Check Those Notams

[digits_]

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

You're emphasizing the wrong words. The points being discussed are notams at an 'airport' and 'specified by the Minister'.

Not....

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.

Ignoring a NOTAM issued by an aerodrome (which is not an airport) operator can not be a violation 602.96 (3) (d) because 602.96 (3) (d) requires the aerodrome to be an airport, and requires the restriction to be issued by the Minister. I don't think an aerodrome operator qualifies as a Minister or one of his delegates.

[photofly]

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.

It's not a breach of part VI of the CARs if a ATCO issues a clearance for an approach that is "not authorized" Nor for the pilot fly one. I'm pretty sure it would be a clear breach of 801.08 if the approach was known to be obstructed and a controller issued a clearance. That's a $25,000 fine for NAV CANADA, and big issue for the controller. EDIT: no - actually - nothing in standard 821 about that.

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:
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.

I'm grateful. Now we're disputing the authority to enforce one, and I'm questioning the source of authority to provide an 'exemption' from one. The airport operator is the municipality, and the airport manager acts on behalf of the municipality.

I'm still curious as to why you think ATC can issue an 'exemption' whatever that may be to a "sightseeing not auth" NOTAM, but not an approach "NOT AUTH" NOTAM. Could the airport operator issue an exemption instead? In this case there was no obstruction to the approach, and it wouldn't be dangerous to fly it, so why not?

[pelmet]

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.

Seems to be a trend in his style of argument.....unwillingness to admit being wrong and going on and on. For this case, if they want to, TC can just charge you with reckless and careless operation of an aircraft. Beware of the advice you find on the internet.

[photofly]

double post

[photofly]

. For this case, if they want to, TC can just charge you with reckless and careless operation of an aircraft.

If you're referring to 602.01.1, then yes, they can. It reads:

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.

So there's a two part test to make such a charge stick. Firstly the aircraft must be operated in a reckless or negligent manner, and secondly it must endanger life or property. Further, there must be a causal nexus between the operation in question and the endangerment.

Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary are frequently cited in Tribunal cases. Negligence:

The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do.

For recklessness:

Rashness; heedlessness; wanton conduct. The state of mind accompanying an act, which either pays no regard to its probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, though forseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge. Recklessness is a stronger term than mere or ordinary negligence, and to be reckless, the conduct must be such as to evince disregard of or indifference to consequences, under circumstances involving danger to life or safety of others, although no harm was intended.

I imagine it would be easier to make a case that flying a "not authorized" approach would be "negligent", because you could say a "reasonable" pilot would not do so. But given the weather (see below) it doesn't seem a sure thing. If the reason the approach was so NOTAMed was not because of an obstruction, but only because the runway at the end of it was closed, I'm not sure you could make it out was likely to cause any danger. So I'm not sure that a charge under 602.01.1 would be upheld in that case.

The CYYC metar for 10 minutes prior to the noted time of the incident was as follows:

METAR CYYC 262100Z 36003KT 320V090 9SM SCT066 BKN250 20/03 A2999

So fairly severe VFR. I think that makes it harder to argue that flying the approach caused any likelihood of danger.

Beware of the advice you find on the internet.

Oh, the irony.

[rookiepilot]

Beware of the advice you find on the internet.
[/quote]
Oh, the irony.
[/quote]

You’re not kidding….