how illegal am I? [Archive]

Stealth Pilot

November 6th 04, 02:10 PM

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:19:25 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
>vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
>without a station license.
>
>Is this a problem? Should I apply to the FCC for a license, and if so,
>what sort of license do I want?
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford

follow appropriate radio procedure and stop being a weenie. :-)

ask yourself what the licence achieves.
hint, it gets people to play together in the same sandpit without
being a nuisance to each other.
the requirement is to play together by using appropriate radio
procedure.
if it is an issue for the FCC let them tell you about it.

.....btw I'm claiming pacific ocean immunity on this :-)
Stealth Pilot
Australia

Dave Stadt

November 6th 04, 02:12 PM

Chuck

November 6th 04, 02:42 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:19:25 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >
> >Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
> >vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
> >without a station license.
> >
> >Is this a problem? Should I apply to the FCC for a license, and if so,
> >what sort of license do I want?
>
>
> I wish I knew the answer. You may find it here:
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/47cfr87_03.html

Note to self:

Saturday, November 06, 2004 in the AM, Larry Dighera admitted that there
*is* something that he didn't know. I believe this is a first.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

john smith

November 6th 04, 03:24 PM

Correct. You only need one if you are going outside the USA.
I have yet to have the folks in Canada ask for the Radio License.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> You are just fine. In your situation a station or operators license is not
> required. The requirement went away about a decade ago.

Larry Dighera

November 6th 04, 04:14 PM

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:42:10 GMT, "Chuck" > wrote
in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:19:25 -0500, Cub Driver
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>> >
>> >Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
>> >vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
>> >without a station license.
>> >
>> >Is this a problem? Should I apply to the FCC for a license, and if so,
>> >what sort of license do I want?
>>
>>
>> I wish I knew the answer. You may find it here:
>> http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/47cfr87_03.html
>
>
>Note to self:
>
>Saturday, November 06, 2004 in the AM, Larry Dighera admitted that there
>*is* something that he didn't know. I believe this is a first.

Dear Chuck,

Thank you so much for your sophic, informative, illuminating and
knowledgeable contributions to this noble newsgroup. It is thoughtful
and informed pilots such as yourself that make this forum the valuable
resource that it has become. We airmen are highly indebted to those
experienced pilots who take the time to share their relevant
experience and information with their peers, for it is only through
such selfless sharing of information that this resource can continue
to grow into an even more valuable source of expert knowledge.

It is the intelligent and insightful sharing of information that
establishes this newsgroup as a quintessential paragon of what human
cooperation can achieve. It gladdens my heart to see your invaluable,
informative, erudite, sagacious contributions, instead of the inane
prattle and contemptible bickering that drives the knowledgeable among
us away from participating in this newsgroup. So thank you again from
the bottom of my heart for your effort in sharing your wisdom with the
readership of rec.aviation.piloting, and propelling this august forum
into the sunlit uplands of enlightenment and joy.

Best regards,
Larry Dighera

PS:
Thank you also very much for providing this gratuitous advertisement
with each informative article you post:

>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
>

Schmoe

November 6th 04, 04:29 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> whack>

> Dear Chuck,
>
> Thank you so much for your sophic, informative, illuminating and
> knowledgeable contributions to this noble newsgroup. It is thoughtful
> and informed pilots such as yourself that make this forum the valuable
> resource that it has become. We airmen are highly indebted to those
> experienced pilots who take the time to share their relevant
> experience and information with their peers, for it is only through
> such selfless sharing of information that this resource can continue
> to grow into an even more valuable source of expert knowledge.
>
> It is the intelligent and insightful sharing of information that
> establishes this newsgroup as a quintessential paragon of what human
> cooperation can achieve. It gladdens my heart to see your invaluable,
> informative, erudite, sagacious contributions, instead of the inane
> prattle and contemptible bickering that drives the knowledgeable among
> us away from participating in this newsgroup. So thank you again from
> the bottom of my heart for your effort in sharing your wisdom with the
> readership of rec.aviation.piloting, and propelling this august forum
> into the sunlit uplands of enlightenment and joy.

Well, at least you're not verbose.

Jim Fisher

November 6th 04, 06:51 PM

Brien K. Meehan

November 6th 04, 07:14 PM

Larry, if you tell us your address, we'll all pitch in and send you a
few bucks so you can go buy yourself a sense of humor.

Greg Butler

November 6th 04, 10:51 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> follow appropriate radio procedure and stop being a weenie. :-)
>
> ask yourself what the licence achieves.
> hint, it gets people to play together in the same sandpit without
> being a nuisance to each other.
> the requirement is to play together by using appropriate radio
> procedure.
> if it is an issue for the FCC let them tell you about it.
>
> ....btw I'm claiming pacific ocean immunity on this :-)
> Stealth Pilot
> Australia

I don't think you need immunity since you are not required by the FCC to
have a license anyway.

vincent p. norris

November 7th 04, 12:48 AM

>I have yet to have the folks in Canada ask for the Radio License.

I just returned to the US from a two-week flying tour of the Canadian
Maritimes. Neither I nor the pilots of the other two a/c were asked
for a radio license, or anything else, for that matter.

I was asked for my pilot's license when reentering the US at Bangor,
Maine.

vince norris

Dave Stadt

November 7th 04, 01:38 AM

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Larry, if you tell us your address, we'll all pitch in and send you a
> few bucks so you can go buy yourself a sense of humor.

I don't think he would have a clue as to where to buy one.

Steven Barnes

November 7th 04, 02:11 AM

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Larry, if you tell us your address, we'll all pitch in and send you a
> few bucks so you can go buy yourself a sense of humor.
>

Perhaps he could trade his dictionary in for one...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

PJ Hunt

November 7th 04, 02:34 AM

No, and no.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
> vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
> without a station license.
>
> Is this a problem? Should I apply to the FCC for a license, and if so,
> what sort of license do I want?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog www.danford.net

tony roberts

November 7th 04, 02:48 AM

> There's only one "R" in AROW nowadays, you know. The missing one if for the redidio license.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

So If I read this correctly I don't actually need a redidio licence?
Do I even need a redidio?

