Check Those Notams

[digits_]

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'm sure that's true, but from a pilot's point of view that doesn't matter. I can't verify if a NOTAM is actually cancelled or not. If ATC clears me to do something that I want to do, and overwrites a NOTAM, as long as I think it's safe to do, I'll be happy to comply.

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.

If ATC clears the pilot for that specific approach, I am quite confident the pilot is not to blame for flying that approach.

If ATC clears the pilot for 'an approach', as you mentioned in your questions, then I'm not entirely sure. I think the clearance would allow me to fly any approach at that airport. In your example, I think ATC shouldn't have given that exact clearance, but if the pilot does end up flying the 'non authorized approach', I think ATC would be at fault, and not the pilot. A question to confirm that approach was indeed available would be nice, but not required IMO.

Bottom line is: if ATC has the power to overwrite NOTAMS -which I've seen them do intentionally, see previous posts-, then they should not be surprised if pilots follow their instructions if they unintentionally issue a clearance that contradicts a current NOTAM.

[photofly]

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."

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.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

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 simply get cleared "for an approach." The IFR controller is not providing a clearance for a specific approach that is not authorized. They're providing a clearance to conduct any published approach, but it's still up to the pilot to "comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM" as per 602.96 (3)(d). Ergo, the pilot cannot legally complete the approach that is not authorized. A controller is never going to say "Cleared to the CYAB airport for an approach, except the RNAV 05."

Also, the CARS reference specifically states in black and white that the Pilot in Command is solely responsible for complying with the NOTAM. It says nothing about the controller having to comply, so no, the controller isn't at fault.

But for sake or argument, let's say I agree with you and the pilot can legally fly the non-authorized approach.

In your opinion, is that good pilot-decision making? Knowing there was a crane the day before necessitating higher approach minima, is the pilot still making a good decision to go into that airport the next day now seeing that the approach is now not authorized? Wouldn't you wonder why the NOTAM changed? Obviously something with the crane changed enough for the approach to be not authorized, but the pilot might have no idea what the change is. It could now be in a position that doesn't allow for proper obstacle clearance on approach. The runway would still be open but the IFR approach is definitely not safe.

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?

[digits_]

If you've flown in the north, you'd know that pilots routinely simply get cleared "for an approach." The IFR controller is not providing a clearance for a specific approach that is not authorized. They're providing a clearance to conduct any published approach, but it's still up to the pilot to "comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM" as per 602.96 (3)(d). Ergo, the pilot cannot legally complete the approach that is not authorized. A controller is never going to say "Cleared to the CYAB airport for an approach, except the RNAV 05."

If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?

We've already established ATC has the power to override NOTAM restrictions. And while in the air, the pilot has no way of knowing (in most aircraft) if a NOTAM is still active while he is getting his clearance, other than from ATC, who is issuing the clearance.


Or, think about it differently, what if you have been flying for 3 hours, and during your filght a NOTAM popped up that 'approach RNAV 05 in CYAB not authorized'. If a pilot then gets cleared by ATC 'for an approach' in CYAB, how would he know he can't fly the RNAV 05?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

If you've flown in the north, you'd know that pilots routinely simply get cleared "for an approach." The IFR controller is not providing a clearance for a specific approach that is not authorized. They're providing a clearance to conduct any published approach, but it's still up to the pilot to "comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM" as per 602.96 (3)(d). Ergo, the pilot cannot legally complete the approach that is not authorized. A controller is never going to say "Cleared to the CYAB airport for an approach, except the RNAV 05."

If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?

We've already established ATC has the power to override NOTAM restrictions. And while in the air, the pilot has no way of knowing (in most aircraft) if a NOTAM is still active while he is getting his clearance, other than from ATC, who is issuing the clearance.

In my example, the controller isn't clearing a pilot for the RNAV 05. They're clearing the pilot "For an approach." That's the phraseology... Cleared "for an approach."

[digits_]

If you've flown in the north, you'd know that pilots routinely simply get cleared "for an approach." The IFR controller is not providing a clearance for a specific approach that is not authorized. They're providing a clearance to conduct any published approach, but it's still up to the pilot to "comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM" as per 602.96 (3)(d). Ergo, the pilot cannot legally complete the approach that is not authorized. A controller is never going to say "Cleared to the CYAB airport for an approach, except the RNAV 05."

If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?

