[quote]Its funny to hear pilots complain that the regs are difficult, complicated or obscure,
when the ones that apply directly to them flying day to day are pretty basic[/quote]
Can't let that slide. Let's take a look at the most
very basic set of CARs, 602. You've taught them
to students for decades. I'll bet there isn't a single
pilot in all of Canada - including you - that can recite
verbatim from memory a single CAR 602.X where X
is in the range of 1 to 150.
[quote]602.01 - Reckless or Negligent Operation of Aircraft
602.02 - Fitness of Flight Crew Members
602.03 - Alcohol or Drugs — Crew Members
602.04 - Alcohol or Drugs — Passengers
602.05 - Compliance with Instructions
602.06 - Smoking
602.07 - Aircraft Operating Limitations
602.08 - Portable Electronic Devices
602.09 - Fuelling with Engines Running
602.10 - Starting and Ground Running of Aircraft Engines
602.11 - Aircraft Icing
602.12 - Overflight of Built-up Areas or Open-air Assemblies of Persons during Take-offs, Approaches and Landings
602.13 - Take-offs, Approaches and Landings within Built-up Areas of Cities and Towns
602.14 - Minimum Altitudes and Distances
602.15 - Permissible Low Altitude Flight
602.16 - Flights over Open-Air Assemblies of Persons or Built-up Areas — Helicopters with External Loads
602.17 - Carriage of Persons during Low Altitude Flight
602.18 - Flights over Built-up Areas — Balloons
602.19 - Right of Way — General
602.20 - Right of Way — Aircraft Manoeuvring on Water
602.21 - Avoidance of Collision
602.22 - Towing
602.23 - Dropping of Objects
602.24 - Formation Flight
602.25 - Entering or Leaving an Aircraft in Flight
602.26 - Parachute Descents
602.27 - Aerobatic Manoeuvres — Prohibited Areas and Flight Conditions
602.28 - Aerobatic Manoeuvres with Passengers
602.29 - Hang Glider and Ultra-light Aeroplane Operation
602.30 - Fuel Dumping
602.31 - Compliance with Air Traffic Control Instructions and Clearances
602.32 - Airspeed Limitations
602.33 - Supersonic Flight
602.34 - Cruising Altitudes and Cruising Flight Levels
602.35 - Altimeter-setting and Operating Procedures in the Altimeter-setting Region
602.36 - Altimeter-setting and Operating Procedures in the Standard Pressure Region
602.37 - Altimeter-setting and Operating Procedures in Transition between Regions
602.38 - Flight over the High Seas
602.39 - Transoceanic Flight
602.40 - Landing at or Take-off from an Aerodrome at Night
602.41 - Unmanned Air Vehicles
602.42 - Large Unoccupied Free Balloons
602.43 - Rockets
602.44 - Authorization by the Minister
602.45 - Model Aircraft, Kites and Model Rockets
602.46 - Refusal to Transport
602.57 - Application
602.58 - Prohibition
602.59 - Equipment Standards
602.60 - Requirements for Power-driven Aircraft
602.61 - Survival Equipment — Flights over Land
602.62 - Life Preservers and Flotation Devices
602.63 - Life Rafts and Survival Equipment — Flights over Water
602.64 – Offshore Operations Flight
602.65 – Emergency Exception
602.66 – Emergency Underwater Breathing Apparatus (EUBA)
602.67 to 602.69 Reserved
602.70 - Interpretation
602.71 - Pre-flight Information
602.72 - Weather Information
602.73 - Requirement to File a Flight Plan or a Flight Itinerary
602.74 - Contents of a Flight Plan or a Flight Itinerary
602.75 - Filing of a Flight Plan or a Flight Itinerary
602.76 - Changes in the Flight Plan
602.77 - Requirement to File an Arrival Report
602.78 - Contents of an Arrival Report
602.79 - Overdue Aircraft Report
602.86 - Carry-on Baggage, Equipment and Cargo
602.87 - Crew Member Instructions
602.88 - Fuel Requirements
602.89 - Passenger Briefings
602.96 - General
602.97 - VFR and IFR Aircraft Operations at Uncontrolled Aerodromes within an MF Area
602.98 - General MF Reporting Requirements
602.99 - MF Reporting Procedures before Entering Manoeuvring Area
602.100 - MF Reporting Procedures on Departure
602.101 - MF Reporting Procedures on Arrival
602.102 - MF Reporting Procedures When Flying Continuous Circuits
602.103 - Reporting Procedures When Flying through an MF Area
602.104 - Reporting Procedures for IFR Aircraft When Approaching or Landing at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome
602.105 - Noise Operating Criteria
602.106 - Noise-restricted Runways
602.114 - Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Controlled Airspace
602.115 - Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Uncontrolled Airspace
602.116 - VFR Over-the-Top
602.117 - Special VFR Flight
602.121 - General Requirements
602.122 - Alternate Aerodrome Requirements
