Is there any requirement to notify ATC of failures?

[CpnCrunch]

The guide for IPC (https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... -2146.html) says:

Describe operation and failure modes of installed equipment (Global Positioning System (GPS), autopilot, and avionics) and appropriate pilot response (including the requirement to report failures to Air Traffic Control (ATC)).

However the AIM just says the pilot "should" notify ATC, and I can't see anything in the CARs. The old IPM from 1997 says "The pilot of an IFR aircraft within controlled airspace shall report immediately to the appropriate Air Traffic Control unit any malfunction of navigation or air/ground communications equipment,". Has that been removed from the CARs? The USA does have a requirement to notify ATC, but I don't see anything similar for Canada. I'm pretty sure Colonel Sanders brought this up in a thread a while ago, but I can't find it.

[NorOntair]

If it affects the flight itself I would just do it regardless.

Now if your passengers reading light is INOP... Keep that to yourself.

My 0.02¢.

[CpnCrunch]

If it affects the flight itself I would just do it regardless.

Agreed. However my question was about the legal requirement, as it seems we are expected to know about that for the IPC.

[Roar]

In RVSM airspace, yes.

Also the question you must ask yourself is does the failure affect your ability to comply with ATC instructions. If the answer is yes then you'd better be telling them about it.

[CpnCrunch]

In RVSM airspace, yes.

Also the question you must ask yourself is does the failure affect your ability to comply with ATC instructions. If the answer is yes then you'd better be telling them about it.

All very true, but I'm just asking if there is an actual CAR. I'm pretty sure there isn't, as the AIM wouldn't say "pilots should" if it was required (it would say "shall", and it would be in the CARs rather than the AIM).

Does anyone have a recent IPM? If so, can you look up section 6.8 (emergencies) and see what it says in the "REPORTING MALFUNCTIONS OF NAVIGATION AND COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT" section?

[photofly]

I can't find any mention in the CARs either. The IPM isn't enforceable.

[CpnCrunch]

I can't find any mention in the CARs either. The IPM isn't enforceable.

I know. It was just curious to see what it says.

[Rockie]

How about 602.76? Sorry, don't have a link.

Basically if you lose required equipment for your route of flight and are therefore forced to make changes you are required to notify ATC. For instance if you are no longer able to comply with RNP requirements, or you have filed a destination and your only usable navaid to complete an approach breaks. You have to change the flight plan and you have to notify ATC.

[digits_]

How about 602.76? Sorry, don't have a link.

Basically if you lose required equipment for your route of flight and are therefore forced to make changes you are required to notify ATC. For instance if you are no longer able to comply with RNP requirements, or you have filed a destination and your only usable navaid to complete an approach breaks. You have to change the flight plan and you have to notify ATC.

It doesn't say that in there http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu ... html#h-803

602.76 (1) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft for which an IFR flight plan or an IFR flight itinerary has been filed shall follow the procedure set out in subsection (2) where the pilot-in-command intends to make any change in the plan or itinerary in respect of

(a) the cruising altitude or cruising flight level;

(b) the route of flight;

(c) the destination aerodrome;

(d) in the case of a flight plan, the true airspeed at the cruising altitude or cruising flight level, where the change intended is five per cent or more of the true airspeed specified in the IFR flight plan; or

(e) the Mach number, where the change intended is .01 or more of the Mach number that has been included in the air traffic control clearance.

(2) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft who intends to make any of the changes in the IFR flight plan or the IFR flight itinerary that are referred to in subsection (1) shall

(a) notify as soon as practicable an air traffic control unit or the responsible person, as the case may be, of the intended change; and

(b) where the flight is being conducted in controlled airspace, receive an air traffic control clearance before making the intended change.

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft for which a VFR flight plan or a VFR flight itinerary has been filed shall follow the procedure set out in subsection (4) where the pilot-in-command intends to make a change in the plan or itinerary in respect of

(a) the route of flight;

(b) the duration of the flight; or

(c) the destination aerodrome.

(4) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft who intends to make any of the changes in the VFR flight plan or the VFR flight itinerary that are referred to in subsection (3) shall notify as soon as practicable an air traffic control unit, a flight service station, a community aerodrome radio station or the responsible person, of the intended change.

[photofly]

But there's no duty to inform ATC of why you are changing your flightplan, either for equipment malfunctions, toilet breaks, or you just don't want to go to the original destination any more.

[Rockie]

How about 602.76? Sorry, don't have a link.

Basically if you lose required equipment for your route of flight and are therefore forced to make changes you are required to notify ATC. For instance if you are no longer able to comply with RNP requirements, or you have filed a destination and your only usable navaid to complete an approach breaks. You have to change the flight plan and you have to notify ATC.

It doesn't say that in there http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu ... html#h-803

602.76 (1) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft for which an IFR flight plan or an IFR flight itinerary has been filed shall follow the procedure set out in subsection (2) where the pilot-in-command intends to make any change in the plan or itinerary in respect of

(a) the cruising altitude or cruising flight level;

(b) the route of flight;

(c) the destination aerodrome;

(d) in the case of a flight plan, the true airspeed at the cruising altitude or cruising flight level, where the change intended is five per cent or more of the true airspeed specified in the IFR flight plan; or

(e) the Mach number, where the change intended is .01 or more of the Mach number that has been included in the air traffic control clearance.

