Check Those Notams

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I guess I'm just confused. According to photofly, everyone was at fault EXCEPT the pilots:
- the ATC was at fault for clearing an aircraft for an approach that is NOTAM'd unavailable
- the airport operator is at fault for not putting out the runway obstruction markings (which is a guess on his part because the report doesn't specifically say if the markings were in place or not)

To play devil's advocate, if NOTAMs are advisory only and the pilot was in the right to both do the approach and land in opposition to both NOTAMS, then by the same logic, the ATC is NOT at fault for approving the approach in the first place. Are NOTAMs only required to be adhered to by ATC and not by pilots?

Here's a thought experiment that I'd like you to answer: A pilot is on a round-robin IFR flight plan and plans to conduct a touch and go at the airport they shoot the IFR approach at. This airport has multiple IFR approaches, but one of them is NOTAM'd unavailable due to a 150' crane right on short final. As well, the only runway is NOTAM'd closed due to repaving with the appropriate closure markings in place on the runway as per the CARS. These NOTAMS have been issued and in effect for days prior to the flight occurring and are therefore readily available to the pilot to review before departure.

Before clearing the aircraft for an approach, the IFR controller advises the pilot that one approach is NOTAM'd and that the runway is NOTAM'd closed and therefore clears GABC to the airport "for an approach." (As a controller, I'd assume the pilot will not do the NOTAM'd approach, and do a low approach and come back to me in the missed).

The pilot then elects to conduct the NOTAM'd approach and does a touch and go on the NOTAM'd runway.

Are you still saying that if the above case occurred, and the pilot elected to conduct the NOTAM'd approach AND landed on the NOTAM'd runway, that the pilot would still not be in the wrong because NOTAM's are advisory only?

Let's say the only difference is the airport operator didn't put out the obstruction markings. Would the pilot now be absolved of their actions just because the white "X" was not in place?

Airmanship has to come into play here, and I don't know what's worse... not checking your NOTAMS or flying in the face of them (pun intended). As someone with 6000 incident free hours, I think I'd choose NOT to shoot the NOTAM'd approach land on the NOTAM'd runway. Who is to say you don't hit that crane short final? Or if it's hard IFR, you break out at minimums and don't see the obstruction markers and land on a chewed up surface? Use some common sense here.... NOTAMS are there for a reason.

[digits_]

You're conflating two issues. 602.96(2) doesn't require an absence of recklessness or lack of safety; it requires the pilot, in the moment, to "be satisfied there was no likelihood of collision". It doesn't require the pilot to be correctly satisfied, or reasonably satisfied, or satisfied to any level of objective judgement, whether that judgement is based on what was known by the pilot at the time, or what turned out later to be true.

If you see some vehicles on the runway, they're not moving, and the operators are all looking at you, then depending on circumstance, you could be satisfied that landing on a different part of the runway generated no likelihood of collision.

602.01 says 'No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.'

The judgement about likelihood there isn't from the pilot's point of view, and can be exercised after all the facts are known. If it turns out that a situation was "likely to endanger" on when viewed from facts not know to the pilot, that would be a defence of "due diligence". But I don't see that is engaged in 602.96(2).

Don't you have the same subjective determination to establish how likely a collision will be?

Pilot A sees vehicles, estimates he will never get closer than 80 feet to them, and deems it acceptable to continue. During landing he doesn't get closer than 79 feet.
Pilot B sees vehicles, estimates he will never get closer than 1 foot to them, and deems it acceptable to continue. During landing he doesn't get closer than 6 inches.

Are both A and B in compliance with 602.96(2)?
Let's say the drivers of the vehicles complain, TC investigates and the tribunal gets involved. Do you expect any different outcomes for pilot A and B?
Would 'well I obviously didn't hit anything, so there was no likelihood of collision' be an acceptable defense?

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-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that

(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and

(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

The minister wrote the rules; if he wanted to punish pilots for landing when there was an objective risk of collision, he was free to write the rules to make that an offence: "No person shall land or take off in an aircraft if there exists the likelihood of a collision with another aircraft or vehicle." There - not difficult. But the Minister didn't write that.

What he actually wrote was that "the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied". If Pilots A and B were both so satisfied and held such an honest belief, then prima-facie they didn't violate that rule.

It's not anyone's job to make up for sloppy rule-making.

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?

[photofly]

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 operating under VFR, and that an approach clearance was neither required nor given. It's obviously therefore inaccurate to say that I think ATC was at fault. I think it's stunningly unlikely that an ATCO gave a clearance for an unauthorized approach to a runway that had been NOTAMed as closed, and if one did, it would be CADORSed up the wazoo.