602.123 - Alternate Aerodrome Weather Minima
602.124 - Minimum Altitudes to Ensure Obstacle Clearance
602.125 - Enroute IFR Position Reports
602.126 - Take-off Minima
602.127 - Instrument Approaches
602.128 - Landing Minima
602.129 - Approach Ban — General
602.130 - Approach Ban — CAT III Precision
602.131 - Runway Visibility
602.133 - Language Used in Aeronautical Radiocommunications
602.134 - Locations Where Services Are Available in English and French
602.135 - Locations Where Services Are Available in English
602.136 - Continuous Listening Watch
602.137 - Two-way Radiocommunication Failure in IFR Flight
602.138 - Two-way Radiocommunication Failure in VFR Flight
602.143 - Emergency Radio Frequency Capability
602.144 - Interception Signals, Interception of Aircraft and Instructions to Land
602.145 - ADIZ
602.146 - ESCAT Plan
602.150 - Requirements[/quote]
What a colossal load of bullshit. And that's
just one tiny piece of the enormous steaming
pile known as the CARs. 150 little turds, right
there. And there are [i]tens of thousands[/i] of them,
and no one knows what they are.
PS Pilots need to know more than just 602.
It would be nice, for example, if they knew if
their aircraft was legally airworthy. Unfortunately
you need to be a lawyer with six months to research
the question, to answer it. Don't believe me?
Try to import an aircraft. Have fun.
Shiny, I know you are a fan of strong, centralized
control, but trying to defend the CARs ... please.
We agree that even TC has no clue what the rules
are.
What a fucking train wreck.
If we could only do this in Canada
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]Again, most pilots won't need to know the specifics of the CARs, to determine aircraft airworthiness,
their knowledge on any given flight is going to be very limited, and often not of the nature the regulations require[/quote]
So you're saying pilots don't need to be able to
determine if an aircraft is legally airworthy before
flight? Must be nice to fly in your region.
I just observed an extremely lengthy argument
of a group of pilots. Case in point. Pilot shows
up with aircraft for flight test. After start, needle
of ammeter moves. Examiner declares aircraft
unairworthy. Student out buckets of money,
aircraft is grounded, and has strip torn off, because
he dared to show up with an illegal aircraft.
What the fuck? That's reality. You live in a fantasy
if you think pilot can live in ignorance of the
regulations.
Here's a really basic one. I've spent years in
court arguing about this:
[quote]Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Controlled Airspace
602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless
(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;
(b) flight visibility is not less than three miles;
(c) the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally; and
(d) where the aircraft is operated within a control zone,
(i) when reported, ground visibility is not less than three miles, and
(ii) except when taking off or landing, the distance of the aircraft from the surface is not less than 500 feet.
Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Uncontrolled Airspace
602.115 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within uncontrolled airspace unless
(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;
(b) where the aircraft is operated at or above 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than one mile,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three miles, and
(iii) in either case, the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and 2,000 feet horizontally;
(c) where the aircraft is not a helicopter and is operated at less than 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than two miles, except if otherwise authorized in an air operator certificate,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three miles, and
(iii) in either case, the aircraft is operated clear of cloud; and
(d) where the aircraft is a helicopter and is operated at less than 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than one mile, except if otherwise authorized in an air operator certificate or a flight training unit operator certificate — helicopter,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three miles, and
(iii) in either case, the aircraft is operated clear of cloud.[/quote]
What a load of useless lawyer crap. It was a crappy day at the
Tribunal at 333 Laurier, and [i]not one pilot[/i] could agree what the
flight visibility was, looking out the window.
