Massive transport aircraft clips fence

[C-FABH]

I don't have a picture of it to link here now as I haven't converted them to a disk yet, but this picture was taken from the MI8 using a Wescam mounted outside the helicopter.

That's amusing, wouldn't a Wescam be worth more than an MI8?

[Cat Driver]

That's amusing, wouldn't a Wescam be worth more than an MI8?

Yes it probably would, I think the camera was worth over a million USD, it belonged to TF1 television in France and the helicopter was one of many Russian aircraft you will find all over Africa.....and those Russians build tough ships...

[FamilyGuy]

"Correct: military aircraft are not governed by CARs."

Wrong! Miltary aircraft and pilots, when in civil airspace and/or at civil airports are expected to follow all civil rules - with some exceptions for some very unique circumstances. They cannot do as they please - for the most part. Those who need to know the exceptions - know them.

[linecrew]

...and those Russians build tough ships...

No kidding. The IL-76 that hit the fence left Ottawa the next morning at 9:30. No major damage!

[chuck130]

"Correct: military aircraft are not governed by CARs."

Wrong! Miltary aircraft and pilots, when in civil airspace and/or at civil airports are expected to follow all civil rules - with some exceptions for some very unique circumstances. They cannot do as they please - for the most part. Those who need to know the exceptions - know them.

Absolutely right. One of the exceptions is the "approach ban" which does not apply to military aircraft in Canada....

[Rockie]

"Correct: military aircraft are not governed by CARs."

Wrong! Miltary aircraft and pilots, when in civil airspace and/or at civil airports are expected to follow all civil rules - with some exceptions for some very unique circumstances. They cannot do as they please - for the most part. Those who need to know the exceptions - know them.

Absolutely right. One of the exceptions is the "approach ban" which does not apply to military aircraft in Canada....

Subpart 2 - Application
Content last revised: 1996/10/10


102.01 These Regulations do not apply in respect of:

(a) military aircraft of Her Majesty in right of Canada when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence;

(b) military aircraft of a country other than Canada, to the extent that the Minister of National Defence has exempted them from the application of these Regulations pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Act; or

(c) model aircraft, rockets, hovercraft or wing-in-ground-effect machines, unless otherwise indicated in the Regulations.


I think this direct quote from the CAR's should settle the argument. Military aircraft are governed by CFP 100 last I checked which in a lot of ways mirrors the CAR's. But at no time are military aircraft or pilots governed by the CAR's.

[lilfssister]

Subpart 2 - Application
Content last revised: 1996/10/10


102.01 These Regulations do not apply in respect of:

(a) military aircraft of Her Majesty in right of Canada when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence;

(b) military aircraft of a country other than Canada, to the extent that the Minister of National Defence has exempted them from the application of these Regulations pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Act; or

(c) model aircraft, rockets, hovercraft or wing-in-ground-effect machines, unless otherwise indicated in the Regulations.


I think this direct quote from the CAR's should settle the argument. Military aircraft are governed by CFP 100 last I checked which in a lot of ways mirrors the CAR's. But at no time are military aircraft or pilots governed by the CAR's.

Thank you Rockie: I knew it was in there, but didn't have the time to look it up when I posted.

[V1RotateV2]

I see two points here and they seem confusing. To my understanding:

Military aircraft are NOT governed by CARs. If an F-18 lands anywhere (be CYTR or CYYZ) with an RVR of 600, it did not break the TC rules and regs.

Civilian aircraft (even if landing at a military base) DO abide and must comply with CARs.

If the military hires your Metro to fly 19 soldiers to Trenton, I don't believe that means you forget all the rules, do as you please and shred any TC letter that you get in the mail a week later.

[lilfssister]

I have filed an AOR on an aircraft contracted by the CF and had the outcome be that they were opertaing under the authority of the CF and therefore not subject to CARs, no further action.

[Rockie]

I have filed an AOR on an aircraft contracted by the CF and had the outcome be that they were opertaing under the authority of the CF and therefore not subject to CARs, no further action.

Excuse my ignorance lilfssister, but what's an AOR? I don't know the circumstances behind what you are mentioning here, but say if Cargojet were doing some contract lift for the British Army for instance, they would still be obliged to comply with TC regulations where ever in the world they went because TC are the people who issue them their operating certificate. It wouldn't matter who they were providing service to. I would think the same would apply to a foreign carrier operating in Canada on contract with the DND. They are a "foreign Air Carrier" which should come under the jurisdiction of that department within TC. The CAR's are pretty specific about who they don't apply to, and that doesn't appear to include this outfit that dislikes fences in Trenton.

[Rockie]

I see two points here and they seem confusing. To my understanding:

Military aircraft are NOT governed by CARs. If an F-18 lands anywhere (be CYTR or CYYZ) with an RVR of 600, it did not break the TC rules and regs.

Civilian aircraft (even if landing at a military base) DO abide and must comply with CARs.

If the military hires your Metro to fly 19 soldiers to Trenton, I don't believe that means you forget all the rules, do as you please and shred any TC letter that you get in the mail a week later.

You're absolutely right on both counts. In the first case the F-18 would not have broken any TC rules and regs because they are not governed by them. But it sure would have broken military regs and would have some explaining to do. In the second the Metro is licenced to operate by TC and must still comply with CAR's no matter where they are operating.

[CD]

...what's an AOR?

AOR = Aviation Occurrence Report

[Rockie]

Thanks CD.