- the airport operator is at fault for not putting out the runway obstruction markings (which is a guess on his part because the report doesn't specifically say if the markings were in place or not)

If closed markings weren't put out then it's a clear breach of regulation 301.04. Since that regulation requires a marking mid-runway, it's a fair inference that it wasn't there, because otherwise the aircraft would most likely have collided with it.

There are lots of people here willing to criticize the pilot and I don't wish to prevent them from doing so.

To play devil's advocate, if NOTAMs are advisory only and the pilot was in the right to both do the approach and land in opposition to both NOTAMS, then by the same logic, the ATC is NOT at fault for approving the approach in the first place. Are NOTAMs only required to be adhered to by ATC and not by pilots?

A NOTAM that says an approach isn't authorized is clearly aimed at ATC. It's advisory for pilots in that it alerts them that if they ask for that approach, a clearance is unlikely to be granted and they should plan the flight on that basis.

It is not an instruction to pilots that they are in breach of a regulation if they fly that approach.

Here's a thought experiment that I'd like you to answer: A pilot is on a round-robin IFR flight plan and plans to conduct a touch and go at the airport they shoot the IFR approach at. This airport has multiple IFR approaches, but one of them is NOTAM'd unavailable due to a 150' crane right on short final. As well, the only runway is NOTAM'd closed due to repaving with the appropriate closure markings in place on the runway as per the CARS. These NOTAMS have been issued and in effect for days prior to the flight occurring and are therefore readily available to the pilot to review before departure.

Before clearing the aircraft for an approach, the IFR controller advises the pilot that one approach is NOTAM'd and that the runway is NOTAM'd closed and therefore clears GABC to the airport "for an approach." (As a controller, I'd assume the pilot will not do the NOTAM'd approach, and do a low approach and come back to me in the missed).

The pilot then elects to conduct the NOTAM'd approach and does a touch and go on the NOTAM'd runway.

If ATC clears a pilot for "an approach" it is chapter and verse that they are cleared for any of the approaches at that airport, and has a free choice among them based on the regulations applicable at the time. ATC would be in error by providing such a clearance if one approach there wasn't authorized. ATC has no business assuming that a pilot will not fly an approach for which they have just provided a clearance.

Are you still saying that if the above case occurred, and the pilot elected to conduct the NOTAM'd approach AND landed on the NOTAM'd runway, that the pilot would still not be in the wrong because NOTAM's are advisory only?

As to the approach flown, yes. As to landing on a closed runway, that would be an issue between the pilot and the airport operator.

Let's say the only difference is the airport operator didn't put out the obstruction markings. Would the pilot now be absolved of their actions just because the white "X" was not in place?

I'm saying there's a rule about closed runway markings for a reason. They're obviously a very important part of making sure pilots don't land when an airport operator has work going on on the runway.

I don't think this episode covers the pilots in glory. But there's something to be gained by looking in more depth at what else might have gone wrong.

[photofly]

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 evidence, and even for which they have evidence to the contrary. You should read this forum more if you doubt that.

[rookiepilot]

So its not the NOTAM’s fault this time?

Oh yeah, its GA…..

viewtopic.php?t=134506

[Big Pistons Forever]

The approach was NOTAM’d “not authorized” because the runway was closed. It would not IMO be unreasonable to do a practice approach to a pre-announced missed approach in this situation.

Landing on the close runway is IMO a much bigger deal. Forget parsing the rules, this is airmanship 101. The danger of an accident is obviously significant in this scenario.

However it would help if NavCanada provided a quick and easy way to actually check NOTAM’s
Last week I was trying to find the NOTAM for the Cameron Lake fire near Port Alberni. After 15 minutes of searching CFPS I was intimately familiar with over flight restrictions in Syria but had no luck with a local NOTAM. I phoned Kamloops and the briefed was initially stumped but finally found it. It is pretty bad when NavCanada briefers cannot find NOTAM’s

[Bede]

The NOTAM system is a disaster and needs to be completely revamped. I always check my NOTAM's. I was flying in Regina recently and requested an approach to a runway, which I learned, was NOTAM closed. I rechecked the NOTAM's and found the runway closed NOTAM literally on my 3rd time through the NOTAM package. It was buried somewhere between the wildlife and crane NOTAM's.

[CpnCrunch]

The NOTAM system is a disaster and needs to be completely revamped. I always check my NOTAM's. I was flying in Regina recently and requested an approach to a runway, which I learned, was NOTAM closed. I rechecked the NOTAM's and found the runway closed NOTAM literally on my 3rd time through the NOTAM package. It was buried somewhere between the wildlife and crane NOTAM's.

If you use Foreflight it makes the NOTAMs much more reasonable to read, organizing them in a proper manner. I never bother with Nav Canada's system and more, and just look at the airport NOTAMS for my departure and destination, and the FIR. Foreflight also shows NOTAMs on the map, so you can instantly see closed airspace.

