App. ban am I the test case? HELP

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:25 pm

Well I broke the ban today cause it was the only sensible ( safest ) thing to do. Pls. tell me I ain't the first....test duck does not seem like a good position to be in on this one.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:32 pm

So does anyone besides us know?

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:41 pm

Me , you and FSS

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:42 pm

hmmm,

Phileas Fogg · Post by **Phileas Fogg** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:50 pm

It's amazing one could get burned for doing the safest thing.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:04 pm

I'd like to know what the details were. If it was the safest thing that should be good enough.

NAYA · Post by **NAYA** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:41 pm

I suppose "But it's a stupid F_ing rule!" won't do???? Best of luck whatever happens.

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:29 am

Maybe we should all just say "if I can see the runway at minimums, I'm gonna land". Civil disobedience kinda thing. Will post details of incident later, x-mas and all. Have a merry x-mas all....

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 5:40 am

Hey, Bronson.

Not knowing the full information, my guess is that this might go several ways.

IF and I say, IF Enforcement goes after you, get yourself a lawyer. Make sure it is an Aviation lawyer. Admit nothing to the big E.

You may get made the offer to admit guilt and in return receive a letter from TC. This will stay on your record, I am not sure if it ever disappears.
Do not get stampeded into doing this without knowing the full ramifications. It may affect your career if you want to go airlines. They will try to bully you( with 'reasonable' logic). This is their cheap way out and a quick resolution for them and they do not get exposed in Court as a bunch of crap artists.)

IF this goes to Court, and if you can show you had few options to cope with the situation, the Judge may find you guilty, (or you may even plead guilty, with extenuating circumstance), but you will probably be handed a minimum fine. (No Court is going to send the message that pilots are supposed to go off somewhere else and die because the visibility was a little short, but do-able last month.)

On the other hand, they may go after your Company, not you personally.

If you can convince me that you did the safest thing without deliberately breaking the Ban, I pledge $10 for your defence.

OK, guys, (especially you, Doc) there has to be a thousand of you out there who can step up for this one.I

believe that the Approach Ban will be treated just like Altitude Excursions, i.e. there will be so many of them daily that TC cannot keep up with prosecutions

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:32 am

snaproll20 wrote:
If you can convince me that you did the safest thing without deliberately breaking the Ban, I pledge $10 for your defence.

OK, guys, (especially you, Doc) there has to be a thousand of you out there who can step up for this one.I

believe that the Approach Ban will be treated just like Altitude Excursions, i.e. there will be so many of them daily that TC cannot keep up with prosecutions

OK IM IN. But I am going to need details.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:03 am

Has anyone who understands this stuff (if there is anyone) mentioned this to their MP?

BEAR2 · Post by **BEAR2** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:44 am

If it is allege you commit an offence, say nothing to enforcement, yet. Ask for audio tape copies, what was said, who said it, copies of weather previous, trends. Then make a decision, then you may wish to speak to enforcement. If convicted of an offence you can ask to have your record expunged after two years of a clean record. Apparently then everything is gone. Good luck

The BEAR

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:18 am

we were on the return leg of a VFR flt. When we returned the wx, which had been forecast to be excellent VFR was 1/4 mile in snow according to FSS. Can't have special, can't get you an approach. Now we fly in an area where we can't talk to anyone until we are within about 50nm if we are at IFR altitudes, 25 down low. My choice was to try the airport 25 miles away and then go to the only reasonable alternate or go directly to the alternate. The alternate is also way below forecast, and the ILS there has a tendency to go down when it snows. If I miss at the alternate we are all dead. IFR in the mountains and no fuel. We are well equiped, trained and current for the approach. So I say " tell them we are going to try the approach right in front of us and damn the torpedoes. Turns out to be a straight forward approach to something above minimums and we are in. Probably 1-2 miles and 1300 ft. when we only needed 650' and 1.
I can't help but think of the guy, confronted with an attitude by FSS who said " sonny, am I up here because you're down there, or are you down there because I'm up Here?".
We had asked if the terminal for the alternate had changed and were told " yes, but I can't give it to you, contact Pacific radio". That really pissed me off as we were feeling up to our asses in alligators at that moment, and this mandate from NavCan is so goddamn stupid anyway.
Seriously what would transport do if everybody just decided to ignore the ban? Obviously they didn't think of this situation when they wrote the reg.
Do they still teach you to do the sensible thing and explain yourself later at flt. school? Would somebody with less experience have been bullied into going direct to an alternate and possibly killing eveybody on board?
I've been flying in this area for 27yrs. and I know that when the wx suddenly goes way below forecast you had better get yourself on the ground quick. I also have spotted this airport from 15 miles how many times when they are calling an eighth of a mile from the ground.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:31 am

A guys got-to do what a guys got-to do. Sounds OK to me.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:47 am

Bronson

I believe the method here is to report to FSS your pilot-observed visibility on final. You must do that to avoid getting violated.

