Alleged violation question

[flingwinger]

Hello all,

I've got a question regarding an alleged violation. I cant find the answers i'm looking for in CARs

1)We were performing aerial work as per CAR 702.1 - Violation letter was addressed to me personally, rather than the AOC (is this normal procedure? or should it have been directed to my company. Can they violate me personally in this situation?)

2) I can not find anywhere in cars a time limit for checking of notams before a flight. The only requirement I can find is: CAR 602.71 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing a flight, be familiar with the available information that is appropriate to the intended flight.
In this case, notam's were checked aprox 45 minutes to an hour before departure due to a technical delay on the ramp. During that time a class F airspace restriction was established (2nm radius) which was allegedly entered. ATC did not pass on the restriction and it was within 3 miles outside of their zone.

I did find in the notam procedures manual section 3.1 - "notam restricting airspace shall be issued at least seven days in advance" but doesn't state if that applies to restrictions issued under section 5.1 of the aeronautics act.

Thanks in advance.

[flingwinger]

Also, no CADORs was issued for the event.

[AM Radio]

Hello,
I had an alleged violation quite some time ago when I flew up north. It was regarding single engine operation carrying passengers at night. The RCMP at the village where I landed thought that I was landing after dark and asked to see my licence and registration. REALLY? I thought that they didn't have jurisdiction at airports in the north. However, I landed before official dark, (we carried the sunrise and sunset tables with us) and dropped off my passengers before such and had intended on returning home in the dark with no passengers. A situation developed with the plane and I elected to stay the night and work on the plane in the morning.
The Notice of an alleged Violation was delivered only to myself and my employer only laughed at my misfortune. I called the Transport Office that sent the notice and made arrangements to speak with the Enforcement officer when I arrived in town. I flew in Northern Sask. and the village I landed at was in the NWT so the notice came from the Edmonton office. The Inspector was understanding and listened to my story and gave me 3 options. The first was plead not guilty and ask for a tribunal, the second was plead guilty and accept the fine and the third was plead guilty and arrange for counseling. I asked what the counseling consisted of and he asked me if I learnt anything and if I would do it again to which I answered Yes and No. Good he says consider yourself counciled and sent me on my way with no fine. By the way, he had no problem of me returning home after dark as long as I had no passengers on board.

[flingwinger]

AM Radio, thank you for sharing, I was worried that if found guilty it can go on your pilot record and prevent you from holding certain positions within an operation. Ive just found that it takes 2 separate cars violations or a violation under 7.3 of the aeronautics act- so i'm a little relieved. I've been told not to say a word to transport because they'll use it against you, but in this situation i believe its better to cooperate and plead due diligence.

[snoopy]

Hello,
I had an alleged violation quite some time ago when I flew up north. It was regarding single engine operation carrying passengers at night. The RCMP at the village where I landed thought that I was landing after dark and asked to see my licence and registration. REALLY? I thought that they didn't have jurisdiction at airports in the north. However, I landed before official dark, (we carried the sunrise and sunset tables with us) and dropped off my passengers before such and had intended on returning home in the dark with no passengers. A situation developed with the plane and I elected to stay the night and work on the plane in the morning.
The Notice of an alleged Violation was delivered only to myself and my employer only laughed at my misfortune. I called the Transport Office that sent the notice and made arrangements to speak with the Enforcement officer when I arrived in town. I flew in Northern Sask. and the village I landed at was in the NWT so the notice came from the Edmonton office. The Inspector was understanding and listened to my story and gave me 3 options. The first was plead not guilty and ask for a tribunal, the second was plead guilty and accept the fine and the third was plead guilty and arrange for counseling. I asked what the counseling consisted of and he asked me if I learnt anything and if I would do it again to which I answered Yes and No. Good he says consider yourself counciled and sent me on my way with no fine. By the way, he had no problem of me returning home after dark as long as I had no passengers on board.

If you were not guilty of any violation, why would you plead guilty and accept counseling? This is the law we are talking about here, so as such should be fair and applied similarly across the board. If you broke the law, fair game - if not fair foul.

There is a time and a place to pick your battles over regulatory issues and regional policy differences (which shouldn't exist, and don't even get me started), however if this is a point of law affecting your personal license and credentials I would not accept anything other than the law!

