App. ban am I the test case? HELP

TenForTwelve · Post by **TenForTwelve** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:59 pm

I think there's a rule for just such a case as this. Basically, it's a way for a pilot to say "yeah, I broke the rule, but given the circumstances it was the only option I had, and I did it as safely as I could." Due diligence, or something. I'm kinda vague on it, but maybe TC Guy can shed some light. Fucking approach ban. I flew for a few years in NW BC, and also know how fast the WX can change. It's certainly not a well thought out rule, to put it nicely. Let us know what happens.

Cloud 9 · Post by **Cloud 9** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:28 pm

Cat Driver wrote:If you need help financially there are many here who will chip in to pay a lawyer for you.

Count me in for $30 if it goes to court (sorry it's only $30 - I am a pilot afterall!). If we take a stand early on this ridiculous rule, hopefully we can nip it in the butt before it gets completely out of hand. Oh, and for all you 'operators/company owners' out there, it's definitely in your interest to help out in whatever way you can (more so than us mere 'drivers').

Cheers

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:11 pm

Lots of good advice here. As was said before, when Enforcement calls, everything you say is recorded and used the Tribunal against you, and they DO NOT tell you that. They will try to coerce a confession out of you.

Be friendly, and tell him that you have been advised by your lawyer not to speak to them directly, and this conversation is over, and hang up.

If you're lucky, you'll never get that phone call (and registered letter). If you're unlucky, well, I'm in for $100 for starters. I must warn you that a trip through the legal system (Tribunal, Tribunal Appeal, Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeals) is going to cost you in excess of $100,000 - ask me how I know this.

It's very disappointing that Transport would prefer that you and your pax be dead instead of violating the fantasy approach ban, but there is a big reality gap between the ivory tower of nice, safe indexed pensions that they live in, and the real world of aviation.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:25 pm

Been covered pretty well. Can't say it enough though....say nothing. Admit nothing. TC will try and coax something out of you....say nothing.
You did have ground contact.
You saw the runway 2 miles back, as measured with your GPS!
And lastly, I don't think you'll hear anything further on the matter.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:50 pm

NC has nothing to do with it

Au contraire. It would appear that NavCan enforces the approach ban by filing reports with Transport. Transport then uses ground visibility data provided by NavCan to prosecute pilots for violating the approach ban.

If there is no FSS or Tower in operation, none of the above takes place.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:03 am

Hey cpl_atc

You are reading too much into my comment.
Let me try to be more explicit. What I am trying to say is that no kind of rulebreaking is good. (unless safety is an issue.)
However, altitude excursions are usually done my mistake, a moment's lapse of concentration etc, not from choice. (as you know if you are with ATC.)
This happens dozens of times per day across Canada and is not persued by Enforcement, other than usually by a letter.

To bust the approach ban would (in the absence of total ignorance of the Ban) be a conscious choice by a pilot.

I believe this will happen, also, dozens of times per day.
Pilots will report a better flight visibility than the reported ground visibility.
Will they be honest?......some will, some will not. But, who is to call them liars????????

However, I am prepared to wager that many pilots will choose to continue their old (and safe) practice of continuing the approach and file a PIREP with FSS. This is a better and safer practice than proceeding to a chancey alternate, or flying off VFR to an isolated airstrip and precipitating the crew and passengers into a survival experience at minus 30 degrees, with no communications or shelter ....(this has already happened.) ****

Anyone with any experience knows that flight and ground vis are two different things. As a consequence, Enforcement is going to be running around trying to determine whether dozens of daily approaches were done "legally"........hence my statement that such incidents will swamp their resources and they will be treated in the same fashion as altitude excursions.

**** I am not interested in any opinion about always having enough fuel for an IFR alternate when the operation is VFR, so anyone wishing to express that thought, please start a new thread which I can ignore.

Tks

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:15 am

It was FSS that couldn't give me enroute wx. I talked to them yesterday and apparently trhey can give enroute wx ONLY if contact can't be made with Kamloops.
I also asked for the wx sequences for that day and was told they couldn't give them to me, talk to their supervisor, he might be able to give them to me. Let you know how that goes, don't think the official secrets act applies?
Notwithstanding all the excellent advice that I have recieved, my inclination is to tell TC exactly how it went and if they want my ticket they can have it. I will be happier driving a dump truck if things have got this stupid in reality. I might try being a wino for a while unless there is a ban on approaching TC inspectors for change....

towbird · Post by **towbird** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:30 am

Worst thing you can do right now it's tell TC.

Did they already got back to you in this matter? If they didn't, follow the previously advise and shut up.

Been to the process before and I assure you, don't give any idea to TC. Let them sort the problem before starting to giving them any kind of explanation. And by the way, if the call you for interview the first thing they gonna tell you is that you have the right to remain silent. USE THAT RIGHT.

Keep us posted.

Tow

PS My bet is you'll never gonna have any news from them.

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:31 am

bronson wrote:It was FSS that couldn't give me enroute wx. I talked to them yesterday and apparently trhey can give enroute wx ONLY if contact can't be made with Kamloops.
I also asked for the wx sequences for that day and was told they couldn't give them to me, talk to their supervisor, he might be able to give them to me. Let you know how that goes, don't think the official secrets act applies?
Notwithstanding all the excellent advice that I have recieved, my inclination is to tell TC exactly how it went and if they want my ticket they can have it. I will be happier driving a dump truck if things have got this stupid in reality. I might try being a wino for a while unless there is a ban on approaching TC inspectors for change....