We've already established ATC has the power to override NOTAM restrictions. And while in the air, the pilot has no way of knowing (in most aircraft) if a NOTAM is still active while he is getting his clearance, other than from ATC, who is issuing the clearance.

In my example, the controller isn't clearing a pilot for the RNAV 05. They're clearing the pilot "For an approach." That's the phraseology... Cleared "for an approach."

I understand that. I've answered your questions. Can you answer my hypothetical question?

If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?

[photofly]

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 have read the NOTAMs, and the reasonable pilot would not fly an approach they knew was obstructed, and it’s clear that doing so would “be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.”

But if the approach is not authorized due only to a closed runway, and a controller clears you for the approach regardless, and you fly it, is that likely to endanger life or property? If not, you would escape any punishment for violating 602.01. Poor decision-making on its own doesn’t get you a punishment.

I was thinking about the overflight of the vehicles and personnel on the runway. This was the view on takeoff today.

IMG_3058.jpeg (274.06 KiB) Viewed 1378 times

There are vehicles and personnel on the runway. There is a displaced threshold, and a safety zone of about a 1000 feet. But it is at least established there is a safe way to overfly vehicles and people without a risk of collision.

[pelmet]

Here is an expensive penalty for inadvertently not following an FAA Notam.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... violations

[photofly]

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 simply get cleared "for an approach." The IFR controller is not providing a clearance for a specific approach that is not authorized. They're providing a clearance to conduct any published approach, but it's still up to the pilot to "comply with any airport or heliport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM" as per 602.96 (3)(d).

Your NOTAM didn’t specify 602.96, so it wasn’t issued by the Minister. I don’t think in your example 602.96 comes into play. You can find some examples of airport operating restrictions in the CFS and by NOTAM and they all quote the regulation number.

[photofly]

Here is an expensive penalty for inadvertently not following an FAA Notam.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... violations

Fairly sure the NOTAM in question in Canada would explicitly quote the source of authority under which enforcement action would be taken in the case of a violation. Something like “Pursuant to the powers conferred by section such and such of the such and such Act…”

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I understand that. I've answered your questions. Can you answer my hypothetical question?

If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?

You didn't answer my question. You answered it as if the controller said "cleared for the RNAV 05." In my example, I specifically asked about being cleared "For an approach".

So again, if the controller states "Cleared CYAB airport for an approach," is:
1. The pilot now allowed to do the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 05 knowing that the NOTAM changed (even if the ATC advises the pilot that the RNAV 05 is not authorized), and;
2. The pilot 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" as photofly states?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

There are vehicles and personnel on the runway. There is a displaced threshold, and a safety zone of about a 1000 feet. But it is at least established there is a safe way to overfly vehicles and people without a risk of collision.

Agreed. However, this picture is from Hamilton and there are multiple NOTAMS regarding this closure to allow workers on the closed portion of runway while still maintaining safety:

(D1691/23 NOTAMR D1661/23
A) CYHM B) 2306131939 C) 2306242300EST
E) FIRST 2174FT RWY 30 CLSD DUE CONST.
MARKED WITH ORANGE AND WHITE MARKER BOARDS ON GRASS

(D1669/23 NOTAMR D1654/23
RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 30 APCH:
LPV MINIMA AND LNAV/VNAV MINIMA: NOT AUTH

In the very first example in this thread, you said:

More generally, NOTAMs are notices, not rules, and you can't be punished simply for breaking one - a mechanism to do so doesn't exist in law.

I know YHM is open 24 hours, but say it closes at night (this removes any ATC aspect from the conversation and just deals with a runway closure NOTAM). Are you telling me that if you were taxiing for departure at night, and the men and equipment were clearly not on the runway, that you'd line up at the normal threshold? Or would you line up at the displaced threshold?

You might argue it is safer to line up at the standard threshold to give more runway available to stop in the event of an issue, but of you line up at the displaced threshold, I imagine it would be because you know it's wrong to taxi into the closed area and commence departure within the first 2174' of the runway as per the NOTAM.

[digits_]

I understand that. I've answered your questions. Can you answer my hypothetical question?

If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?

You didn't answer my question. You answered it as if the controller said "cleared for the RNAV 05." In my example, I specifically asked about being cleared "For an approach".

So again, if the controller states "Cleared CYAB airport for an approach," is:
1. The pilot now allowed to do the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 05 knowing that the NOTAM changed (even if the ATC advises the pilot that the RNAV 05 is not authorized), and;
2. The pilot 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" as photofly states?