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Doc]

If you were not guilty of any violation, why would you plead guilty and accept counseling? This is the law we are talking about here, so as such should be fair and applied similarly across the board. If you broke the law, fair game - if not fair foul.

There is a time and a place to pick your battles over regulatory issues and regional policy differences (which shouldn't exist, and don't even get me started), however if this is a point of law affecting your personal license and credentials I would not accept anything other than the law!

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

Actually, the "counselling" sounded pretty "tongue in cheek". He didn't really "plead" guilty to anything. Well stroked actually. He didn't have to take time off, fly to (probably) Edmonton, on his dime, go through a tribunal, during which he'd have to give what would amount to a "lesson" on sunset, sunrise to a bunch of bozos who probably think flying in the dark (or nearly dark) sky is all witchcraft and voodoo. There's an old saying in the legal profession..."the law's an ass" Tribunals don't always go as they should. Neither do trials, BTW. You are correct..."there is a time and place to pick your battles..." This was neither the time, nor the place.

Then again, if he had just told them to "pound sand" it probably wouldn't have gone any further.

[flyincanuck]

Interesting.

Fling, it seems you have a reasonable excuse for violating the airspace. A defense lawyer would argue that you weren't "guilty" as a result of your prudent pre-flight preparations (checking notams, etc) and the fact that the act itself wasn't deliberate in nature.

I've never been violated, and I don't how pleading guilty would effect ones career progression, other than answering "yes" to the violation question in an interview.

As for this thread's sub-plot, it sounds like AM radio was on his way to being vindicated, but option 3 was the easiest (read: laziest). Can't say I would have done the same thing, especially when it comes down to violating the CARs and tarnishing my professional reputation.

[trey kule]

The first was plead not guilty and ask for a tribunal, the second was plead guilty and accept the fine and the third was plead guilty and arrange for counseling. I asked what the counseling consisted of and he asked me if I learnt anything and if I would do it again to which I answered Yes and No. Good he says consider yourself counciled and sent me on my way with no fine. By the way, he had no problem of me returning home after dark as long as I had no passengers on board.

It is a sad state of affairs when one is innocent but pleads guilty just to make it easier.

If you are innocent, you are innocent.. And although it is probably an inconvenience for enforement, and not good for their statistics, no one should plead guilty when they are not.

The original poster seemed to state an I am innocent...but.....

[Kurwa]

I had something similar happen to me with regard to timing and publication years ago. Wx was up and down, got in on an ILS, but then couldn't leave as we were a bit short on the half mile vis for departure, so we waited and waited...checking the PATWAS every five minutes on the pay phone in the terminal. Then, it went up to half a mile, so we ran out, fired up, took a clearance and blasted off (with an airport advisory at the time of clearance). I could even see a good 3/4 of a mile on the runway in position. Off we went. By the time we reached destination, a CADORs was on file for a 1/4 mile departure when 1/2 mile was required. I called the inspector, and discovered the ATIS had dropped back to 1/4 mile between our clearance/advisory and departure (perhaps 3 minutes or so). Given the evidence as I stated it (we sat and waited, the string of metars, vis as seen on the runway) it was clearly not our intent to break the law. The result was case closed. No fines, not guilty and nothing on file.
In this case it had a lot to do with 'intent' I would think.
Hope this helps you.

[Prairie Chicken]

OK, coming from a former Enforcement inspector, let me address the OP first. Yes, it is normal procedure to open an investigation against the pilot in a commercial air op. A second file may also be opened investigating the operator on the same offence. The decision is made by the Enforcement office &/or investigator based on the nature of the alleged violation. And yes, you most certainly can be held accountable for the violation.

NO, there is no time limit specified pertaining to how recently you must check NOTAMs & weather before a flight. You have found the applicable CAR. The test is what would a reasonable & prudent pilot do. Yes, it is somewhat discretionary--if all the facts of your case balanced on the fact that you checked NOTAMS 45 minutes before departure, and a new NOTAM came out in that period, I'd accept your explanantion & recommend NFA--no further action--no offence. (Whereas checking wx & NOTAMS the night before a flight wouldn't get you off the hook.) That recommendation would then go to the investigator's superiors and if they concured, you'd be notified in writing of the decision. This is where having an inspector that is a pilot is really helpful, and where differences in personality can play into the inspector's approach. No, it isn't right but people are all different.