Sorry - couldn't resist :)

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

Icebound

November 7th 04, 03:12 AM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
> vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
> without a station license.
>
> Is this a problem? Should I apply to the FCC for a license, and if so,
> what sort of license do I want?
>

Based on FCC rules 87.18 (b) and 87.89 (d) 4.

(
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/pdf/47cfr87.18.pdf

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/pdf/47cfr87.89.pdf )

you are illegal only if you operate the station outside the USA.

As many have pointed out, Canada rarely, if ever, asks to see the licenses.
In any case, since pretty much all equipment in use is to FCC standards
anyway, I doubt that they will care much about equipment, unless it was
somehow faulty. You would probably be called on the lack of a Station
license only if they decided they had to inspect you because you were
splattering over adjacent frequencies or something like that, and even then
I am betting you would only be in trouble if the equipment was
non-FCC-compliant.... modified, or homebrew, or something like that....

Canada still does, however, require the radio Operator's license for its own
pilots.... so I am betting that you would be called on the lack of an
Operator's license (rule 87.89) before you would be called on the Station
license. Again, they probably won't care to check your Operator's license
unless you display improper technique....

john smith

November 7th 04, 03:19 AM

(This from the pilot of a 1945 Aeronca Champ...)
No, of course not! It's just something else inside the airplane to
distract you from looking outside and enjoying the flight.

>tony roberts wrote:
> So If I read this correctly I don't actually need a redidio licence?
> Do I even need a redidio?
> Sorry - couldn't resist :)
> Tony

Kevin

November 7th 04, 03:37 AM

john smith > wrote in message >...
> Correct. You only need one if you are going outside the USA.
> I have yet to have the folks in Canada ask for the Radio License.

You may not have been asked, but we (Canadian pilots operating in
Canada) are required to have the radio operators license on our
person, just like the pilot's license and medical certificate.

Dave Stadt

November 7th 04, 03:53 AM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
> > vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
> > without a station license.
> >
> > Is this a problem? Should I apply to the FCC for a license, and if so,
> > what sort of license do I want?
> >
>
>
> Based on FCC rules 87.18 (b) and 87.89 (d) 4.
>
> (
>
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/pdf/47cfr87.18.pdf
>
>
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/pdf/47cfr87.89.pdf )
>
> you are illegal only if you operate the station outside the USA.

Ah yes, the FAA requires us to have a station license if we are in Canada
where the FAA has no authority. Another fine example of our government in
action.

> As many have pointed out, Canada rarely, if ever, asks to see the
licenses.
> In any case, since pretty much all equipment in use is to FCC standards
> anyway, I doubt that they will care much about equipment, unless it was
> somehow faulty. You would probably be called on the lack of a Station
> license only if they decided they had to inspect you because you were
> splattering over adjacent frequencies or something like that, and even
then
> I am betting you would only be in trouble if the equipment was
> non-FCC-compliant.... modified, or homebrew, or something like that....
>
> Canada still does, however, require the radio Operator's license for its
own
> pilots.... so I am betting that you would be called on the lack of an
> Operator's license (rule 87.89) before you would be called on the Station
> license. Again, they probably won't care to check your Operator's license
> unless you display improper technique....

What do Canadian regulations say regarding station and operator licenses if
a US citizen brings a private plane into Canada?

G.R. Patterson III

November 7th 04, 03:54 AM

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
> vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
> without a station license.

No license is required for broadcasting from an aircraft since about 1996.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Greg Butler

November 7th 04, 04:00 AM

> Ah yes, the FAA requires us to have a station license if we are in Canada
> where the FAA has no authority. Another fine example of our government in
> action.

Actually there is a valid reason for this. Since the Canadian counterpart to
the FAA requires a license, we must also require our citizens flying through
canada to have one. You are under the jurisdiction of Canada if you get
caught without a license. The FCC is helping you out.

Dave Stadt

November 7th 04, 04:11 AM

"Greg Butler" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> > Ah yes, the FAA requires us to have a station license if we are in
Canada
> > where the FAA has no authority. Another fine example of our government
in
> > action.
>
> Actually there is a valid reason for this. Since the Canadian counterpart
to
> the FAA requires a license, we must also require our citizens flying
through
> canada to have one. You are under the jurisdiction of Canada if you get
> caught without a license. The FCC is helping you out.

And as I understand it the license costs $50 but the fine in Canada for not
having a license is $25. I think the FCC is helping itself out.

Icebound

November 7th 04, 04:45 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
>> > vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
>> > without a station license....snip...

>> you are illegal only if you operate the station outside the USA.
>
> Ah yes, the FAA requires us to have a station license if we are in Canada
> where the FAA has no authority. Another fine example of our government in
> action.
>

Remember that Radio rules are governed by International Agreement. The USA
and Canada choose not to enforce certain aspects of the licensing
requirement within their own borders, but once you wander Internationally,
they are supposed to comply with the International agreement.

>> As many have pointed out, Canada rarely, if ever, asks to see the
> licenses.
....snip...
>
> What do Canadian regulations say regarding station and operator licenses
> if
> a US citizen brings a private plane into Canada?
>
>

Radiocommunication Regulations, Jan 2002, Rule 12:
Radio apparatus used in a mobile station that is licensed or exempted by the
responsible
administration of another country is exempt from the application of
subsection 4(1) of the Act if
the mobile station is used for communications with stations licensed or
exempted in Canada or
that other country and if
(a) the operator is a citizen of that other country; and
(b) a reciprocal agreement that allows similar privileges to Canadians
exists between that
other country and Canada.

