Many pilots over northern ONtario are 'reminded' to call their position reports with the MF when able prior to their approach. Many pilots who don't know this rule scratch their heads and think ATC is not hotlining the airport. However, before this new rule started, most pilots WERE calling the MF before ATC, NavCanada and/or Transport Canada implimented this rule.

OK, so here is a bone of contention:
If you are cleared the visual to a certain runway (at an MF zone) that has a left hand circuit and you are coming in from a position that sets you up for a right base can you "legally" join the right base on your visual approach? Many say yes absolutely, since it is a visual you are cleared- some say no.
???

Don't they teach circuit joining procedures at flight schools any more?? Try reading your AIM. Check out RAC 4.5.2 (vi) for procedures where there is and advisory service. If there is no advisory service RAC 4.5.2 (vii) applies. Seems quite straight forward to me!

Fine. Be that way. I'll borrow one from someone. God forbid I'd have my own.

What he's getting at is transport and navcanada have recently decided that controllers MUST remind pilots to make their mandatory calls even though pilots are already mandated to do so. Just switching an aircraft 20 back is no longer good enough. You must remind them to go over and check in well beofre that. This is like the check gear down thing...it will fizzle out as time passes.

cpl_atc wrote: 20 back in most turboprops is less than 5 mins from the zone, so that would make sense. However, whether it makes sense to check in when you're at least 5 mintues from the zone and descending through 14,000' is another question that should be debated.

The rule is broken anyway. A single cessna calling 5 prior to starting the approach could already be inside of a defined arc approach if they're doing the contact, or about to cross if they're VFR and 5 minutes from the zone. A Learjet might have to be over 40 back if they're planning an arc approach. Which one would be a bigger problem? A lear calling 20 back, estimating starting the arc in 1, or a cessna calling 10 back, estimating the contact in 5 (wheels down in 5 1/2).

(I'm not saying don't obey it, I'm just saying it's broken in it's current form)

cpl_atc wrote: Distance is somewhat irrelevant. If you're 5 minutes away from hitting someone, it doesn't really matter if they're 3 miles away, or 70 miles away. The point is to provide enough *time* for pilots to identify and
resolve a conflict.

Yes, but simply saying "report X minutes prior to reaching point Y" doesn't really work unless you just have incoming aircraft. If you do, it's great. if you have departing aircraft, though, it's not, because while the MF area is fixed, the speed of departing aircraft, and therefore the point at which they'd conflict, isn't.

Like you said, somewhat irrelevant, but it's not competely.

In the second case, I don't think the intent of "5 minutes before commencing the approach procedure" is to have a Lear report joining an arc when that arc might still have them 10 minutes out from the field. That report is of no value to anyone operating in the MF area, which is the point of the frequency in the first place.

Which is why I'm saying the rule is busted. The Lear in my example could violate the 5 minute rule completely, and never be a problem for anyone departing the MF. Another slower aircraft, though, doing a contact or inbound VFR, could obey it to the letter and still not give a decent amount of time for a departing aircraft to react, depending on traffic.

Again, I'm not saying that the rule isn't a good idea, I just think it's somewhat broken in it's current form.

The purpose of an MF is to make sure that traffic that are relevant to each other are on the same frequency within a couple of minutes of the time at which they may be a conflict. Otherwise you should be looking for conflicts on 126.7.

I agree.

I missed a call on an MF one day. They sent it to enforcement. It was in YTH....we'd commited the crime of taxing the Hawker from the old gravel parking area behind our freight building to the front of the building without asking for FSS's blessings. We were nowhere near a paved. or signed manouvering area on the airport, yet these "bozos" tried to pull my ticket over it!

Doc wrote:I missed a call on an MF one day. They sent it to enforcement. It was in YTH....we'd commited the crime of taxing the Hawker from the old gravel parking area behind our freight building to the front of the building without asking for FSS's blessings. We were nowhere near a paved. or signed manouvering area on the airport, yet these "bozos" tried to pull my ticket over it! And some wonder why I'm sometimes not on the ATC bandwagon?

Bizarre. Manouvering (hard word to spell) outside of the 'controlled'/MF area and they tried to bust you? If so, that's stupid. Power-tripping is for losers.