With regard to your concerns about violations on your record--you may not be approved as a chief pilot & some other senior posiitons if you have contraventions of A. Act 7.3(3) on your record. That's the section which says you wilfully, intentionally did something really unacceptible--not the one you're being investigated under. With regard to an oral counselling, which I'll address a little later, an oral counselling will not show up on your record at all! The file will be closed as NFA--Oral Counselling, the statistic recorded for statistical purposes, and the file & electronic data with your name & licence attached to it will be destroyed.

PM me if you'd like.

[Liquid Charlie]

It's been many years since I have called up and checked notams a wx through anyone other than a dispatcher - in that case I always had a witness that I had done my due diligence but for anyone else how do you prove that you actually checked the notams unless you have a hard copy time stamped or by chance a recorded phone call. Damn it's a cover your ass world out there now --

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have the equivalent of a PHD in air law the CAR's and how the system works when one gets on the wrong side of TCCA.

Unlike being involved with a police force where you have some protection from wrongful prosecution / wrongful protection under law dealing with TCCA is entirely different as they perceive that they are the law and thus above accountability.

Read what Prairie Chicken wrote and then decide what you may do in a case such as the OP has outlined.

Accepting a guilty position with " oral counseling " event even though it goes against the " due process " section of Canadian law which is the corner stone of our system at least makes the problem go away.

Conversely if you are not guilty of any offense but the regulator is guilty of exceeding their authority you can stand up for your rights under law and may win your case like I did.

But it comes with an enormous cost in the end for you personally and your family and employees.

The person / 's at TCCA who are found guilty on the other hand have nothing to lose as they will just go on receiving their pay checques and bonuses until they retire with a full pension.

Places like Nigeria for instance have a better legal situation in these matters as you can bribe your way out of most situations.

[Prairie Chicken]

I've been told not to say a word to transport because they'll use it against you, but in this situation i believe its better to cooperate and plead due diligence.

Flingwinger, anything you do say to the TC inspector may be used in the investigation & any subsequent hearing should the matter go that far. The letter you received will have spelled that out.

Let's put it this way: If you tell the investigator that you checked NOTAMs 45 minutes before your actual departure, ?? minutes before your scheduled departure, and the NOTAM wasn't in place, and if the inspector verifes what you've told him, he will use your info to clear you. If you don't say a word to Transport the inspector won't know you checked NOTAMs, and as you haven't responded to his letter he'll have no choice but to continue with the investigation. Chances are, because he doesn't know you did check that NOTAM 45 min before departure, you'll find a sanction levied against you & have to pay or fight it. You can participate in the investigation or not; the choice is entirely yours.

On the other hand, if you are really at fault, didn't really check NOTAMs, or simply didn't read them all clearly, you might not want to talk to the investigator. They have to prove you guilty (in a Tribunal). If you were to go in & admit you failed to check NOTAMs, or did it last night & didn't bother again this morning, they will use that info against you.

Another scenario is that you tell the investigator you checked NOTAMs 45 minutes before your departure & the guy is a real hard azz and says you should have checked again before you took off. A NOTAM came out that you weren't aware of so the guy may have a point. I'd argue I'd done everything a reasonable & prudent pilot would do, and the investigator's manager may agree with you. Or, you may have an out on the time of the NOTAM issue you mentioned in your first post. Failing that, you could go to a Tribunal and argue about what a reasonable & prudent pilot woud do, but neither you nor he really want to go there. An oral counselling may be a reasonable comprimise here.

With regard to the oral counselling, and in respect for Snoopy's position, it may not be used if guilt or innocence is at issue. It may only be used if guilt is admitted, no actual harm was done, and future compliance is promised.

My recommendation, always, is if you are guilty as sin--say nothing & let the investigator investigate & then prove your guilt. If you're innocent--by all means participate in the investigation. You know the situation better than the investigator does & can likely point him in the direction to clear your name quickly. If you made an honest mistake & no one was harmed; work with the investigator & the outcome will likely be less painful than had you not worked with him.

I have no doubt some others will flame away at this, but from my perspective, that is how it worked. Good luck.