[cdnavater]

AIM RAC 9
“9.13 INSTRUMENTS FLIGHT RULES (IFR) PROCEDURES AT AN UNCONTROLLED AERODROME IN UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE Pilots operating under IFR in uncontrolled airspace should, whenever practical, monitor 126.7 MHz and broadcast their intentions on this frequency immediately prior to changing altitude or commencing an approach. Therefore, when arriving at an aerodrome where another frequency is designated as the MF, descent and approach intentions should be broadcast on 126.7 MHz before changing to the MF. If conflicting IFR traffic becomes evident, this change should be delayed until the conflict is resolved. Once established on the MF, the pilot shall make the reports listed in the subsection above. A straight-in landing from an IFR approach should not be used at an uncontrolled aerodrome where air-ground advisory is not available to provide the wind direction and speed and runway condition reports required to conduct a safe landing. The pilot should determine the wind and verify that the runway is unobstructed before landing. Where pilots lack any necessary information, they are expected to ensure that a visual inspection of the runway is completed prior to landing. In some cases, this can only be accomplished by conducting a circling approach using the appropriate circling MDA.”

[DHC-1 Jockey]

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, but Transport Canada has the final word stating that what the pilot did, was in fact in contravention of the CARS and is therefore illegal. From (TP 2228E-29):

"Every pilot planning a flight knows that it is necessary to check for aviation weather information. An equally important part of flight planning is to obtain all pertinent NOTAMs. Which NOTAMs should be checked? Is it sufficient to verify only the NOTAMs for the departure and destination aerodromes? Some believe it is; however, it is not.

Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 602.71 requires that “the pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing a flight, be familiar with the available information that is appropriate to the intended flight.” Further, the Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC AIM) section RAC 3.3 indicates there are three categories of NOTAM files: National NOTAMs, FIR NOTAMs and aerodrome NOTAMs. In addition, TC AIM section MAP 5.6.8 describes the type of information disseminated in each category. Before commencing a flight, pilots must ensure that each NOTAM file category has been reviewed in order to be familiar with all NOTAM information appropriate to the intended flight.

So what is the big deal if all pertinent NOTAMs are not checked?

Aside from breaking the law, [it] goes against the statements in the TC AIM and is a poor flight planning practice."

Therefore, Photofly, these are my last question to you on this, and then I'm out. Consider this NOTAM:

(D1367/23 NOTAMR D0435/23
A) CYYZ B) 2305261212 C) 2308181800EST
E) ILS RWY 15R APCH:
ILS/DME MINIMA TO READ: 1052 (500) 1 1/4
LOC/DME MINIMA TO READ: 1060 (508) 1 RVR 50

I've flown into Pearson enough over the past 15 years to know that the IFR or Tower controller are not telling each aircraft that does this approach that the minimums are different than what is on their approach plate.

My questions are: 1) Are the controllers at fault for not telling each arrival of the higher NOTAM minimums?
2) If you were a passenger on that flight, would you expect your pilots to descend to the standard minimums or the higher NOTAM minimums?
3) If you were evaluating these pilots on a line check and saw the pilots descended below the NOTAM minimums due to not reading them, would you just let it go or would it be a debrief item?

[photofly]

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 closed markings; if they did, that would cast a different light on events. Since we're short on actual facts, it's useful to speculate on what the bits we don't know are. Any conclusions we draw have to be recast if those assumptions are wrong, clearly.

but Transport Canada has the final word stating that what the pilot did, was in fact in contravention of the CARS and is therefore illegal. From (TP 2228E-29):

"Every pilot planning a flight knows that it is necessary to check for aviation weather information. An equally important part of flight planning is to obtain all pertinent NOTAMs. Which NOTAMs should be checked? Is it sufficient to verify only the NOTAMs for the departure and destination aerodromes? Some believe it is; however, it is not.

Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 602.71 requires that “the pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing a flight, be familiar with the available information that is appropriate to the intended flight.” Further, the Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC AIM) section RAC 3.3 indicates there are three categories of NOTAM files: National NOTAMs, FIR NOTAMs and aerodrome NOTAMs. In addition, TC AIM section MAP 5.6.8 describes the type of information disseminated in each category. Before commencing a flight, pilots must ensure that each NOTAM file category has been reviewed in order to be familiar with all NOTAM information appropriate to the intended flight.

So what is the big deal if all pertinent NOTAMs are not checked?

Aside from breaking the law, [it] goes against the statements in the TC AIM and is a poor flight planning practice."

