I think that would be an error on the part of the controller. She should not provide a clearance for an approach that is not authorized. Per the CARs, once a clearance is given, the pilot has all the authorization they need to fly it. If you've flown in the north, you'd know that pilots routinely s...

So knowing all that, you still believe it's good decision making to fly a non-authorized approach without knowing WHY it's not authorized? I think that’s a good point. Thinking about your prior example, I think there’s a realistic chance of a prosecution under 602.01: the reasonable pilot should ha...

So, to sum it all using the most basic example of a NOTAM posted at an uncontrolled airport amending the IFR approach minimums: (P1427/23 NOTAMN A) CYAB B) 2306150901 E) AMEND PUBLICATIONS: RNAV (GNSS) RWY 05 APCH: LPV MINIMA TO READ: CAT A, B 1422 (250) 1, CAT C 1442 (270) 1) DUE CRANE The control...

Irrelevant. If you ignore a notam, you can be charged with reckless operation of an aircraft. That will suddenly put an end to long-winded arguments about legality. I think it rather depends on what's in the NOTAM. It may have been too long winded for you to read, but I and some other pilots ignore...

Here. I found it. Looks like the pilot contravened 2 CARS. 602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome. (2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-...

Again, tell me which regulation was broken by a pilot so doing. I don't think you can, because I don't think there is one. Here. I found it. Looks like the pilot contravened 2 CARS. 602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or ...

I did a touch-and-go and a full circuit, today, with an ATC clearance, in the full knowledge that a NOTAM was in force from early this morning stating (I quote) "ALL CIRCUITS AND VFR SIGHTSEEING FLT NOT AUTH IN THE TORONTO CITY CENTRE (CYTZ) CTL ZONE)". It's still in effect. I knew about the NOTAM,...

Photofly, you can assume or choose to believe they were VFR (the report states IFR). You can choose to believe the airport operator didn't put out the obstruction markings. You make a lot of assumptions to justify your stance... Well no, not really. I'm not 100% sure that they didn't put out runway...

Once could expect that to be satisfied the PIC would have used all available info to make that determination. If the PIC didn't consult the NOTAMs before flight, can he really be satisfied? Sure. Lots of people are 100% satisfied about lots of things for which they have taken no trouble to find any...

I guess I'm just confused. According to photofly, everyone was at fault EXCEPT the pilots: Nice try, but no, that's not an accurate characterization of my belief. - the ATC was at fault for clearing an aircraft for an approach that is NOTAM'd unavailable As stated, I believe the aircraft was operat...

I don't agree with this part though: There have been a few links to some tribunal reports where the position of the tribunal was something along the lines of 'just because nobody got hurt/nothing got damaged doesn't mean that what you did wasn't reckless/unsafe' You're conflating two issues. 602.96...

I don't agree with this part though: It's possible that 602.96 (2) comes into play, but the pilot could say that he or she actually was satisfied that there was no likelihood of collision with the vehicles, based on their location, disposition, etc. Given the outcome, who is to say the pilot was wr...

There is a company that gives nonsmokers an extra 6 days vacay/year. should this then be required for everyone. It end arounds the whole discrimination thing, encourages others to quit, reduces health claims......but I'm sure some twatwaffle will cry foul and launch a human rights claim(at no cost ...

It depends on how you interpret the report. An IFR training flight can be a flight training for flight under IFR; it doesn't have to be under IFR at the time. Many instrument training flights are conducted VFR to avoid delays, with simulated approaches requested, or simply carried out without ATC c...

If a pilot requests an approach from ATC and is cleared for it, that's all they need. Or, as is most likely in this case, they didn't need (and didn't ask for) an approach clearance because they were flying under the VFR. You missed the part in the report that states they were "conducting an IFR tr...

..

double post

Was an IFR approach clearance issued to the airplane by ATC ? That's a sensible question to ask. The NOTAM about approaches not being authorized applies more to ATC not to provide a clearance than it does to pilots not to fly an approach if a clearance is granted. If a pilot requests an approach fr...

When instructing or flying commercially I agree the tire wear was the limiting factor. But from my -admittedly limited- sampling on planes that don't fly much, it's the tube that causes issues. Trying to figure out if that's true or if it was just coincidence. I agree it's the tube that causes the ...

Nothing of value ever happened at a university?

Asking for a friend.