Shadrach Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, chrisk said: Sort of, since your only typically below minimums because of the airspace classification. In other words, you could have legal cloud clearance in class G or B, but not C, D, or E. In these cases, you call the controller of the airspace and ask for Special VFR. Most pilots would be surprised, but you can legally fly in really low minimums at night. In short, if your doing take offs and landings at night you could be legal with 1+ miles of visibility and clear of clouds. Section 91.155, B (2) Airplane, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft. If the visibility is less than 3 statute miles but not less than 1 statute mile during night hours and you are operating in an airport traffic pattern within 1/2 mile of the runway, you may operate an airplane, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft clear of clouds. You mean really low minimums during the day. Daytime Class G ops below 1200 AGL are the lowest at 1 mile and clear of clouds. All other VFR operations require either more visibility or more cloud clearance. Quote
chrisk Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Shadrach said: You mean really low minimums during the day. Daytime Class G ops below 1200 AGL are the lowest at 1 mile and clear of clouds. All other VFR operations require either more visibility or more cloud clearance. Read 91.155, part B, section 2. I quoted it my original post. If your within 1/2 mile of an airport at night in class G, the minimum is 1+ miles and clear of clouds. I suppose this was added to the FARs so folks could stay night current. For me, the visibility of 1+ miles at night is well below my personal minimum. I'd consider 10 miles of visibility and a 1100 foot ceiling my personal minimum for a set of night currency take offs and landings. That said, I can't imagine I would even take the time to drive to the airport with ceilings like that. There is almost always a better day for night flights. 1 Quote
Guest Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Steve Dawson said: Can you show me where in the CAR that it states that you can't fly at night if IFR or that you have to have the night endorsement? As far as the visual reference In Canada with an IFR rating you can depart with 1/2 mile vis and land at a minimum of 1/2 mile and 200' if your plane's equipment properly or even lower if properly equipped aircraft and trained. Then from takeoff to landing you can be in IMC the complete distance between. My apologies to Amillet for my contribution to the thread drift. The CAR shows the privilege that the Minister of Transport grants as an addition to the original licence or permit. The CAR grants two privileges, flight in instrument conditions and VFR OTT, no other privileges are listed. By extension if your Instrument Rating is not valid, you could also not fly VFR OTT, unless you had the VFR OTT rating before the instrument rating. The IFR flight you suggest above ( CAT 2/ 3 ILS ) could only be completed in Canada by a pilot who holds a ATPL and in an 2 crew airline environment, and a Canadian ATPL requires a Night Rating. I too can't wait to hear what TC tells Yves. Clarence Quote
Shadrach Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 27 minutes ago, chrisk said: Read 91.155, part B, section 2. I quoted it my original post. If your within 1/2 mile of an airport at night in class G, the minimum is 1+ miles and clear of clouds. I suppose this was added to the FARs so folks could stay night current. For me, the visibility of 1+ miles at night is well below my personal minimum. I'd consider 10 miles of visibility and a 1100 foot ceiling my personal minimum for a set of night currency take offs and landings. That said, I can't imagine I would even take the time to drive to the airport with ceilings like that. There is almost always a better day for night flights. My bad, your post prompted me to review all airspace mins and I just looked at the chart and not the regs. Quote
Steve Dawson Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 3 hours ago, M20Doc said: The CAR shows the privilege that the Minister of Transport grants as an addition to the original licence or permit. The CAR grants two privileges, flight in instrument conditions and VFR OTT, no other privileges are listed. By extension if your Instrument Rating is not valid, you could also not fly VFR OTT, unless you had the VFR OTT rating before the instrument rating. The IFR flight you suggest above ( CAT 2/ 3 ILS ) could only be completed in Canada by a pilot who holds a ATPL and in an 2 crew airline environment, and a Canadian ATPL requires a Night Rating. I too can't wait to hear what TC tells Yves. Clarence Show me Clarence specifically where you can't fly to the standards I mentioned under just an IFR ticket. I've done it legally a few times. I'd have to check but I believe that flying down to the CAT ll and lll minimums the aircraft company has to be approved by TC the aircraft has to be equipped properly and the pilot (even a commercial rated) has to be trained. Prove it by referencing a TC document. Quote