PS, edited to add no CADORS likely means someone other than Nav Can reported you.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I will add the paperwork that is required for every Car part 7 flight is a pain in the ass but it matters. Keep good records and make sure they are accurate. TC got a complaint that I was low flying one day when I was working as a banner tow pilot. It instantly went away when I told the Fed that at the time I was "allegedly" flying low over buddies house I was on the phone to the FSS getting a weather and Notam briefing.

[trey kule]

PC

I normally enjoy your posts, and learn from your experiences. But I feel you are a bit off base on this. Well intentioned, and you probably were and are an honorable man. But many, many of the enforcement people are not.

My recommendation, always, is if you are guilty as sin--say nothing & let the investigator investigate & then prove your guilt. If you're innocent--by all means participate in the investigation. You know the situation better than the investigator does & can likely point him in the direction to clear your name quickly. If you made an honest mistake & no one was harmed; work with the investigator & the outcome will likely be less painful than had you not worked with him.

Your recommendations betray your bias. The thinking behind the guilty as an idea, is that if you are not guilty you have nothing to hide and therefore should tell all.. That is not what the Charter of rights states, and saying nothing is NOT an admission of guilt.
That trampling on of our basic rights is so ingrained in TC enforcement culture that it tends to bias all investigations.. Dont come crawling with hat in hand...Must be guilty..Lets get the bastard.
The problem is that if you demand your rights the inspector can become offended, use your rational that one must be guilty and persue it with a vengenance. I have had personal experience with this.
So firstly, from my point, the refusal to participate is not an admission of guilt as many from TC would believe..
In this particular case the pilot may willingly state he checked the NOTAMs 45 minute before hand. The inspector might think that not prudent, and if he detects "attitude" from the pilot for being annoyed at the whole business, presents the facts so as to convince his manager and voila.....an enforcement action.
The decision of reasonable and prudent is subjective on the inspector's part. And unfortunately, "attitude" seems to be part of the subjective process. And just like the inquisition,the decision will be made behind closed doors without your having the ability to present your case except through the person who was doing the investigation.
My advice is if you have done nothing wrong, to simply state that, and nicely tell the inspector to pound sand...you dont have to "prove" your innocent. That is a holdover from the days of the Inquisition, who BTW, worked in a similar fashion to TC enforcement in many case.

Having said that, people are quite correct. TC may decide you are guilty and then you have to go through the whole tribunal process, and finally,maybe the courts.. It is long, painful, and expensive. A shame because it has allowed TC enforcement to use the process, or the threat of the process to have people admit guilt when they are, in fact, not guilty.

Lastly, and I was actually going to start a thread on this, but I have seen, in the last year, a tremendous change in the workings of TC. Maybe the new DCGA? In any event, it almost seems like I was dealing with a whole new organization, and it was very pleasant. Perhaps enforcement has gotten rid of all their police force rejects, and the wannabees, and has decided that the law and people's rights are not subject to their particular perspective. Perhaps they may have also decided to do some training in Charter issues. In the past it was just push ahead until the courts stepped in, and then , if they did not like the decision, head back to the drawing board to figure out how to circumvent the law with new regulations. I suspect there are many pilots that still have aeronautic act suspension records as a result of administrative action , something the courts have deemed that TC did not have the ability to do.

Good luck son...Those letters are just like the ones people got from the Inquistion 600 years ago.

[Cat Driver]

Conversely if you are not guilty of any offense but the regulator is guilty of exceeding their authority you can stand up for your rights under law and may win your case like I did.

But it comes with an enormous cost in the end for you personally and your family and employees.

The person / 's at TCCA who are found guilty on the other hand have nothing to lose as they will just go on receiving their pay checques and bonuses until they retire with a full pension.

Places like Nigeria for instance have a better legal situation in these matters as you can bribe your way out of most situations.

Once again to add to what trey kule just posted read my last comments in a previous post.

How TCCA ever got to the place they can deny a Canadian citizen their basic rights under law is mind numbing.

Even more mind numbing is when they are proven guilty of denying due process they receive zero penalty and just carry on as if nothing happened.

[Prairie Chicken]

Kule, you & I have been around this block before. I don't believe either of us is going to change the position of the other, but I'd be really interested in knowing who or what poisoned you so badly.

Your recommendations betray your bias. The thinking behind the guilty as an idea, is that if you are not guilty you have nothing to hide and therefore should tell all.. That is not what the Charter of rights states, and saying nothing is NOT an admission of guilt.

