiner and the requirement of the candidate.

Although the ICAO standards has 6 levels of language proficiency, in order to simplify matters, Canada only recognizes 3 of them:

"Expert" - ICAO Level 6
"Operational" - ICAO Level 4
"Below Operational" - Less than ICAO Level 4

In Canada, you must have a minimum assessment of "Operational" (ICAO level 4) in order to hold a Canadian license.

They are scored on each of these 20 questions, and evaluated the following way:

-not more than 6 questions assessed at level 4 and no question assessed below level 4, they are awarded "Expert" ICAO level 6, and never have to take the test again.

-not more than 6 questions assessed at below level 4, they are awarded "Operational" ICAO level 4, and have to take the test again in 5 years.

-if they get more than 6 questions below level 4, they cannot hold an aviation license in Canada.

Regarding re-tests:
Re-tests may be done after a mandatory minimum waiting time, as defined by CARS 400.03 the same as the written examinations.

Regarding all current pilots:
Most (all?) current Canadian license holders have been assessed using their pilot file -- providing there was enough information (what language did they do their written exam in? Flight test? Last medical? Written correspondence?). Licenses issued after mid-November will have a language proficiency statement on them (example "Language Proficiency - English"). Transport Canada should be re-issuing all of the older, outstanding licenses to meet this requirement until the new "Passport Style" licenses are issued sometime later this year.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion.

-TC Guy

Photos From The Book

2008-02-15T10:22:00.009-04:00

A recent reader commented that while he found the book "very informative, pleasant, easy to read and very realistic" he was a little disappointed that the pictures weren't in colour.

I agree. The black and white pictures don't do some of them justice. But unfortunately printing pictures in colour would have been pretty cost prohibitive. Here are a few of the pictures from the book, specifically the ones that black and white just didn't do justice.

A 767 on approach - Photo by Adam Van Dusen

A Cessna C441 Conquest II in Rankin Inlet, NU - Photo by James Ball

A Pilatus PC-12 Flight Deck - Photo by Adam Van Dusen

A Canadian Forces CF-18 on the Ramp at YYZ - Photo by James Ball

A CMA Beech 1900 on the Ramp in YVR - Photo by Mike Stefanski

Sunset in a PC-12 - Photo by Adam Van Dusen

Wings Magazine

2008-02-11T23:17:00.000-04:00

I'm pleased to announce that this month's issue of Wings Magazine features a blurb about "So, You Want to be a Pilot, Eh?"

The book is mentioned on page 12 in the "On the Web" section of the book. I'm quite flattered as Wings is Canada's National Aviation Magazine. It's a great source of information about the industry. On top of the magazine, the website is very informative to keep you up to date on what's going on in the industry. Right now, there's even a free trial to sign up for an online digital version of the magazine. Regardless, a good ol'paper subscription is worth the $34.00 a year.

Although, I did have to laugh a bit. This month's issue came with an insert for luxury cars. Although at the higher levels of the industry this would be valuable, on a flight student's (or in my case - law student's) salary (read - debt) it will be a number of years away!

Seneca College Aviation

2008-02-10T20:03:00.000-04:00

In my book, So, You Want to be a Pilot, Eh? I outline the general pros and cons of doing your flight training through a traditional flight school as compared to an Aviation College or University program. What I don’t outline are the pros and cons of specific College and University Aviation Programs. The reason for this was two fold: first, there are a large number of different programs and outlining them in a book would take up a lot of space and second, the programs are often changing and the information in a book would be out of date before the book even hit the shelves. On this blog however, I will attempt to touch upon different attributes of some of the aviation programs at Canadian Colleges and Universities.

If you have a particular program that you would like information on, please send me an e-mail and I will attempt to find out information about that particular program. As well, I would very much appropriate any readers who have attended various College or University Aviation Programs to send me an e-mail and share your experiences about your particular college.

This entry will be about my Alma Mater – Seneca College.

Seneca College’s Aviation Program was the first Community College Aviation Program in Canada and the program has been around for almost 40 years. In 2003, after the Ontario Government permitted Colleges to grant degrees for certain programs, Seneca switched it’s 3 year Aviation and Flight Technology Diploma to a 4 year Bachelor’s of Applied Technology Degree. It is a subsidized program (so are Sault College and Confederation College), however, with the switch to a degree, the overall price has increased and although it is less expensive than most combined flight training and degree programs, it is more expensive than the other subsidized programs in Ontario.

Here are some things to consider:

Fleet: While it is debateable, in my opinion, Seneca has, by far, the best fleet of training aircraft in Canada. The fleet consists of 7 new Cessna 172s, at least one of which has a full screen Garmin moving map display, 5 F33A Beechcraft Bonanzas and 2 Beechcraft B58 Barons. There are also 4 sophisticated simulators - 1 each for the 172, Bonanza and Baron and a Level 5 Bombardier CRJ 200 Regional Jet Simulator. While I am not sure about the newer simulators, when I was there, students had unlimited free access to these simulators. Free access to these simulators not only allowed students to practice their IFR and emergency procedures as much as they wanted, 25 of these hours can be counted towards the ATPL.
Seneca's Fleet

The CRJ 200 Sim

Location: Seneca is the closest full college, subsidized program to Toronto. This can be a good thing and a bad thing for both student life and flight training.
Buttonville Airport - East of Hwy 404 and just North of Hwy 407

For Student Life, if a student is from the Toronto area, there is the potential to live at home and commute to school. This is what I did. While it made for not quite as fun a College experience, it definitely ended up being cheaper in the long run. However, for students from outside of Toronto or who don’t want to commute, living in or near Toronto can be quite expensive. As well, due to the location of Buttonville airport, it is necessary to have access to a car as public transit to the airport is almost non-existent.

For flight training, it can be very beneficial to get used to working in some of the busiest airspace in Canada. While it’s a lot to take in at first, getting comfortable dealing with lots of traffic, different radio frequencies and different types of air traffic can improve your multi-tasking skills. On the other hand, it can make for a more stressful initial learning experience. Sometimes dealing with lots of different traffic when you’re just starting out can be quite overwhelming. Training in areas with less traffic can allow you to focus on the basics without having to worry so much about busy airspace. Personally, I enjoyed flying in that area, but I know others who would have preferred flying in a less busy locale.

Program Academics: As mentioned, Seneca’s program is now a 4 year Applied Degree. It includes a Co-op requirement and students are also required to maintain a minimum C+ in each course in order to continue on. Unlike when I went through the program, there is no longer a ‘cut’ after the first year where a certain amount of students are required to withdraw if they were not in the top 37.

I am a strong proponent of having a degree. However, one thing to keep in mind with Seneca’s Degree is that because it is an Applied Degree, it may not be afforded the same respect as a traditional Bachelor’s Degree from a University. If someone decided that they wanted to continue on in their education and complete a Master’s Degree or a professional degree such as Teacher’s College or Law School, depending on the school they’re applying to, they may or may not be accepted. I’ve been hearing stories that while some Universities gladly accept an Applied Degree as equivalent to Degrees from a University, other Universities refuse to accept these degrees.

I have mixed views about the Co-op program. While getting experience in the industry is always beneficial, from what I’ve been hearing from current students, the program itself is not quite as well structured as one would hope and for the most part, students have to find the employment themselves. There have been a range of positions, many of which are simply working the ramp with local airlines. This can be good in the fact that you gain experience and connections, but in the context of flight program, it might be more beneficial to get the flying done first so you can get into the industry quicker.

However, having students work prior to graduating may help to decrease the assumption of the Seneca ‘attitude’ –more on that shortly.

Program Expenses and Time: Tuition expenses work out to roughly $10,000 a year. Tuition per semester is roughly $3500 and you also spend a summer semester flying. While $40,000 for a 4 year Degree is not cheap, compared to the regular cost of flight training or a degree program, this is a real bargain. However, when you compare this to the other two subsidized Ontario Colleges – Confederation and Sault College, their total costs are significantly lower due to the fact that they are still Diploma programs and the actual length of the program is shorter.

4 Years is can be a long time to do all your flight training. I felt that a 3 year program was still a little too long, adding on an extra year is another year that you could be flying and getting experience in the industry. There are many pilots who feel that the best thing to do is get your training done as quick as possible so you can be out in the industry getting experience. If someone rushed through their training in a year or two, then worked the ramp for 6 months to a year, they could still have 2000 hours in the same time it took to complete a 4 year degree.

I think having a degree, other education and a College experience are all very important things, but for someone who wants to get flying as quick as possible, Seneca is probably not the best choice.

Jobs: Overall, Seneca has a very good reputation in the industry in Canada. It is a well established, comprehensive program that airlines respect. Having a Seneca Degree will bode well for when you have enough experience to be applying to Airline jobs such as Air Canada. That being said, many of the other established Aviation Diploma programs in Canada are afforded that same respect. As well, having a Bachelor Degree in another discipline can also be valuable.

At the lower levels of the industry, a Seneca Degree will not necessarily help you get a job. In fact, there are a number of ‘bush’ types who feel that Seneca graduates are all ‘city kids’ who don’t know how to do a solid day’s work. Some graduates with an attitude have tainted the reputation. While I will be the first to admit that I have met a few grads who think that they are God’s gift to aviation, I’ve also met numerous other pilots (not from Seneca) who have that same attitude. The vast majority of my classmates and other Seneca grads I’ve met have been awesome folks. If you do graduate from Seneca, just be aware that you may need to go that extra step to prove that you’re not a jerk and you can put in a good day’s work.

The fact that Seneca’s program has been around for so long means that it has a lot of alumni working at many different airlines across Canada and the World. Having this type of networking possibilities can be very beneficial.

Finally, Air Canada Jazz tried a pilot program last year where top grads from Seneca and a number of other colleges were interviewed and successful candidates were offered spots in ground schools for potential First Officer positions. This program is not without controversy and it remains to be seen if it will be successful.

Conclusion: I enjoyed my time at Seneca and they really do have a great program. The fleet is great! In fact, you likely won’t fly on such nice and well maintained planes for a number of years when you actually start working! For students that want a degree, want to live near Toronto and want to get first rate flight training, Seneca is a great choice!

When Flight Schools Go Bankrupt

2008-02-09T22:46:00.001-04:00

A large helicopter flight training school in the US, Silver State Helicopters recently ceased operations. Here's an article from the latest AvWeb News Flash

Students Left Hanging By Silver State Closure

Shocked by the downfall of Silver State Helicopters, the Nevada-based flight school that declared bankruptcy earlier this week, former students and employees are telling AVweb they face major financial losses. Silver State Helicopters abruptly shut down operations at its 34 nationwide locations on Sunday afternoon, leaving more than 800 employees without jobs and more than 2,500 flight students saddled with millions in debt.

Company president and founder Jerry Airola has yet to speak publicly on the event, but a statement released by the company alleges that “a rapid, unprecedented downturn in the U.S. credit markets” curtailed the availability of student loans for the company’s students and resulted in a “sharp and sudden downturn in new student enrolment.”

