Flights over water...

[beaverdude]

602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.

Am I correct in assuming that single engine aircraft that can't maintain level flight after losing an engine are not allowed to fly more than 100nm / 30 minutes from a suitable landing field UNLESS they have life rafts? So in other words, if they have life rafts, single engine aircraft can fly more than 100nm away from the shoreline?

How about multi engine airplanes? Am I correct in assuming that multi engine aircraft that can't maintain level flight after losing any engine are not allowed to fly more than 100nm / 30 min from a suitable landing field UNLESS they have life rafts?

If what I said is correct, then how on earth does a single engine C172 manage to cover 100nm with a failed engine? Essentially transport is saying that it's okay to operate a C172 up to 100nm away from the shoreline with no life rafts... The C172 wouldn't even qualify under the 30 minute rule either because operating a c172 with a failed engine at cruise speed is maybe a 10-12 nm glide if you started at the absolute ceiling... am I wrong ? I'd be glad to be corrected. Maybe I'm comprehending the regulation incorrectly.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall operate over water a multi-engined aeroplane that is able to maintain flight with any engine failed at more than 200 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 60 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.

Am I correct in understanding that unless you have life rafts, even though you can maintain level flight after losing an engine, you cannot fly more than 200nm / 60 minutes from a suitable landing field?

(3) A person may operate over water a transport category aircraft that is an aeroplane, at up to 400 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 120 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site without the life rafts referred to in subsection (2) being carried on board.

So only if the transport plane is at any point more than 400nm / 120min away from a suitable landing site do they LEGALLY have the need to have life rafts ? Would ETOPS defeat this regulation?

Thanks for the help !

[iflyforpie]

602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.

Poorly worded, but the 30min/100nm requirement applies to multi-engined aircraft only.

So only if the transport plane is at any point more than 400nm / 120min away from a suitable landing site do they LEGALLY have the need to have life rafts ? Would ETOPS defeat this regulation?

No, ETOPS aircraft still require over water equipment. A running joke was that this was also required for aircraft flying over Beverly Hills due to the number of swimming pools...

[Dagwood]

+1 to the poster for posting the CARs and then asking for clarification

We all know the CARS are worded funny. I'd like to repost Hedley's very first Avcanada post here:

Proposed Amendment to Canadian Aviation
Regulations - CARAC #45-93-2145

CAR 101 No pilot or pilots, or person or persons
acting on the direction or suggestion or
supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or
attempt to try or make or make attempt to try to
comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or
in part of the herein mentioned
Canadian Aviation Regulations, except as
authorized by the Minister or an agent appointed
by, or inspected by the Minister.

CAR 102 If the pilot, or group of associated pilots
becomes aware of, or realizes, or detects, or
discovers or finds that he, or she, or they, are or
have been beginning to understand the Canadian
Aviation Regulations, they must immediately,
within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Minister.

CAR 103 Upon receipt of the above mentioned
notice of impending comprehension, the Minister
will immediately rewrite the Canadian
Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to
eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

CAR 104 The Minister may, at his or her option,
require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend
remedial instruction in Canadian Aviation
Regulations until such time that the pilot is too
confused to be capable of understanding anything.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1891&p=17077#p17077

[lowapproach]

[quote="iflyforpie"]
Poorly worded, but the 30min/100nm requirement applies to multi-engined aircraft only.


I am pretty sure this applies to single engine also. Any less distance would only require life preserver or flotation device.

[Invertago]

602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, from a suitable emergency landing site unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.

How many single engine aircraft are there that can maintain flight with an engine failed anyways?

[beaverdude]

Ok, so then the proper rewording of the first paragraph should be as such.

602.63 (1)

A) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane when not able to glide to a suitable emergency landing site, unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board;

B) or, a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles, or the distance that can be covered in 30 minutes of flight at the cruising speed filed in the flight plan or flight itinerary, whichever distance is the lesser, unless life rafts are carried on board and are sufficient in total rated capacity to accommodate all of the persons on board.

So then to confirm.

If I was to fly my C172 with life rafts, I can fly as many miles away from a suitable landing surface as I want? There's no restrictions on this?