They cannot dispute that. If you reported the vis, then you are in the clear on this one.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:50 am

We had asked if the terminal for the alternate had changed and were told " yes, but I can't give it to you, contact Pacific radio". That really pissed me off as we were feeling up to our asses in alligators at that moment, and this mandate from NavCan is so goddamn stupid anyway.

Please excuse my ignorance, I have not flown in Canada IFR for over ten years.

Was this new terminal under the Canada secrets act and not avaliable to an airplane in flight?

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:51 am

snaproll20,
Yes, but does the vis not have to be better then the appr ban vis?

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:04 am

WELL cAT, YER LOCAL GUY CAN'T GIVE YOU ENROUTE WX ANYMORE. jUST THE LOCAL STUFF. Oops dang capslock. Isn't that the berries?
I did give a pirep when we had landed, maybe too late. I could have declared an emergency too but a) i didn't have a problem at that point except for the effin ban b) it's hard to think like a lawyer when you're shooting an approach in what is supposed to be 1/4 mile

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:26 am

O.K. Bronson, now I understand.

Just goes to show how stupid I am, makes perfect sense, don't give a pilot any information that is as critical as a change in a weather forecast because it would make it unsafe.

Why don't they have another acronym for these plases....LFSS... Local Flight Service S..whatever

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:32 am

To his credit the FSS guy didn't sound very happy about it either. It's all about liability at Navcan now. Kinda like going to the hospital for appendicitis and being told they can't help ya for liability reasons.

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:44 am

Thanks for the support and advice Clunkdriver. I do plan to get all the relevent sequences together for the defense.As I said we gave the actual wx when we landed although I don't know if that helps. I have heard guys give the actual as "at minimums" so many times and you know (or suspect) they are full o' shite.
The navcan issues are seperate deal and I do have some freinds there that might be able to help with the issues this flight raised and there are several. One of which is the black hole of wx and communication that is NW BC. We've started installation of a sat ph. in the aircraft even the Irridium is an international call every time we use it. Other sat phones have proven to be unreliable and the promised RCO didn't materialize . I guess we have to make a " business case" FOR COMMUNICATIONS TO nAVCAN, SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY THING THEY UNDERSTAND ANYMORE. Sorry friggin' caps lock again.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:56 am

Bronson:

The main thing you must remember is "" DO NOT "" communicate with enforcement in any way, voice or written word except to say you can not discuss anything with them without your lawyer present.

Do you belong to COPA?

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

R E M E M B E R........

Time is not important when defending yourself what is important is doing it properly......do not communicate with TC on any level without a lawyer who understands aviation law..

Cat

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:08 pm

If you know ( and I know you do) a lawyer who understands aviation law PM me, okay? maybe others know a good lawyer or 2. This really should be a class action type suit if at all possible, try to get the law removed under the stunned c*nt act or something.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:40 pm

Let me add my two cents.

You did not explain yourself as well as you could. 1300 and 1 or 2 at the destination. It was VFR (dont let NavCanada definition fool you), and you didnt mention that you had the ground in sight at all times...

Look them straight in the eye. Tell them you are not even sure you are the pilot that was there, and get a good lawyer. I have had seen some so called specialist aviation lawyers who seemed to have a singular qualification in that they were pilots. Get yourself a decent lawyer and ask for adivce .

Do not talk to TC....do not talk to TC. They will even record telephone conversations and as tribunals do not hold evidence to the same standard as criminal evidence you could hoop yourself.

and lastly, who posted this stuff with your name? I am sure it wasnt you as you would never admit to wrongdoing in writing?

bronson · Post by **bronson** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:46 pm

I could be making this all up, I am not under oath...