Tony and Heather Sullivan told AVweb they were at a Super Bowl party when they got the news. Heather was employed as a receptionist and flight dispatcher at Silver State’s Houston facility, where her husband was a student. To date Tony has logged just 81 of the 200 hours he signed up to receive, and said he does not know how he is going to complete his training. Tony, who works full time as a human resources manager for a construction company, said he has an outstanding loan through American Education Services (AES) for approximately $70,000, the cost of the 18-month program designed to get students through their private, commercial, instrument and initial flight instructor certificates.

Mike Reiber, spokesperson for AES, told AVweb that AES is one of several companies that originated and serviced loans made to Silver State students. “Effective this past Monday we are no longer dispersing money to Silver State Helicopters,” he said. “Any disbursements that were sent out are being returned.” Reiber said that AES is awaiting direction from Student Loan Xpress, the guarantor of the loans. Student Loan Xpress spokeswoman Jenn Stark said Silver State should pay unused tuition back. “As a result of Silver State Helicopter School's decision to file for bankruptcy protection, we are currently working with its students to ensure that their loans are managed properly until the bankruptcy court decides upon a course of action to assist them." she wrote in an email to AVweb. She said affected students can contact Student Loan Xpress for information, at 888-568-2429, between the hours of 8 a.m.-5 p.m. EST.

Silver State Helicopters is a member of the Helicopter Association International (HAI). In an undated membership profile on HAI’s website, Silver State lists a fleet of 195 helicopters including 138 two-place Robinson R22s and 43 four-place R44s. HAI president Matthew Zuccaro told AVweb that the loss of such a large flight school will be felt throughout the industry. “It’s certainly of concern to us,” he said. Jerry Airola founded Silver State Helicopters in 1999 and quickly became known throughout the industry for using aggressive sales tactics to recruit students to the program.

One of the biggest problems is that many students had paid in advance for the courses. Therefore, not only do they now not have the cash, but if they want to complete their training, they'll have to invest extra as even if they do eventually obtain some of their loans back, it will likely be a fair amount of time before this occurs.

It is generally a bad idea to pay in advance for your flight training. Sometimes it's unavoidable due to the nature of the program - e.g. a college program, but you should be wary of what you invest.

This type of thing has happened in Canada. In 2001, Advanced Flight Training Centre in Barrie, Ont went out of business. At the time, the provided flight training for any students who wished to pursue the flight option in conjunction with Georgian College's Aviation Management Program (Georgian since has a new flight training provider). Numerous students lost thousands of dollars each. In fact, the operator of the flight school was charged with 22 counts of fraud and 22 counts of theft. Recently however,the charges were stayed (meaning that she would no longer be prosecuted) because of the delay in having the matter come to trial.

Be careful where you invest your hard earned training dollars.

Jetstream

2008-01-27T00:45:00.000-04:00

The Discovery Channel in Canada has an interesting show that's running in January and February with episodes first airing on Tuesdays at 10 pm EST with repeats throughout the week. The show is entitled Jetstream and it is about Air Force pilots training on the CF-18.

Overall the show seems really well put together. There's some good special effects, great scenery and they show some pretty good detail about the type of training that's required for military pilots to make the transition from the Hawk jet trainer to the CF-18 Hornet. It's Intense!

I have a couple minor complaints in that they try and "Top Gun" things up to make the show a little more suspenseful, but overall, I highly recommend it for anyone interested in flying, especially in a career with the Armed Forces.

Gimli Glider Retired

2008-01-26T21:08:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, Air Canada retired a Boeing 767-200 with the registration C-GAUN and the tail number 604. This wasn't any old 767, this was the famed Gimli Glider which ran out of fuel and managed to land safely in Gimli, Manitoba after gliding from 40,000 feet.

Here's a video of the 767 doing a flyby at Montreal's Trudeau airport before heading south to the Mojave desert.

This is an article from CBC News

Pilots, crew reboard 'Gimli Glider' for final flight
Last Updated: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | 2:09 PM CT
CBC News

The two pilots and several crew members who safely landed the legendary "Gimli Glider" are boarding the plane again Thursday as it makes what could be its final flight.

Pilot Robert Pearson and his first officer Maurice Quintal will board the Air Canada Boeing 767 in Montreal to oversee Thursday's flight, which will carry it to its new home at California's Mojave Airport.

An Air Canada Boeing 767, nicknamed the Gimli Glider, dwarfs race cars using the Gimli, Man. abandoned airstip as a race track in this July 24, 1983 file photo.
(The Canadian Press/Winnipeg Free Press/Wayne Glowacki)

"Four groups … have shown some interest in acquiring the airplane, either for flying test beds for engines or for museum purposes, so it may not stay there too long," Pearson said.

"Hopefully somebody will find a use for it."

Three of the six flight attendants who were on Flight 143 will also be on board Thursday.

In July 1983, Flight 143 was on its way to Edmonton from Montreal when it ran out of fuel 12 kilometres above the Ontario-Manitoba border.

The 120-tonne plane, worth $40 million, became a glider, dropping over 600 metres per minute with no hope of reaching Winnipeg.

Pearson and Quintal managed to glide the plane, which had 61 passengers and eight crew members on board, 200 kilometres and then land it at an abandoned military airstrip in Gimli, Man., located north of the Manitoba capital on the shores of Lake Winnipeg.

The day of the accident, the Winnipeg Sports Car Club was holding a "Family Day" at the old Gimli base, so it was filled with families and campers and the runway was being used as a race track. Spectators and racers had to scatter as the giant plane touched down, then put out a fire in the nose with hand-held fire extinguishers.

None of the passengers was hurt during the landing, although some sustained minor injuries while using the plane's rear emergency slide.

After the landing, Pearson and Quintal were praised for their quick thinking. Pearson was an experienced glider pilot, while Quintal had once been stationed at the Royal Canadian Air Force base at Gimli and was familiar with the landing strips.

Later investigation revealed the plane was only carrying half the amount of fuel it required for the journey because of a metric conversion error that was made on the ground.

Months after the crash, Air Canada disciplined the two pilots for allowing the near-tragedy to happen. Pearson was demoted for six months, while Quintal was suspended for two weeks. Three ground workers were also suspended.

A 1985 Transport Canada report blamed the incident on errors and insufficient training and safety procedures.

Air Canada is organizing and paying for Thursday's reunion, but it won't comment on it.

Pearson said he doesn't think any airline likes publicity about accidents, even if they narrowly avert tragedy.

The Cost of a Medical

2008-01-10T18:50:00.000-04:00

Commercial Pilots in Canada have to undergo a medical examination once a year (twice if they're over 40) as well as a number of other tests including an ECG and hearing tests at different intervals.

The Class 1 medical is required to fly commercially in Canada. However, it reverts back to a Class 3 medical if you don't renew it within the 12 months. A person holding a Class 3 medical can exercise the privileges of a Private Pilot, but cannot fly commercially. Because I've been in school I haven't kept up my Class 1 medical, however, I recently decided to renew it.

This is a post I posted on AvCanada recently:

Living in a new city without flight benefits, I went searching for a new Medical Examiner so I could renew my medical.

I lucked out and found one at the medical building that's just a couple blocks away. Sweet! I'll be able to walk there. I booked an appointment and after getting everything sorted out the receptionist reminded me that if I missed the appointment I'd get charged $50 the next time for a missed appointment (Seinfeld anyone?) I quickly asked at the end of the phone conversation how much the medical would cost. "$150" was the reply and then she politely, but quickly, hung up on me as she switched to answer another call on her busy swtich board.

$150! It had been a few years since I had my last medical. Wow, I thought. Prices must have gone up quite a bit. But something wasn't sitting right. The most I had ever paid was $120 or so and that was in Expensive Toronto and with a doctor whom I had been going to for all my medicals. I also searched AvCanada and found inferences of people paying far less.

Back to the CAME database on TC's website. I found another doctor relatively nearby and gave them a call.

"How much for an aviation medical?" I asked.
"$75" was the reply.

I was surprised at the difference.

Having a doctor that you trust and can help keep you flying is an asset. However, having one doctor charge twice as much for a medical than another is pretty crazy if you ask me. While cheaper isn't necessarily better, that's a pretty big difference in price.

So, how much did you pay for your last medical?

The post was accompanied with a poll on what other pilots had paid for their medical. The results as of this blog post were:

The price can vary quite drastically. While I don't suggest that someone should go to a doctor simply because they are the cheapest around, it pays to look around a little bit. Also be sure to ask other pilots about which doctors they've been to and what their experience has been.

Back in the Day: Part IV

2007-12-30T12:23:00.001-04:00

This was the fourth mass e-mail that I sent out. I had spent the summer flying medevacs and it was just a couple of weeks before my stomach started giving me troubles. Although I worked a lot that summer, it was a great summer. I got to go to Switzerland in June and was able to enjoy lots of outdoor activities in Thompson.

Yesterday, August 23rd, marks two anniversaries. Meaningless and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, however, it is still an interesting thing for me to stop and notice. It is my 2 year anniversary working at Skyward and my 9 month anniversary of flying for them.

If at the end of high school, someone were to say to you me that I'd be living over 2 years (right now with the way the industry is going it looks like it'll be probably around 4 or 5 total) of my life in a small town in Northern Manitoba, I would have thought they were crazy. WHY would anybody want to live there? However, here I am. I as of yet do not own a pick-up truck, a rifle, a snowmobile jacket and I won't ever grow a mullet. I have discovered a taste for country music, developed my 'Manitoba' accent and while I like to joke that I have lost my ability to successfully use words longer than 4 syllables in most sentences, I have found a new appreciation for a way of life that is different than the general hustle and bustle of Toronto.

Last week, Sara, a new flight nurse and also a pilot moved to Thompson from southern Ontario. It's been really great talking to her as I remember all the same reactions that I first had when I got up here. "I can't believe the amount of unsupervised children running around everywhere", "I've already decided to stop playing fashion police up here". It's humourous, but a little sad at the same time. I've been super lucky that I've been able to keep in touch with most people via e-mail and MSN and have been able to get home a lot. As long as you're not stuck there for months on end, Thompson can be a nice little town.

The INCO mine with the City of Thompson in the background

The flying has been going really well. Time has flown by since I started (sorry for the bad pun) as I'm finally doing what I came up here to do. My record of longest time working on the ramp has been broken and there will be guys who will have to do 2full winters loading cargo. I am one of the lucky ones.

Medevacs themselves are very interesting. Not something I'd ever thought I'd be doing. Today we had two trips to two different reserves, both to pick up guys who had had the crap beaten out of them. There are usually more fights right around the 20th and the 1st of the month because that's when the family allowance and welfare cheques come out. More money in town, means more sneaked in booze, meaning more business for Medevacs.