This was my answer to the previous format of your question:

If ATC clears the pilot for 'an approach', as you mentioned in your questions, then I'm not entirely sure. I think the clearance would allow me to fly any approach at that airport. In your example, I think ATC shouldn't have given that exact clearance, but if the pilot does end up flying the 'non authorized approach', I think ATC would be at fault, and not the pilot. A question to confirm that approach was indeed available would be nice, but not required IMO.

For the 2 points above, I'd say:
1. If ATC clears the pilot and tells him RNAV 05 is unauthorized, then it's a nonsens clearance IMO. It's equivalent to instructing an airplane to climb and descend at the same time. It doesn't make sense.
2. No, NOTAM takes precedence. The difference here is that ATC isn't overruling the minima. They'd likely even tell you the minima changed if the NOTAM was fairly new. It's happened a couple of times to me.


I'm asking you "If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?"

Because that answer would be the same to your question. I don't think there's a difference. In both cases ATC is giving a clearance for an approach. The first one is only valid for one specific approach, the second one is valid for every approach at that airport. In both cases, ATC shouldn't be giving that clearance if RNAV 05 is unauthorized. I also think the proper response to the 'cleared for an approach', is that the pilot gets back to ATC and tells him which approach he will actually fly.

[photofly]

More generally, NOTAMs are notices, not rules, and you can't be punished simply for breaking one - a mechanism to do so doesn't exist in law.

I know YHM is open 24 hours, but say it closes at night (this removes any ATC aspect from the conversation and just deals with a runway closure NOTAM). Are you telling me that if you were taxiing for departure at night, and the men and equipment were clearly not on the runway, that you'd line up at the normal threshold? Or would you line up at the displaced threshold?

I believe you've misinterpreted what I wrote. I didn't write that you can't be punished for doing something that runs contrary to a NOTAM. I wrote that you can't be punished merely for operating contrary to a generic NOTAM. If you do something objectively dangerous that you should have been able to avoid because the danger was communicated in a NOTAM then you can be punished for the dangerous act. That's at the heart of 602.01. But the minister has to make the case that your act would “be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.” That could be an easy sell, or a difficult one. It would depend on what you did. I think it would be a difficult sell, if all you did was fly an approach NOTAMed as "not auth" due to a runway closure. But that's just my opinion.

As a contrast, If a NOTAM details a restriction in place to which 602.96 applies, then you can be punished for operating contrary to that restriction whether it caused any danger or not.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I'm asking you "If RNAV 05 approach was not authorized according to a NOTAM, and ATC cleared a pilot for RNAV 05, is the pilot doing anything wrong when flying this approach?"

Yes, both the Pilot and ATC are at fault.

Pilot at fault: The pilot shall be aware of all data pertinent to their flight (CARS), and should either not request OR be aware that they can't accept the RNAV 05 if it's offered to them.

ATC at fault: The ATC should not clear an aircraft for a specific approach that is not authorized by NOTAM. This would be an Operating Irregularity and would result in the controller being removed from position, an investigation would be completed, the controller would be interviewed and debriefed and possibly need a confidence check before being allowed to work again.

I don't think there's a difference. In both cases ATC is giving a clearance for an approach. The first one is only valid for one specific approach, the second one is valid for every approach at that airport. In both cases, ATC shouldn't be giving that clearance if RNAV 05 is unauthorized.

Again, I agree with you in that the second one is valid for every approach at the airport, but it is understood that the pilot won't conduct at approach that is NOTAMd not-authorized. The controller need not be prevented from saying "Cleared for AN approach" if there happens to be one not authorized.

I also think the proper response to the 'cleared for an approach', is that the pilot gets back to ATC and tells him which approach he will actually fly.

Not required. Flying in the north, you're often cleared out of controlled airspace "For an approach" and the pilots don't indicate which approach they intend to fly. But if they did say "Roger, cleared out of controlled airspace for an approach, planning the RNAV 05" I would hope the controller would inform the pilot that the approach is not authorized and the pilot will therefore choose not to ignore safety or common sense and say "Screw it! We're going to fly the RNAV 05 anyways".

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I didn't write that you can't be punished for doing something that runs contrary to a NOTAM. I wrote that you can't be punished merely for operating contrary to a generic NOTAM.