Therefore, Photofly, these are my last question to you on this, and then I'm out. Consider this NOTAM:

(D1367/23 NOTAMR D0435/23
A) CYYZ B) 2305261212 C) 2308181800EST
E) ILS RWY 15R APCH:
ILS/DME MINIMA TO READ: 1052 (500) 1 1/4
LOC/DME MINIMA TO READ: 1060 (508) 1 RVR 50

I've flown into Pearson enough over the past 15 years to know that the IFR or Tower controller are not telling each aircraft that does this approach that the minimums are different than what is on their approach plate.

My questions are: 1) Are the controllers at fault for not telling each arrival of the higher NOTAM minimums?
2) If you were a passenger on that flight, would you expect your pilots to descend to the standard minimums or the higher NOTAM minimums?
3) If you were evaluating these pilots on a line check and saw the pilots descended below the NOTAM minimums due to not reading them, would you just let it go or would it be a debrief item?

I'm always interested to read what TC writes, but as far as I remember, TC doesn't get the final say on what breaks the law, and what doesn't. The final say goes to the TATC, or the Federal Court, in a few cases. There are many many many things a TC inspector says are illegal and the tribunal says the inspector is quite wrong, and finds for the pilot. If TC was always correct in its interpretation of the law, we wouldn't need or have an independent appeal system.

To answer your question, changing an approach by NOTAM is very different to saying it is "not authorized" in a NOTAM.

A published approach is a convenient way of ATC clearing an aircraft to follow a particular route/altitude to a point from which a landing can be made without having to spell out the details. If the approach is NOTAMed as changed, the pilot has to follow the changed approach - because it's the changed approach that's the one the ATCO is clearing the pilot to follow. Similarly if an approach is NOTAMed as withdrawn - then the pilot can't fly the approach because a clearance to fly that approach is uninterpretable - it is not an approach any more. But this approach wasn't amended or withdrawn, it was marked as "not authorized". Since the only "authorizaton" a pilot needs to fly an approach comes in the form of a clearance from ATC, I can't see that there's a regulation broken by that pilot.

So, let's look at all the relevant regulations surrounding instrument approaches:

602.127 (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

Hypothetically speaking, this pilot was authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit. So he didn't break this rule.

602.128 (1) No pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall conduct an instrument approach procedure except in accordance with the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot or the Restricted Canada Air Pilot.

The pilot didn't break that rule either - the entry in the CAP wasn't changed, or withdrawn, and the approach was still published.

And that, as far as I can see, is the extent of any relevant regulation. Still no foul for flying the approach.

I agree the pilot should have reviewed the NOTAMs. Let's suppose he did, and asked for the not authorized approach anyway, and was granted a clearance, or was flying VFR - then did he break a rule? Hard to see which one, if yes.

As for a touch and go on a closed runway - that's more problematic, but as previously discussed, it could be anything from an honest error, to a genuine decision that it was a safe manoeuvre. Hard to know without more information.

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, the controller knew about the NOTAM, and we each knew the other knew about the NOTAM. Which rule did I break? Which rule did he break? Before your eyes pop out with outrage, it wasn't just me, either. There was a helicopter doing sightseeing tours over downtown all day long. Enforcement knows where to find all of us.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

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, the controller knew about the NOTAM, and we each knew the other knew about the NOTAM. Which rule did I break? Which rule did he break? Before your eyes pop out with outrage, it wasn't just me, either. There was a helicopter doing sightseeing tours over downtown all day long. Enforcement knows where to find all of us.

You like to make a lot of assumptions and cherry pick parts of regulations to fit your argument, while leaving out parts that contradict it. In this case, you conveniently left out the first part of that NOTAM. I'll provide it here: E) DUE TO REDUCED SYSTEM CAPACITY AND ANTICIPATED TFC DEMANDS, ALL CIRCUITS AND VFR SIGHTSEEING FLT NOT AUTH IN THE TORONTO CITY CENTRE (CYTZ) CTL ZONE).

As an ATCO who is aware of this NOTAM (I work at a different Tower), this NOTAM is used for continual circuits, not a one off circuit and touch and go as you describe. As a controller, I can issue the NOTAM when I anticipate that staffing levels won't allow me to control in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner and therefore gives me the authority to deny pilots from doing circuits. I'm not aware of the helicopter operations you describe, but there are abilities to have agreements between ATC units and operators that explicitly outline specific procedures for instances like this that you may perceive to contravene a NOTAM or rule.

602.128 (1) No pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall conduct an instrument approach procedure except in accordance with the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot or the Restricted Canada Air Pilot.

The pilot didn't break that rule either - the entry in the CAP wasn't changed, or withdrawn, and the approach was still published.

Do you not understand what a NOTAM is? I'm beginning to think you might be confused. From the NavCanada Canadian NOTAM Procedures Manual:

"A NOTAM is a notice distributed by means of telecommunications containing information concerning the establishment, conditions or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations.