Guest Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 6 hours ago, Steve Dawson said: Show me Clarence specifically where you can't fly to the standards I mentioned under just an IFR ticket. I've done it legally a few times. I'd have to check but I believe that flying down to the CAT ll and lll minimums the aircraft company has to be approved by TC the aircraft has to be equipped properly and the pilot (even a commercial rated) has to be trained. Prove it by referencing a TC document. Steve, With all due respect, I won't be wasting more time on this. I can't make you see that an night rating is required to fly IFR at night when so clearly the CARs show that it is. How would this be different? We obviously speak a different language. Clarence Quote
Steve Dawson Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 58 minutes ago, M20Doc said: Steve, With all due respect, I won't be wasting more time on this. I can't make you see that an night rating is required to fly IFR at night when so clearly the CARs show that it is. How would this be different? We obviously speak a different language. Clarence Clarence here's the CAR's reference. 421.46. It's easy to find. There's nothing in there that states that to obtain your IR you have to have a night rating. As far as what a general aviation pilot with an IR can fly in it's under the CAPs. Just clearing things up. If you can't prove what you say don't say it. Better yet get an IR. I'll help you if you want. Quote
Steve Dawson Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 4 hours ago, Hyett6420 said: I will put it this way. How can extra training be a bad thing? Or ....IFR training is one thing, dark night training is another. Add dark night to IFR without training and you are asking to die. Simples. Andrew I feel you're right Andrew more training is good. I'd still like to see what Yves has found too. 1 Quote
yvesg Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Steve Dawson said: I feel you're right Andrew more training is good. I'd still like to see what Yves has found too. Got the answer this morning from the TC delegated examiner: Hi Yves, Happy New Year! The short answer is no. You need a night rating to fly at night period. The transition to landing would be at night so as per CAR 401; 1 Quote
Alain B Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 36 minutes ago, yvesg said: Got the answer this morning from the TC delegated examiner: Hi Yves, Happy New Year! The short answer is no. You need a night rating to fly at night period. The transition to landing would be at night so as per CAR 401; Make sence ! Quote
Steve Dawson Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 3 hours ago, Alain B said: Make sence ! I know it makes sense but it's the government. I remember this question from a few years ago when I was doing some training so that's why I questioned it and Clarence. Ok Yves I had to actually find out myself because of some of the fictitious statements on here so that's why I asked for actual quoted specifics in regulations and not from someone's hangar buddy or some hearsay. It's actually under CARs 401.26, .30 and 401.47 Division VI — Private Pilot Licence Aeroplanes — Privileges 401.26 The holder of a private pilot licence — aeroplane may act as (a) pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of a class and type in respect of which the licence is endorsed with ratings; (b) pilot-in-command of an ultra-light aeroplane; and (c) pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft for the sole purpose of the holder’s flight training or flight test where (i) in the case of flight training, (A) it is conducted under the direction and supervision of a flight instructor qualified in accordance with section 425.21 of the Personnel Licensing and Training Standards respecting Flight Training, and (B) no passenger is carried on board, and (ii) in the case of a flight test, (A) it is conducted in accordance with section 401.15, and (B) no passenger is carried on board. As vague as it is I stand corrected on this. As far as the other information on take off and landing minimums I was right. Quote
Guest Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 6 hours ago, yvesg said: Got the answer this morning from the TC delegated examiner: Hi Yves, Happy New Year! The short answer is no. You need a night rating to fly at night period. The transition to landing would be at night so as per CAR 401; Well Hallelujah!! It seems that this was posted several pages ago. I guess I can read the CAR's after all, even without an Instrument Rating. Clarence Quote
DaV8or Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 On 12/31/2016 at 3:26 PM, 201er said: It's up to the pilot to have the prudence to understand the difference and his limitations. Sure, OK. But did the fiancé and grandkids get a choice in the matter? Sadly, too many pilots have this attitude that if they take a risk, they are only risking their own lives and their own equipment, but many, many times it's much more than that. In addition to other people's lives and property, they also risk every pilot's freedoms. 6 Quote