There are 3 sides to every story: doc's, the fss's, and the truth.

We've heard doc's, and it sounds pretty fishy to me.

And some wonder why I'm sometimes not on the ATC bandwagon?

I though we were talking about FSS here? Not sure where ATC even comes into play!!

(Yes, it's annoying when flight services specialists think they're controllers!)

polythene_pam wrote:I though we were talking about FSS here? Not sure where ATC even comes into play!!

I doesn't. Someone's just trying to stir the pot for the sake of entertainment. Don't bite (no fishy pun intended)

No girls, I wasn't trying to "stir the pot"! I just screwed up and put ATC when, in fact I should have put FSS? But I've edited it out, just to help all you old women, get through another day of hot flashes, in comfort.

Doc wrote:I missed a call on an MF one day. They sent it to enforcement. It was in YTH....we'd commited the crime of taxing the Hawker from the old gravel parking area behind our freight building to the front of the building without asking for FSS's blessings. We were nowhere near a paved. or signed manouvering area on the airport, yet these "bozos" tried to pull my ticket over it!

I worked in YTH for 2 years and we can't file an AOR on something that happens on the ramp. Totally out of our mandate. Now another company or Airport authority can report it but we can't with regards to the Ramp. No FSS can write a report about incidents on the ramp, meaning there is no requirment to report taxiing. If you enter a maneouvering area yes you have to report, but taxiing from the gravel to the front of the CALM air hanger that is more annoying when someone does that then helpful.

If a report was filed then it wasn;t from the FSS i can gaurantee that, maybe it came from someoen else on the airport Doc. We would probably get in trouble for filing something like that????

bigfssguy wrote: No FSS can write a report about incidents on the ramp, meaning there is no requirment to report taxiing.

Sure we can. I've reported an A/C ingesting large amounts of stuff into an engine while on the ramp (at the pilot's request). If there was a large fuel spill, or someone walked into a prop, I'd do the same. But for moving your plane around on the apron? No way, unless there's significantly more to the story.

grimey wrote:Sure we can. I've reported an A/C ingesting large amounts of stuff into an engine while on the ramp (at the pilot's request). If there was a large fuel spill, or someone walked into a prop, I'd do the same. But for moving your plane around on the apron? No way, unless there's significantly more to the story.

Sorry i should have explained myself better. I meant more along the lines that we have no positive control over vehicles or aircraft on the ramp. Things can be reported by us about things that happen on the ramp but as for A/C and vehicle movements and what they do is out of our realm of control. Personally i try not to pay too much attention to the ramp, out of sight out of mind! By the way, Grimey you suck!

Well, that's where we taxied...and that's what happened. I dont make this crap up. Now who else would file a non compliance with TC? Casper, the friendly ghost? This WAS eight years ago....perhaps things are done differently now??

No Doc, i'm not accusing you of lieing, its just it seems silly for an FSS to file it. Yes other people can put a complaint in with TC regarding most anything. Sometimes we are asked to file for the airport authority but not often and that has never happened to me but it has happened with others. All i was saying was that it seemed pretty far fetched that an FSS filed it, but who knows?

It's like the guy in the jail cell next to you... Never ask him what he did... Because they're ALL innocent.. Just ask what they're wrongly accused of!

The funny thing is, I know of MANY, MANY pilots who have been reported for violations, but I know of only one or two who will ever actually admit to any mistake whatsoever.

So... I guess either somebody is lying or somebody had a lack of situational awareness.

Whatever you say there, _pam...

Geez, look what I started lol. Most pilots have been calling the MF, right after next sector hand off, be it 60 or 40 miles back just to advise the FSS of their intentions. A few years ago, an aircraft approaching North Bay (CYYB) got the ATIS, called the FSS to intend their visual approach and the FSS radio stated, 'you're better off with a contact approach, the conditions are not as good as advertised on the ATIS, we're down to just less than 3 miles". The ZYZ ctr controller suggested to advised their intention with radio, already done and a contact approach was requested by the pilot and arrived at YYB.

So, most pilots starting the mandatory FSS call before the friendly NavCanada/TC reminder and then informed ctr of their intention and it went from there. FSS is actually pleased with this, helps them co-ordinate local traffic better on a real busy day