My recommendations betray my experience. In my experience, info comes to Enforcement most commonly by CADORS. Usually, although not always, NavCan reports the occurrence accurately. I know of one region that used to (not sure if they still do) send a Letter of Investigation based on nothing other than the CADORS. No investigation, no review of audio files--nothing. No response to that letter meant, most likely, a monetary penalty. You, the alleged offender, then get to pay the penalty or go to the TATC. Does that make sense to you? It sure didn't to me. Of course, the fact that that Region had more Tribunals than any other in the country didn't seem to phase them at all. They did the investigation after a Tribunal was requested by the alleged offender & dropped the case if warranted. THAT'S the sort of BS that I saw! Maybe you're from that region; if so, I can't blame you for your opinion.

No, exercising your right to say nothing is not an admission of guilt and I never took offence. I just couldn't figure out why someone wouldn't respond, or have their lawyer respond, until I started reading this forum. Now I see why people are afraid to respond! No, it doesn't make it easy to be unbiased if someone is swearing at you; but it shouldn't affect the investigation. On the other hand, it is very likely to affect the penalty. Policy clearly allows the manager to increase or decrease penalties based on expressions of remorse, admitting error, threat to public safety, etc. And please don't argue that is unfair or some TC deviancy--our legal system applies it as well in sentencing and parole decision.

As far as an attitude of "Lets get the bastard", I never saw that. On the contrary, I often saw inaction due to concerns of trampling on the operator's rights when action was most certainly warranted! Yeah, I was there for Wapiti. I guarrantee there was no "get the bastard" attitude there. Too bad there hadn't been some. (The courts thought so too.)

The decision of reasonable and prudent is subjective on the inspector's part. And unfortunately, "attitude" seems to be part of the subjective process. And just like the inquisition,the decision will be made behind closed doors without your having the ability to present your case except through the person who was doing the investigation.

Behind closed doors & without the ability to present your case? You were offered the chance to participate in the initial letter, and again at the time of a sanction! You can and should be involved--that's what I keep trying to say. It's also why you want to be dealing with a pilot and not a clerk but that's another discussion. Anyhow, at any point, including after an assessment of penalty has been made, you can make your case. If you don't get satisfaction with the inspector, he has a boss. And if you're not happy with his decision, maybe, just maybe, you really do need to re-evaluate whether you did wrong. As far as what is reasonable & prudent is--you know how debates rage here ... the same debates & differences of opinion happen in TC offices too. Hopefully though, those debates occur among experienced professionals. What you thought was reasonable as a newly minted cp may not seem so reasonable to you now as a veteran pilot.

My advice is if you have done nothing wrong, to simply state that, and nicely tell the inspector to pound sand...you dont have to "prove" your innocent.

No, of course you don't have to prove yourself innocent--TC have to prove your guilt. You don't have to look both ways before you cross the street if you're in a crosswalk either, but I think it's a good idea!

As far as a new thread about changes in TC, I'd like to hear what's going on.

[NO LINK*]

A question for someone following this conversation: Heard that after a period of time the Pilot criminal can apply to have these violations removed from record? Is there any truth to this, and if so how do one go about doing this? I took one for the team over 15 years ago and it is still all over the TATC/TC trophy wall.

[trey kule]

Thanks PC. You did a very good job of clarifying your position....

I would like to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong !!

On a more serious note, I have no idea what has changed within TC, but it is really a different place to deal with this last year. To be fair I have not dealt with enforcement or any inspectors, only licensing, training, and airworthiness, so maybe there has not been a change in the first two. If there has, I expect that much more will be accomplished with TC's mandate, then it was in the past. Just my very limited experience lately.

[The Mole]

Maybe the better question to ask is why the Notam was issued in the first place with such short notice. Was it a police incident. sounds that way being a small area and probably to around 2000ft AGL. Transport has been issuing Notams for everything from car accidents to drug busts. Mud slides too. Its not RCMP air ops requesting them. Its the douche bag cop on the ground who's scared of the media and wants a bit of control. It has nothing to do with the spirit of protecting the flying publics safety. Just protecting police from embarrassment. Transports feet should be held to a fire for this sensor ship. This is not a police state, even under stephen harper. Only the RCMP do this. Never seen the VPD or Abbotsford police do it. Just the RCMP. Media aircraft fly around in close proximity to the police all the time. So saying they need room to operate is Bull. Its media censorship, not the flying publics safety..............