A few weeks ago we had a Medevac from Pukatawagan to The Pas. It was a psych patient so we took along an RCMP officer in case the patient refused to go, that way he could be arrested under the mental health act. This patient actually behaved really well, even said “Please” and "Thank you" when talking to the nurse and RCMP officer. On the way to The Pas, the officer asked if after we dropped off the patient, we'd be able to go visit the jail, as it was their brother in-law's first day. “Sure!” we replied, “is he a guard?” 'No' the officer responded, he's in jail and it's his first day. We weren't quite sure what to say to that, but they still ended up having a nice visit, after which the guards gave us a great tour of the place. I had never actually seen the inside of a jail before. It wasn't too bad, but not a place I'd like to spend any time.

Pukatawagan

The Pas

A couple days later, my roommates, Geoff (a Captain) and Paul (a nurse) and I had a midnight Medevac to Shamattawa. It was an overcast night, there were no moon or stars, and it was very dark. Shamattawa is very isolated, a few hundred miles south of Churchill. In October of 2001,on a very similar night, a Perimeter airlines Medevac plane crashed after doing an over shoot on the runway in the 'black hole' conditions killing both pilots and seriously injuring the flight nurse. We made note of this in the pre-landing briefing. As we got closer to the field and switched the runway lights on, we noticed that the front third and last third of the runway lights were working, but the middle lights were all burnt out. We could still see the outline of the runway clearly and decided it was safe to continue on with the approach. The approach was smooth, the winds were quite light so I didn't have a very strong cross wind to fight. Right in the flare, our landing lights revealed why the middle runway lights were out. Some kids had vandalized the runway, smashed the lights and left them and the pylons that hold them right in the center of the runway! Right where I was going to land. We still had enough speed so we were able to hop around them and then come to a stop with a fair amount of room left on the runway. But still, that's not something you are expecting to have to deal with when landing a plane. And really, if you live in an isolated community where airplanes are the only way or in out, do you think vandalizing the runway and possibly causing an accident is a smart idea? Geez, there really are some dumb people in this world, plus I’m willing to bet at some point one of them will have to be Medevac’d out making use of the same runway they vandalized.

Last weekend I had the most exciting Medevac of my career so far. It was already a busy night in at the Thompson hospital as a little girl and her mother were hit by a car while crossing the road. The driver was blinded by the sun and didn't see them until it was too late. Originally, Life Flight, the gov't of Manitoba's jet was supposed to take the little girl, and we were to take the mother. Sadly, the little girl ended up dying from her injuries, so they decided to keep the mother in Thompson for a little while longer. We ended up getting the patient from hell.

This guy, (only 20 years old) was easily about 6'4" 280 lbs and had just got out of prison a week before (not the same one I visited). I guess he tried to go settle some old debts after having lots to drink, but ended up getting the crap kicked out of him. He was found unconscious by the side of the highway. By the time we loaded him on to the plane he still reeked of alcohol even though it had been almost 20 hours since he had been drinking. He was barely conscious, but just to be sure his wrists and ankles had Velcro cuffs on them. He was difficult to get through the door cause he was so tall and quite heavy, however, since he barely had his eyes open we didn't figure he would be much of a problem. We got a quick glimpse of things to come when just before we took off, he bolted himself up to an upright sitting position and started screaming. The nurse settled him down, told him that we were just going to a hospital in Winnipeg and that he should just try and sleep for the trip. The doctor we took along with us didn't even wake up for it (probably because he was narcoleptic). The patient laid back down, and we blasted off for Winnipeg.

After we were about half way there (An hour and a half flight), the patient sat up and started screaming again, he was harder to calm down, the nurse managed to, but only for about ten minutes until this guy started screaming again. We woke up the doctor who went to go help the nurse hold down the patient. The doctor held him down by the C-collar on his neck, but the patient was so strong that he sat up really quickly and broke it. The doctor then held the patient down by his shoulders.. He was screaming and swearing more, and then he started spitting. This was made even more unpleasant when added to the fact that he had lots of cuts in his mouth so his spit was bloody. He managed to hit the doctor with some. The Doctor, a big man and ex Olympic class Judo competitor didn't appreciate being spit on. He then took a blanket and covered the patient's mouth to keep the spit from going everywhere. This may sound harsh, but when you consider the potential for serious communicable disease, I felt the actions were justified. Even still, after everything was done the ceiling of the plane was covered with bloody spit. The doctor didn't want to give him a sedative because we didn't know if he had brain damage or not. About 20 minutes before landing, the nurse said he was having real trouble with the patient trying to get out of his restraints, and unloading him was going to be next to impossible. We called ahead to Winnipeg and asked them to call the police to meet us after landing.

When we arrived, The airport police were waiting for us. We asked if they had any restraints to help unload the patient, but they said they didn't. I asked the maintenance guys that showed up to watch if they had any cargo straps, they said they did and we went to grab them. When the police were told about the spitting patient, they offered to get us a 'spit sock' for him. This is a mesh bag that you put over his face and when he spits, it doesn't go through. It took a bit of time, but once we had the patient herc strapped down, a spit sock on him, 2 pilots, a doctor, a nurse, 4 police officers, 2 paramedics and a bunch of mechanics, we were able to unload the guy. We had breakfast in Winnipeg, flew home, then went to bed, exhausted.

I'm sure I'll have more stories like these as time goes by.

Back In The Saddle

2007-12-22T23:07:00.002-04:00

As some of you may know, I'm not flying commercially at the moment. I had some minor health problems which made flying a whole lot less fun. So, I decided to head back to school a couple of years ago and I'm currently in my second year of law school. If someone decides that a career as a pilot is something that they want to do, I think that it's very important to think about what they'd so if they lost their medical. Having a back up plan in place is key. While I didn't lose my medical, I figured that going back to school was a good idea.

While I love being back at school, it unfortunately isn't exactly a high paying position. Worse still, while I love Halifax, they don't have a flight school really close by. That combined with the fact that there's a lot of work involved with law school (who would have thought?), it had now been 2 years and 4 months since I'd been flying.

It had been too long and I've been getting the flying itch bad.

I booked a check out at the nearest flying school which is unfortunately an hour and twenty minutes away. The staff at Greenwood Flight Centre were great. Getting back up in the air was really great as well, however, it was a humbling experience. I was rusty. But I managed to bring the plane back in one piece and the instructor didn't seem to scared - I have to say though, I thought it was a tad unprofessional when he jumped out and kissed the ground before I had even shut off the engine (kidding).

Air Cargo

2007-12-21T12:57:00.000-04:00

I just finished writing a paper on Air Cargo Security and as a result I've been doing a lot of research on the topic. Although I didn't include this in the paper, I remember a story that was told to me by an employee at Air Canada Cargo a number of years ago.

They received a call from a well to do woman who was wondering if they would be able to ship her sailboat's sail from Toronto to Florida. Altough the sail would be rolled up, it was still quite long. The cargo employees checked out the specs for the different planes, at the time, the largest that Air Canada flew to Florida was the 767. They tried different angles, but this sail just wasn't going to fit in the cargo hold.

The cargo employees called her back to tell her the bad news. They couldn't take the sail. Now this wasn't quite good enough for this woman, she paused for a moment and then with an air of authority asked "Well, why can't you just use a roof rack?"

Now in her defence, I suppose it makes sense from her point of view, they use a roof rack for the space shuttle, why not for cargo?

Calendar Controversy

2007-12-17T12:19:00.000-04:00

Just a quick follow up to the previous post.

Spain Complains About Ryan Air Calendar

Dec. 12, 2007, 11:18AM
Spain Complains About Ryanair Calendar
© 2007 The Associated Press

MADRID, Spain — Spain's government-run Women's Institute has labeled a 2008 calendar for low-cost airline Ryanair featuring bikini-wearing air hostesses as sexist and said it would be sending letters of complaint to Irish and EU authorities.

The institute, which defends women's rights, said that while the fact that the proceeds from calendar sales would go to charity was positive, the photographs "represent the stewardesses as sexual objects" and "reinforce discriminatory stereotypes."

"It is significant that that only women are used, in a sector in which there is a considerable percentage of men," the institute, which is part of the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, said in a statement.

The calendars show the hostesses _ one for each month _ posing in bikinis on or outside airplanes. They are sold on Ryanair flights and on the Internet for 7 euros ($10.27). Proceeds go to the Irish disabled children's charity Angels Quest.

"We're not talking about morals or nudity here, it's simply how women are portrayed," institute spokeswoman Maria Jesus Ortiz said. "If there had been men in the calendar, I'm sure there would have been no controversy."

The Spanish union of consumers FACUA raised the issue Tuesday.

Ortiz said the institute would send a letter of complaint to the Irish Embassy in Spain and to the European Union's gender equality group. Ortiz added that the institute was seeking legal advice on what further action it might be able to take.

Ryanair had defended the calendar, saying the hostesses had posed voluntarily and that it was for a good cause.

Bring on the Sexy Stews? Ya Baby? - Huh?

2007-12-15T06:54:00.000-04:00

Some of you may have seen an article a few weeks ago about Ryan Air Flight Attendants putting out a calendar to raise money for charity. The flight attendants are all scantily clad in aircraft related pictures.

Here’s Ms. October, Joanna from Dublin ensuring that the 737 is nicely polished.

(As an aside, how long do you think it would take to clean a 737 with just a soapy sponge?)

Now, as much as I like having a clean plane, these pictures have sparked a bit of controversy about the role of flight attendants, and more generally, women in aviation.

Traditionally, jobs in aviation were gendered. The men were the pilots and the women were the flight attendants and that’s just how things were, cause that's they way they've always been, sonny! Initially, flight attendants were nurses put on aircraft to ease the public’s fear of flying. It’s unfortunate to note that Ellen Church RN, actually approached Boeing Air Transport to be a pilot, but they wouldn’t let her and instead she became the World’s First Flight Attendant. If nurses fly, flying must be safe, Right?

Whether this was a ploy by airlines or an honest belief that having nurses to care for passengers in the hostile world of flying can be debated.

The role of flight attendant continued to evolve, but not necessarily for the better. In the 1960s and 1970s, in the U.S. and most of the world, the airline industry was regulated. This meant that airlines were told which routes they could fly and what price they could charge. Therefore, on the busy route where there was ‘competition’, airlines had to charge the same price as each other and had to find different ways to distinguish themselves from their competitors. Suddenly, flight attendant uniforms became a lot more revealing. “Come fly with us, our flight attendants are sexier!”

Today, the uniforms have generally grown to reflect a more conservative professional image. In fact, here are the Ryan Air Calendar flight attendants in their work uniform.

Except possibly for Hooters Air. They’ve since ceased operating however, apparently their revenues were sagging.

Around the same time as deregulation, there began a slow change in the segregation of men and women in the business. Women were becoming pilots and men were becoming flight attendants. Airlines have realised the important role that flight attendants play in airline safety. Although they are responsible for front line customer service, their presence and professionalism has saved numerous lives in aircraft accidents, such as Air France flight 358 in Toronto where the crew got the passengers out of the plane in just a few brief minutes.

This recognition has not been without a struggle. Passengers can be extremely rude to crew members and often offer little respect. They are still sometimes simply looked upon as wait staff in the sky. So, is this calendar a step in the wrong direction? Will this discourage young girls from wanting to have a career in aviation? Will this slow the already too slow trend of more and more women becoming pilots? Or, is it just a silly calendar for charity?