(2) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft who intends to make any of the changes in the IFR flight plan or the IFR flight itinerary that are referred to in subsection (1) shall

(a) notify as soon as practicable an air traffic control unit or the responsible person, as the case may be, of the intended change; and

(b) where the flight is being conducted in controlled airspace, receive an air traffic control clearance before making the intended change.

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft for which a VFR flight plan or a VFR flight itinerary has been filed shall follow the procedure set out in subsection (4) where the pilot-in-command intends to make a change in the plan or itinerary in respect of

(a) the route of flight;

(b) the duration of the flight; or

(c) the destination aerodrome.

(4) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft who intends to make any of the changes in the VFR flight plan or the VFR flight itinerary that are referred to in subsection (3) shall notify as soon as practicable an air traffic control unit, a flight service station, a community aerodrome radio station or the responsible person, of the intended change.

How about 602.76? Sorry, don't have a link.

Basically if you lose required equipment for your route of flight and are therefore forced to make changes you are required to notify ATC. For instance if you are no longer able to comply with RNP requirements, or you have filed a destination and your only usable navaid to complete an approach breaks. You have to change the flight plan and you have to notify ATC.

It doesn't say that in there http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu ... html#h-803

602.76 (1) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft for which an IFR flight plan or an IFR flight itinerary has been filed shall follow the procedure set out in subsection (2) where the pilot-in-command intends to make any change in the plan or itinerary in respect of

(a) the cruising altitude or cruising flight level;

(b) the route of flight;

(c) the destination aerodrome;

(d) in the case of a flight plan, the true airspeed at the cruising altitude or cruising flight level, where the change intended is five per cent or more of the true airspeed specified in the IFR flight plan; or

(e) the Mach number, where the change intended is .01 or more of the Mach number that has been included in the air traffic control clearance.

(2) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft who intends to make any of the changes in the IFR flight plan or the IFR flight itinerary that are referred to in subsection (1) shall

(a) notify as soon as practicable an air traffic control unit or the responsible person, as the case may be, of the intended change; and

(b) where the flight is being conducted in controlled airspace, receive an air traffic control clearance before making the intended change.

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft for which a VFR flight plan or a VFR flight itinerary has been filed shall follow the procedure set out in subsection (4) where the pilot-in-command intends to make a change in the plan or itinerary in respect of

(a) the route of flight;

(b) the duration of the flight; or

(c) the destination aerodrome.

(4) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft who intends to make any of the changes in the VFR flight plan or the VFR flight itinerary that are referred to in subsection (3) shall notify as soon as practicable an air traffic control unit, a flight service station, a community aerodrome radio station or the responsible person, of the intended change.

Altitude, route of flight and destination. Pretty much covers everything that could be impacted by a loss of equipment.

[Rockie]

But there's no duty to inform ATC of why you are changing your flightplan, either for equipment malfunctions, toilet breaks, or you just don't want to go to the original destination any more.

True, unless you are no longer capable of flying airspace with specific navigational requirements. Then you have to tell ATC you are no longer capable due to equipment loss. RVSM and RNP are two examples. It isn't a specific air regulation but it is a procedural condition for approval to operate in that airspace.

[ahramin]

It's best practice in cases where it is going to affect your capabilities but no, outside of RVSM, MNPS, ect rules you aren't going to find a blanket CAR that requires notification to ATC about equipment failure. It's like looking for the CAR that requires you to declare an emergency after a structural failure. Doesn't exist.

[loopy]

I agree that if you are in CMNPS, RNPC, RVSM, RNP etc, and you can no meet the requirement to continue in that airspace you should advise ATC. You may no longer be in compliance with ops specs to be in that airspace.

[Bajan Pilot]

One word covers this subject, airmanship.

[rxl]

One word covers this subject, airmanship.

Hear, Hear Bajan Pilot!
Seriously folks. Do we really need to comb through the regulations to find justification for using good common sense judgement to do the right thing?

[Rockie]

One word covers this subject, airmanship.

Hear, Hear Bajan Pilot!
Seriously folks. Do we really need to comb through the regulations to find justification for using good common sense judgement to do the right thing?

There is a big difference between a requirement to do something and airmanship or justification. The requirement removes any option or dependence on judgement whether that requirement comes from the CAR's, IFR rules, Aircraft operating manuals, company policy, SOP's etc. And if there are requirements associated with your operation you should know them. From that perspective I think it was a valid question.

[rxl]

One word covers this subject, airmanship.

Hear, Hear Bajan Pilot!
Seriously folks. Do we really need to comb through the regulations to find justification for using good common sense judgement to do the right thing?

There is a big difference between a requirement to do something and airmanship or justification. The requirement removes any option or dependence on judgement whether that requirement comes from the CAR's, IFR rules, Aircraft operating manuals, company policy, SOP's etc. And if there are requirements associated with your operation you should know them. From that perspective I think it was a valid question.

Good point. However to answer the original posters headline question one need look no further than good common sense airmanship.

[Rockie]

Good point. However to answer the original posters headline question one need look no further than good common sense airmanship.

Sometimes, but certainly not always and this is one of those times. In RNP airspace for instance there are other requirements besides just notifying ATC with a loss of navigational capability, and if you don't read them you won't know them. Good common sense airmanship is very often not enough.