Yes you can. CAR 602.96 (3)(d) has a $3000 maximum fine for an individual, and a $15,000 fine for a corporation (Taken from schedule 2 of the Aeronautics Act and CARS.

So remember the wording of that section?

602.96 (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

Looks pretty clear that by not complying with the NOTAM, you can definitely be punished. If you like, I can do some digging through the TC enforcement records tomorrow and probably find an example where someone contravened this section and got penalized.

That's my side of the argument, backed up by the text of the law and a described penalty.

Now you please show me where it says NOTAMS are advisory only and not subject to penalty.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

This. THIS is why you not only check your NOTAMS, but abide by them as well. From an NTSB Accident Report:

The flight instructor reported that he and two student pilots were on a night, visual flight rules, instructional flight. The instructor tried to activate the pilot-controlled lighting at the airport, but he believed it was inoperative. He reported that he could see the wind sock on the airfield but that he did not see the “X” near the runway numbers and performed a touch and go.

During rotation he reported that, “I heard a red cone make impact with the nose gear section.”

He had to apply continuous forward pressure to the yoke because the Piper PA-28’s nose continued to pitch up with the trim set to the full-down position. He asserted that the flight characteristics were “acceptable” and continued the flight about 47 nautical miles to their home airport.

Upon arrival, the instructor alerted the tower that he had a stabilator malfunction and landed the airplane with zero flaps.

The airplane sustained substantial damage to the stabilator.

According to FAA NOTAM 03/058, the airport runways were closed at the time of the accident. The instructor did not check the notices to airmen (NOTAM).

Probable cause: The flight instructor’s failure to review the notices to airmen related to the airport, which resulted in his landing on a closed runway and the airplane striking runway closed markers.

Photofly, this is why we just don't go ahead and land on a runway that is NOTAM'd closed, despite whatever reasoning you can provide that NOTAMS are "advisory only."

[digits_]

Not required. Flying in the north, you're often cleared out of controlled airspace "For an approach" and the pilots don't indicate which approach they intend to fly.

You're supposed to though:

Example:
CLEARED TO THE LETHBRIDGE AIRPORT FOR AN
APPROACH.

[...]

As soon as practicable
after receipt of this type of clearance, it is the pilot’s responsibility
to advise ATC of the type of published instrument approach
procedure that will be carried out, the landing runway and the
intended route to be flown.

Source: TC AIM RAC 9.3

[digits_]

602.96 (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

Looks pretty clear that by not complying with the NOTAM, you can definitely be punished. If you like, I can do some digging through the TC enforcement records tomorrow and probably find an example where someone contravened this section and got penalized.

That's my side of the argument, backed up by the text of the law and a described penalty.

That's only applicable at airports and heliports. Not every aerodrome is an airport or heliport.

I'm not sure if that covers approaches.

[photofly]

I didn't write that you can't be punished for doing something that runs contrary to a NOTAM. I wrote that you can't be punished merely for operating contrary to a generic NOTAM.

Yes you can. CAR 602.96 (3)(d) has a $3000 maximum fine for an individual, and a $15,000 fine for a corporation (Taken from schedule 2 of the Aeronautics Act and CARS.

You missed the word generic, above. I hilighted it for you. The only NOTAMs that carry a penalty refer to 602.96 and give details of restrictions at airports and heliports. Those are the restrictions that, after implementation, are transferred to the CFS and notated there, likewise. The Minister doesn't have authority to restrict operations at registered aerodromes. Such NOTAMs aren't common, and aren't what I referred to as 'generic'.

Go back to the helicopter flying city tours at CYTZ yesterday, contrary to NOTAM. Now that is a certified airport, and the Minister absolutely can impose operating restrctions by NOTAM there. But the NOTAM about sightseeing flights not permitted wasn't from the Minister, and didn't trigger a liability under 602.96. You kind of waved away that point, because you said the NOTAM was for traffic management purposes, or for ATC's convenience, or issued by ATC, or something - but a NOTAM is a NOTAM is a NOTAM, isn't it?

Now you please show me where it says NOTAMS are advisory only and not subject to penalty.

Obviously NOTAMs are advisory - they're there to advise you - of closures, dangers, wildlife, birds, boar-slaughtering (thanks Bede) and other vital stuff. But because there's no generic penalty listed for not following a NOTAM, and in Canada if something isn't forbidden, it's allowed. Obviously if you ignore a NOTAM and do something dangerous, then there's likely to be a penalty under 602.01. But the MInister has to make the case you did something dangerous, first. The sightseeing flights flown contrary to NOTAM weren't dangerous, so - no foul.