I have mixed feelings about it. I’d like to think that I’m relatively progressive and open minded and some fun pictures for charity will not diminish the public’s perception of flight attendants and women in general. I’d like to think that there can be an appreciation of femininity without ignoring professionalism. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking?

Personally however, while I don’t think the Ryan Air Flight Attendants are unattractive, I find the following pictures far more appealing. It’s happening a little slower than I’d like, but I’m glad to see that more and more women are becoming pilots. More on that in a future post dealing with much more important issues than uniform styles.

A Few Corrections

2007-12-03T16:46:00.000-04:00

I'm hoping I won't have to make too many posts like this, but in the Aviation Industry, things are always changing and there's always more to learn. Until a few years ago the A.I.P. was in loose-leaf paper form and every few months you'd get sent amendments to change. My book is not in loose leaf form, so corrections will have to be made on this site.

In the book in discussing the vision requirements for the medical, I mention that "the refractive error must fall within +/- 3.0 diopters." Although I do mention that you can often work with your doctor and Transport Canada to have particular conditions waived, it should be noted that this is possible for this situation. One reader mentions that they're on a waiver as their vision is well outside this limit (3.75 & 4.5).

In the section on Air Canada Jazz I mention that they are a wholly owned subsidary of Air Canada. This is no longer the case. ACE - Air Canada's parent company owns 20.1% of Jazz. The rest is owned by shareholders in the Jazz Air Income Fund.

In the section on Sunwing Airlines, I mention that Sunwing owns 3 737-800s. As of today, Sunwing has 5 737s listed on the Transport Canada Canadian Civil Aircraft Register.

Back in the Day: Part III

2007-12-01T12:57:00.000-04:00

This is the third e-mail that I sent out after starting on the Conquest. It would have been sent out roughly the middle of January 2003:

Being the newest pilot at Skyward, and the lowest seniority F/O (First Officer) on the Conquest, I got stuck being on call for both Christmas and New Year's. However, seeing as I waited for so long to fly, this really didn't bother me.

At first, with the way the scheduling of nurses and planes was going to work out, it looked like I was going to get Christmas day off, then fly a lot for the few days after that. However, everything always changes and at 7:30 pm on Christmas Eve I got a page saying that I was going to have a flight from Thompson to Winnipeg Christmas morning at 6 am and I was to be at the airport at 5:45am. I don't think I've ever gotten up that early on Christmas morning!

We got to the airport and started getting our plane ready, a short while later the nurse showed up with the patient, it was a little girl who had broken her arm and her mother. They were going down to Winnipeg for a specialists appointment. The girl had set up a slide on the edge of her coffee table, then ran and jumped on it, but unfortunately it fell off and she broke her arm. Both the little girl and the mother were apprehensive about flying, so the nurse told them that Captain Steve had been flying for over ten years. Thankfully she left out that First Officer James had been on the job for just over a month! So when I went in to bring the passengers out, the little girl asked (in a really cute voice) "Are you Captain Steve?", "no, I'm James, the co-pilot" I replied. "Oh" she said, sounding really disappointed. "But," I added, "Captain Steve's in the plane right now getting it ready, you'll get to see him really soon." She was happy to hear that. Not the first time a girl had wished I was someone else! :p

The flight to Winnipeg was nice, the radio's were quieter than usual as most airlines had cancelled some flights on Christmas day. All the Air traffic controllers would wish you a Merry Christmas when you changed frequencies and the weather was pleasant as well. We arrived just as the sun was coming up and got a great view of the city, we could just imagine how much wrapping paper was being ripped open at that very minute.

When they had arrived at the airport in Thompson, the mother had brought a big garbage bag full of presents to take down to Winnipeg. They waited in the office for a few minutes while the plane warmed up. Unfortunately she didn't tell either the nurse or myself about it when we got in the plane and the presents got left in Thompson. We didn't discover this until we hadlanded in Winnipeg. I felt pretty bad, although we made sure they made it to Winnipeg the next day, and the girl had already received a few presents, so she was still pretty happy.

Cities on Christmas morning are always nice as they're always deserted. There were very few cars on the road, but it also meant that all the restaurants were closed, we could only find a Robin's Donuts, so we had breakfast there, and when we came back to Winnipeg that afternoon, we had lunch there as well.

I flew on Boxing Day as well. We went to Cross Lake and back twice. We took lots of pictures the first time. The second time we went it was at night and we got an incredible display of the Northern Lights. It was easily the best I have seen before, and Steve who has been flying in the North for almost ten years said it was probably the best he had seen before. I tried taking a picture, but it just didn't do them justice.

I did a few more trips that week. We had a couple of days with pretty bad weather, and flying in them was tricky, but a great learning experience.

On January 5th I went to Rankin Inlet for the second time. I took the scheduled flight up, it was in a Cessna Caravan which is a great plane, but really slow, it was long trip up.

The next day we got a Sanikiluaq - Winnipeg trip. Sanikiluaq is located on the Belcher Islands which are in the southern part of Hudson Bay right near Quebec. Everybody on the radio was speaking french. It's well known for it's carvings of either bone or green rock (not sure what type) so we called ahead and asked the airport radio operator to call some carvers for us. As we landed, the weather started to deteriorate, so I think the carvers decided to just stay home cause no one came out. Oh well. I ended up buying a carving back in Rankin Inlet.

We got back to Rankin late that evening, and didn't end up flying again for 3 days. We had gone out to go take some pictures of the town when we got called on the radio phone that we had a trip to Yellowknife. This was odd, cause we usually don't take patients to Yellowknife from Rankin we take them to Winnipeg, even though Yellowknife is closer. This patient was a psych patient and the mental health center in Winnipeg was full (hmmm, what does that say about Manitobans ? :) so we took him to Yellowknife. The company doesn't fly there very much so it was really interesting to go there. With going to the Northwest Territories, I only have to go to the Yukon and Newfoundland then I have been to all the provinces and territories.

We had dinner at a nice hotel and was surprised to see lots of Japanese tourists. I thought Yellowknife in January was a strange vacation destination. However, it's apparently a fairly popular honeymoon location as the Japanese believe that the Northern Lights are a sign of good luck, and if you conceive a child on a night that the are out, it will bring the child prosperity and luck. (*Note: I have since found out that that is untrue, however, there still were a lot of Japanese tourists) It's for this reason that some hotels in Churchill and Yellowknife have hotel rooms with glass dome ceilings!

When we got back to Rankin there was a full fledged blizzard going on. When a Blizzard hits up there, not a lot of snow falls if any, in fact it's actually considered a desert up in the Arctic. What happens is the winds pick up til they are about 40 mph (70 km or so) and starts blowing all the snow on the ground. You can fly over the airport, look down and see it fine, but once you get quite low the visibility drops. The approach was crazy, the visibility was really low, we saw the runway lights right at minimums and the captain (Jeff) managed a great landing in really strong cross winds.

The blizzard stuck around for a few more days so we ended up staying in Rankin a day longer than normal. We need 1/2 mile visibility to take off and it was 1/8 th of a mile for most of the time. We were on hold for a Rankin Winnipeg trip by this time. So when the weather improved we were to go to leave for Winnipeg. And wouldn't you know, the weather improved, not at a sensible hour say around lunchtime, but at 3 in the morning! So we got a call to pack up all our stuff as quick as possible and hurry to the airport.Within 45 minutes, we were on our way to Winnipeg. We ended up back home in Thompson by about 3 in the afternoon, where I went home and went right to sleep!

I now have about 120 hours on the airplane and have learned an incredible amount of information. I still have lots to learn though. While my regular landings have improved greatly, my cross wind landings aren't very good "Sonny, did we land or were we shot down?" No, that wasn't actually said to me. But I like the challenge of always learning new things and it's satisfying to succeed at things that I've been working on.

The Airline Transport Licence - ATPL

2007-11-28T14:05:00.000-04:00

I received a comment from reader who will be starting their flight training shortly. Overall the comments about the book were very positive although they had a question about the ATPL:

The only subject that I still have some questions about is the ATPL, in your book you described in detail every license except that one... I've heard there's no actual in-flight exam to obtain the ATPL but how does a pilot end up obtaining it? Lets say i get a CPL and a job... will the airline finance the ATPL and make sure i pass the exam or once I work up the hours I go to another FTU and pass the ground school + written exam...
That what my only question.

When writing the book, I thought about putting the information regarding the ATPL into a section but instead just briefly mentioned it. At the time I figured that this would be information that student pilots wouldn't need to know for a number years and they'd pick up the information as they progressed through the industry. In retrospect, I should have included a section on it. Although it is true that as a student pilot you don't really need to know about the requirements for at least a couple of years after you've been flying, it's always a good idea to know what you're getting yourself into.

THE ATPL
The ATPL is a different type of licence than most of the other licences. You're required to have it to act as PIC of a two crew aircraft. You can act as a co-pilot of a two crew aircraft if you have the ATPL, have passed the written exams but not met the hour requirements, or if you have a CPL and have passed the IATRA. Another test.

As you mentioned, there is no actual flight test. What is required is that you have to be over 21 years of age, have passed the two written exams within the past 2 years, and have passed a Group 1 (multi-engine) instrument rating within the past year upon meeting the hour requirements and passing the written exams. This can also be done in a Aircraft check ride or type rating flight test which usually will renew a Multi - IFR.

The magic number is 1500 hours. But keep in mind that towards this licence, you can only count half of your co-pilot time. So if you've got 600 hours as a co-pilot, you can only count 300 of those hours towards your licence.

Other hour requirements include:
-900 of those hours must be in an airplane
-250 hours PIC
-100 hours PIC cross-country
-25 hours PIC night, cross-country
-100 hours of night flying
-75 hours instrument time (max 25 in a sim)

When you have approximately half the time required for the licence, you're allowed to write the two written exams:

-The SAMRA which tests Meteorolgy, Radio Aids to Navigation and Flight Planning and,

-The SARON which tests Air Law, Operations and General Navigation

Each of the exams are 3.5 hours long, mulitple choice and you require greater than 70% to pass and are valid for 2 years (i.e. if you don't get meet the hour requirements within two years after writing these exams, you ahve to take them over).

You also have to have your Instrument rating exam passed and not expired.

There isn't a specific ground school requirement for the ATPL. However, there are a number of courses put on for refreshers. Also, there are a few different sample study guides which pilots will study for.

What will normally happen when you're in the industry is that you'll co-ordinate with your airline for a few days off to write the exam. Most people that I know general write one, and then the other a couple months later but it's not unheard of to write both in a row. You'll usually have to pay for the written exams yourself.

The flight test however will usually just be a type rating or PPC renewal with your airline which they should be paying for.

There is a special section in the hours requirements for PIC time. If pilots are flying as co-pilots for an airline that only operates larger aircraft where it is not possible to get PIC time without having an ATPL, they have the potential of gaining 100 of their PIC hours under the 'PIC under supervision' provision. This needs to be worked out directly with the airline though.