In fact, flight visibility cannot be legally enforced. Another
guy and me are the precedents for that. It's completely
useless.
In fact, the dumb fucks at TC tried to outlaw all aerobatics
in Canada below 18,000 feet by accusing me that I didn't
have 3 miles forward flight visibility in a vertical downline.
What a bunch of assclowns.
Anyways. Replace all of the above jibberish in CAR 602.114
and 602.115 with "clear of cloud".
Do you bring a tape measure with you, to measure the
2,000 feet minimum horizontal distance from cloud above
1,000 AGL in [i]controlled [/i]airspace?
their knowledge on any given flight is going to be very limited, and often not of the nature the regulations require[/quote]
So you're saying pilots don't need to be able to
determine if an aircraft is legally airworthy before
flight? Must be nice to fly in your region.
I just observed an extremely lengthy argument
of a group of pilots. Case in point. Pilot shows
up with aircraft for flight test. After start, needle
of ammeter moves. Examiner declares aircraft
unairworthy. Student out buckets of money,
aircraft is grounded, and has strip torn off, because
he dared to show up with an illegal aircraft.
What the fuck? That's reality. You live in a fantasy
if you think pilot can live in ignorance of the
regulations.
Here's a really basic one. I've spent years in
court arguing about this:
[quote]Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Controlled Airspace
602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless
(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;
(b) flight visibility is not less than three miles;
(c) the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally; and
(d) where the aircraft is operated within a control zone,
(i) when reported, ground visibility is not less than three miles, and
(ii) except when taking off or landing, the distance of the aircraft from the surface is not less than 500 feet.
Minimum Visual Meteorological Conditions for VFR Flight in Uncontrolled Airspace
602.115 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within uncontrolled airspace unless
(a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface;
(b) where the aircraft is operated at or above 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than one mile,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three miles, and
(iii) in either case, the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and 2,000 feet horizontally;
(c) where the aircraft is not a helicopter and is operated at less than 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than two miles, except if otherwise authorized in an air operator certificate,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three miles, and
(iii) in either case, the aircraft is operated clear of cloud; and
(d) where the aircraft is a helicopter and is operated at less than 1,000 feet AGL
(i) during the day, flight visibility is not less than one mile, except if otherwise authorized in an air operator certificate or a flight training unit operator certificate — helicopter,
(ii) during the night, flight visibility is not less than three miles, and
(iii) in either case, the aircraft is operated clear of cloud.[/quote]
What a load of useless lawyer crap. It was a crappy day at the
Tribunal at 333 Laurier, and [i]not one pilot[/i] could agree what the
flight visibility was, looking out the window.
In fact, flight visibility cannot be legally enforced. Another
guy and me are the precedents for that. It's completely
useless.
In fact, the dumb fucks at TC tried to outlaw all aerobatics
in Canada below 18,000 feet by accusing me that I didn't
have 3 miles forward flight visibility in a vertical downline.
What a bunch of assclowns.
Anyways. Replace all of the above jibberish in CAR 602.114
and 602.115 with "clear of cloud".
Do you bring a tape measure with you, to measure the
2,000 feet minimum horizontal distance from cloud above
1,000 AGL in [i]controlled [/i]airspace?
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
I may be going out on a limb here, but I think most regulations are reactive rather than proactive. IOW, somebody (or a bunch of somebodies) does something, or neglects to do something, which results in an accident or injury or some other nefarious outcome.
A regulation is written. Then somebody finds a loophole and another regulation gets written.
Case in point: back in the seventies, the military came out with a regulation that stipulated that you could not file VFR into an airport that was BELOW VFR. Pretty simple and straightforward, wha'?
However, being resourceful fellows, if we in Edmonton wanted to go to Cold Lake, we'd file to Ardmore (just outside the Cold Lake zone), and when we arrived, we contact the tower, cancel the FP, and request SVFR into the zone. Ottawa never caught wind of our little trick so no new regulation was forthcoming... (BTW, we were flying helicopters)
Concerning our CARs: regulations aren't for the straight arrows who are pure of heart; they're made for the other onagers apertures who apparently need them.
A regulation is written. Then somebody finds a loophole and another regulation gets written.
