From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Northern Canada trip report
Keywords: Canada, trip, IFR horror
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:08:16 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

In article <1992Aug14.013631.23444@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels) writes:
!dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) relates, in his story about
!flying to Northern Canada:

!!So here we are enroute Houlton to Sept-Isle in hard IFR. ...
!    [ discovery that the LE charts are out-of-date ]
!!I am now suspicious. Pull out the IAP's. Oh no, again 1990 two years
!!out-of-date!

!Nope.  The dates on the bottom of Canadian approach plates are the
!last-modified date.  There is no way (short of having the date-of-
!latest-print list) of telling whether the version you have is current.

Nope. Wrong assumption.  The old approach plate book is not
a Canadian Air Pilot but rather from the Defense Mapping
Agency Aerospace Center (DOD Flight Information Publication (Termina)
Low Altitude Canada and North Atlantic) and it clearly says
effective 0901Z 28 Jun 90 to 0901Z 18 Oct 90 on the front

!In fact, according to my Canada Air Pilot (approach plate book) which
!was verified up-to-date two weeks ago, the dates on the Sept-Isle
!approaches are 15Nov90, 7Mar91, 18Oct90, and 15Nov90 for the four pages.

!The Canadian LE enroute charts, however, are valid only for a limited and
!specified period.

!!So, what can I do to stay alive?  Check the old approach plates. Sept-Isle
!!has an ILS-7.  ...  Check the altitude for the initial approach segment --
!!2200 feet.

!I assume you just mis-remembered the details:  it's actually an ILS-09
!with 2000' initial approach (from the south).

You're right on this one. It is the ILS-09 and the initial altitude is 2000.
I should have rechecked the approach plate.  Probably 2300 stuck in my mind
(combined with a typo) because I was not going below the minimum vectoring
altitude, which was 2300, until glide slope intercept.

!!We had some difficulty clearing customs. Bill had brought a semi-automatic
!!rifle to satisfy the survival requirement for flight in unpopulated
!!areas. Unfortunately these are prohibited in Canada although this is
!!not clear from the information provided.

!My understanding is that this is one of the things pointed out in the
!"Flying to Canada" brochure from AOPA.  It's certainly one of the common
!errors that US pilots make.  And the rifle is not one of the required
!items ... it is merely a recommended item.

Technically you're right that a rifle is not on the required list.
However, since we were going very far north (into polar bear country)
it was strongly recommended by someone that Bill talked to, I think
at the Canadian Embassy. Polar bears presumably have this interesting
habit of not being afraid of man -- who is about the same size and `shape'
as the common polar bear food known as a seal!

On the question of clearness about firearms I quote from the AOPA Canada
booklet:

" Firearms may be carried in aircraft as additional emergency equipment.
In order to carry weapons on board, aircraft operators must have a
valid permit issued by the appropriate provincial or territorial
authorities.

Aircraft operators should be aware that small arms (i.e., hand-held
pistols, revolvers, etc.) and FULLY automatic weapons are not
authorized in Canada (refer to Chapter 5 for firearms regulations)."

From Chapter 5:

"Rifles and shotguns intended for use as sporting guns or included
in a survival kit are allowed to be carried into Canada. The caliber,
make and style of each rifle or shotgun must be registered with
Canadian Customs when entering Canada.

Small arms such as hand-held pistols, revolvers, etc. and FULLY
automatic weapons are not allowed into Canada, unless a permit has
been obtained in advance...."

emphasis is mine. So, by omission a semi-automatic rifle should be
allowed.

In fact, based on our experience either a shotgun or a bolt action
rifle is preferred. Reminds me I need to call AOPA and tell them
this.

!!After discussing it, it looks like if we refuel in Kuujjuaq ...
!
!How !do< you pronounce that?!  Both Kuujjuaq and Kuujjaurapik (no, neither
!are typo's!) have manditory frequencies, so radio calls are required.
!"<mumble mumble! radio, this is ..."?!

Good question. I heard it pronounced two or three ways and I settled on
Koo jack. Seemed to work.

!Ron Wessels		University of Toronto		ron@turing.toronto.edu

Dave Rogers

Newsgroups: rec.aviation