[FamilyGuy]

Some of this is pretty funny.

What does "when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence; " mean exactly????

Does the DOD provide the "authority" to fly from say, Cold Lake to Winterpeg or is that maybe a civil authority???

Again, in civil airspace civil rules - with some exceptions. Those exceptions are partly what this refers to. You can't just read this as a blanket coverall statement.

Why are we having this conversation anyways?

[Rockie]

Some of this is pretty funny.

What does "when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence; " mean exactly????

Does the DOD provide the "authority" to fly from say, Cold Lake to Winterpeg or is that maybe a civil authority???

Again, in civil airspace civil rules - with some exceptions. Those exceptions are partly what this refers to. You can't just read this as a blanket coverall statement.

Why are we having this conversation anyways?

Manoevered under the authority of the minister of National Defence means always. The DND never gives up authority for the operation of its aircraft no matter where in the world they operate. And yes, that means between Cold Lake and Winnipeg. For some reason you think this means a military aircraft can just do whatever they want without consideration to established instrument flight procedures or rules, which they can't. Military aircraft are not registered or regulated by the Minister of Transport. Military pilots are not licensed or regulated by the Minister of Transport. The CAR's do not, as it states in plain english, apply to military aircraft.

The military for instance is not required to talk to anybody if they are conducting operations over the Atlantic. They do something called MARSA, or "military assumes responsibility for separation". Can you imagine an Aircraft Carrier having to comply with civil regulations? There are very good reasons why the Minister of Transport has no authority over military aircraft, but that doesn't mean the Air Force doesn't co-exist in civilian airspace with everybody else.

[sh*t magnet]

Some of the old fighter's like the sabre out west and the hunter that are operated for towing targets and running simulated attacks on the navy ships for training are operated under the authority of the military, and therefore can operate under some military rules, but if the military charters your B90 or any other normal commercial aircraft that aircraft and crew operate under CARS and whether they are chartered by the Canadian Forces or Canadian Tire it makes no difference.

I think the sabre and hunter operate this way because it's not legal in Canada to own an old Military jet, unless your Cowboy McCloskey (now I'm showing my age).

If someone in ATS files an AOR on a Military airplane it will stick, as long as it's justified.

[Hadji Ramjet]

Cat Driver, then Il-76 really isn't acceptable, and there are too many limitations on the Antonovs (there's a reason our Leopards went by Antonov to Manas, and then by USAF Globemasters to KAF).

SM, NL's Hunters aren't used in Canada anymore, but I believe they DID have Canadian civil registrations. The AlphaJets of the Dids and Clem Flying Circus are also registered in Canada (I think...) but that may well be under a company name, not as private aircraft.

PS: did Van Wyck register his orange Eagle in Canada?

[yultoto]

there's a reason our Leopards went by Antonov to Manas, and then by USAF Globemasters to KAF)

There are many people looking for that very reason but are unable to find it. If you know it, please share with us.

[CYOX]

there's a reason our Leopards went by Antonov to Manas, and then by USAF Globemasters to KAF)

There are many people looking for that very reason but are unable to find it. If you know it, please share with us.

It is as easy as checking RAMCC's AIP and NOTAMS for Kandahar at that time period. The runway was under construction and it was not able to handle an AN124.

[WJflyer]

Just to give you guys a heads up, Transport Canada has classified this as accident as there was substantial damage.

And this was not the first time they done this; in the 1990's, there was another incident with another Il-76 which landed long at Trenton and ran into the overrun and lights on runway 24.

See the TC Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS):
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applicatio ... yframe.asp

1. Select "Accident" from the drop-down menu of the [Occurrence Type] item,

2. Type "Trenton" into the [Occurrence Location] box on the form, click "Search"

3. select incident "2007O0755 Trenton (CYTR)"

4. Prepare to be outraged at the ineptitude of the pilots


And I can point to another incident in Kabul:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/ ... #msg276930

They set themselves up (even though they had a 1/2 mile reported ground vis) for a CAT I approach with an RVR of 600 feet and a vertical vis of 500 feet. Of note, there is an approach ban for CAT II with a single RVR (A) of < 1200 feet. That of course, begs the question, what the heck were the crew thinking trying to make this approach on CAT I minimums when CAT II minimums don't exist at the time? You pilots decide...

[Expat]

Due to the nature of their work, and the locations where they fly, these guys are really bush pilots, with big balls. They even fly drunk!

[Mitch Cronin]

Due to the nature of their work, and the locations where they fly, these guys are really bush pilots, with big balls. They even fly drunk!

If that last statement is true, then they don't have big balls at all, they just have a severe shortage of grey matter between their ears..

...btw... did you guys happen to notice when this thread was started?

[altiplano]

Russians always made great heavy lift aircraft. But no other country can really afford to build, maintain, or really operate these.

Sikorsky skycrane
Marine One is Sikorsky

Sikorsky is American...

[CD]

Off-topic...

Marine One is Sikorsky...

Not for long...

VH-71
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Replacement
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Test Aircraft Completes Maiden Flight

Of course, with the continued problems plaguing the CH-149 Cormorant, the VH-71 program is well behind schedule and the project team is struggling to deal with the four different companies in three countries that are building it... <shrug>

[twotter]

PS: did Van Wyck register his orange Eagle in Canada?

No, it was N15V. Cowboy's 104 was CF-COW, not that I would want to date myself..

I'll bet most of the people on this board have no idea what we are talking about..