Steve Dawson Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 4 hours ago, M20Doc said: Well Hallelujah!! It seems that this was posted several pages ago. I guess I can read the CAR's after all, even without an Instrument Rating. Clarence Clarence come on. You were only guessing and just like your IFR information you were listening to your hangar buddies because you've never taken these courses. BTW did you delete then change your previous posts to make it look like you know what you're talking about. Especially after I asked you and Yves to post the actual regs? Seems I was the one to actually post the regulations. Have you done this falsifying of documents somewhere before perhaps? By the way , and tell me if I'm wrong (and prove it) but isn't it Transport Canada Aviation that looks after CARs and not the Ministry of Transportation as you mentioned before or I should find this in CARs 600 or 700 as you also stated? I believe that the Ministry (provincial Government) may look after sea planes when they've landed because they're considered a watercraft but I'll be the first to admit that I haven't researched this and only heard it from an informed pilot. Did you change your previous post? Do aircraft mechanics have to take ethics courses and swear to them? Quote
Danb Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 Kids play nice or your not allowed in the sand box anymore. 1 Quote
Andy95W Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 This is the harshest I've ever heard two Canadians talk to each other. 2 Quote
Marauder Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 This is the harshest I've ever heard two Canadians talk to each other. Down right scary.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Quote
Guest Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 Just one item to prove that I have a bit of a clue, the "Minister" of Transport for Canada is the Honourable Marc Garneau, former Canadian astronaut, maybe you've heard of him? See the link below. Despite your accusations above and you personal attack, I will still let you taxi across MY ramp to go flying, Keep it up and you'll find it blocked. It may be just a bit uncomfortable to have to come and move my truck every time you want to go flying. Clarence Edit: the federal "Minister" of Transportation grants pilot privileges in Canada, every CAR states it that way. http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister/honourable-marc-garneau Quote
Steve Dawson Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 18 hours ago, yvesg said: Got the answer this morning from the TC delegated examiner: Hi Yves, Happy New Year! The short answer is no. You need a night rating to fly at night period. The transition to landing would be at night so as per CAR 401; Thanks Yves, can you post that Just asking you to prove your statements for the specific details and not your opinion. You're the one that gets all upset. I found I was wrong and admitted it. But I try not to make statements I know nothing about. I'll let Bill know as well as Chris the airport manger that you're acting up again and start looking for another hangar. Answer three more questions though, how many mooney customers did you have 5 years ago and how many of them stayed with you and why did they leave? Mooney would probably like to know too. The other thing, don't go into my hangar without my permission again. Quote
yvesg Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 Steve, I am not sure who you are talking to in your message above? Looks like it is adressed to Clarence but my name is at the top. Please re-phrase and put destinary. Yves Quote
Hank Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) Boys! Can you please stop fighting here? There's plenty of space for that behind your hangars, and the rest of us won't have to watch . . . . Besides, nothing in Canadian Flight Regulations pertains to the accident that this thread is supposed to be about! Edited January 4, 2017 by Hank 4 Quote
alex Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 At least the argument is aviation related and NOT politics, but just as entertaining. Quote
kmyfm20s Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 Now the Canadian pilots are fighting with each other! Whats next, the Swiss pilots? Our last hope of civility in this world is disappearing! 6 Quote
Hank Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 34 minutes ago, alex said: At least the argument is aviation related and NOT politics, but just as entertaining. It's the same crap as over at AOPA forums, part of why I haven't visited there in over a year . . . 1 Quote
Steve Dawson Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 4 hours ago, yvesg said: Steve, I am not sure who you are talking to in your message above? Looks like it is adressed to Clarence but my name is at the top. Please re-phrase and put destinary. Yves Hi Yves The following was quoted directly Clarence 's post however it's missing now. Not sure how it wound up in yours "Thanks Yves you can post that now" i had no intention of drawing you in to this. Thanks for pointing out the CARs regulation Steve Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.