An undated (but post 9/11) statement from the Canadian licensing authority
states that "negotiations were entered" with the USA in 1999 to create such
a "reciprocal agreement" but they were never completed, ----and the official
position is that the licenses (station plus operators) are required----.

The statement goes on to say that it is a good idea for Canadians to have
their Station/Operators licenses in order if traveling to the USA in a post
9/11 era, if only as another validation of ID.

Cub Driver

November 7th 04, 11:05 AM

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:24:04 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>Correct. You only need one if you are going outside the USA.
>I have yet to have the folks in Canada ask for the Radio License.
>
>Dave Stadt wrote:
>> You are just fine. In your situation a station or operators license is not
>> required. The requirement went away about a decade ago.

Thanks, guys. Guess what I found at Larry's website?:

*******************************

b) An aircraft station is licensed by rule and does not need an
individual license issued by the FCC if the aircraft
station is not required by statute, treaty, or agreement to which the
United States is signatory to carry a radio, and the aircraft station
does not make international flights or communications. Even though an
individual license is not required, an aircraft station licensed by
rule
must be operated in accordance with all applicable operating
requirements, procedures, and technical specifications found in this
part.

****************************

Which seems to say that the airplane has a "license" even if it
doesn't have a license!

I was going by the book "Say It Again". It was a secondhand copy and
may indeed be more than ten years old.

As for Canada, I have a recreational cert and therefore am't allowed
to fly in furrin parts.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

Larry Dighera

November 7th 04, 11:43 AM

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:05:17 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>Thanks, guys.

You're welcome. I happy you found it useful.

PJ Hunt

November 7th 04, 12:57 PM

I happy you happy.

PJ

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:05:17 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Thanks, guys.
>
> You're welcome. I happy you found it useful.
>
>

C J Campbell

November 7th 04, 04:02 PM

Chris

November 7th 04, 04:03 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
>>
>> Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
>> vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
>> without a station license.
>
> No license is required for broadcasting from an aircraft since about 1996.

Except when abroad. An FCC Licence is needed to operate a radio in an N reg
aircraft in the UK and Europe (mine arrived yesterday) and we need a licence
to operate a radio in a G reg aircraft.

Ron Natalie

November 7th 04, 04:33 PM

Jim Fisher wrote:

> There's only one "R" in AROW nowadays, you know. The missing one if for the
> redidio license.
>
And there never was a W really. It only gets included in the required
in-flight docs by virtue of it being in the O.

One of those things where we'll come up the cute mnemonic first and then
find out what to stick in it.

Ron Natalie

November 7th 04, 04:34 PM

tony roberts wrote:
>>There's only one "R" in AROW nowadays, you know. The missing one if for the redidio license.
>>
>>--
>>Jim Fisher
>
>
> So If I read this correctly I don't actually need a redidio licence?
> Do I even need a redidio?
>
I gotta redidio...love listing to them old time redidio shows on it...
the Shadow, Life with Luigi, Dragnet...

Icebound

November 7th 04, 10:27 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:24:04 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>
>>Correct. You only need one if you are going outside the USA.
>>I have yet to have the folks in Canada ask for the Radio License.
>>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>> You are just fine. In your situation a station or operators license is
>>> not
>>> required. The requirement went away about a decade ago.
>
> Thanks, guys. Guess what I found at Larry's website?:
>
> *******************************
>
> b) An aircraft station is licensed by rule and does not need an
> individual license issued by the FCC if the aircraft
> station is not required by statute, treaty, or agreement to which the
> United States is signatory to carry a radio, and the aircraft station
> does not make international flights or communications. Even though an
> individual license is not required, an aircraft station licensed by
> rule
> must be operated in accordance with all applicable operating
> requirements, procedures, and technical specifications found in this
> part.
>
> ****************************
>
> Which seems to say that the airplane has a "license" even if it
> doesn't have a license!
>

What all that says is:
1. Radio regulations are governed by an International Agreement... not by
the USA, Canada, or any other one country.
2. That agreement requires a license for the radio (station license) and a
license for the operator (in the case of aviation, an Aeronautical
Restricted Operator's License)
3. The USA and Canada have elected to stop enforcing the station license
requirement (for VHF radio in planes and boats), where they have
jurisdiction.... that is: each within its own borders.
4. The USA has elected to stop enforcing the operator's license requirement
(but Canada continues to enforce it).
5. The rules in Canada and the USA will respect the installation or
operator of another country, (even if there is no license required in that
country), as long as there is a reciprocal agreement that allows the same
for both parties. Unfortunately, such an agreement has not yet been signed
between Canada and the USA.
6. THEREFORE, the *official* position of each country has to revert to
points 1 and 2 above. If "my" citizen operates a radio transmitter outside
of "my own" borders, I must enforce the license requirements, or I am in
breach of the International Agreement that I agreed to and signed.

Bush

November 8th 04, 11:12 PM

Your'e not since the radio is not permanantly installed. The J-3 was
built before ARROW.

Have a great one!

Bush

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:19:25 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>Okay, the Cub I rent has no radio, hence no radio license. I am
>vaguely aware, each time I use the handheld, that I am operating
>without a station license.
>
>Is this a problem? Should I apply to the FCC for a license, and if so,
>what sort of license do I want?
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
>Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
>the blog www.danford.net

Icebound

November 9th 04, 12:37 AM

"Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Your'e not since the radio is not permanantly installed. The J-3 was
> built before ARROW.
>

What does permanent installation have to do with it?

A radio transmitter in the aeronautical VHF bands requires a station
license.... except that the FCC has waived that requirement, provided the
transmitter is used in accordance with the rest of the rules.

It does not matter whether the transmitter is permanently installed or not.
A handheld is still subject to the same regulations.