I'm pretty sure "approach not authorized" NOTAMS are issued by NAV CANADA, not by the Minister, in any case.

If you like, I can do some digging through the TC enforcement records tomorrow and probably find an example where someone contravened this section and got penalized.

That would be great. I spent an hour on CANLII last night but couldn't find much to help. There was the guy who was prosecuted for taking off from a closed runway, but he did so much other crazy stuff at the same time that it wasn't surprising he had his licence revoked. I don't think it helps on the subject of "not authorized" approaches very much.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

You missed the word generic, above. I hilighted it for you.

Can you show me the reference in the CARS describing a "generic" NOTAM? Is that a term you made up? I can't seem to find that term anywhere. 602.96 (3)(d) refers simply to "NOTAM" which has a definition. Your description of a "generic" NOTAM is an opinion.

Go back to the helicopter flying city tours at CYTZ yesterday, contrary to NOTAM. Now that is a certified airport, and the Minister absolutely can impose operating restrctions by NOTAM there. But the NOTAM about sightseeing flights not permitted wasn't from the Minister, and didn't trigger a liability under 602.96. You kind of waved away that point, because you said the NOTAM was for traffic management purposes, or for ATC's convenience, or issued by ATC, or something - but a NOTAM is a NOTAM is a NOTAM, isn't it?

I didn't wave away. I answered it directly. As an ATC, I have the ability to publish this NOTAM due to staffing or anticipated high traffic levels. I also have the discretion to allow circuit traffic if in the moment, traffic levels are manageable. Since only the Minister can restrict access to a control zone, a method to prevent an unmanageable number of aircraft at once is to restrict circuits. This is then a case of the originator of the NOTAM allowing an exception on a case-by-case basis.

The original incident in this thread is a pilot either not knowing the approach was not authorized and the runway was closed, or chose to land on it despite the NOTAM. I hope you can see the difference between the originator allowing exemptions with the knowledge of why the NOTAM exists, and a pilot not being given an exemption and flying in the face of it anyways.

I'm pretty sure "approach not authorized" NOTAMS are issued by NAV CANADA, not by the Minister, in any case.

In fact, the airport operator is the one who issues the "Approach not authorized" NOTAM:

5.3.16.1 Published Approaches and Changes to Runway Certification
If a precision or non-precision runway at a certified aerodrome no longer meets the certification requirements according to Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices – TP312, the approach minima of an associated instrument approach procedure may be affected. Therefore, the aerodrome operator must immediately advise the responsible instrument procedure design unit of this situation using the AIM Data Collection contact information. Any other changes, including reinstatement of the procedure (except for ILS CAT II/III approaches after having been not authorized by the aerodrome operator), are the responsibility of the appropriate instrument procedure design unit.

[photofly]

You missed the word generic, above. I hilighted it for you.

Can you show me the reference in the CARS describing a "generic" NOTAM? Is that a term you made up? I can't seem to find that term anywhere. 602.96 (3)(d) refers simply to "NOTAM" which has a definition. Your description of a "generic" NOTAM is an opinion.

Yes - I mean a NOTAM other than one of the rare ones that is issued by the Minister for the purpose of notifying a flight restriction at an airport or heliport, and therefore one that cannot be the subject of enforcement under 602.96. That's a lot of words and "generic" NOTAM is more succinct. Apologies if that wasn't clear and caused confusion.

Go back to the helicopter flying city tours at CYTZ yesterday, contrary to NOTAM. Now that is a certified airport, and the Minister absolutely can impose operating restrctions by NOTAM there. But the NOTAM about sightseeing flights not permitted wasn't from the Minister, and didn't trigger a liability under 602.96. You kind of waved away that point, because you said the NOTAM was for traffic management purposes, or for ATC's convenience, or issued by ATC, or something - but a NOTAM is a NOTAM is a NOTAM, isn't it?

I didn't wave away. I answered it directly. As an ATC, I have the ability to publish this NOTAM due to staffing or anticipated high traffic levels. I also have the discretion to allow circuit traffic if in the moment, traffic levels are manageable. Since only the Minister can restrict access to a control zone, a method to prevent an unmanageable number of aircraft at once is to restrict circuits. This is then a case of the originator of the NOTAM allowing an exception on a case-by-case basis.

