So I will continue to call level until told otherwise...
YVr Dude
Calling Level
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Feel like I am beating a dead dog here but wtf....read the rest of this after a grain of salt.
The "requirement" to call level is gone, but in conversation with a controller buddy there are many times when they still like it. They have situational awareness too. If the call is something that improves it for them....trust me they won't eat your brownie but they'll be cool with it. If you are clogging the freq. then let it slide.....they will appreciate it.
It's all about technique.
As to the reference about RVSM and the level call being more important than ever.....TCAS will fix that scenario more often than an UBER-Vigalant controller. (if TCAS is Unserviceable and you are still given clearance into RVSM airspace they will have you red flagged and probably request the level call) Said controller will have been monitoring that shit already...
Dog dead?
The "requirement" to call level is gone, but in conversation with a controller buddy there are many times when they still like it. They have situational awareness too. If the call is something that improves it for them....trust me they won't eat your brownie but they'll be cool with it. If you are clogging the freq. then let it slide.....they will appreciate it.
It's all about technique.
As to the reference about RVSM and the level call being more important than ever.....TCAS will fix that scenario more often than an UBER-Vigalant controller. (if TCAS is Unserviceable and you are still given clearance into RVSM airspace they will have you red flagged and probably request the level call) Said controller will have been monitoring that shit already...
Dog dead?
-
Jaques Strappe
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:34 pm
- Location: YYZ
When the RVSM transition areas disappeared and RVSM was implemented, Air Canada issued what is called an FOM bulletin to its pilots, which is approved by Transport Canada, stating that calling level was no longer required.
Having said that, the bulletin is no longer in existance meaning that the FOM has been amended to include it. Now I can't find it!
The AIM is pretty clear but many times there are exceptions to the rule for some obscure reason. I'll try to find out .
Having said that, the bulletin is no longer in existance meaning that the FOM has been amended to include it. Now I can't find it!
The AIM is pretty clear but many times there are exceptions to the rule for some obscure reason. I'll try to find out .
Standby for new atis message
Not so sure about this cpl, the AIM is not an "enabled" document like the CAR's.cpl_atc wrote: Regarding the level calls, my point was that there are many items required to be reported or adhered to ("Pilots shall..." legally shall = must), that are only stated in the AIM, and do not appear in the CARs.
This is from the inside cover of the AIM:
"The information in this publication is to be considered solely as a guide and should not be quoted as or
considered to be a legal authority. It may become obsolete in whole or in part at any time without notice."
Did the bulletin say that calling level was no longer required in RVSM airspace or radar airspace?Jaques Strappe wrote:When the RVSM transition areas disappeared and RVSM was implemented, Air Canada issued what is called an FOM bulletin to its pilots, which is approved by Transport Canada, stating that calling level was no longer required.
This is obviously based from TC which was an AIC published about 10 years ago.Jaques Strappe wrote:When the RVSM transition areas disappeared and RVSM was implemented, Air Canada issued what is called an FOM bulletin to its pilots, which is approved by Transport Canada, stating that calling level was no longer required.
Having said that, the bulletin is no longer in existance meaning that the FOM has been amended to include it. Now I can't find it!
The AIM is pretty clear but many times there are exceptions to the rule for some obscure reason. I'll try to find out .
As you pointed out, the AC FOM also contained it.
The AIM is not a governing document and lastly,
Standard practice is not calling level with the exception of changing frequencies with the exception of requests to do so.
For those of you not in a radar area, just listen to YYZ ATC on liveatc.com. Aside from acknowledgement of new altitude assignments, nobody calls level.
I have to say cpl, you are a royal pain in the ass on this issue!!!!cpl_atc wrote:So some of you are suggesting that the AIM's contents are optional and/or for guidance only?
Sorry, but there's way too much in that book that must be adhered to if you are planning on operating the way ATC and other pilots expect you to. While it is not the CARs, it is not information-only either.
Try ignoring whatever you happen to feel like from that book the next time you're on a ride and/or in relation to an ATC clearance and see how far you get.
Are you so fucking black in white in your life that information from other sources does not come into play. READ THE DISCLAIMER right in the front of AIM. IT IS BLACK AND WHITE so even you should have no trouble understanding it.
There are a lot of grey areas in this industry as all cannot be covered with the black and white you seemingly prefer. Deal with it.
IT IS NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT TO CALL LEVEL IN RADAR COVERED AIRSPACE IN CANADA!!!!!!
NOBODY DOES IT!!!!
If you did in congested areas such as YYZ at peak periods, the whole system would be fucked, nobody would get a word in.
GET BACK TO FUCKING NEAR CRASHING CARS CHECKING OUT TITTIES YOU OVER OPINIONATED MORON.
BTW, Winnipeg Center SUX.
And you are totally and completely wrong.If you read something in the AIM ... then you are REQUIRED to do it. That is my point.