Dave Stadt

November 9th 04, 01:09 AM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Your'e not since the radio is not permanantly installed. The J-3 was
> > built before ARROW.
> >
>
>
> What does permanent installation have to do with it?
>
> A radio transmitter in the aeronautical VHF bands requires a station
> license.... except that the FCC has waived that requirement, provided the
> transmitter is used in accordance with the rest of the rules.
>
> It does not matter whether the transmitter is permanently installed or
not.
> A handheld is still subject to the same regulations.

Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever that
means). He was wrong on all counts.

Icebound

November 9th 04, 02:28 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>
> Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever that
> means). He was wrong on all counts.
>
>

ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:

A-irworthiness Certificate
R-egistration Certificate
R-adio Station License
O-perating Limits (POH)
W-eight and balance documentation

He was suggesting that just because an aircraft was built before these rules
came into effect, they don't apply (or at least the radio one does not
apply). That is false, as you said. If you use a radio on an aircraft with
no electric, it (and the operator) still have to comply with the FCC rules.

John Smith

November 9th 04, 03:33 AM

So, I got my pilot license in 1963 and had to get a radio license too.
I have lost it. Does anyone know if there is an FCC sub-agency who will
replace it for me?

Thanks in advance.

(Of course this begs the question, why do I want it if I don't need it.)

G.R. Patterson III

November 9th 04, 03:40 AM

Icebound wrote:
>
> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:
>
> A-irworthiness Certificate
> R-egistration Certificate
> R-adio Station License
> O-perating Limits (POH)
> W-eight and balance documentation
>
> He was suggesting that just because an aircraft was built before these rules
> came into effect, they don't apply (or at least the radio one does not
> apply). That is false, as you said. If you use a radio on an aircraft with
> no electric, it (and the operator) still have to comply with the FCC rules.

But, as of 1996, the radio station license is not required in the United States.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Dave Stadt

November 9th 04, 04:43 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Icebound wrote:
> >
> > ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:
> >
> > A-irworthiness Certificate
> > R-egistration Certificate
> > R-adio Station License
> > O-perating Limits (POH)
> > W-eight and balance documentation
> >
> > He was suggesting that just because an aircraft was built before these
rules
> > came into effect, they don't apply (or at least the radio one does not
> > apply). That is false, as you said. If you use a radio on an aircraft
with
> > no electric, it (and the operator) still have to comply with the FCC
rules.
>
> But, as of 1996, the radio station license is not required in the United
States.

That is correct. The origional poster implied that AROW or ARROW would not
apply to a Cub because it was built before AROW or ARROW came into common
use. The poster was wrong.

>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
> been looking for it.

C J Campbell

November 9th 04, 04:57 AM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> >
> > Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever that
> > means). He was wrong on all counts.
> >
> >
>
> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:

No, it is now AROW and has been since 1996.

Ron Natalie

November 9th 04, 01:26 PM

Icebound wrote:
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>
>>Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever that
>>means). He was wrong on all counts.
>>
>>
>
>
> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:

ARROW is not now, nor has it ever been the definitive
on-board list.

You'll not find "W" anywhere in the rules.

The O depends on your aircraft and when it was built.

Your model's type certificate (as ammended by STC's) will often detail
specific requirements

Icebound

November 9th 04, 03:06 PM

Icebound

November 9th 04, 03:12 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever that
>> > means). He was wrong on all counts.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:
>
> No, it is now AROW and has been since 1996.
>
>

Yes, it is AROW for USA domestic flights, because the FCC has chosen not to
enforce Station Licenses nor Operators Licenses within the USA.

But they cannot extend such a waiver beyond their own borders and must
comply with the International agreements, so it is still ARROW (officially)
for cross-border flights.

C J Campbell

November 9th 04, 04:02 PM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Icebound" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> >> . com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever that
> >> > means). He was wrong on all counts.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:
> >
> > No, it is now AROW and has been since 1996.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, it is AROW for USA domestic flights, because the FCC has chosen not
to
> enforce Station Licenses nor Operators Licenses within the USA.
>
> But they cannot extend such a waiver beyond their own borders and must
> comply with the International agreements, so it is still ARROW
(officially)
> for cross-border flights.

Technically, it is only ARROW for cross-border flights *into* the US.
Canada, most Caribbean countries, and Mexico no longer require radio
licenses. Even so, you could technically get around ARROW by simply turning
off your radio when crossing the border. Once on the other side of the
border, you are safe in turning it back on. :-)

Icebound

November 9th 04, 04:32 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Icebound" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> >> . com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever
>> >> > that
>> >> > means). He was wrong on all counts.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:
>> >
>> > No, it is now AROW and has been since 1996.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, it is AROW for USA domestic flights, because the FCC has chosen not
> to
>> enforce Station Licenses nor Operators Licenses within the USA.
>>
>> But they cannot extend such a waiver beyond their own borders and must
>> comply with the International agreements, so it is still ARROW
> (officially)
>> for cross-border flights.
>
> Technically, it is only ARROW for cross-border flights *into* the US.
> Canada, most Caribbean countries, and Mexico no longer require radio
> licenses. Even so, you could technically get around ARROW by simply
> turning
> off your radio when crossing the border. Once on the other side of the
> border, you are safe in turning it back on. :-)
>
>

That is not correct.

Canada does not require a station license within its borders, just as the
USA does not within its borders. But the Canadian rule only affects
Canadians in Canada, not Canadians flying abroad, nor foreign nationals
flying into Canada.

The same applies for the USA rule... it only applies to US nationals within
the USA.

But any Canadian-registered flight from Canada to the USA (or any other
country) requires a license under Canadian (and International) rules, just
as any US-registered flight from the US to Canada (or any other country)
requires a license under USA (and International) rules.