And If I was to fly my BE76 without life rafts, the furthest I could go is 200nm if I can maintain level flight with 1 engine, and 100nm if I can't maintain level flight with any failed engine. If I do have life rafts, I can fly as many miles away from a suitable landing surface as I want...

Is that correct?

[lowapproach]

If you are going to fly a single engine beyond 100nm, or for 30 minutes from shore, which ever distance is the lesser, ( not many 172s would be able to cover 100nm or more in 30 minutes, so 30 minutes is the limiting factor in this case), you must have life rafts on board.
In the case of a multi-engine, the same would apply if the aircraft cannot maintain flight with an inopperative engine. If the aircraft can maintain flight with an inopperative engine, then everything increases to 200nm or 60 minutes, again whichever distance would be the lesser of the two.

[beaverdude]

That confirms what I said. Thanks approach

[kiloindiapapa]

In my 172 I dont carry life rafts ect. I was always told to stay at an altitude and distance that will allow you to glide safely to shore for an emergency landing. I guess that any combination of the altitude and distance would apply at anytime. I think though Id rather put it in the water close to shore than in the trees anytime.

[GoinNowhereFast]

Ill try to simplify things involving life rafts and life jackets

For singles [includes twins that need both engines to stay airborne]
Within Gliding Distance - nothing required
Between gliding distance and 100nm/30min - flotation devices
more than 100nm/30mins - life raft
*most singles will encounter the 30min limitation first.
*I also believe that if you can glide farther than 50nm, you still need life perservers

For Twins
Less than 50nm - nothing special required
between 50nm and 200nm/60min - life preservers [different from flotation device mentioned above]
more than 200nm/60min - life rafts

For Transport Category, it's similar to twins, but uses 400nm/120mins.

I'm referring to CARs 602.62 and 602.63, if im interpreting these wrong, please do tell.

[MichaelP]

Yesterday I was told of a bright spark who flew his weight shift microlight with a two stroke engine across the North Sea with unapproved long range tanks... He made it!

Some things horrify me...

The Stampe set off across the Irish Sea for Dublin... It lost its rockers in one cylinder head and shakedly made it back to RAF Valley (Renault 4P05). The front seat passenger had a dinghy in her arms... OK, but....
...a Starduster crashed in England when the front seat passenger's backpack got stuck behind the stick, they both died.

Then there's the nice story of the Cessna 172 enroute to the Isle of Man... They spotted a Bell 206 ditching in the sea...
They dropped their dinghy and held on to the cord, it landed inflated within a couple of yards of the helicopter pilot who's immersion suit was taking on icy water through the neck. He climbed in and was soon rescued by the RAF helicopter while his position was pointed out by the Cessna.

Then there are bad stories of people drowning in Cherokees and Jodels trying to get the dinghy out of the back seat... A Jodel was still afloat more than a week after it had ditched in the Irish Sea!

Whatever the regs say there's also sense to be considered...

[loopa]

Ill try to simplify things involving life rafts and life jackets

For singles [includes twins that need both engines to stay airborne]
Within Gliding Distance - nothing required
Between gliding distance and 100nm/30min - flotation devices
more than 100nm/30mins - life raft
*most singles will encounter the 30min limitation first.
*I also believe that if you can glide farther than 50nm, you still need life perservers

For Twins
Less than 50nm - nothing special required
between 50nm and 200nm/60min - life preservers [different from flotation device mentioned above]
more than 200nm/60min - life rafts

For Transport Category, it's similar to twins, but uses 400nm/120mins.

I'm referring to CARs 602.62 and 602.63, if im interpreting these wrong, please do tell.

You're correct, that's how I interpret it as well.

So there's a second regulation to consider for both multi and single when operating between 50 and 100 nm from shore.

For 0-50nm, in a TWIN or SINGLE, as long as you can glide to the shore, you don't need anything. If you can't glide to shore, you need life preservers or flotation devices.

From 50-100nm, in a TWIN or SINGLE, in the case that you can't maintain flight with any failed engine, you need life preservers. But if you operate a C172(single) or a BE76 (TWIN) more than 100nm, you need to have life preservers AND life rafts.

For twins operating between 100 and 200 nm that CAN maintain level flight after any failed engine, all they need are life preservers for everybody onboard... Should they want to operate beyond 200nm, then they need to have life rafts as well as life preservers.