So, You Want to be a Regional Airline Pilot

2007-11-24T19:37:00.001-04:00

This was a video that has been up on YouTube for a few years now. It was done during a time of cut backs in the industry, likely by a pilot who was petty fed up with the way things were going. Basically, this video outlines the low salaries at the entry level positions for the regional airlines in the US.

These salaries are low. In relation to the last post, it's important for new pilots to understand that things can be a pretty tough go at first and that you won't be starting on a Boeing or Airbus directly after finishing Flight School.

There are a number of things to keep in mind though:

1- In Canada, although at the lower levels of the industry salaries are quite low, they're not as bad as the ones listed in the videos. I discuss average salaries at different levels of the industry my book.

2- The salaries listed at the time were for the first year junior F/O position. These salaries will go up as you gain experience. Interested pilots should check out www.airlinepilotcentral.com for salaries of each of the airlines.

3- The salaries don't necessarily consider the 'per diems' provided for new pilots.

4- This video was done at a time when major airlines were not hiring. Although the situation for pilot hiring in the US is not as good as the rest of the world, the economics of supply and demand will dictate what airlines have to pay to keep pilots. A few years ago there were a number of out of work pilots in the US and many airlines were doing very poorly financially, so they paid these low salaries.

5- Nonetheless, paying attention to the salaries are important. It's my hope that pilot salaries will begin to moderate themselves. While the highest salaries may not be quite as high, the lower salaries won't be as low.

On the plus side, I was talking with a a former co-worker who now flies for Air Canada. Currently he's an Airbus A320 F/O and he's on salary making $42,500 a year. In a couple of months however, he switches to formula pay. That will pretty much double his salary. He's not going to be rich anytime soon, but airline pilot salaries can be quite comfortable after a couple of years.

So, while I think that new pilots should be aware of the pay at different levels of the industry, I don't think it's necessary to be quite as jaded as the producer of the video.

Global Pilot Shortage a Looming Crisis

2007-11-23T18:56:00.000-04:00

With a strong World Economy and the demographics of aging baby boomers, industry insiders seem to be suggesting that this global hiring boom will be creating a possible global pilot shortage in the near future.

Global pilot shortage a looming crisis in Canada
Pilots complain 'magic' of flying has faded with no-frills airlines, low salaries
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 | 10:31 AM ET
CBC News

While airlines are filling their planes with passengers, the struggle to keep their pilots in the cockpits is a deepening crisis in the global air travel business, aviation experts are saying.

shortage of commercial pilots flying the skies above Canada and the world over is so serious that the International Civil Aviation Organization predicts at least 15,000 new pilots will be needed every year in the next two decades. Canada and the U.S. will need at least 60,000 new pilots by 2020.

For Canadians, massive retirement, competition from the air force and foreign airlines, and low salaries are among the factors contributing to a general fading of the romance of the skies.

Flight classes at the Algonquin Flight Centre in North Bay, Ont., still have too many vacant seats, the school's owner, Stefan Corriveau, told CBC News.

Corriveau said that an airline in the U.S. last month had to cancel four per cent of its flights because no flight crews were available. He worries for the future of pilots at home.

"I think those problems will come to Canada," he said.

Although Corriveau said he knows he can handle more students to train for the major airlines, he said the flight business has lost its appeal to a younger generation discouraged by low starting salaries and sky-high training costs.

'Salaries are way too low'

"The salary issue is a very sensitive issue for a lot of pilots and in Canada right now, the opinion of many is that the salaries are way too low," he said.

To earn the minimum license required by commercial airlines at similar flight schools, students such as Bill Tompkins have to pay as much as $60,000, while starting salaries often barely crack $30,000.

"With the advent of low-fare airlines, really you've just become a glorified bus-driver," Tompkins said. "They've just cheapened it. For me, it's still there — there's a bit of magic, but the romance of flying is gone."

Travis Griffin graduates next year from the school, but he'll return to his native Ireland to work, where he can make a more comfortable living.

"It's 50,000 to 60,000 euros to start off, and then you get benefits on top of that, so it's better at home," Griffin said.

European and Asian airlines flush with cash are also coming to Canada and luring away home-grown pilots.

Air forces want to retain pilots
The military, meanwhile, is working hard to retain the young pilots it has trained in the air force. Before Jack Desmarais retired after decades of flying 747s for Air Canada, he began his career in the military. Many of his colleagues also learned their skills in the air force before later turning commercial.

But now, air forces around the world are giving better financial incentives to keep their pilots in uniform.

CBC workplace specialist Frank Koller said baby boom pilots are also retiring quickly, and that the airline industry has still not recovered pilots who left after the economic turmoil immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S.

He said some airlines, such as Air Canada Jazz, are trying to curb the pilot shortage by taking young pilots fresh out of flight school and mentoring them on the job in the cockpits. Although there are safety concerns, Koller noted that it's been done for years in Europe.

This article raises a number of key issues, some of which are addressed in my book.

The Pilot Shortage - I started my training in 1999. At that point, there was a strong economy and airlines were doing lots of hiring. When I graduated from college, things started slowing down and Sept 11th, 2001 caused a massive drop in demand for air travel.

Prior to this however, every flight school you talked to was predicting a pilot shortage. Things were going to be just like the good old days in the 1970s when Air Canada hired pilots right out of flying school. In fact, my uncle started with Air Canada at age 21 as a second officer on an L1011.

I was and still am sceptical that this will happen again. While I think hiring will be strong for the forseeable future, pilots will still ahve to find way to gain experience and hours. This brings us to the next issue:

Airline Cadets - Air Canada Jazz has a trial project this year. They took the top few graduates from a number of Aviation Colleges and put them through Ground School. If they passed all the required training, they will possibly qualify as junior first officers. This has sparked a bit of an uproar in the pilot community as a number of more experienced pilots who have been by-passed feel that these younger piots should have to 'pay their dues' and gain experience.

Cadet programs are used in Asian and European airlines. In a number of airlines, the First Officer of your Boeing or Airbus could be in her early 20s and only have a couple hundred hours. I think with the right amount of training this can avoid safety issues, but I am a proponent of gaining 'real world' experience. In the few years that I was flying professionally I learned a lot.

Low Salaries / Working Conditions - This is another difficult issue. Aviation is different today than it was a few decades ago. Passengers expect low airfares and with rising fuel costs, profit margins are getting thinner. If airlines raise salaries, they'll have to increase ticket prices which will likely lower passenger demand, however, if they don't raise salaries more and more people are going to choose other professions.

In my book I outline the general remuneration that pilots make at different levels of the industry. I think in general, many pilots sacrifice in the beginning making a low salary so that they will gain the experience to make a higher salary, infact, some newer pilots will even fly for free (Do NOT do this as I outline in the book).

Newer pilots should be aware of the general salary trends so that they have a good idea of what to expect in the industry. Jobs at airlines can be relatively well paying, but you're not going to be filthy rich.

Al's First Year

2007-11-21T19:22:00.000-04:00

Here's a video by my former Co-worker Al documenting his first year 'flying the line' on the Metro with Perimeter Airlines out of Thompson Manitoba.

University of Waterloo Aviation Programs

2007-11-17T21:55:00.000-04:00

In my book, I have a listing of College and University Aviation Programs across Canada. These programs can change a fair bit from year to year and unfortunately one slipped under the radar. The University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario has two new aviation degree programs: A Geography and Aviation Degree and a Science and Aviation Degree. This program commenced in September 2007 and is run in conjunction with Waterloo Wellington Flight Centre.

More information can be found at: University of Waterloo Aviation

Here's an article from Waterloo's alumni magazine. One thing to keep in mind is the cost of this program. The alumni magazine suggests that Flight Training costs will be roughly $50,000 and this is on top of the regular estimated $25,000 University costs. Plus, Waterloo Airport is relatively far from the University of Waterloo Campus so you'll likely need to have access to a car - there is no public transportation that goes to the airport. So while it would be very beneficial to receive university credits for your flight training, the cost of this program is quite high.

New aviation degree offered with science and geography programs

Aviation enthusiasts will be able to learn to fly while earning a university degree through two new programs offered by the University of Waterloo.

A new bachelor of environmental studies degree in geography and aviation as well as a new bachelor of science in science and aviation will take flight starting September 2007. Recently approved by UW's senate, both programs were developed in partnership with the Waterloo-Wellington Flight Centre (WWFC).

"The field of aviation has evolved significantly over the past 50 years," said Morton Globus, a professor emeritus in the faculty of science and key developer of the new programs. "Aviation and aerospace industries demand a new breed of specialists who have a comprehensive academic background to help them understand complex aircraft systems and well-developed analytical, critical thinking and decision-making skills."

Professor Emeritus Morton GlobusToday, flight training is a requirement for many aviation and aerospace careers. A university degree, meanwhile, is seen by the airline industry as a valuable asset for a pilot and is rapidly becoming a requirement for the profession.

To meet that need, UW's new programs provide a solid foundation for careers in a diverse range of aviation and aerospace industries.

Both degrees are designed to provide candidates with a comprehensive grounding in aviation-relevant subjects such as geomatics (science and technology of gathering, analyzing, interpreting, distributing and using geographic information), climatology, cartography and remote sensing.

Globus, a pilot himself and UW's liaison with WWFC, said the programs are unique in Canada. "Waterloo has a very strong science, environmental science, geomatics and technology base that will provide many of the essential underpinnings of aviation and aerospace," he said.

In UW's faculties of environmental studies and science, aviation-related areas include solid-state physics, wireless communication, astrophysics, energy cells, fuels, remote sensing, climatology/meteorology, environmental sciences, computer cartography, geomorphology, global positioning systems and geographic information systems, among others.

The aviation component of both programs will cover professional pilot program requirements, delivered by WWFC. The WWFC, a non-profit organization established in 1932, has been offering flight training for more than 70 years and is widely respected in the Canadian aviation industry.

The new programs will cost about $50,000 for flight training, on top of about $25,000 in tuition fees over four years.

Written by John Morris
UW Media Relations

Thank Goodness For TCAS

2007-11-16T00:38:00.000-04:00

Modern Airliners are equipped with a device called a Traffic Collision and Avoidance System or TCAS for short. It's actually an amazing system that alerts pilots to the presence of other planes that could cause the potential for collision. The more advanced versions of TCAS even allow the systems in each plane to 'talk' to each other. If there is a potential for a collision, the system on one plane will tell it to climb whereas the system on the other plane will tell it to descend - thus avoiding a collision.

A TCAS display - the diamonds are other aircraft

In fact, today pilots are taught that no matter what your Air Traffic Control Clearance is, if the TCAS tells you to do something, you follow its commands. There was a tragic accident in 2002 where a controller told an aircraft to descend whereas the TCAS told it to climb. The pilot followed the controller's instructions which led to a mid-air collision.

The other day over Indiana, there was a near miss. This time however, both pilots followed the TCAS instructions and everybody was ok.