A NOTAM is originated and issued promptly whenever the information to be distributed is of temporary nature and of short duration, or when operationally-significant permanent changes or temporary changes of long duration are made at short notice, that is, there is insufficient time to apply the process of an AIP amendment or AIP supplement."

Your rationale that the just because the CAP wasn't changed or the approach withdrawn means that this was somehow now legal baffles me. The whole purpose of the NOTAM is to PREVENT you from completing the approach (for whatever reason) because this closure looks like it meets the definition of a "temporary nature and short duration."

As for a touch and go on a closed runway - that's more problematic, but as previously discussed, it could be anything from an honest error, to a genuine decision that it was a safe manoeuvre. Hard to know without more information.

That's the end of the discussion for me. If we have pilots flying around knowingly ignoring NOTAMS because in their opinion it's a "safe manoeuvre" and that they think they know better, they shouldn't be flying. From short final, the pilot has no clue whether there's a trench dug across the runway to install new lighting or whether there's other small equipment that may be out there. They have no clue why the runway is closed. But, I'd love to be at the meeting with their insurer after the pilot rips their gear off going over that trench when there was a NOTAM stating the runway was closed, and all the pilot has to lean on is "Hey, it looked safe on final, so I landed anyways. Plus, it was just a NOTAM... it's not like it's legally binding or anything."

Thanks for the discussion, but I don't think we're going to agree on this. This profession/hobby/vocation is supposed to be about being as safe as reasonably possible. To excuse piloting mediocrity as you are doesn't give me much hope for the future of airmanship.

[photofly]

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, the controller knew about the NOTAM, and we each knew the other knew about the NOTAM. Which rule did I break? Which rule did he break? Before your eyes pop out with outrage, it wasn't just me, either. There was a helicopter doing sightseeing tours over downtown all day long. Enforcement knows where to find all of us.

You like to make a lot of assumptions and cherry pick parts of regulations to fit your argument,

I've stated assumptions very clearly - and I've looked at all relevant parts of all regulations, that I can find. If you think there are more regulations that come into play, I'd be delighted to read them.

...while leaving out parts that contradict it. In this case, you conveniently left out the first part of that NOTAM. I'll provide it here: E) DUE TO REDUCED SYSTEM CAPACITY AND ANTICIPATED TFC DEMANDS, ALL CIRCUITS AND VFR SIGHTSEEING FLT NOT AUTH IN THE TORONTO CITY CENTRE (CYTZ) CTL ZONE).

So... you're agreeing with me that the pilot and/or controller have the freedom to decide if a NOTAM applies to them or not? I think that's kind of makes my point. NOTAMs aren't absolute, and don't have the force of law. If the circuit wasn't "authorized", and sightseeing wasn't "authorized", but I and the chopper pilot were still entitled lawfully to conduct those activities, then the pilot to whom the instrument approach wasn't "authorized" could decide the reason for the NOTAM mean the lack of authorization didn't apply to him also, and he could ask for it, and fly it, if a clearance was granted. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

As an ATCO who is aware of this NOTAM (I work at a different Tower), this NOTAM is used for continual circuits, not a one off circuit and touch and go as you describe. As a controller, I can issue the NOTAM when I anticipate that staffing levels won't allow me to control in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner and therefore gives me the authority to deny pilots from doing circuits. I'm not aware of the helicopter operations you describe, but there are abilities to have agreements between ATC units and operators that explicitly outline specific procedures for instances like this that you may perceive to contravene a NOTAM or rule.

Again the point you're making is that NOTAMs are not absolute, and don't have the force of law. After all, a circuit is a circuit is a circuit, and sightseeing is sightseeing is sightseeing, and if circuits and sightseeing flights aren't authorized, then they're not authorized. Unless they are authorized. Sauce for the goose. Again.

602.128 (1) No pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall conduct an instrument approach procedure except in accordance with the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot or the Restricted Canada Air Pilot.

The pilot didn't break that rule either - the entry in the CAP wasn't changed, or withdrawn, and the approach was still published.

Do you not understand what a NOTAM is? I'm beginning to think you might be confused. From the NavCanada Canadian NOTAM Procedures Manual:

"A NOTAM is a notice distributed by means of telecommunications containing information concerning the establishment, conditions or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations.

A NOTAM is originated and issued promptly whenever the information to be distributed is of temporary nature and of short duration, or when operationally-significant permanent changes or temporary changes of long duration are made at short notice, that is, there is insufficient time to apply the process of an AIP amendment or AIP supplement."

Maybe you could find me the bit in the NOTAM Procedures Manual where it explains that NOTAMs have the force of law? Because one of us is confused about that bit, for sure.