This thing is enough to make a person want to pack it up flying wise. Does anyone know how the app. ban applies for airports with no fss, just awos? I believe a person can go ahead and do the approach in any wx conditions with only awos. Maybe this is the answer to getting into these more remote airports. Is it a safety enhancement? - obviously not, but they either install ILS, or dump fss and go to awos if we are to do our job. I think in the meantime, letters to mla's, mps, local newspaper editors etc., in an in your face manner, are the logical next step.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:35 am

AWOS, unfortunately is "reported" weather. Putting in an AWOS would be equivalent to closing the aerodrome semi-permanently, if pilots used that kind of reporting to determine if there is the Ban.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:38 am

Putting in an AWOS, which is "reported" weather, would lead to many flights being cancelled when the sky is blue and vis is 93,000,000 miles.

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:36 pm

I am considering approaching the RASO at TC for the area with my safety concerns over these issues as a seperate matter. I don't see how it makes sense to give up an assured landing ( as Hawkair has had to do twice I'm told) in favour of your alternate which may or may not be open when you get there. What if the guy ahead of you forgets to put the gear down? You are already over your duty day and have an engine fail on the go around? What do you do when you can't get into the alternate and you have f.a. for gas remaining? I am preaching to the converted I suppose, kind of a rant thing actually.
FSS by the way only has METARS/TAFS for 3 hrs. and then the computer dumps them. I will see if Envoiro Canuck has them as I am told there was in fact a report written on the incident, I should be prepared.
Sure do appreciate all the offers of support and everyone taking the time to offer what advice they can. Maybe I have seen the good side of TC too much and dealt with the big E too little.....maybe I'll sleep on it, it's time for my nap anyway....

fougapilot · Post by **fougapilot** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:54 pm

Bronson,

I have been reading this tread and admit to be a little lost.

couple of question for you;

1, was this a private flight or a commercial operation?

2, what was the reported vis when you did the approach?

3, What is the published recommended vis for the approach you flew?

thanks,

F

185/310 · Post by **185/310** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:02 pm

Hey Bronson,

If your looking to get past weather for the day in question u can phone the climate weather office (1-900-565-1111). Just remember its a 900 number, they charge a ridiculous price per minute (i forget how much) then charge u for the weather information being faxed or emailed to u. However if u need it, u need it, everything helps.

Good luck

richardhead · Post by **richardhead** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:54 pm

Look at the bright side. On the outside chance you get violated, which I doubt very much. You will be a shoe in at AC.

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:00 am

fougapilot:
In answer to your questions;
1) 604 ops (private)
2) 1/4
3) 2

matt foley · Post by **matt foley** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:17 am

A CADORS(daily occurence report) was issued a few days after the ban came into play(Dec 3rd I thnk) for an AC landing just prior to our departure(we were waiting for him to land so our clearance would be valid). The inbound crew were giving pi-reps all the way down wich were well above the minima for ceiling and vis. We also confirmed their obs. with pi-reps on the way out wich lifted the approach ban but too late for the inbound fellas. They are geting pinched and i can keep you posted as to their fate as it will be the first approach ban infraction in our area.

fougapilot · Post by **fougapilot** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:41 am

Bronson,

Please do not loose any sleep over this. TC will not call you.

The new approach ban is located in section 700 of the CARs and by definition only applies to commercial operator. Since your operation was under private operations CARs 700.10 is not applicable in this situation. For all private operation (from the FNG in his C172 to me in my CL64) the approach ban remains the same as listed in CAR 602.129 (which is good reading since it was all modified this december). And it stipulates that where no RVR is available (which I think is the case here) the visibility must be at or greater then 1/4mile and must be reported by either the PIC or a qualified person.

If I were you, I would close the book on this one.

F

Pratt X 3 · Post by **Pratt X 3** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:51 am

I'll second what fougapilot said. Here's a chart that illustrates that you're good on this.

McPhoo · Post by **McPhoo** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:39 am

Well, doesn't that tidy that one up so nicely! Good job fougapilot. Sure makes me wish I was 604! I still lose sleep over the insanity of this rule

Cloud 9 · Post by **Cloud 9** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:57 pm

McPhoo wrote:Well, doesn't that tidy that one up so nicely! Good job fougapilot. Sure makes me wish I was 604! I still lose sleep over the insanity of this rule

Ditto.....

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:36 pm

Goddamn I knew there was a reason I came to you guys for help! I'm spoiling for the fight now though and you tell me they aren't going to take the first swing? Feel like going back to 705 so I can break the ban again.
In all seriousness though... I still intend to take this up with the safety folks at TC, it still makes me tight in the belly thinking about how dangerous this reg. can be. Can't thank you guys enough for the help!

J Roc · Post by **J Roc** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:55 pm

bronson wrote:...it still makes me tight in the belly thinking about how dangerous this reg. can be....

These new changes are still a mystery to myself, and I too feel it's a crock and would like to see the old regs reinstated, but I'm not sure how the new rules might be dangerous.

I'm still on the fence regarding the new regs, and would love to hear some scenarios on how they could be "dangerous".

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:04 pm

Pratt X 3 wrote:I'll second what fougapilot said. Here's a chart that illustrates that you're good on this.

My understanding - in reference to "conditions apply", (for 703+) is that for starters, if the runway heading is greater than 3 degrees off the final app course, reported vis minima to conduct the approach is 75% of cap. Does anyone know of a way around that one (aside from a contact)?

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:35 pm

J roc, go back to the start and you'll see...i.e. giving up the runway in sight for the one a hundred miles away etc.