So to conclude, there's a rule for 50-100nm as well that is not mentioned in 602.63. This can be found above, at 602.62.

602.62 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off or a landing on water in an aircraft or operate an aircraft over water beyond a point where the aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board.

(2) No person shall operate a land aeroplane, gyroplane, helicopter or airship at more than 50 nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver is carried for each person on board.

So even before all of this talk about 100nm for planes that can't maintain level flight, and 200nm for twins that can, any aircraft, be it single or twin, that operates over water needs to be able to glide to the shoreline in the event of an engine failure if they don't have any methods of survival such as life preservers.. however, should they want to fly more than 50nm away from shore, they need to have life preservers on board for each person on the flight. So then if you really want to look at it, no matter if it's a TWIN or SINGLE, if you fly more than 50nm away from the shoreline, regardless of the 100nm/30min, 200nm/60min, and 400nm/120min rule, you need to have methods of survival for each person on the airplane.

Details on what TYPES of survival you need is indicated by the 100nm/30min, 200nm/60min, or 400nm/120min rule (CAR 602.63) depending on the class of aircraft, engine failure performance, and distance/time from shore.

I hope that makes sense !

[Hedley]

um ...

If you're that far from shore, you're almost certainly in international waters, right?

Would the CARs apply in international waters?

Would they apply in foreign waters?

[loopa]

um ...

If you're that far from shore, you're almost certainly in international waters, right?

Would the CARs apply in international waters?

Would they apply in foreign waters?

Hey good point, would ICAO have an annex or set of regulations on this then? Would Canadian operators have to follow that or the Canadian ones over international airspace?

How far apart are the shore lines in our big lakes?

[cjpilot]

Is there anything 100nm+ offshore that is really worth flying to?

[GoinNowhereFast]

I'm not sure about ICAO rules. I know when flying a Canadian airplane in American airspace, you have to follow both FARs and CARs, whichever is more restrictive. I don't see why it would be any different flying a Canadian aircraft in international airspace. Also, since Canada is an ICAO state, would we therefore not have to obey ICAO rules in Canadian airspace?

[GoinNowhereFast]

Is there anything 100nm+ offshore that is really worth flying to?

Other than oceanic routes, the only place I can find where there is no shore for 100nm is in Hudson's bay. Also keep in mind the time too. A 172 sure won't cover 100nm in 30mins. In that case, the life jackets are needed beyond gliding range, and a life raft is needed beyond 55nm [assuming 110kts cruise and no wind]. Basically if you plan to cross James Bay in a 172, you need life rafts.

[viccoastdog]

602.63 (1) No person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane, or a multi-engined aeroplane that is unable to maintain flight with any engine failed, at more than 100 nautical miles,

The regulation is NOT poorly worded: Look at where the commas are placed. It says: "no person shall operate over water a single-engined aeroplane COMMA or multi engined aeroplane...." If the comma WASN'T there then it would imply that there are single engine aircraft extent in the world that can indeed maintain level flight with its only engine failed,. But the comma IS there so the statement about a failed engine applies ONLY to multi-engined aeroplanes.

And for you commercial air taxi pilots, this is the regulation to know:

Aircraft Operating over Water

703.23 No air operator shall, except when conducting a take-off or landing, operate a land aircraft over water, beyond a point where the land aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless the air operator

(a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

[CRJ-705]

Quote:
Aircraft Operating over Water

703.23 No air operator shall, except when conducting a take-off or landing, operate a land aircraft over water, beyond a point where the land aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless the air operator

(a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.


just to clarify this, does this mean that if you have life jackets you can go more than 50nm and if you have rafts you can go more than 100nm?

[GoinNowhereFast]

I think that's trying to say that you always must be able to reach shore if an engine fails, implying gliding distance for singles. The 100nm/30min, 200nm/60min and 400nm/120min rules still apply if your in a multi, or the exception.

723.23 Aircraft Operating Over Water
Operations Specifications for over water flight are not applicable to the operation of aeroplanes.

The standard makes things a little confusing though. Anyone know what that's supposted to mean?

[viccoastdog]

I think that's trying to say that you always must be able to reach shore if an engine fails, implying gliding distance for singles. The 100nm/30min, 200nm/60min and 400nm/120min rules still apply if your in a multi, or the exception.