Your rationale that the just because the CAP wasn't changed or the approach withdrawn means that this was somehow now legal baffles me. The whole purpose of the NOTAM is to PREVENT you from completing the approach (for whatever reason) because this closure looks like it meets the definition of a "temporary nature and short duration."

If it's temporary and of short duration then it would have been fine for the pilot to ask for the approach. The temporary and short duration closure could have been lifted by the time the aircraft arrived there, and who better to know than ATC? The purpose of the NOTAM is to tell the pilot not to expect a clearance to that approach as part of their pre-flight planning. It doesn't inform a pilot about whether they can fly that approach when cleared for it. 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.

As for a touch and go on a closed runway - that's more problematic, but as previously discussed, it could be anything from an honest error, to a genuine decision that it was a safe manoeuvre. Hard to know without more information.

That's the end of the discussion for me. If we have pilots flying around knowingly ignoring NOTAMS because in their opinion it's a "safe manoeuvre" and that they think they know better, they shouldn't be flying. From short final, the pilot has no clue whether there's a trench dug across the runway to install new lighting or whether there's other small equipment that may be out there. They have no clue why the runway is closed. But, I'd love to be at the meeting with their insurer after the pilot rips their gear off going over that trench when there was a NOTAM stating the runway was closed, and all the pilot has to lean on is "Hey, it looked safe on final, so I landed anyways. Plus, it was just a NOTAM... it's not like it's legally binding or anything."

Thanks for the discussion, but I don't think we're going to agree on this.

You're very welcome.

This profession/hobby/vocation is supposed to be about being as safe as reasonably possible. To excuse piloting mediocrity as you are doesn't give me much hope for the future of airmanship.

I think it's important, if we're going to throw around accusations about flight safety, that everybody in the aeronautical system follows the appropriate procedures. When a runway is closed, there's a procedure for marking it closed. As I said, the pilot didn't cover himself in glory here. But it's both helpful and promotes the goal of safety that you mention, to look at what else might have gone wrong too.

[Bede]

https://deathtonotams.com/

[DHC-1 Jockey]

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 controlled aerodrome.

(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that
(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and
(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

I hope you can agree (and I'm sure a tribunal would as well) that a NOTAM stating that the runway is closed is by definition NOT suitable for the intended operation of conducting a touch-and-go.

But here's the big one specifically talking about NOTAMS:

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(d) if the aerodrome is an airport or heliport, comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM

I think that's pretty cut and dry. The pilot contravened CAR 602.96 (1)(b) and (3)(d). Funny enough, the CARS state that solely the PIC is responsible for complying with the NOTAMS. I can't find any regulation holding ATCO's to the same standard.

[photofly]

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 controlled aerodrome.

(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that
(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and
(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

I hope you can agree (and I'm sure a tribunal would as well) that a NOTAM stating that the runway is closed is by definition NOT suitable for the intended operation of conducting a touch-and-go.

But here's the big one specifically talking about NOTAMS:

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(d) if the aerodrome is an airport or heliport, comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM

I think that's pretty cut and dry. The pilot contravened CAR 602.96 (1)(b) and (3)(d). Funny enough, the CARS state that solely the PIC is responsible for complying with the NOTAMS. I can't find any regulation holding ATCO's to the same standard.

No, and no.

602.96(2) - I explicitly covered earlier. I won't repeat what I said, you can find it up-thread. The risk of collision clause I already wrote about. The aerodrome being suitable cannot refer to vehicles as that's explicitly covered in the prior clause. It's a principle of legal interpretation that the same situation can't trigger two clauses in a way to make one of them redundant.

602.96(3)(d) Very obviously doesn't apply at Drumheller because it's an aerodrome and not an airport or heliport. The Minister has exactly zero authority to specify restrictions at an aerodrome that is not an airport or heliport.

Sorry.

Next point about 602.93(3)(d): when a restriction is in place by Ministerial decree the NOTAM or entry in the CFS always says so explicitly by quoting that regulation number. So that the pilot knows in that case it's mandatory and not advisory.

[digits_]

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 controlled aerodrome.

(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that
(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and
(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

I hope you can agree (and I'm sure a tribunal would as well) that a NOTAM stating that the runway is closed is by definition NOT suitable for the intended operation of conducting a touch-and-go.

But here's the big one specifically talking about NOTAMS:

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(d) if the aerodrome is an airport or heliport, comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM

I think that's pretty cut and dry. The pilot contravened CAR 602.96 (1)(b) and (3)(d). Funny enough, the CARS state that solely the PIC is responsible for complying with the NOTAMS. I can't find any regulation holding ATCO's to the same standard.

No, and no.

