Tool of the Day!

[HavaJava]

The "Tool of the Day" award goes to the moron flying through CYOW terminal into Carp around 1300 today.

After contacting Ottawa and obtaining clearance to transit their Class D terminal, the terminal controller instructed him to fly heading 280 to avoid departing IFR traffic. The pilot refused to follow the instruction, told the controller that he was maintaining his current heading direct to Carp, and then chastised the controller for not knowing Class D procedures. The controller continued to try to get the pilot to change course and he continued to refuse.

Well buddy, I don't know what you thought you could gain by being such a complete jerk, but you have a heck of a lot to lose. You must have been pretty sure you were right that you could do whatever the hell you wanted, but unfortunately you were completely wrong. You have confused your Class D regulations. ATC is not obliged to provide VFR seperation, however that doesn't mean that you can ignore ATC instructions when you are within a TCU or a control zone.

I hope you get violated for every instruction that you refused to follow. I hope Transport Canada has a field day on your ass and ideally I'd like to see your licence revoked. It's not often that I would wish this on a fellow pilot, however your display of complete arrogance and ignorance today definitely warrants it. The skies will be much safer without you in them.

Just in case the terminal controller doesn't write you up (which I'm pretty sure she will), I am planning on forwarding my account of your pathetic performance to Transport Canada.

You sir, are the TOOL OF THE DAY

[Lost Lake]

Why don't you say what you really feel.

I'm with you on this one. Giver er sh&t!

[Dust Devil]

The "Tool of the Day" award goes to the moron flying through CYOW terminal into Carp around 1300 today.

After contacting Ottawa and obtaining clearance to transit their Class D terminal, the terminal controller instructed him to fly heading 280 to avoid departing IFR traffic. The pilot refused to follow the instruction, told the controller that he was maintaining his current heading direct to Carp, and then chastised the controller for not knowing Class D procedures. The controller continued to try to get the pilot to change course and he continued to refuse.

Well buddy, I don't know what you thought you could gain by being such a complete jerk, but you have a heck of a lot to lose. You must have been pretty sure you were right that you could do whatever the hell you wanted, but unfortunately you were completely wrong. You have confused your Class D regulations. ATC is not obliged to provide VFR seperation, however that doesn't mean that you can ignore ATC instructions when you are within a TCU or a control zone.

I hope you get violated for every instruction that you refused to follow. I hope Transport Canada has a field day on your ass and ideally I'd like to see your licence revoked. It's not often that I would wish this on a fellow pilot, however your display of complete arrogance and ignorance today definitely warrants it. The skies will be much safer without you in them.

Just in case the terminal controller doesn't write you up (which I'm pretty sure she will), I am planning on forwarding my account of your pathetic performance to Transport Canada.

You sir, are the TOOL OF THE DAY

What was he flying? Not that it matters just curious.

[HavaJava]

C-170...private owner

[shitdisturber]

Don't worry about it, he'll get written up. Even if the controller was having one of the best days of his life; he is required by TC to write up infractions. Failure on his part to do so can result in him paying the price for another's in this case, stupidity.

[moocow]

So how exactly will this go down? How long do they keep radar and radio transmission record?

[Hornblower]

The "Tool of the Day" award goes to the moron flying through CYOW terminal into Carp around 1300 today.
ATC is not obliged to provide VFR seperation, however that doesn't mean that you can ignore ATC instructions when you are within a TCU or a control zone.
You sir, are the TOOL OF THE DAY

Actually, no matter where you are, even in class E, F, G or anywhere. I believe the rule does not apply conditions of any kind when it comes to complying with ATC instructions directed at you. The key is really whether or not you receive and acknowledge them. In the case you describe, it's clear that the guy received and acknowledged them, so it would appear he is hooped.

Kind of stupid ... if you don't want to follow the instructions, just get out of class D and pretend you aren't receiving them ... d'oh

What was the reg. by the way?

[Braun]

In this situation, the controller will report the pilot to the shift manager and/or supervisor who will then proceed. The controller doesn't physically do anything more than this or for future reference. I know the person who this happened so I am curious to see what the hell was wrong with the pilot.

[. ._]

Sounds like a $50 fine to me.

[Hornblower]

It'll have to be AOR/CADOR'd (by law), so TC will likely pick up on it. Do you know the controller or the pilot? If you know the pilot, I suggest you tell him to adjust his meds before he goes flying again.

[HavaJava]

Nope, Idon't know either of them. I just overheard the exchange on the radio and was disgusted by the pilots idiocy. I have his registration, but I don't know if I'm allowed to post detailed info like that on Avcanada?...doesn't really matter anyway (except to those who might investigate the incident).