A pilot cannot be charged with contravening the AIM, he can only be charged with contravening the CARs. If you don't believe me or anyone else here, call up Transport and ask Enforcement
A good example of the above is transponder operation. I know a lot of VFR pilots that leave their transponders turned off, except when they're talking to ATC, and they are in airspace which requires a transponder.
Even though the AIM may recommend otherwise, and it might get some people's panties all bunched up, it is not a violation of the CARs to leave your transponder off, outside of class A/B/C/D airspace. You aren't required to even have a transponder in E/G airspace, after all.
Don't even need it in all class D airspace.Hedley wrote:Even though the AIM may recommend otherwise, and it might get some people's panties all bunched up, it is not a violation of the CARs to leave your transponder off, outside of class A/B/C/D airspace. You aren't required to even have a transponder in E/G airspace, after all.
Are we reallly saying that everything in the AIM is optional?
Wahunga!
That's about one of the most rediculously imature posts I have seen here... congrat's!gr8gazu wrote:
IT IS NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT TO CALL LEVEL IN RADAR COVERED AIRSPACE IN CANADA!!!!!!
NOBODY DOES IT!!!!
We do it and are asked to do it in RVSM and non-RVSM radar controlled airspace.
Yes it was and boy did it feel good.Schlem wrote: That's about one of the most rediculously imature posts I have seen here... congrat's!
We do it and are asked to do it in RVSM and non-RVSM radar controlled airspace.
Je me give a shit pas what you do. Do your actions make it right? As I said earlier in the thread, do as you please.
Does your AFM require you to check the aircraft systems prior to flight?cpl_atc wrote:
Can you be charged under the CARs for not doing a run-up/systems check prior to takeoff?
Do you operate on an MEL that allows the equipment to be unserviceable?
I don't know what it has to do with reporting level or what point you are trying to prove cpl_atc?
I do apologize for the earlier rant. One too many coffees.....
You have cited a document that is not a regulatory document (the AIM) and I cited a document (AIC) that was the same. Both had different references to this topic so we find ourselves in a grey area deadlock.
Like I said before, do as you please unless requested to do otherwise.
Why are you asking that question here? You know you won't like the answer anyways. Why not call Enforcement and ask them?Can you be charged under the CARs for not doing a run-up/systems check prior to takeoff?
Hint: Is there a CAR that says you must do a "run-up/systems check prior to takeoff"? Answer: No. Therefore, you cannot be charged with violating a non-existent CAR.
This is really not very hard to understand, but please call Enforcement, and find out for yourself.
Finally, some light at the end of the tunnel. Let's hope it's not a locomotive headlight ....I agree that not following an AIM procedure is not the same as not following something from the CARs in terms of legal implications
The feds painstakingly made up the CARs. They put in there what they think is important. We comply with them. Clear?
Duh. Last time I checked, it is not a CARs violation to (nor does the AIM recommend against) smoke cigarettes, eat a high-fat, low-fiber diet, have unprotected sex with women with venereal diseases, or not wear rubber boots when rain is forecast.There are a lot of things that you .... should do, that do not appear in the CARs
As an ATC'er, you might have delusions of grandeur, and try to force all pilots in your sector and your neighborhood children to wear rubber boots because the forecast calls for rain. But I am not legally required to wear rubber boots just because the forecast calls for rain, or because you think you ought to control everyone around you, all the time.
Get it?
-
Jaques Strappe
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:34 pm
- Location: YYZ
Cpl ATC
I admire your self control after getting blasted. Gazu is correct in the fact that nobody calls level anymore. I can't remember when I last did and if I heard someone doing it, it would stand out.
As Hedley said, the CARs are what gorvern us, not the AIM but as you say, there is alot of vital info within the AIM which is why every licensed pilot has one.
If you were to compare everyday flying with what is written in the AIM and hold it as a tool for enforcement, there would not be many pilots left to fly. As you stated, there are many offences a controller could write up but doesn't if it is not safety related. I am not saying do what you please if you think it is safe but the AIM is more of a guide.
I know that if I were to get violated for not calling level, I could find the reference. Also, to fly within RVSM airspace, you need to have certified altimetry, RVSM trained pilots and certified aircraft, all being monitored by radar. ( unless on the ocean ) Calling level is kinda redundant.
I admire your self control after getting blasted. Gazu is correct in the fact that nobody calls level anymore. I can't remember when I last did and if I heard someone doing it, it would stand out.
As Hedley said, the CARs are what gorvern us, not the AIM but as you say, there is alot of vital info within the AIM which is why every licensed pilot has one.
If you were to compare everyday flying with what is written in the AIM and hold it as a tool for enforcement, there would not be many pilots left to fly. As you stated, there are many offences a controller could write up but doesn't if it is not safety related. I am not saying do what you please if you think it is safe but the AIM is more of a guide.
I know that if I were to get violated for not calling level, I could find the reference. Also, to fly within RVSM airspace, you need to have certified altimetry, RVSM trained pilots and certified aircraft, all being monitored by radar. ( unless on the ocean ) Calling level is kinda redundant.
Standby for new atis message