602.96(2) - I explicitly covered earlier. I won't repeat what I said, you can find it up-thread. The risk of collision clause I already wrote about. The aerodrome being suitable cannot refer to vehicles as that's explicitly covered in the prior clause. It's a principle of legal interpretation that the same situation can't trigger two clauses in a way to make one of them redundant.

602.96(3)(d) Very obviously doesn't apply at Drumheller because it's an aerodrome and not an airport or heliport. The Minister has exactly zero authority to specify restrictions at an aerodrome that is not an airport or heliport.

Sorry.

Next point about 602.93(3)(d): when a restriction is in place by Ministerial decree the NOTAM or entry in the CFS always says so explicitly by quoting that regulation number. So that the pilot knows in that case it's mandatory and not advisory.

Are you saying that, for example, if YYZ would be closed unexpectedly the NOTAM about that would mention a reference to CAR 602.93(3)(d) ? And that it would be meaningless without a CAR reference in the NOTAM?

[photofly]

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-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that
(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and
(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

I hope you can agree (and I'm sure a tribunal would as well) that a NOTAM stating that the runway is closed is by definition NOT suitable for the intended operation of conducting a touch-and-go.

But here's the big one specifically talking about NOTAMS:

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(d) if the aerodrome is an airport or heliport, comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM

I think that's pretty cut and dry. The pilot contravened CAR 602.96 (1)(b) and (3)(d). Funny enough, the CARS state that solely the PIC is responsible for complying with the NOTAMS. I can't find any regulation holding ATCO's to the same standard.

No, and no.

602.96(2) - I explicitly covered earlier. I won't repeat what I said, you can find it up-thread. The risk of collision clause I already wrote about. The aerodrome being suitable cannot refer to vehicles as that's explicitly covered in the prior clause. It's a principle of legal interpretation that the same situation can't trigger two clauses in a way to make one of them redundant.

602.96(3)(d) Very obviously doesn't apply at Drumheller because it's an aerodrome and not an airport or heliport. The Minister has exactly zero authority to specify restrictions at an aerodrome that is not an airport or heliport.

Sorry.

Next point about 602.93(3)(d): when a restriction is in place by Ministerial decree the NOTAM or entry in the CFS always says so explicitly by quoting that regulation number. So that the pilot knows in that case it's mandatory and not advisory.

Are you saying that, for example, if YYZ would be closed unexpectedly the NOTAM about that would mention a reference to CAR 602.93(3)(d) ? And that it would be meaningless without a CAR reference in the NOTAM?

I'm saying that when Transport Canada issues an operating restriction at an airport via NOTAM, it becomes mandatory under 602.93, and the NOTAM quotes that regulation. When anyone else, such as an airport operator or NAV CANDA, issues a NOTAM, or when a NOTAM details a restriction at an aerodrome that isn't an airport or heliport, it isn't, and doesn't.

I also highlight your improper conflation of "not mandatory" with "meaningless". A NOTAM can have both meaning and value, even if not mandatory, and even if non-compliance isn't a cause of regulatory action.

The NOTAM today at CYTZ was not issued by the Minister, and anyone conducting a city tour contrary to the NOTAM did not breach 602.93. Was it of no value? No. It was of value. It warned visiting aircraft that if they requested a city tour, they should expect to be refused. It did not warn them that if they were permitted a city tour by ATC they risked being prosecuted by TC Enforcement.


On the subject of 301.04 and closed markings - I see that 301.03 excuses an airport operator from the requirement to provide closed markings if a runway is closed for fewer than 24 hours. Does anyone know for how long the runway was closed?

[pelmet]

No, and no.

602.96(2) - I explicitly covered earlier. I won't repeat what I said, you can find it up-thread. The risk of collision clause I already wrote about. The aerodrome being suitable cannot refer to vehicles as that's explicitly covered in the prior clause. It's a principle of legal interpretation that the same situation can't trigger two clauses in a way to make one of them redundant.

602.96(3)(d) Very obviously doesn't apply at Drumheller because it's an aerodrome and not an airport or heliport. The Minister has exactly zero authority to specify restrictions at an aerodrome that is not an airport or heliport.

Sorry.

Next point about 602.93(3)(d): when a restriction is in place by Ministerial decree the NOTAM or entry in the CFS always says so explicitly by quoting that regulation number. So that the pilot knows in that case it's mandatory and not advisory.

Are you saying that, for example, if YYZ would be closed unexpectedly the NOTAM about that would mention a reference to CAR 602.93(3)(d) ? And that it would be meaningless without a CAR reference in the NOTAM?

I'm saying that when Transport Canada issues an operating restriction at an airport via NOTAM, it becomes mandatory under 602.93, and the NOTAM quotes that regulation. When anyone else, such as an airport operator or NAV CANDA, issues a NOTAM, or when a NOTAM details a restriction at an aerodrome that isn't an airport or heliport, it isn't, and doesn't.

