NimpoCub
Registered User
Nimpo Lake, BC . . . AKA "the Floatplane Capital o
Here's what Transport Canada is up to after several comm'l air carriers on floats crashed in the last few years...
(I suggested that whatever they do to comm'l ops, G.A. won't be far behind.)
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012JAG0064-000580.htm
Here's the comments from our Pres. of COPA:
There are some very expensive recommendations that affect all certified aircraft. We will have to keep an eye on this one as Transport Canada reacts.
The comments and recommendation concerning ELTs are interesting, however it may bounce off the regulator because to my knowledge none of the ELTs were 406 so TC may claim that if the aircraft were equipped with 406 signals would have got out. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth but this is the belief they continue to hold even with a growing database of 406 failures. Tracking devices are certainly good but the criteria TC has developed in the draft revised ELT regulation makes none of the existing tracking services an acceptable solution or at least affordable. The issue is the choice of words in the draft regulation, such as the requirement for 100% real time monitoring with “immediate” response when an aircraft goes missing (ie whoever is monitoring must be able to immediately recognize that an aircraft has crashed – the 406 monitoring system is not even capable of this) and the location of the accident must be determined within 5km, meaning that reports from the tracking device must be no more than 5km apart, which can be expensive for fast moving aircraft because more frequent satellite position reports costs more money. This rate of monitoring is certainly not affordable for non-commercial operators but TC does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial operators as far as the requirement for an ELT is concerned.
Kevin Psutka
President and CEO
Canadian Owners and Pilots Association
71 Bank St, 7[SUP]th[/SUP] floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 5N2
(I suggested that whatever they do to comm'l ops, G.A. won't be far behind.)
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012JAG0064-000580.htm
Here's the comments from our Pres. of COPA:
There are some very expensive recommendations that affect all certified aircraft. We will have to keep an eye on this one as Transport Canada reacts.
The comments and recommendation concerning ELTs are interesting, however it may bounce off the regulator because to my knowledge none of the ELTs were 406 so TC may claim that if the aircraft were equipped with 406 signals would have got out. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth but this is the belief they continue to hold even with a growing database of 406 failures. Tracking devices are certainly good but the criteria TC has developed in the draft revised ELT regulation makes none of the existing tracking services an acceptable solution or at least affordable. The issue is the choice of words in the draft regulation, such as the requirement for 100% real time monitoring with “immediate” response when an aircraft goes missing (ie whoever is monitoring must be able to immediately recognize that an aircraft has crashed – the 406 monitoring system is not even capable of this) and the location of the accident must be determined within 5km, meaning that reports from the tracking device must be no more than 5km apart, which can be expensive for fast moving aircraft because more frequent satellite position reports costs more money. This rate of monitoring is certainly not affordable for non-commercial operators but TC does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial operators as far as the requirement for an ELT is concerned.
Kevin Psutka
President and CEO
Canadian Owners and Pilots Association
71 Bank St, 7[SUP]th[/SUP] floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 5N2