Canada and the USA were trying to negotiate a reciprocal agreement to avoid
that requirement, but based on the last announcement that I saw, it was
never signed, and the official position remains that the license is
required.

The license requirement does not necessarily have anything to do with the
wishes of the individual countries; It is an international requirement for
International flights. And until the two countries get their act together
and sign the agreement, they are supposed to abide by the international
agreement...ie: a station license *is* required.

Now, having said that, whether they choose to actually *enforce* the rule is
another issue. However, Canadians have been warned by their Radio authority
that their station license paperwork should be up-to-date upon entering the
USA... because of the rule, but also in part because of 9/11 and the extra
level of ID that the license will provide.

I think USA pilots would be wise to do the same in the other direction.
Since there are always areas of tension between the two countries (live beef
exports, free-trade in softwood lumber, etc.), not having the license (in
both directions) gives politicians one more easy target when they may decide
to make a retaliatory statement: "hey, here is a rule we can enforce to
make life difficult for the other side for a while..."

Icebound

November 9th 04, 04:34 PM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Icebound" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
....snip...
>> Technically, it is only ARROW for cross-border flights *into* the US.
>> Canada, most Caribbean countries, and Mexico no longer require radio
>> licenses. ...snip...

Oh, and by the way, Canada still DOES require the Radio *operators* license.

Icebound

November 9th 04, 04:55 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Icebound wrote:
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>
>>>
>>>Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever that
>>>means). He was wrong on all counts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:
>
> ARROW is not now, nor has it ever been the definitive
> on-board list.
>
> You'll not find "W" anywhere in the rules.
>
> The O depends on your aircraft and when it was built.
>
> Your model's type certificate (as ammended by STC's) will often detail
> specific requirements

---

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section [para (d) is for
helicopters], no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with
the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft
Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry.

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft-

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5
of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current,
approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in
§121.141(b); and

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by
§21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current
approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material,
markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

---

You might not find Weight and Balance in the rules specifically, but how do
I prove on a ramp check that I am "...complying with the operating
limitation specified in the .... manual..", if I do not have a certified
document that says how heavy this aircraft is with its current equipment,
and where the empty C of G is, and how the fuel, passenger, and cargo loads
affect the C of G???

Ron Natalie

November 9th 04, 05:06 PM

Icebound wrote:

>>The O depends on your aircraft and when it was built.
>>
>
>
>
> Perhaps.
>
> The Houston FSDO has ARROW on their flight test checklist.
> http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/hou/Checklst.doc

Yep, but you'll notice they don't backup the ARROW assertion
with any reg cites like they do elsewhere.

When an AFM is required by the regs, it includes the W&B.
When an AFM is not required by the regs, you better go figure
out form the type certificate what exactly is required. I've
even got to carry flight manual supplements for some STC's to
supplement the non-existant flight manual.

Ron Natalie

November 9th 04, 05:19 PM

Icebound wrote:

> You might not find Weight and Balance in the rules specifically, but how do
> I prove on a ramp check that I am "...complying with the operating
> limitation specified in the .... manual..", if I do not have a certified
> document that says how heavy this aircraft is with its current equipment,
> and where the empty C of G is, and how the fuel, passenger, and cargo loads
> affect the C of G???

That doesn't mean it has to be in the aircraft. You're supposed to do that
in preflight planning along with the catchall "finding out runway lengths,
alternates, and ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION" but it's a work of fiction to
extend that into meaning all that stuff has to be then loaded into the aircraft.

To be practical, the AFM most likely has to include the W&B info (then why
a seperate letter in the mnemonic?). My plane has the "manual material,
placards, and markings" section of your clause. There is no Flight Manual.

C J Campbell

November 9th 04, 05:25 PM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> But any Canadian-registered flight from Canada to the USA (or any other
> country) requires a license under Canadian (and International) rules, just
> as any US-registered flight from the US to Canada (or any other country)
> requires a license under USA (and International) rules.
>

Good points all. IIRC there was a recent case where a US-registered flight
returning to the US was dinged for not having a radio license, but that
flight had not filed a flight plan, did not check in with Customs, landed at
a private airfield, and then tried to evade Customs and Immigration, so they
were trying to throw the book at him. I don't know if they made any of the
charges stick, however.

Icebound

November 9th 04, 06:42 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Icebound wrote:
>
>> You might not find Weight and Balance in the rules specifically, but how
>> do I prove on a ramp check that I am "...complying with the operating
>> limitation specified in the .... manual..", if I do not have a certified
>> document that says how heavy this aircraft is with its current equipment,
>> and where the empty C of G is, and how the fuel, passenger, and cargo
>> loads affect the C of G???
>
> That doesn't mean it has to be in the aircraft.

I argue that it certainly DOES have to be in the aircraft.

If you do not have such a document readily on hand in the aircraft, how can
you prove on a ramp-check away from your home base (maybe in a foreign
country) that you are "complying with the operating limitations" with
respect to max gross weight and C of G???

The AFM does not know what permanent equipment you have installed (or
removed) so it cannot be used as an accurate indication of what your empty
weight is.

Peter Duniho

November 9th 04, 07:57 PM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
> I argue that it certainly DOES have to be in the aircraft.
>
> If you do not have such a document readily on hand in the aircraft, how
> can you prove on a ramp-check away from your home base (maybe in a foreign
> country) that you are "complying with the operating limitations" with
> respect to max gross weight and C of G???

There is no requirement that you be able to prove such a thing during a
ramp-check. Just as there is no requirement that you be able to prove that
the aircraft is airworthy during a ramp-check.

> The AFM does not know what permanent equipment you have installed (or
> removed) so it cannot be used as an accurate indication of what your empty
> weight is.

So what?

Pete

Ron Natalie

November 9th 04, 08:24 PM

Icebound wrote:

> If you do not have such a document readily on hand in the aircraft, how can
> you prove on a ramp-check away from your home base (maybe in a foreign
> country) that you are "complying with the operating limitations" with
> respect to max gross weight and C of G???