I also highlight your improper conflation of "not mandatory" with "meaningless". A NOTAM can have both meaning and value, even if not mandatory, and even if non-compliance isn't a cause of regulatory action.

The NOTAM today at CYTZ was not issued by the Minister, and anyone conducting a city tour contrary to the NOTAM did not breach 602.93. Was it of no value? No. It was of value. It warned visiting aircraft that if they requested a city tour, they should expect to be refused. It did not warn them that if they were permitted a city tour by ATC they risked being prosecuted by TC Enforcement.

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.

[photofly]

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 ignored a NOTAM yesterday. We won't be prosecuted.

Landing on a runway with vehicles on it might fall foul of 602.01, depending on circumstances. There's nothing in the record specific on closed runways or proximity to stationary vehicles on the runway, but this is the most often sited one about aircraft to aircraft spacing:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tatc/doc/1 ... 24902.html

[DHC-1 Jockey]

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 controller states "Cleared to the CYAB airport for an approach." I think we both agree that the pilot can fly whatever IFR approach exists, and if flying the RNAV (GNSS) 05, the pilots must adhere to the NOTAM published minimums because the minimums are NOTAM'd higher. You said as much youself:

If the approach is NOTAMed as changed, the pilot has to follow the changed approach

The next day, a new NOTAM came out stating that the approach subsequently became "Not authorized" because the crane is now higher and unsafely intrudes into the approach:

(P1427/23 NOTAMN
A) CYAB B) 2306160901
E) RNAV (GNSS) RWY 05 APCH NOT AUTH DUE CRANE

The controller states "Cleared to the CYAB airport for an approach." You say that:

A NOTAM that says an approach isn't authorized is clearly aimed at ATC. It's advisory for pilots

and

The pilot didn't break that rule either - the entry in the CAP wasn't changed, or withdrawn, and the approach was still published.

Therefore by your logic:
1. The pilot is allowed to do the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 05 regardless of the new NOTAM (even if the ATC advises the pilot that the RNAV 05 is not authorized), and;
2. The pilot is even allowed to descend to the CAP published minimums which are below the previous NOTAM'd minimums simply because the "entry in the CAP wasn't changed, or withdrawn, and the approach was still published"
3. The pilot had "no foul" in flying the approach, even though it directly contradicts 602.96 (3)(d):

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(d) if the aerodrome is an airport or heliport, comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM

Do I have that correct? A simple yes or no answer please.

[pelmet]

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 ignored a NOTAM yesterday. We won't be prosecuted.

Landing on a runway with vehicles on it might fall foul of 602.01, depending on circumstances. There's nothing in the record specific on closed runways or proximity to stationary vehicles on the runway, but this is the most often sited one about aircraft to aircraft spacing:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tatc/doc/1 ... 24902.html

What notam did you “ignore”.

I guarantee that you would be opening yourself up for an investigation if it was landing on a runway that was notammed as closed.

Of course, if you have political influence, it may affect the outcome……

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ed/237402/

[digits_]

I guarantee that you would be opening yourself up for an investigation if it was landing on a runway that was notammed as closed.

I've done exactly that, after ATC cleared me to land on that runway when it was reopened earlier than expected and the NOTAM was still active.
Conversation went something like:
'CGABC, cleared to land runway 12"
- 'wasn't runway 12 closed by NOTAM?'
'It's open now, we'll be cancelling the NOTAM soon'
- 'roger, ABC. cleared to land runway 12'

[pelmet]

I guarantee that you would be opening yourself up for an investigation if it was landing on a runway that was notammed as closed.

I've done exactly that, after ATC cleared me to land on that runway when it was reopened earlier than expected and the NOTAM was still active.
Conversation went something like:
'CGABC, cleared to land runway 12"
- 'wasn't runway 12 closed by NOTAM?'
'It's open now, we'll be cancelling the NOTAM soon'
- 'roger, ABC. cleared to land runway 12'

Not a likely situation in the case we are discussing. And if your situation was reported to TC as a complaint, you could expect at least an informal investigation which would likely not be forwarded for further action.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I've done exactly that, after ATC cleared me to land on that runway when it was reopened earlier than expected and the NOTAM was still active.
Conversation went something like:
'CGABC, cleared to land runway 12"
- 'wasn't runway 12 closed by NOTAM?'
'It's open now, we'll be cancelling the NOTAM soon'
- 'roger, ABC. cleared to land runway 12'

In this case, the controller knew the NOTAM was cancelled and just waiting for it to disappear off the screen. The permission given to open the runway would be on a recorded line in case there was any questions after.

I’d like you to answer my question about the “non-authorized approach” that I posted above. In my question, I tried to approximate the situation in the original incident that spurred this conversation.