Transport Canada Shuts Down Buffalo Joe

Hopefully they can get their act together. I'd hate to see those DC-3 and C-46s grounded forever.
 
They have their travel airs for sale, evidently small commuter ,and freight airlines are scrutinized closely in the Yukon . Loved watching the videos. Hope they can get their cents back.
 
I suspect it is very difficult to run a service with 70 year old airplanes that makes the current crop of Civil Servants happy... They are used to turbines and glass panels. Leaky radial engines are a foreign concept.
 
kyleb said:
I suspect it is very difficult to run a service with 70 year old airplanes that makes the current crop of Civil Servants happy... They are used to turbines and glass panels. Leaky radial engines are a foreign concept.
Click to expand...
I think it goes way beyond that.

Joe has been skirting regs for a while and as the article mentioned he has had a very adversarial relationship with the Feds for a while. The DC-3 wreck operating over gross did not help him and the recent C-46 accident probably was the icing on the cake (although I haven't heard anything specifically sinister come out of that one, at least not yet).
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Reads to me more like he just ticked someone off at TC.
Click to expand...
Probably. The negative relationship was highlighted during the investigation of the DC-3 accident. I suspect it got even worse when the C-46 went down.
 
The Canadians apparently got sick of his crap
Click to expand...

Sort of like how the FAA got sick of Bob Hoover's crap?

Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence that authorities overstep their bounds. Plus, I saw nothing in the article that was an obvious condemnation and the charge of shutting them down for their "poor safety record" is a little vague. What airplane or airline has not had a 'hard landing', btw.
And TC's making efforts to note, publicly, of an 'adversarial response' is simply a dirty trick - who could restrain themselves in the event of unreasonable badgering.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Sort of like how the FAA got sick of Bob Hoover's crap?

Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence that authorities overstep their bounds. Plus, I saw nothing in the article that was an obvious condemnation and the charge of shutting them down for their "poor safety record" is a little vague. What airplane or airline has not had a 'hard landing', btw.
And TC's making efforts to note, publicly, of an 'adversarial response' is simply a dirty trick - who could restrain themselves in the event of unreasonable badgering.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Sort of like how the FAA got sick of Bob Hoover's crap?

Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence that authorities overstep their bounds. Plus, I saw nothing in the article that was an obvious condemnation and the charge of shutting them down for their "poor safety record" is a little vague. What airplane or airline has not had a 'hard landing', btw.
And TC's making efforts to note, publicly, of an 'adversarial response' is simply a dirty trick - who could restrain themselves in the event of unreasonable badgering.
Click to expand...

Have you read the DC-3 accident report? That is what I was referring to. This has been going on for a while. No comparison to Bob Hoover.
 
No...but don't post it, I don't want to have to show its weaknesses too!
 
When you watch the 'Ice Pilots' show, they made a big todo out of how they are the only ones who can get this 'critical cargo' to these outlying airstrips. Then you see one of their 'outpost' airports and in the background lands their competitors Dornier 228 or Skyvan.

I like that quote from the TC report:

"… the organizational culture at Buffalo Airways was not supportive of a system that required the organization to take a proactive role in identifying hazards and reducing risks.

I guess the old man screaming at people in the hangar didn't impress them as a safety management system.




(and yes, I understand that TV shows dramatize and create excitement by selective editing, and old Joe may be nicest boss ever in real life)
 
It's inexcusable to fly old pistons overgross. There is little or no margin and lets face it, turbines replaced piston power for reliability reasons. When the jug blows off its mounts you crash. The're **** lucky they didn't kill 24 people.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Whenever I've talked with Canadian charter operators (smaller than Buffalo), the safety regs have typically been various states of "ignore." OVC001? No problem, VFR at 50 AGL. One had a PT6 making such awful noises that Pratt said they'd never heard any PT6, ever, doing that. Single pilot? No problem, autopilot and take a nap or walk back to talk to pax.

I can't imagine that Joe was really out of the norm there. My guess is he annoyed the wrong guy.
 
They picked the wrong name. Should have been "Royal Canadian Airlines" or something.

I dunno. But when I hear "These Beavers are the greatest planes in the world. Ours have been flying for 75 years!" I get worried. I dont care how many Beavers its made of...
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
They picked the wrong name. Should have been "Royal Canadian Airlines" or something.

I dunno. But when I hear "These Beavers are the greatest planes in the world. Ours have been flying for 75 years!" I get worried. I dont care how many Beavers its made of...
Click to expand...

Are you worried because of the age of the plane? If so, how old is too old? Cessna never expected the 310 I'm flying to hit 50, and I'm flying it with plans of it hitting 75...
 
There's a handful of companies "up north" that bend and shake their way through the rules, fighting regulators at every single step. Some don't warrant the attention, but most do.
 
you really had to bump both threads to announce that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top