Who says I have to prove that? I'm not going to prove that the annual
was done without the aircraft log books and there's no L in ARROW.

>
> The AFM does not know what permanent equipment you have installed (or
> removed) so it cannot be used as an accurate indication of what your empty
> weight is.
>

The true AFM is revised to indicate that information. If your aircraft
was built after the requirement to have AFM, you can't just use any old
pilot shop AFM, you need to use one that is maintained for your particular
aircraft, complete with all the supplements and modifications that are
required.

G.R. Patterson III

November 9th 04, 08:37 PM

Icebound wrote:
>
> The AFM does not know what permanent equipment you have installed (or
> removed) so it cannot be used as an accurate indication of what your empty
> weight is.

Mine certainly does, so of course it can be used for that.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Icebound

November 9th 04, 10:35 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Icebound wrote:
>
>> If you do not have such a document readily on hand in the aircraft, how
>> can you prove on a ramp-check away from your home base (maybe in a
>> foreign country) that you are "complying with the operating limitations"
>> with respect to max gross weight and C of G???
>
> Who says I have to prove that? I'm not going to prove that the annual
> was done without the aircraft log books and there's no L in ARROW.
>
>>
>> The AFM does not know what permanent equipment you have installed (or
>> removed) so it cannot be used as an accurate indication of what your
>> empty weight is.
>>
>
> The true AFM is revised to indicate that information. If your aircraft
> was built after the requirement to have AFM, you can't just use any old
> pilot shop AFM, you need to use one that is maintained for your particular
> aircraft, complete with all the supplements and modifications that are
> required.

Well okay... if the "true AFM" must be maintained for my particular
aircraft, it should contain the weight and balance information "for my
particular aircraft". And since the FARs (91.9 b ) say that the AFM must be
in the aircraft, then the W in ARROW (W-eight and Balance information) must
be in the aircraft.

I guess I still don't understand why you said in your earlier post that it
does not?

Icebound

November 9th 04, 10:39 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I argue that it certainly DOES have to be in the aircraft.
>>
>> If you do not have such a document readily on hand in the aircraft, how
>> can you prove on a ramp-check away from your home base (maybe in a
>> foreign country) that you are "complying with the operating limitations"
>> with respect to max gross weight and C of G???
>
> There is no requirement that you be able to prove such a thing during a
> ramp-check. Just as there is no requirement that you be able to prove
> that the aircraft is airworthy during a ramp-check.

Okay... I will, for the moment, accept that premise.

Now the FARs state that the aircraft must be airworthy, and must be
operated within its operational limits (91.7 and 91.9, on the new e-CFR
site).

1. Since, apparently, these are not enforced by a ramp check, how *are*
they enforced?

2. What *is* enforced by a ramp check?

Icebound

November 9th 04, 10:43 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Icebound wrote:
>>
>> The AFM does not know what permanent equipment you have installed (or
>> removed) so it cannot be used as an accurate indication of what your
>> empty
>> weight is.
>
> Mine certainly does, so of course it can be used for that.

The fact the the AFM is revised and updated for a particular aircraft
(including its weight and balance information) clears up some of my
misunderstandings.

But since the AFM is required to be in the aircraft by FARs 91.9 b, I still
don't see why people are saying that W&B info does not have to be in the
aircraft???

>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

John Galban

November 9th 04, 11:39 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>
> Good points all. IIRC there was a recent case where a US-registered flight
> returning to the US was dinged for not having a radio license, but that
> flight had not filed a flight plan, did not check in with Customs, landed at
> a private airfield, and then tried to evade Customs and Immigration, so they
> were trying to throw the book at him. I don't know if they made any of the
> charges stick, however.

According to the laws as they currently stand, they could not ding
the pilot of a U.S. registered plane for not having a station license
while flying in U.S. airspace, as none is required. They also cannot
ding said pilot for flying in Canadian airspace without the license,
as they have no jurisdiction. (Both the above comments assume that
some U.S. agency is attempting to do the dinging)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Peter Duniho

November 9th 04, 11:41 PM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
> 1. Since, apparently, these are not enforced by a ramp check, how *are*
> they enforced?

If the FAA insists on seeing documentation of such, the pilot being
inspected simply schedules a meeting at which time he'll be expected to
bring logbooks and any other documentation regarding that.

As far as a ramp check happening away from the home base airport, same thing
applies. The FAA can ask for a meeting to be scheduled. There's no
requirement to be able to prove legality on the spot.

As far as your "maybe in a foreign country" goes, that all depends on the
country and their rules. If they have a rule requiring you to carry
logbooks, then you had better have them. But the FAA isn't going to
ramp-check you in a foreign country, nor do their rules require you to carry
logbooks anyway.

> 2. What *is* enforced by a ramp check?

Carriage of required documents, for one. Pilot certificate, medical
certificate, airworthiness certificate, registration, etc. Anything that an
inspector might be able to observe at that particular moment is fair game,
provided there's a regulation that applies. For example, if an aircraft is
observed landing in IFR conditions, an inspector might ask to verify the
pilot's instrument rating.

Carriage of logbooks (aircraft or pilot) is not required, nor is carriage of
weight and balance documentation (except when that is a required part of the
aircraft manual, of course).

Pete

Peter Duniho

November 9th 04, 11:45 PM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
> Well okay... if the "true AFM" must be maintained for my particular
> aircraft, it should contain the weight and balance information "for my
> particular aircraft". And since the FARs (91.9 b ) say that the AFM must
> be > in the aircraft, then the W in ARROW (W-eight and Balance
> information) must be in the aircraft.

91.9(b) does not say "that the AFM must be in the aircraft". It says that
an AFM is required if it's required by 21.5, and otherwise any AFM,
"approved manual material", markings, and placards are required.