[Hornblower]

Maybe the mods can answer that. In any case it won't be hard to find in the CADORs next week.

[sky's the limit]

The Reg. will be on the CADORS, so let's just wait for that.

stl

[Lurch]

Nope, Idon't know either of them. I just overheard the exchange on the radio and was disgusted by the pilots idiocy. I have his registration, but I don't know if I'm allowed to post detailed info like that on Avcanada?...doesn't really matter anyway (except to those who might investigate the incident).

Please DO NOT post his Reg, this isn't the place to hang a person not yet convected. We have all the details we need. let TC take it where they feel necessary, hopefully to Enforcement. I would be contacting TC and giving my account, if I was you.

Please folks, let's keep this civil so this thread doesn't get pulled. I would love to see where this goes.

Lurch

[Lurch]

The Reg. will be on the CADORS, so let's just wait for that.

stl

Beat me too it STL

I have noticed lately they haven't been putting the registration on a lot of CADORs.

Lurch

[Invertago]

Even if it is FSS and they "ask" if you can do something, I've found they usually have everyone's best interest at heart. My crashing in dying inside their airspace generates paperwork for them I'm sure.

[Hornblower]

Please DO NOT post his Reg, this isn't the place to hang a person not yet convected [sic].

Hahahahaha, that's what (n)AvCanada does all the time ... c'est notre raison d'être

... but seriously, question: is an FSS actually ATC? I don't think so since they are not controllers. (I know that is not the case here ... just curious.)

[RVgrin]

I have his registration, but I don't know if I'm allowed to post detailed info like that on Avcanada?

IANAL, but IIRC it is a violation of the Radiocommunication Act to divulge anything heard in a radio conversation between two stations without permission from one of them.

[PunkStarStudios]

Really? Are you sure about that?
I can see for private conversations there's an expectation of privacy, but in this case there is no such expectation... in fact - it's not between two radio stations - everyone is "on the line" within the vacinity... and then there's the liveatc.net thing.

I have his registration, but I don't know if I'm allowed to post detailed info like that on Avcanada?

IANAL, but IIRC it is a violation of the Radiocommunication Act to divulge anything heard in a radio conversation between two stations without permission from one of them.

[BTD]

From the ROC-A Guide

4.2 Privacy of Communications

Radio operators and all persons who become acquainted with radiocommunications are bound to
preserve the privacy of those communications. In accordance with subsection 9(2) of the
Radiocommunication Act, no person shall divulge the contents, or the existence, of communications transmitted, received or intercepted by a radio station, except as permitted by the addressee of the message or his/her accredited agent, or to authorized officials of the Government of Canada, officers of the court or an operator of a telecommunications system as is necessary to forward or deliver the communication. These restrictions do not apply to a message of distress, urgency, safety or to messages addressed to “ALL STATIONS” (i.e. weather reports, storm warnings, etc.).

As outlined in section 9.1 of the Act, any person who violates the privacy of communications is liable, on summary conviction, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, or, in the case of a person other than an individual, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.ns ... /ric21.pdf

[CD]

To expand on the information from the Guide that BTD posted above, here is the information from the Act:

Prohibition

(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication

(a) if the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it was in Canada when the communication was made; and
(b) unless the originator, or the person intended by the originator to receive the communication consents to the use or divulgence.
Idem

(2) Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it.

Radiocommunication Act - Offences and Punishment

[RVgrin]

I can see for private conversations there's an expectation of privacy, but in this case there is no such expectation... in fact - it's not between two radio stations - everyone is "on the line" within the vacinity...

A "Radio Station" is defined as "a place in which radio apparatus is located", which includes planes and control towers.

Non-encrypted communications are always available to anyone with a scanner, so it is not surprising that the Act makes no mention of "expectation of privacy" or "private conversation".

But, to answer your question: no, I am not sure. As I said, I am not a lawyer (IANAL). Court interpretation of law set precedents, and casual reading of relevant legislation is not sufficient.

and then there's the liveatc.net thing.

Interesting point. Although Canada isn't going after a US website on an issue like this, if someone got upset about liveatc I could see them putting pressure on the local operators relaying the signal to it.

[FlaplessDork]

The Reg. will be on the CADORS, so let's just wait for that.

stl

Often CADOR's get it completely wrong. Remember they are preliminary information. A few of my planes have been in the CADOR's lately and were not even in the air on the dates in question. After demanding that they pull the tower tapes Enforcement came back to say that the events didn't even happen, or that the tower just picked a registration to pin it to.

The CADORs were then removed.

[ScudRunner]

http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php


You can listen live, but it's not archived for CYOW

[Braun]

I never really understood why CYOW wasn't archived.