Cockpit device narrowly averts collision

Controller error undone by cockpit alert over Indiana
By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune transportation reporter
November 15, 2007

A Chicago-bound jet came within seconds of a midair collision at 25,000 feet over Indiana, but a cockpit safety device alerted the pilots flying the other plane of the danger ahead, officials said Wednesday.

The near collision Tuesday evening was attributed to an error by an air-traffic controller who directed an eastbound Midwest Airlines plane to descend into the path of a westbound United Express jet, according to a preliminary investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The controller, a 26-year veteran, appeared to have forgotten about the United Express plane after he mistakenly removed its electronic identification tag from his radar screen in preparation to hand off the plane to controllers in a different air sector, officials said.

The incident occurred "on the tail end of a rush" amid a shift change at the Chicago Center radar facility in Aurora, said FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory.

It was the latest in a series of serious errors since Oct. 1 at the FAA center, where tensions are high between the controllers union and management over adequate staffing levels.

The near collision occurred near Ft. Wayne, Ind., as the two regional aircraft closed in on each other at a combined speed of more than 700 m.p.h. -- or about 12 miles every minute, officials said.

The jets' speeds normally would have been even faster, but traffic in the airspace was slowed by congestion at O'Hare International Airport, where the United Express plane, carrying 28 passengers, two pilots and a flight attendant, was heading from Greensboro, N.C.

Tragedy was prevented when a collision-avoidance alert sounded in the cockpit of the Midwest plane, carrying 21 passengers, two pilots and a flight attendant from Milwaukee to Dayton, Ohio. The pilots executed an emergency climb to steer clear of the other plane, officials said.

"If they didn't suddenly climb, there would have been a convergence," said Midwest spokeswoman Carol Skornicka.

On radio communication tapes, the pilots mentioned three times how close the planes came to one another, said Jeffrey Richards, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association at Chicago Center.

"Center, you really lined us up on that last clearance," Richards quoted one of the pilots as saying.

The two aircraft came as close as 1.3 miles from each other horizontally and 600 feet vertically, the FAA said. The minimum separation permitted is 5 miles horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically.

"The controller at first did identify the potential conflict and took action" to stop the descent of the Midwest plane, Cory said. "However, it's still to be determined why, within less than a minute, he then dropped the data block [from his radar screen] and continued the descent."

The controller error marked the third serious mistake in only six weeks by controllers at Chicago Center, which handles high-altitude traffic over portions of the Midwest. Only one error of such magnitude occurred within the previous 12 months at the radar facility, officials said.

On Tuesday night, controllers on average worked close to the two-hour limit on their radar positions between rest breaks, Richards said.

"These controllers are fatigued from working such long stints and very few breaks compared to just three years ago," said Richards, who contends that a wave of retirements is draining the FAA of seasoned controllers.

Richards said the controller who committed the error was nearing the end of his shift and had returned from a break just several minutes earlier.

"Each of his sessions were right up to the two-hour limit," Richards said.

Question - Re: Helicopter Pilots

2007-11-13T15:21:00.000-04:00

I was e-mailed a question about the book the other day:

Hello,

I want to know if your book is relevant and/or pertinent for aspiring helicopter pilots like myself. If not, is there a book similar to yours that highlights the path for helicopter pilots.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the question.

My book focuses mainly on fixed wing aircraft. My experience was with airplanes and I didn't really feel I could do the different routes for obtaining a helicopter licence / job justice. That being said, I think there would be a number of areas in the book that would be worthwhile to an aspiring helicopter pilot.

In the book, I outline the 3 main paths for getting your airplane pilot licences in Canada: Private Flight School, College Aviation Programs & Military and the pros and cons of these routes. These are also the 3 main ways for getting your helicopter licences.

There are a few differences however. To begin with, there are not as many schools or colleges for Helicopter training as compared to airplanes. The only specific college course that I know of is run by Gateway Helicopters in conjunction with Candore College in North Bay, Ont. Canadore College

I believe Chicoutmi CEGEP in Quebec also has helicopter training, but you're required to speak French.

There are a number of private helicopter flight training schools in Canada that are mostly centered in the larger cities. For example, Canadian Helicopters offers training in Toronto, Quebec City and Pentiticton.

Heli-College Canada is a private flight helicopter flight school in Vancouver

Searching the web will likely give you more leads as well as Helicopters Magazine which has articles about training

I'm not aware of any books similar to mine that directly relate to helicopter training. There are a few books out that briefly deal with it, but usually just a short section tacked on at the end of the sections dealing mainly with airplane licences.

I'm not sure of your background, but if you're relatively new to aviation, I think the sections in my book that would still be helpful would be:

Chapter 1 - the general introduction to the aviation industry

Chapter 2 - Things to keep in mind before starting out

Parts of Chapter 3 - examining the pros and cons of the different routes to get your licences - as mentioned, these would be slightly different for helicopters, but the general pros and cons of flying planes or helicopters will be similar for flight schools, colleges or the military.

Parts of Chapter 4 - The basic information regarding how to choose and instructor and tips for writing your licence exams would be good.

Limited Parts of Chapter 5 - Ideas related to networking would be important

Chapter 6 - Information about finding a job would be fairly similar. It's my understanding that finding a first job as a helicopter pilot is just as diffcult as finding a job as an airplane pilot in that you have to general go to remote locations and working in a non-flying position on the ramp for a certain amount of time before you're able to fly.

Chapter 7 - Tips for doing a good job.

Chapter 12 - General things you should consider before becoming a pilot.

(There's a full table of contents on the book's website www.piloteh.com )

So, I guess you could say, I think that the book would be helpful to aspiring helicopter pilots in a general way to help understand the industry, things to consider and tips for finding a job. However, it doesn't directly deal with the specific routes for obtaining a helicopter licence and job in Canada.

A380 Visits Montreal's Trudeau International Airport

2007-11-13T01:52:00.000-04:00

The Airbus A380, which started service a couple weeks ago with Singapore Airlines, visited Montreal's Trudeau International Airport earlier today. Although the aircraft has landed in Canada before, once in Iqaluit, Nunavut for cold weather testing and twice in Vancouver, according to the Airport's website, this is the first time the plane has landed in Canada with passengers.

Although it is not expected that any airline will be using the A380 to fly to Montreal for the next couple of years, there is talk that Air France will eventually start flying the jumbo jet to Montreal from Paris.

I'm also glad to see the number of "plane-spotters" that were out. Watching planes near Pearson airport in Toronto was one of the thigns that first got me interested in flying.

Plane-Spotters Cheer for A380

Large crowd witnesses "superjumbo" jet landing
The Montreal Gazette, November 12, 2007.
Jason Magder, The Gazette

Daniel Bolduc said he wished his 2-month daughter were a little older so she could appreciate the historic moment she witnessed today.

As it was, Alexandra Laframboise-Bolduc was sleeping in her infant seat as the Airbus 380, the largest passenger plane built, landed about 12:10 p.m. at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport in Dorval today.

Bolduc also dragged his wife, Chantal Laframboise, 43, to the event and they were in good company among a crowd of about 1,000 spectators who gathered at the end of the airport's runway 24 Right.

People gather to watch the Airbus A380 as it makes its first landing at the Pierre-Elliott Trudeau airport, 12 November, 2007.
AFP PHOTO/David BOILY (Photo credit should read DAVID BOILY/AFP/Getty Images)

Today's visit was part of a tour to demonstrate the plane that was purchased by Air France. The airline plans to start regular trips with the A380 between Montreal and Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport in the near future.

The airport renovated its jetty to allow passengers to board the plane's two floors simultaneously. The airport was one of the world's first to make such accommodations and did so at a cost of $500,000.

As part of the tour, the massive aircraft will leave Montreal today for Orlando International Airport in Florida before returning to Montreal on Thursday. It will then leave for France on the same day.

"She kept telling me, calm down, it's just an airplane," he said of Laframboise. "But this is an event that I'll remember for the rest of my life. It's an amazing feat of technology."

The aircraft's wingspan is 80 metres, 15 metres wider than any commercial plane in the air today. It is as tall as a seven-storey building. It can hold a maximum of 853 passengers, although Air France's configuration has only 525 passenger seats. That's still 40 per cent more than its nearest rival, the Boeing 747. It made its first commercial flight this year and has since visited about 60 airports worldwide.

Those who gathered on Pitfield Blvd. and St. François St. in St. Laurent had one of the best views of the jet as it approached from the east, flew overhead and landed on the other side of Highway 13, near the exit for the Trans-Canada Highway.

There were many so-called "plane-spotters" who come out regularly to see planes flying. Many brought binoculars, telescopes and cameras so they could have the best view of the aircraft.

Some climbed on cars and nearby billboard signs, while others camped on folding chairs they set up near the runway. People came from as far away as Quebec City and some had been there since 5:30 a.m.

On his Citizens' Band radio, Aldo Fittante, 42, listened intently to every word uttered between the pilots of the craft and the air control tower as the plane made its approach, and was too busy to give an interview.

"It's confirmed, they are going to land on runway 24 Right, and they're about 10 nautical miles away," he said with a smile.

He was there with his son Ricardo, 19, and Cosimo Carnevale, 38. The three have come to this area twice a week for the last 10 years to see planes fly. As well as being an aircraft enthusiast, Ricardo has a pilot's license. While the three say it's always exciting to watch a plane land, today was particularly exciting.

"It's historic," Ricardo said. "This is one of the first times this plane has ever landed in a North American airport."

Greenfield Park resident Jean-Sébastien Miller is usually here alone, nearly every morning enjoying a coffee and a muffin while watching planes land.

"I expected a few people, but this is a circus," said Miller, 36, who works in the nearby industrial park.

"It's a real thrill to be here. This is a big event and you can tell by the number of people who are here," he said.

When the jet made its final approach towards the runway, there were many cheers and whistles from the crowd. It seemed to hang in mid-air for a few seconds before it slowly made its way to the runway. It came so close, you could feel the vibration from its roaring engines. As it passed, many waved at the plane, as cameras went off and some people ran to the fence separating the street from the highway, to watch the plane land.

While there were many aircraft enthusiasts, there were also people who came to the area for the first time to witness the event.

"It's special," said Laval resident Stéphane Mailhot, 38 while clutching his camera.

"I'm not really a plane enthusiast, but I am an fan of photography."

Engines Falling From the Sky

2007-11-12T00:14:00.000-04:00

Last night I watched the movie Donnie Darko which I really enjoyed. In the movie, an airplane jet engine falls from the sky and lands on the house of the main character. Not something you hear about happening everyday. However, just recently, a South African Nationwide Airlines 737 literally lost engine just after taking off.

While this is no doubt a scary experience, airliners are actually designed so that if too much force is put on the engine, it will fall off the wing. Modern Airliners are designed to be able to fly with one engine failed and if something goes wrong, it's better to lose an engine than a wing. You need both of those to fly.

It was a great job by the crew to safely land the plane. None of the 106 on board were injured.