723.23 Aircraft Operating Over Water
Operations Specifications for over water flight are not applicable to the operation of aeroplanes.

The standard makes things a little confusing though. Anyone know what that's supposted to mean?

The CARS section 6 rules still apply, no matter what, but the CARS section 7, subsection 3 (Air Taxi) makes the restrictions a bit more severe for commercial operations.

The Standards describe HOW a particular Regulation is adhered to. In this case, CARS 703.23 states:

703.23 No air operator shall, except when conducting a take-off or landing, operate a land aircraft over water, beyond a point where the land aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless the air operator

(a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

So to get an exemption from this regulation, a company's AOC must state such, AND comply with whatever requirements the STANDARD has for operations specifications. In this case there are no ops specs written for Aeroplanes in that standard, but there are for helicopters. So a helicopter air taxi outfit could get it written into their AOC that they're exempt for 703.23 if they had the equipment and training as per the Standard 723.23(helicopters), but an aeroplane air taxi outfit wouldn't get the exemption at all.

[loopa]

I think that's trying to say that you always must be able to reach shore if an engine fails, implying gliding distance for singles. The 100nm/30min, 200nm/60min and 400nm/120min rules still apply if your in a multi, or the exception.

723.23 Aircraft Operating Over Water
Operations Specifications for over water flight are not applicable to the operation of aeroplanes.

The standard makes things a little confusing though. Anyone know what that's supposted to mean?

The CARS section 6 rules still apply, no matter what, but the CARS section 7, subsection 3 (Air Taxi) makes the restrictions a bit more severe for commercial operations.

The Standards describe HOW a particular Regulation is adhered to. In this case, CARS 703.23 states:

703.23 No air operator shall, except when conducting a take-off or landing, operate a land aircraft over water, beyond a point where the land aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless the air operator

(a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

So to get an exemption from this regulation, a company's AOC must state such, AND comply with whatever requirements the STANDARD has for operations specifications. In this case there are no ops specs written for Aeroplanes in that standard, but there are for helicopters. So a helicopter air taxi outfit could get it written into their AOC that they're exempt for 703.23 if they had the equipment and training as per the Standard 723.23(helicopters), but an aeroplane air taxi outfit wouldn't get the exemption at all.

Cool, learning something new every day I suppose. Thanks for this bit of insight !

[viccoastdog]

Quote:
Aircraft Operating over Water

703.23 No air operator shall, except when conducting a take-off or landing, operate a land aircraft over water, beyond a point where the land aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless the air operator

(a) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; and

(b) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.


just to clarify this, does this mean that if you have life jackets you can go more than 50nm and if you have rafts you can go more than 100nm?

If governed by CAR 703 (air taxi), then the more stringent regulation mentioned above would essentially prohibit single engine LAND aircraft, or multi engine LAND aircraft that can't reach shore if an engine failed, from flying over water beyond gliding range to land whether there's life jackets, life rafts, or neither.

If privately operated and therefore not governed by the CARs part 7, then, yeah, if life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for everyone on board, fly way out over the water.

[Cat Driver]

Flying over water beyond gliding, drift down distance from land is playing Russian roulette with an engine.

Flying over water for long distances with a possibility of ending up in the water is a extremely high risk endeavor and should you ditch far from shore in a single engine airplane your chances of getting a raft out of the airplane and then getting in it is remote.

When contemplating a long over water flight where there is a risk of ditching the CAR's are the least of your worries.

We carried rafts because the rules demand we did but our real hope of survival was our dry survival suits and our satellite phone.

I have flown over all the earths oceans and the most important point on the trip was when we had burnt off enough fuel that we were past our drift down point.

CAR's to us was just another foreign country set of rules that were far from our area of concern.

[schmoo]

Regarding the whole flying over water question, just to make sure I understand...

...if flying from Point Pelee to the airport on Pelee Island, the distance is about 8 nm. This means I would be no more than 4 nm from land at any time. Using the POH for a 172R, a gliding distance of 4nm requires approx 3000 agl. So, as long as I am above 3000 agl, I don't require life jackets to fly over this particular stretch of water.

Do I have it right ?