[trey kule]

that is an interesting question about the why of the Notam.

As far as CADORS goes, simply go on their website, and place a search for, oh, lets say the last two weeks...pick any two weeks actually....It is amazing how much paperwork is generated.
And, as it happens, if you do a bit of searching, there are CADORS about NOTAMS not being issued..

Unless this was a serious safety concern, it really should be a non event, from an investigative point of view. PC's explanation that a region might begin an investigation on every CADORS is interesting, though in reading over them, many say no further action.
I worked for an airline in Canada some time back, and when a CADORS was issued involving our airline, it caused an immense amount of time and manpower..And every one applicable was dealt with. Even the most frivoulous ones required PIC/FO reports to the CP, and the safety committee.
BTW..Where is Rod Ridley. Like many others I thought he was being underutilized in doing CADORS, and should have become a writer..besides he seemed to have way to much common sense. I am sure if he contributed to the Safety Letter, the readership would improve...

[Prairie Chicken]

NO LINK, it's true, and I highly recommend taking advantage of it. Here's the applicable excerpt from the Enforcement Policy Manual:

14.1 Removal of Notation of Sanction

Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Aeronautics Act, any notation of a suspension by the Minister of a Canadian aviation document, or of a penalty imposed in accordance with sections 7.6 to 8.2 shall, on request from the person affected by the suspension or penalty, be removed from the record if:
1.At least two years have transpired since the date the suspension expired or the penalty amount was paid;
2.No additional suspension or penalty has been recorded against that person after that date; and
3.The removal of the record would not be contrary to the interest of aviation safety or security; if that person is subject to an investigation under the Aeronautics Act or its related Regulations (CARs) at the time of the request, it could be considered contrary to the interest of aviation safety or security.

Other records such as "No Investigation Conducted" (NIC) and "No Further Action" (NFA) must be retained for two years in accordance with the Privacy Act, but may be removed earlier with the consent of the individual to whom the record pertains.

An individual, who has requested the removal of a notation of sanction that has been denied by the Minister for just cause, may request a TATC review.

A denied request cannot be resubmitted until an additional two years have expired from the date of the original application. If an individual makes an application for the removal of notation of sanction within a reasonable time before the two-year waiting period has expired, the application will be retained and acted on when the two-year limit has been reached.

The decision to remove a notation of sanction from an individual's record shall be made on behalf of the Minister by the Chief, Aviation Enforcement.

Removal of a notation of sanction means destroying the enforcement file that refers to the sanction, as well as all documents referring to the notation of sanction, from any other record. The circumstances of the infraction will remain in the EMS for statistical purposes.

All you need to do is send a letter to the Regional Manager, Enforcement in your region, ask that your record be expunged, and assuming you meet the criteria specified above, it will be done at no cost. As far as the TATC records, that's a different matter. TATC is not part of TC & I'm fairly sure the records will remain as they constitute jurisprudence. The benefit of expunging your record is that if you should encounter Enforcement again your previous record will be gone and as such not considered or present to bias the investigator.

I would respectfully suggest though, that the term 'Pilot Criminal' is a bit harsh--no criminal law was involved.

[Prairie Chicken]

PC's explanation that a region might begin an investigation on every CADORS is interesting, though in reading over them, many say no further action.

Just to clarify, when a CADORS is issued an OPI is indicated--Aerodromes when FOD or coyotes spotted on a manouevering area, NavCan when a beacon is out, Enforcement if it looks like a violation. Enforcement would be the OPI whenever, say, an altitude or SID was busted, entry into a PCZ without clearance, wx violations in a zone, etc. (It may be a bit different now that SMS looks after so many of these.) Files would be opened on each CADOR where Enforcement was the OPI &, unless very low priority, assigned to an investigator for investigation. Most Enforcement branches would also scan the daily CADORS to ensure there wasn't something assigned to another OPI that would be within their purvue.

Rod was getting a little long in the tooth when I last heard of him. Perhaps he has gone off to write his memoirs without the daily frustration of TC?

[NO LINK*]

Thanks PC. I will try that route.