ENGINE FALLS OFF PASSENGER PLANE DURING TAKEOFF

Daily Mail - Nov 8th, 2007

Terrified passengers were forced to adopt emergency brace positions after an engine FELL OFF their aeroplane during takeoff.

Crash landing procedures were rushed into action when machinery separated from the right wing and plummeted on to the runway.

The Nationwide Boeing 737 plane had been taking off from Cape Town Airport, South Africa, at 3.30pm on Wednesday when the drama unfolded.

The Damaged Plane. The Circle shows where the engine fell from

The plane, carrying 106 passengers, was continuing to climb as debris fell to the ground and the pilot was instructed to turn back and make an emergency landing.

Airport fire and rescue services rushed to the runway to clear the wreckage before the plane came down.

The Flight CE723, which had been bound for Johannesburg, eventually touched down safely as passengers braced themselves for a crash landing.

The Engine that fell - Luckily it's not on a house!

South African businesswoman Ronel Derman, 46, said she had been in a seat directly over the wing.

"I heard this huge bang, and the man next to me said: 'That's our engine that's just fallen off'.

I couldn't believe it. He had to repeat it to me," she said.

"The plane started to shake a bit, but what was amazing was the staff and passengers. Everybody was so calm. There was no hysteria, no nothing, it was amazing."

While the plane was making a wide turn and dumping fuel, cabin crew took passengers through the emergency procedures, getting them to take off their shoes and practice bending down.

"They didn't know what to expect. It could have been a hard landing. It could have been anything," said Ms Derman.

"I don't think I've ever been so scared in my life, ever," she said.

When the plane had come to a stop surrounded by fire engines, the pilot walked into the cabin, and passengers cheered.

The damage is inspected

The airline said: "At take-off it was reported that the right hand engine separated from the wing. The aircraft continued to climb out.

"The aircraft returned and landed at Cape Town International Airport without further incident."

The Civil Aviation Authority's executive manager for air safety investigations, Gilbert Thwala, said investigators were looking into the incident.

No passengers or crew were injured. Passengers were taken to a holding area where Nationwide representatives and trauma counsellors were on hand.

What It's Like Being a Pilot - American Airlines: Boston to Paris

2007-11-11T20:50:00.000-04:00

Here's cool video by an American Airlines crew on a trip from Boston to Paris and back.

Back in the Day: Part II

2007-11-07T22:20:00.000-04:00

This is the second e-mail that I sent out after I started flying on the Conquest. It was after a one week stint in Rankin Inlet in Dec of 2002. Wow, that seems like a long time ago now!

Skyward has 3 Cessna Conquests. They base one in Thompson, one in Island Lake and one in Rankin Inlet in Nunavut. They crew the planes at the remote bases usually in one week shifts. So, from Dec 8th to Dec 15th I was based in Rankin Inlet in Nunavut territory.

Every Sunday morning, Skyward has a scheduled flight that leaves Thompson at 8am, then makes stops in Churchill, Arviat, Whale Cove and Rankin Inlet. I sat as a passenger and enjoyed the flight. We only made brief stops in each of the communities so I didn't really get time to explore, but it was nice to just sit as a passenger and enjoy the view of Hudson Bay which I was seeing for the first time.

It wasn't my first time in Nunavut. One week earlier I was the First Officer on a flight to Baker Lake. We landed in a Blizzard. Outside it was -30c. With winds gusting to 42 mph, the wind chill was -67c! And I was completely unprepared for it. I didn't have my parka yet, I didn't bring my neck warmer, I didn't bring my heavy duty gloves or my super warm boots; I just had a regular jacket and a hat. I have never been so cold in my life! I got minor frostbite on my cheeks, when the captain noticed frost actually forming on my cheeks he told me to go inside and warm up. Boy did I learn my lesson! The locals found it humorous. Here was this silly kid from Toronto freezing his butt off in a full blown Arctic Blizzard! The taxi driver took pity on me and let me wear his boots for a bit cause they were already warm and I had no heat left in my toes. Although I had never met this person, I had no qualms about wearing his boots cause my feet were so cold!

So this trip up to Nunavut I was prepared, I came equipped with a big $450 Snow Goose parka (the type you see arctic explorers wearing), heavy duty mitts, a really warm hat and my good 'moon' boots (sorels). However, lucky for me when we landed in Rankin it was a balmy -20c, sunny and with no wind. As long as there is no wind, the cold is very manageable if you layer your clothes properly.

We didn't have any trips the first day. For dinner we went over to Jason's (one of our flight nurses who lives in Rankin Inlet fulltime) mother's place where we had an incredible prime rib dinner. The next day Luella and Jana (one of the pilots and the nurse from Keewatin Air) came over to have dinner with us, we hadn't got a call all day, but right as we were sitting down for dinner with them, we got a call for a
Coral Harbour-Churchill trip. We quickly finished some more food, then rushed to the airport. We got to Coral Harbour (on Southampton Island in the North end of Hudson Bay) about an hour and 15 minutes later. We picked up our patient (a woman who had slipped on ice and broken her shoulder) and flew to Churchill. An Ambulance met us at the airport and we went to the hospital. Our nurse Paul had looked at the x-ray and figured there was a pretty good chance this woman would need to go to Winnipeg and have surgery. At the hospital the doctor confirmed this, however, he was unable to find a doctor or a bed for her in Winnipeg. So we waited. A little while later he informed us that he had been able to find a doctor, but still no bed, so we waited some more. We had been waiting for a couple hours when Steve (the captain) decided that we should go to the airport and warm up the plane which had been sitting in the cold with the engines off for a couple of hours now.

After we had warmed up the plane, Paul returned and said that they had not been able to find a bed, so we should just return to Rankin Inlet. So we took off and headed home. We were just over half way back when ATC called us "Skyward 911, I've got some good news for you. Company wants you to return to Churchill." So we turned around and headed back to Churchill. The Ambulance brought the woman out to the airport and we flew down to Winnipeg, arriving just as the sun was rising. By this point we were quite tired and at the end of our duty day, we were not legally allowed to fly anymore.

We checked into a hotel, had breakfast at the restaurant and then went to bed (at 8am). I got about 5 hours of sleep when they decided to start doing bathroom renovations on the floor below me! I went for a walk and then came back and got a couple more hours of sleep.

We left for Rankin at around 5 that evening, the flight back took around 3 and a half hours, once there we put the plane in the hanger and I went back to sleep. I got about 2 hours of sleep when the phone rang for a Repulse Bay - Winnipeg trip. Repulse Bay is right on the Arctic circle on the southern tip of the Melville Peninsula. I crossed the Arctic circle at around 3am that morning. We landed, parked beside a Canadian Forces Twin Otter (I'm not sure what it was doing there) and went into the nursing station to pick up our patient. For some reason, the people are noticeably shorter up there. At 5'10" , I was towering over everybody, plus the ceilings in the nursing station were also really low: so this is what it's like to feel tall!

We flew to Winnipeg, stopping in Rankin Inlet to get gas and arrived in Winnipeg at around 9am. We had breakfast and then checked into the same hotel, I slept like a log, I don't think there was any renovations going on, but if there was, it didn't wake me up. We flew back to Rankin that evening.

On the flight back the sky was very clear and the moon wasn't too bright.We got a magnificent display of the stars, Northern Lights and falling space junk. I'm not sure what the space junk was, but it looked like an incredibly bright star falling from the sky, but it was only a few miles a head of us. Once we arrived in Rankin, we filled up the plane with gas, went home and I slept for the whole night.

Around ten the next morning we got a call for an Arviat-Churchill trip, which ended up turning into a Arviat-Churchill-Winnipeg. Luckily we still had time in our duty day to make it back to Rankin that evening.In 3 days we had flown 26 hours or approximately 13,000 km!

We had one more trip that week from Baker Lake to Churchill.

On Sunday we headed out for the airport for our flight back home, all told we had done about 30 hours of flying in the week and flew enough miles to go to from Halifax to Vancouver and back.

The Captain's Decision

2007-11-03T11:46:00.001-03:00

Note: This post is updated here: Pilot to Serve his Sentence in the Community

There have been a number of interesting Court Decisions in the past few weeks regarding pilots. Here are two which, although on the surface don't seem to be related - one happened in Winnipeg and the other in Salt Lake City - I think that together they have a very interesting connection. They are from different jurisdictions, so as a result, neither are directly binding, but they both go to show that as a pilot, specifically the Pilot in Command (P.I.C. or Captain), you're required to make some tough decisions.

In the first case, the pilot of a Piper Navajo, under pressure from his airline, took off in a bad weather day without autopilot (required for that flight) and without enough gas to make the whole trip. The pilot missed the landing and while over-shooting the runway, both engines failed. The plane crashed on a Winnipeg Street. One of the passengers later died of his injuries.

In the next case, an airline pilot who felt his crew was to tired to fly refused to do a flight. Eventually he was fired. In this case however, the Court found that he was wrongfully dismissed and ordered him re-instated.

Case 1: Pilot in Crash Landing Found Guilty

Pilot in crash-landing found guilty
Busy city street was turned into emergency runway

Fri Nov 2 2007

By Mike McIntyre

A Calgary-based pilot was found guilty Thursday of criminal charges laid after he crash-landed his twin-engine plane into a busy Winnipeg intersection, killing an elderly passenger and injuring several others.

Mark Tayfel, 42, had pleaded not guilty to criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of an aircraft in one of the first cases of its kind ever held in Canada.

He had been waiting on a verdict since his Queen's Bench trial ended in April. Justice Holly Beard finally released her written reasons late in the day. Tayfel will be sentenced at a later date.

Tayfel, who was employed by Keystone Air at the time, had argued he made an honest mistake and should not be held responsible for the June 2002 tragedy.

Tayfel and six American fishers were injured when both of his engines cut out when he ran out of fuel at 9:18 a.m., shortly after he missed his first attempt at landing at Winnipeg International Airport.

The plane came to rest on Logan Avenue just west of McPhillips Street.

JOE BRYKSA / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS ARCHIVES
Emergency crews examine airplane that crash-landed on Logan Avenue at McPhillips Street in June 2002.

Everyone survived the crash, but 79-year-old Kansas resident Chester Jones died a few weeks later from his injuries.

"The actions Mr. Tayfel took were not unreasonable and therefore not a departure of any type from the standard a reasonable person or pilot would take in this case," defence lawyer Belfour Der had argued at trial.

Crown attorney Brian Wilford said it didn't matter whether the crash was accidental or not -- Tayfel was guilty because he took off for Winnipeg from a northern fishing lodge without enough fuel to get to his destination.

"It was he and he alone who had the duty to ensure there was enough fuel," Wilford said.

"His passengers absolutely depended on him. Mr. Tayfel was the author of what befell that plane and those passengers."

An aviation expert called by the defence claimed Tayfel should be commended -- not criminalized -- for the deadly crash landing.

"Most people walked away from that accident. He did his job until the bitter end," said Robert Lemieux, who runs a small airline company in Alberta and works as a trainer and examiner with Transport Canada.

Lemieux told court the real blame for the disaster should rest with Tayfel's employer, Keystone Air.

