When to contact Tower as per VNC

[lhalliday]

Legally, no contact required.

In practice, a courtesy call to let them know you're there and what your intentions are.

...laura

[CpnCrunch]

At the very least it's probably worth monitoring the frequency, so you can hear if you're being mentioned as conflicting traffic.

[Spinwmts]

There's a difference between "good practices" and the law, and there should always be a clear differentiation between the two.

Totally agree. I understand what he was getting at but I was asked if I was "required" to contact Saskatoon during that phase of my trip. I'm such a literal guy. My answer was short and to the point "NO" but I probably should have elaborated that "while technically its not a requirement, it would be highly advisable to make the courtesy call since I'm flying through an approach path."

[CpnCrunch]

Totally agree. I understand what he was getting at but I was asked if I was "required" to contact Saskatoon during that phase of my trip. I'm such a literal guy. My answer was short and to the point "NO" but I probably should have elaborated that "while technically its not a requirement, it would be highly advisable to make the courtesy call since I'm flying through an approach path."

The more training you get, and the more knowledge you acquire, the more you'll realise that your instructors (and examiners) don't have all the answers and they're sometimes wrong.

I almost didn't get my instrument rating flight test done because the examiner was wrong about how many instrument hours were required from an instructor. By sheer luck I had just enough hours from instructors to fulfil his incorrect notion of the rules. I've also had instructors tell me that the 172 has a "maximum" 15kt crosswind component, journey log is required to be on board for flights > 25nm landing at the home airport, instructors not knowing how to work the DME correctly, etc.

Also, flight schools sometimes have their own odd rules on top of the CARs, e.g. landings on 300nm x/c must be full-stop otherwise they won't sign off on it, etc. (That one almost got me as well, but I just sent the documentation to TC without getting an AP signoff, and they were happy enough).

I don't bother getting into an argument about this stuff...I just ask why they think that, and then look it up myself (and sometimes ask here on avcanada like you did, to check that I'm not crazy). Although if I was going to miss out on my flight test I'd probably have a more in-depth discussion with the examiner!

[Spinwmts]

I don't bother getting into an argument about this stuff...I just ask why they think that, and then look it up myself

Yep, that's a great approach to take. Pick up the good habits/tips and incorporate it into your flying and move on. Instructors vary considerably when it comes to routines in the cockpit and if I fly with a new one I can guarantee he/she will do something different from the way I do things and I'm sure I'll get a hand slap for that, but such is life when flying Dual/SIC i guess.

[Cherep777]

may be this:
CFS->procedures-> prior permition requirements : ctc Winnipeg ACC for the following: IFR training and photo survey within Saskatoon Class E transponder airspace