Case in point: back in the seventies, the military came out with a regulation that stipulated that you could not file VFR into an airport that was BELOW VFR. Pretty simple and straightforward, wha'?
However, being resourceful fellows, if we in Edmonton wanted to go to Cold Lake, we'd file to Ardmore (just outside the Cold Lake zone), and when we arrived, we contact the tower, cancel the FP, and request SVFR into the zone. Ottawa never caught wind of our little trick so no new regulation was forthcoming... (BTW, we were flying helicopters)
Concerning our CARs: regulations aren't for the straight arrows who are pure of heart; they're made for the other onagers apertures who apparently need them.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Regulations are used by Enforcement to take chunks out
of people they don't like.
People they like - or don't care about - can break all the
regulations. I know a flight instructor like that. TC loves
his ass, he wrecks airplanes and runs out of gas all the
time, but it's ok because TC loves him.
But if TC doesn't like you, they'll dig until they find something
obscure and then use it to nail your ass to the wall.
Those of us who are not in TC, do not like this capriciousness
and inconsistency, of the application of regulations.
of people they don't like.
People they like - or don't care about - can break all the
regulations. I know a flight instructor like that. TC loves
his ass, he wrecks airplanes and runs out of gas all the
time, but it's ok because TC loves him.
But if TC doesn't like you, they'll dig until they find something
obscure and then use it to nail your ass to the wall.
Those of us who are not in TC, do not like this capriciousness
and inconsistency, of the application of regulations.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Another one. I could do this all day.
Flight instructor (flies for AC now), flies a 172 from our
tiny little airport into Ottawa to renew his flight instructor
rating.
After the grilling on the ground, and the requisite examination
of aircraft paperwork, they go out to the airplane and the TC
Inspector (only they could do instructor flight tests, back then)
grounds the 172, because the compass correction card has blown
out the window.
Instructor is not allowed to take the numbers from the journey
log and make up a new compass correction card. Apparently only
an AME has the authority to do that, and it must be on a special
certified piece of paper.
Needless to say, ride is over, instructor and aircraft are stranded
at Ottawa. AME has to drive into Ottawa and install new certified
compass correction card.
Where the fuck is says in the CARs that only an AME can make
up a compass correction card, or that it has to be on special
paper, who the fuck knows.
Or it might be in CAR 3b. Or FAR 25. Or maybe in the original
aircraft type certificate, whereever the fuck that is.
Yeah, it's really easy.
Flight instructor (flies for AC now), flies a 172 from our
tiny little airport into Ottawa to renew his flight instructor
rating.
After the grilling on the ground, and the requisite examination
of aircraft paperwork, they go out to the airplane and the TC
Inspector (only they could do instructor flight tests, back then)
grounds the 172, because the compass correction card has blown
out the window.
Instructor is not allowed to take the numbers from the journey
log and make up a new compass correction card. Apparently only
an AME has the authority to do that, and it must be on a special
certified piece of paper.
Needless to say, ride is over, instructor and aircraft are stranded
at Ottawa. AME has to drive into Ottawa and install new certified
compass correction card.
Where the fuck is says in the CARs that only an AME can make
up a compass correction card, or that it has to be on special
paper, who the fuck knows.
Or it might be in CAR 3b. Or FAR 25. Or maybe in the original
aircraft type certificate, whereever the fuck that is.
Yeah, it's really easy.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Recently, one of the poo-bahs from Rockcliffe whacked
their prop taxiing at our airport (sound familiar?)
Prop was badly damaged. I have a photo somewhere.
Pilot flies the badly damaged prop as is, back to Rockcliffe
for repair. No teardown. TC has no problem with it, because
they just love the people in charge there.
WTF?
their prop taxiing at our airport (sound familiar?)
Prop was badly damaged. I have a photo somewhere.
Pilot flies the badly damaged prop as is, back to Rockcliffe
for repair. No teardown. TC has no problem with it, because
they just love the people in charge there.
WTF?
-
Chuck Ellsworth
I have yet to see anything in the CAR's that prevents me from telling them to fuck off if they try and talk to me.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 9 Replies
- 4463 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 0 Replies
- 1958 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 11 Replies
- 4459 Views
-
Last post by John Swallow