He said they "pressured" Tayfel into doing his flight despite the fact he'd raised concerns with the chief pilot that his Piper Navajo wasn't equipped with a mandatory auto pilot, said Lemieux.

The device likely would have helped Tayfel make a safe landing in Winnipeg. Instead, he came out of the clouds too high and too fast -- with both engines on the verge of cutting out -- and missed the runway completely.

Tayfel then crashed as he tried to swing around to make another landing attempt.

Lemieux said Keystone's chief pilot failed to take Tayfel's concerns about the missing auto pilot seriously.

Tayfel also testified in his own defence, saying his boss simply said "Oh, I thought it was there" and then told him to take another passenger on his flight out of Winnipeg.

Lemieux said experience in the airline industry has taught him employers are often focused on making money at the expense of young pilots like Tayfel who feel there is no choice but to quietly obey orders.

During cross-examination, Tayfel admitted he didn't push the issue any further with the chief pilot and decided to do the flight as scheduled.

Officials at Transport Canada said they will take some time to review the ruling before offering comment.

-- with files from Lindsey Wiebe

mikeoncrime.com

Case 2: Judge Backs Pilot Who Grounded Self

Judge backs pilot who grounded self
By Paul Beebe
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 10/11/2007 11:52:02 PM MDT

An administrative law judge has ordered SkyWest Airlines to rehire a veteran pilot who said the company fired him illegally for declaring himself and his crew unfit to fly after a perilous trip to Jackson, Wyo., where a landing was aborted because of bad weather.

The airline said it fired Don Douglas five months after the 2005 incident because he wrote profane graffiti on company property on two occasions and then refused to take responsibility after being confronted. SkyWest said Douglas's declaration that he and two crew members were unable to fly had nothing to do with his termination.

"I'm ecstatic. I hope I've done something about safety. It was always about safety," said Douglas, who lives in Sandy.

A company spokesman said the St. George-based regional airline hasn't decided whether to appeal the judge's ruling.

"SkyWest maintains fair disciplinary procedures with our employees, and in the case of Mr. Douglas, a thorough investigation process was utilized before he was terminated," spokeswoman Marissa Snow said in an email.

"After two review boards in which his peers reviewed and upheld the decision, an investigation was conducted by the Department of Labor, which also found no merit in the case," Snow said Thursday.

The Oct. 3 ruling by Judge Russell Pulver overturns an earlier ruling by the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA ruled last year that the evidence supported SkyWest.

Douglas, a 16-year SkyWest veteran, reported to work at Salt Lake City International Airport on March 21, 2005, three days after a vasectomy. Cleared to work by his surgeon, Douglas was scheduled to fly a 30-seat Embraer Brasilia turboprop airplane from Salt Lake to Jackson that night and return the next morning. Douglas felt fit to fly, even though he and his crew were warned that they would be flying through rain and snow.

Before departing, the crew's first officer and flight attendant told Douglas they were not feeling well. Troy Brewer, the first officer, said he was tired from a lack of sleep. Flight attendant Brandee Black said her arthritis was bothering her.

The flight was difficult, according to the judge, who wrote that Douglas and Brewer "were under more stress than usual because they had to fly on instruments and the conditions were icy."

Because wind and runway conditions were unsafe in Jackson, aircraft controllers put the flight into a holding pattern that lasted about an hour, then ordered Douglas to fly back to Salt Lake through the poor weather.

After returning, Douglas learned that he and the crew were scheduled to attempt another flight to Jackson - about five hours later - at 4:40 a.m. the next day. According to the judge's 49-page ruling, Douglas found himself unexpectedly feeling too poorly to fly so soon because he was physically and mentally drained from the experience. Douglas also said a mild discomfort from his surgery had become intense during the flight.

After considering how he felt and determining that Brewer and Black were too fatigued to fly again so soon, Douglas told a SkyWest supervisor that he and his crew would not be able to safely fly to Jackson.

"As a pilot, [Douglas] was trained to declare himself unfit should he become unfit during the course of a shift. He believed that it would be a violation of federal air safety regulations if he were to fly unfit, or were to allow a crew member to fly that he had determined was unfit," Pulver wrote.

"He also believed that he as the captain had the final authority to make fitness determinations concerning himself and his crew," the judge wrote.

SkyWest disagreed. After an investigation, Tony Fizer, the airline's western region chief pilot, suspended Douglas for a week without pay and put a letter of reprimand in Douglas's personnel file. Fizer said Douglas was already unfit to fly when he arrived for work. Douglas also did not have the authority to keep his crew from flying, Fizer said.

Two months later, a review board reversed the suspension and downgraded the severity of the letter. Fizer was told to inform Douglas that in the future he should consult with a flight surgeon before declaring himself unfit and each crew member must tell the company if they believe they are unable to work. Only if a crew member was incapacitated could Douglas declare that person unfit for duty.

In July 2005, the words "f--- Fizer" appeared on a cork board in a SkyWest crew lounge. After the board was removed, "You can still f--- Fizer" was written on the wall.

Two handwriting experts hired by Fizer later concluded that Douglas had written the epithets. Douglas was told he could keep his job if he accepted responsibility. He refused and was fired on Aug. 31, 2005.

"I couldn't admit to something I didn't do," Douglas said.

Lawyers for Douglas argued that the graffiti was written in generic block letters, not in cursive script. A handwriting expert hired by Douglas said the writing wasn't his. And the SkyWest experts never looked at handwriting samples from other people before determining Douglas was responsible.

At a hearing in September, Fizer claimed the epithets didn't bother him, though he said they created a sexually hostile work environment and required an extensive investigation because senior SkyWest managers were alarmed.

In Pulver's ruling, the judge said Fizer showed "retaliatory animus" at one meeting with Douglas. The judge also said Fizer lacked credibility because of "baseless accusations" and other steps he took toward Douglas.

"I . . . find Fizer's antagonistic statements concerning the protected activity [when Douglas declared himself and his crew unfit to fly] provide circumstantial evidence of a retaliatory motive for terminating [Douglas's] employment," the judge wrote.

Pulver said Douglas is entitled to back pay and attorney fees.

Being a pilot carries with it a lot of responsibility. Sometimes it's up to you to make the tough decisions even if that means risking your job. It has often been said that the factors you should take into consideration when making a decision are:

1- Your life
2- Your Licence
3- Your Job

In this first case, unfortunately the pilot put #3 first. Ironically, he ended up losing his job and will likely face jail time. More importantly however, this pilot almost lost his life and one of his passengers died. In the second case, although the pilot temporarily lost his job, he got it back. Airlines will often pressure you to fly when you don't think it's safe. It's up to you to make those tough decisions.

Back in the Day: Part 1

2007-11-02T19:09:00.001-03:00

I started writing for fun with e-mails that I sent to friends and family when I started flying up North. Figure a good way to start posts for this blog would be by recapping these e-mails.

Here's the first one from November 2002:

Cessna C441 Conquest II C-FSKG

The last five days have been some of the most intense days of my life. They have been incredibly fun, but the amount of information I have absorbed has been incredible. The training has been like trying to take a drink of water out of a firehose.

I was supposed to start my groundschool on Saturday, unfortunately my training Captain got called out for 2 medevacs that day so we didn't end up doing much. Sunday started off with my first flight. We practiced take-offs, landings, stalls, steep turns and an NDB approach. The Conquest II is a much more powerful plane than anyone I have flown before. The most powerful plane I have flown before had 600 hp, the Conquest has 1271! That has taken a lot of getting used to. Sunday afternoon consisted of 6 hours of groundschool. We went through the majority of the different systems of the aircraft: How the Engine works and it's different characteristics, the electrical system, the hydraulic systems, pressurization and everything else you ever wanted to know about a plane. Monday started with another flight where we practiced a lot of emergencies and engine failures, we even shut down one of the engines in flight! We flew a couple more circuits and practiced some more take off and landings. In the afternoon my training captain had to do another medevac so I went home, slept for a bit and went over some of my notes. We were supposed to do some more groundschool that evening, but instead we did my third and final training flight. We practiced instrument procedures, landing at night, Maximum climb takeoffs (that's where you climb up really quickly and it feels like you're going straight up) and landing without a landing light.

I did some more groundschool on Tuesday and then went on-call Wednesday morning at around 3am. Luckily I didn't get paged until 10:30am. We had a trip from Thompson to Brochet which is a Reserve about an hour's flight northwest of Thompson. We flew out there at FL 220 (22,000 ft) which is more than twice as high than I have flown before. I was the pilot flying and Geoff (the captain) worked the radios, except Geoff did the landing in the reserve cause it's a shorter runway. We landed at Brochet where a pick-up truck met us and took myself, Geoff and the flightnurse to the nursing station. A woman had hurt her back in a snowmobiling accident. We waited around the nursing station for a bit while the nurse got all the stats about the patient. We then put her on a strecther and loaded her into the back of the pick up truck and went back to the airport. We had to sit in the back of the truck with the patient. Although it was sunny, it was the end of November in Northern Manitoba and we were on a dirt road: It was crisp and the ride was bumpy. Once at the airport, we loaded the patient on the plane and flew back to Thompson, this time I worked the radios and Geoff flew. Once in Thompson we were met by the ambulance who took the patient to the hospital.

We had just been back in Thompson for about 15 minutes when the pager went off again. Once the nurse got back from the hospital we were to take a little baby and her parents to the children's Hospital in Winnipeg. Geoff and I had lunch at the airport restaurant and then once the nurse came back from the hospital in Thompson with the family, we blasted off for Winnipeg. We flew down to Winnipeg at 17,000 ft cause we wanted to keep the cabin altitude nice and low, the baby just slept most of the way, it was really well behaved and didn't cry at all. We came into Winnipeg after it had just gotten dark, we flew right over downtown and then followed a WestJet 737 on final approach. We landed in Winnipeg, parked beside two Challenger Jets, and were met by another ambulance who took the nurse and the family to the children's hospital. Geoff and I waited around the airport for a little while then took the company van and picked the nurse up from the hospital. After we picked up the nurse, it was off to Polo Park mall for some dinner. After dinner we went back to the airport and flew back to Thompson. It was my leg to fly and we had a strong 75kt headwind the whole way back so it took us a while. Once you get about 200km north of Winnipeg, all the lights end and it gets really dark, you have to follow your instruments cause you can't see anything. I landed in Thompson, not one of my better landings, but the plane's still in one piece :) Taxiied in, and shut down. Our duty day only had a few more hours in it so if there was another call, the other crew would most likely get it.

Me at the End of my First Day 'On The Line'

On the Web

2007-10-21T13:10:00.000-03:00

I will have an updated and streamlined look for this blog over the next few weeks. In the meantime however, feel free to check out the book's new website
www.piloteh.com

Also, for those of you on facebook, check out the facebook group

Amazon.ca

2007-10-17T14:33:00.000-03:00

So, You Want to Be a Pilot, Eh? is now available on Amazon.ca

So, You Want to Be a Pilot, Eh?

2007-10-15T13:12:00.001-03:00