The original incident in this thread is a pilot either not knowing the approach was not authorized and the runway was closed, or chose to land on it despite the NOTAM. I hope you can see the difference between the originator allowing exemptions with the knowledge of why the NOTAM exists, and a pilot not being given an exemption and flying in the face of it anyways.

I think you're inventing up ad-hoc procedures for issuing 'on the fly' exemptions to NOTAMs, to suit your argument. Where does it say that's a thing, in any official document? Your argument is that a NOTAM must be obeyed without question and failure to do so is an offence. Now you're inventing exceptions to your own rule.

I'm pretty sure "approach not authorized" NOTAMS are issued by NAV CANADA, not by the Minister, in any case.

In fact, the airport operator is the one who issues the "Approach not authorized" NOTAM:

Then it should be very clear to you that 602.96 isn't engaged by any "Approach not authorized" NOTAM, whether at an airport or aerodrome.

But let me ask you this: if the "approach not authorized" NOTAM is issued by the airport operator, by what authority does the operator of the aerodrome in question - the Municipality of Drumheller, a town of fewer than 8000 people in Alberta - get to authorize or unauthorize the use of a published approach procedure? Regulation of aviation is reserved to the federal government, and nothing that a municipality says about what goes on in the air over its airport can have any regulatory value at all.

If the mayor issued a NOTAM saying that overflight of the town of Drumheller was "not authorized" - would that solve the noise problems that his voters keep bugging him about?

[photofly]

The original incident in this thread is a pilot either not knowing the approach was not authorized and the runway was closed, or chose to land on it despite the NOTAM. I hope you can see the difference between the originator allowing exemptions with the knowledge of why the NOTAM exists, and a pilot not being given an exemption and flying in the face of it anyways.

I claim that in neither case is an "exemption" needed from a NOTAM. Since these NOTAMs are not governing, but advisory, there is nothing to be exempted from. In both cases the pilot should exercise such decision-making as they see fit, using the information in the NOTAMs. But in your world, surely the exemptions that would make the acts lawful would be the same in both cases?

You're saying that a pilot who asks for a clearance for a sightseeing flight in a class C control zone, in the face of a NOTAM that placards such flights as "not authorized" - and is granted that clearance - is entitled to believe that they have an exemption from the NOTAM. But - a pilot who asks for a clearance for an approach that is "not authorized" by NOTAM and is given a clearance by ATC to fly it should not believe they have an exemption from the NOTAM? Why the difference, exactly?

Would it help if the pilot had permission from the municipality to fly the approach - in your eyes, would that count as an exemption from the originator of the NOTAM? Any idea who at the municipality? The airport manager? the mayor? or does it need to go to a full meeting of the council for a vote? What do you think the tribunal would say was the right answer?

[rookiepilot]

Get a room….

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Alright, this is my final post on this topic (pinkie promise).

Yes - I mean a NOTAM other than one of the rare ones that is issued by the Minister for the purpose of notifying a flight restriction at an airport or heliport, and therefore one that cannot be the subject of enforcement under 602.96. That's a lot of words and "generic" NOTAM is more succinct. Apologies if that wasn't clear and caused confusion.

Sorry, I'm still confused as to where there is a definition or regulation defining a "generic" NOTAM and how that type of NOTAM carries different weight than what a "non-generic" (specific?) NOTAM does. I try to provide the regulation for each time I made a statement. Your inability to provide a definition of a "generic" NOTAM (and thereby lead me to believe there are defined "non-generic" NOTAMS) leads me to believe that you have invented this term to suit your argument. A far as I can tell, there is only one NOTAM and not sub-categories as you purport.

I think you're inventing up ad-hoc procedures for issuing 'on the fly' exemptions to NOTAMs, to suit your argument. Where does it say that's a thing, in any official document? Your argument is that a NOTAM must be obeyed without question and failure to do so is an offence. Now you're inventing exceptions to your own rule.

I'm not inventing anything. The regulation states

602.96 (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

There is no regulation under the CARS stating that an ATCO or an airport operator need to comply with the NOTAM. The regulation solely describes that it is the PIC who shall comply. Remember, you're the one who said

in Canada if something isn't forbidden, it's allowed.

Therefore, according to you, it's allowed because it's not specifically forbidden. Thanks for making my point for me.