In other words, in an airplane for which an AFM is not required by 21.5 (of
which there are many), you simply need to have whatever is the approved
documentation for the airplane. Documentation which does not necessarily
include the weight and balance information.

Pete

Dave Stadt

November 10th 04, 12:05 AM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Icebound" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Icebound" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> >> >> . com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nor does it matter if the plane was built before ARROW (whatever
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > means). He was wrong on all counts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ARROW are the current on-board-document rules:
> >> >
> >> > No, it is now AROW and has been since 1996.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, it is AROW for USA domestic flights, because the FCC has chosen
not
> > to
> >> enforce Station Licenses nor Operators Licenses within the USA.
> >>
> >> But they cannot extend such a waiver beyond their own borders and must
> >> comply with the International agreements, so it is still ARROW
> > (officially)
> >> for cross-border flights.
> >
> > Technically, it is only ARROW for cross-border flights *into* the US.
> > Canada, most Caribbean countries, and Mexico no longer require radio
> > licenses. Even so, you could technically get around ARROW by simply
> > turning
> > off your radio when crossing the border. Once on the other side of the
> > border, you are safe in turning it back on. :-)
> >
> >
>
> That is not correct.
>
> Canada does not require a station license within its borders, just as the
> USA does not within its borders. But the Canadian rule only affects
> Canadians in Canada, not Canadians flying abroad, nor foreign nationals
> flying into Canada.
>
> The same applies for the USA rule... it only applies to US nationals
within
> the USA.
>
> But any Canadian-registered flight from Canada to the USA (or any other
> country) requires a license under Canadian (and International) rules, just
> as any US-registered flight from the US to Canada (or any other country)
> requires a license under USA (and International) rules.
>
> Canada and the USA were trying to negotiate a reciprocal agreement to
avoid
> that requirement, but based on the last announcement that I saw, it was
> never signed, and the official position remains that the license is
> required.
>
> The license requirement does not necessarily have anything to do with the
> wishes of the individual countries; It is an international requirement
for
> International flights. And until the two countries get their act together
> and sign the agreement, they are supposed to abide by the international
> agreement...ie: a station license *is* required.
>
> Now, having said that, whether they choose to actually *enforce* the rule
is
> another issue. However, Canadians have been warned by their Radio
authority
> that their station license paperwork should be up-to-date upon entering
the
> USA... because of the rule, but also in part because of 9/11 and the extra
> level of ID that the license will provide.

Certainly a radio station license is a guaranteed way to stop terrorism.

Icebound

November 10th 04, 03:24 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> 2. What *is* enforced by a ramp check?
>
....snip...
> Anything that an inspector might be able to observe at that particular
> moment is fair game, provided there's a regulation that applies. For
> example, if an aircraft is observed landing in IFR conditions, an
> inspector might ask to verify the pilot's instrument rating.

....but you are saying that it would not be fair game for the inspector to
ask them to prove on the spot, that they are below max-gross and within CofG
limits, even if he saw four 220-pound adults and a Newfoundland dog stuffing
150 pounds of gear and 38 gallons of fuel into that same C-172M on its way
out...is that right??? You are stating that they would be allowed to depart
if they want to...would schedule a meeting at a later date... would bring
their w&b information for that particular aircraft and load configuration
for that trip to the meeting... and try to prove their legality there???...
or how would that work?

Peter Duniho

November 10th 04, 08:51 AM

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
> ...but you are saying that it would not be fair game for the inspector to
> ask them to prove on the spot, that they are below max-gross and within
> CofG > limits, even if he saw four 220-pound adults and a Newfoundland dog
> stuffing > 150 pounds of gear and 38 gallons of fuel into that same C-172M
> on its way out...is that right??? You are stating that they would be
> allowed to depart > if they want to.

Why do you think I am saying that? You wouldn't need W&B documentation to
know the plane was overloaded in your example.

If you'd like to try a more "borderline" example, where the inspector could
not tell through direct observation that the airplane was overloaded, then
the answer would be yes, they would be allowed to depart if they want to,
and no they don't need to prove that they are within the W&B limits to the
inspector. (Obviously, in the case where the W&B is required to be there,
as part of the AFM now required, the above does not hold).

Pete

Cub Driver

November 10th 04, 10:41 AM

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:32:25 -0500, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>But any Canadian-registered flight from Canada to the USA (or any other
>country) requires a license under Canadian (and International) rules, just
>as any US-registered flight from the US to Canada (or any other country)
>requires a license under USA (and International) rules.

But nobody can enforce the rule, right? The American pilot hasn't
violated any Americans regs until he crosses the border into Canada,
and as soon as he returns to the U.S. he isn't in violation any
longer. And the Canadian regs as you say don't apply to Americans.

Seems to me that the only rules he has violated are the international
ones, and until the UN black helicopters complete their takeover of
Washington, who will enforce them?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

Ron Natalie

November 10th 04, 01:25 PM

Icebound wrote:
>
>
> Well okay... if the "true AFM" must be maintained for my particular
> aircraft, it should contain the weight and balance information "for my
> particular aircraft". And since the FARs (91.9 b ) say that the AFM must be
> in the aircraft, then the W in ARROW (W-eight and Balance information) must
> be in the aircraft.
>
> I guess I still don't understand why you said in your earlier post that it
> does not?
>
>
Because I never said that. I said that there's no distinct requirement
for W so it really is STUPID in the mnemonic. Further, NOT all aircraft
(especially ones built before the seventies) have (or are required to have)
AFM.

Ron Natalie

November 10th 04, 01:26 PM

Icebound wrote:

>
> But since the AFM is required to be in the aircraft by FARs 91.9 b, I still
> don't see why people are saying that W&B info does not have to be in the
> aircraft???
>
Because there might not be an AFM. Reread 91.9 again.

Further, if it was ALWAYS in the AFM, why does ARROW treat it as a distinct
document?

Ron Natalie

November 10th 04, 01:28 PM

Cub Driver wrote:

> But nobody can enforce the rule, right? The American pilot hasn't
> violated any Americans regs until he crosses the border into Canada,
> and as soon as he returns to the U.S. he isn't in violation any
> longer. And the Canadian regs as you say don't apply to Americans.
>
>
The FCC regs apply to US registered aircraft and vessels even when
in other countries airspace or in international waters.

Icebound

November 10th 04, 03:23 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:32:25 -0500, "Icebound"
> > wrote:
>
>>But any Canadian-registered flight from Canada to the USA (or any other
>>country) requires a license under Canadian (and International) rules, just
>>as any US-registered flight from the US to Canada (or any other country)
>>requires a license under USA (and International) rules.
>
> But nobody can enforce the rule, right? The American pilot hasn't
> violated any Americans regs until he crosses the border into Canada,
> and as soon as he returns to the U.S. he isn't in violation any
> longer. And the Canadian regs as you say don't apply to Americans.
>

The Canadian *waiver of license requirements* does not apply to Americans;
i.e.: American-registered planes require radio station and operator
licenses.

The "license requirement" is not a Canadian reg... it is an International
agreement. Canada (and all signatories to that agreement) are probably
*required* to enforce it, so by that agreement...

Gig Giacona

November 10th 04, 05:25 PM

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> Good points all. IIRC there was a recent case where a US-registered
>> flight
>> returning to the US was dinged for not having a radio license, but that
>> flight had not filed a flight plan, did not check in with Customs, landed
>> at
>> a private airfield, and then tried to evade Customs and Immigration, so
>> they
>> were trying to throw the book at him. I don't know if they made any of
>> the
>> charges stick, however.
>
> According to the laws as they currently stand, they could not ding
> the pilot of a U.S. registered plane for not having a station license
> while flying in U.S. airspace, as none is required. They also cannot
> ding said pilot for flying in Canadian airspace without the license,
> as they have no jurisdiction. (Both the above comments assume that
> some U.S. agency is attempting to do the dinging)
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

That is wrong the international treaty gives the US the jurustiction and
forces it to enforce the treaty on its' citizens.

G.R. Patterson III

November 10th 04, 06:33 PM

Icebound wrote:
>
> But since the AFM is required to be in the aircraft by FARs 91.9 b, I still
> don't see why people are saying that W&B info does not have to be in the
> aircraft???

Because some aircraft are not required to have an AFM (my '69 C-150 had none).

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Cub Driver

November 11th 04, 10:33 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:23:49 -0500, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>The Canadian *waiver of license requirements* does not apply to Americans;
>i.e.: American-registered planes require radio station and operator
>licenses.

So all American pilots are in violation when flying in Canada
airspace? Do the Mounties know about this?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

Peter Duniho

November 11th 04, 06:58 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> So all American pilots are in violation when flying in Canada
> airspace?

Many of us have radio station licenses, as well as the necessary operator
license. So no, not all American pilots are in violation when flying in
Canada airspace.

> Do the Mounties know about this?

Why are you asking us? Call them up and find out yourself.

John Galban

November 11th 04, 07:51 PM

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > According to the laws as they currently stand, they could not ding
> > the pilot of a U.S. registered plane for not having a station license
> > while flying in U.S. airspace, as none is required. They also cannot
> > ding said pilot for flying in Canadian airspace without the license,
> > as they have no jurisdiction. (Both the above comments assume that
> > some U.S. agency is attempting to do the dinging)
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> That is wrong the international treaty gives the US the jurustiction and
> forces it to enforce the treaty on its' citizens.

Interesting. I have to wonder how the U.S. FCC would charge a pilot
for a violation that is not in their regs. My guess is that this
would probably have to be done at a different level, like the federal
courts. Realistically, I don't see it happening for something like
this.

BTW - Every time I've crossed into Canada, not only was I not asked
about a radio station license (which I had), I never even saw a
Canadian Customs officer in person. It was all done over the phone.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Ron Natalie

November 11th 04, 08:05 PM

John Galban wrote:

>
> Interesting. I have to wonder how the U.S. FCC would charge a pilot
> for a violation that is not in their regs.

Huh? If we're still talking about aircraft station license, the regs
do specifically require them. They only give you an excemption for
domestic operations.

great-white-north

November 12th 04, 03:41 AM

(John Galban) wrote in message >...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message >...
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > According to the laws as they currently stand, they could not ding
> > > the pilot of a U.S. registered plane for not having a station license
> > > while flying in U.S. airspace, as none is required. They also cannot
> > > ding said pilot for flying in Canadian airspace without the license,
> > > as they have no jurisdiction. (Both the above comments assume that
> > > some U.S. agency is attempting to do the dinging)
> > >
> > > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
> >
> > That is wrong the international treaty gives the US the jurustiction and
> > forces it to enforce the treaty on its' citizens.
>
> Interesting. I have to wonder how the U.S. FCC would charge a pilot
> for a violation that is not in their regs. My guess is that this
> would probably have to be done at a different level, like the federal
> courts. Realistically, I don't see it happening for something like
> this.
>
> BTW - Every time I've crossed into Canada, not only was I not asked
> about a radio station license (which I had), I never even saw a
> Canadian Customs officer in person. It was all done over the phone.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Yeh hi there;

I would suggest that you bring all your papers along. A Transport
Canada Inspector can walk up to you on the ramp and will dampen your
day big time if you don't have ALL the paperwork right there in hand.
It's like this, no papers = no fly. Can happen anywhere at any
time. Have seen it happen at flight school to student on solo.
Have 2 pilots at home, you sure need your radio operators license with
you, same for aircraft.