But let me ask you this: if the "approach not authorized" NOTAM is issued by the airport operator, by what authority does the operator of the aerodrome in question - the Municipality of Drumheller, a town of fewer than 8000 people in Alberta - get to authorize or unauthorize the use of a published approach procedure? Regulation of aviation is reserved to the federal government, and nothing that a municipality says about what goes on in the air over its airport can have any regulatory value at all.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand the regulation I posted. Here it is again:

2.2.2 Aerodrome Operator
The aerodrome operator or his/her delegate is responsible for the origination, revision and cancellation of NOTAMs pertaining to the following circumstances:
• any projection by an object through an obstacle limitation surface relating to the aerodrome
• For instrument procedures, the aerodrome operator has the ability only to “not authorize” (NOT AUTH) an instrument approach procedure.

Note that the regulation gives the aerodrome operator the ability to not authorize an approach at the airport, whether that airport is certified or not, which blows your "Drumheller isn't a certified airport" argument out of the water. As well, Transport Canada states that:

Registered aerodromes are not subject to ongoing inspection by Transport Canada; however, they are inspected periodically to verify compliance with Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) and to ensure the accuracy of information published in the CFS and the Water Aerodrome Supplement (WAS).

So, the airport operator is required to comply with the CARS (Federal) even though the registered aerodrome is operated by a municipality. Therefore, under the Canada NOTAM Procedures Manual (Which satisfies CARS):

5.3.16.1 Published Approaches and Changes to Runway Certification
If a precision or non-precision runway at a certified aerodrome no longer meets the certification requirements according to Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices – TP312, the approach minima of an associated instrument approach procedure may be affected. Therefore, the aerodrome operator must immediately advise the responsible instrument procedure design unit of this situation using the AIM Data Collection contact information. If the situation occurs after hours and is urgent, the NOTAM Office can be contacted as an alternative to relay the message to the instrument procedure design unit. It is imperative that the aerodrome operator explicitly mention that the requested NOTAM is due to a change in runway certification so that appropriate action can be taken.

To summarize all of the above, you can clearly therefore see that if the airport operator knows a crane is impeding on the approach, they are not only authorized but REQUIRED to issue a NOTAM to "NOT AUTH" the approach whether it's an aerodrome OR an airport. Again, this gives a municipality the ability to publish a NOTAM, even though NOTAMS fall under Federal jurisdiction. I hope that answers your question.

If the mayor issued a NOTAM saying that overflight of the town of Drumheller was "not authorized" - would that solve the noise problems that his voters keep bugging him about?

The mayor has no power to issue a NOTAM over the town. As stated above, the regulation refers to the airport operator only being able to issue a NOTAM for the instrument approach or the airport itself and not the town, so your question is moot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really tried to back away from this conversation as I indicated earlier, but this time I really see that there is no getting through to you that what you purport is allowed is in fact illegal, so I'll bow out with these thoughts:

As a former assistant airport manager of 10 years who has had training and a thorough understanding of TP-312 (Aerodromes Standards and Recommended Practices) and the Canadian NOTAM Operating Procedures Manual, as a 6000 hour ATPL and as a current licensed Air Traffic Controller, I'm not saying these things to brag, but to maybe indicate that I might have a better understanding of how the NOTAM system works than you do. At least I can provide references to the rules, regulations, procedures and manuals and even the monetary penalties when you asked me to back up my statements. Your justification is invented terms such as "advisory only," "generic NOTAM," etc which aren't found in any document I can find. I know if it came to a tribunal, which one would carry more weight.

I tried to keep the conversation to the topic of the original post and created my NOTAM example to as closely keep to the original scenario as possible. Your drift towards what-about-ism (CYTZ sightseeing tours, Departing over workers at CYHM) and invented scenarios (Mayor of Drumheller noise NOTAM) shows your obvious lack of understanding of HOW NOTAMS are promulgated, WHO has authority to issue them, and WHY they are issued.

I sincerely hope you're just trolling and not believing the words you write. I hope that next time you shoot a "NOT AUTH" IFR approach, that you're not a little low and hit the crane 1/4 mile final. I hope next time you decide to land at night on a NOTAM'd closed runway that you don't hit the dump truck you don't see that is parked on the threshold. I hope when flying into an airport, if the primary frequency is NOTAM'd U/S and a backup is published, that you don't say "To hell with it, I'll stick with the primary frequency because the NOTAM is "advisory only.""

For the sake of your safety and of your passengers, be a better pilot than what your Avcanada persona would lead us to believe you are.