Flying through Canadian airspace

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
One semi-interesting observation: This isn't true in the Washington
ADIZ. There, a VFR ADIZ flight plan IS opened by ATC, after first
filing with flight service.

That's because the ADIZ flight plan isn't a VFR flight plan.

Funny that some things actually work better under the ADIZ.

Not really. The most you can say is that things aren't as bad under the
ADIZ as they could be.

Pete

Denny wrote:
I speak AIM fluently...
There is a turf war between the controllers union and the privatized
FSS.. All the AIM manuals in the world will not get ATC to
cooperate..

If you are surprised that you don't get a transponer squawk code when
you file a *VFR* flight plan, I'm afraid that you are not as familiar
with the AIM as you may think. Except for a few certain exceptions
(ADIZ, Weirdness in ROC, etc), there has never been much connection
between a VFR flight plan and air traffic control. The ATC guys do NOT
get your *VFR* flight plan, and this has been the case long before
Lockheed got the AFSS contract.

Traffic Advisories (aka "Flight Following") is merely a service that ATC
may provide upon request to VFR aircraft, whether you have a flight plan
or not. They may hand you off to other facilities if they can, but keep
in mind the VFR aircraft may be flying too low for a hand off in any
given area.

I believe if you file a Defense VFR (or DVFR) flight plan than ATC will
get the flight plan. Not sure if this would work for the Washington
ADIZ, but apparently they want all flight plans filed there directly
with Leesburg AFSS anyway.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, john smith said:

* Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?

Yes, it's still around $15 (Canadian), and it's good for a whole quarter -
so if you fly back before the quarter is over, you won't get another bill.

When did this go into effect?
I have never been charged for previous overflights.


You're right. I thought they'd removed the exemption for overflights, but
I just checked the current fee schedule
http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefin...ide_New_en.pdf
and it still says that flights from one part of the US to another are
still exempt.

Since I land in Canada several times a year, I guess I never got a chance
to notice that they didn't charge if I somehow avoided landing there for a
quarter.

I believe that is reciprocal because USA ATC does not charge Canadian
pilots for similar services.

Being a stubborn cuss I decided to test the system again as I had to
make two more round trips from Michigan through Canada and across Lake
Erie over the holiday weekend... This series of flights I simply
waited until I was about ten miles from Canadian airspace and called
Center and advised I wanted flight following through Canadian Airspace
and across the lake... He promptly assigned a squawk and that was
that... The first round trip I filed a VFR flight plan but did not
activate it... The second round I didn't even bother with that...



denny

Paul Tomblin wrote:
Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.

Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.

In a previous article, (andrew m. boardman) said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.

Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.

FDC NOTAM 2/5319
"PART 2 OF 8 .. SPECIAL NOTICE .. OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE
U.S. PART II. U.S., MEXICAN OR CANADIAN REGISTERED AIRCRAFT CONDUCTING
IFR/VFR OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF
THE U.S. NO PERSON MAY OPERATE AN AIRCRAFT UNDER VFR OR IFR TO OR FROM THE
TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BELOW: A. PART 91 VFR
OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF
GROSS WEIGHT OF 95,000 POUNDS OR LESS, BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE U.S.,
CANADA, AND MEXICO, PROVIDED ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: 1. THE
AIRCRAFT IS REGISTERED IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO. 2. THE FLIGHT CREW
AND ONLY KNOWN PASSENGERS ARE ON BOARD. 3. THE PILOT FILES AND ACTIVATES A
FLIGHT PLAN. 4. THE PILOT IS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE GOVERNING ATC
FACILITY AT THE TIME OF THE BOUNDARY CROSSING. 5. THE AIRCRAFT IS
SQUAWKING AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ASSIGNED DISCRETE BEACON CODE. 6. THE
PILOT COMPLIES WITH ALL U.S. CUSTOMS NOTIFICATIONS AND COMPLIES WITH
REQUIREMENTS TO LAND AT AIRPORTS IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO DESIGNATED
AS PORTS OF ENTRY. END PART 2 OF 8"

I draw your attention to part 4 and 5.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The thing I've noticed, particularly about Usenet, that while as a
welcome break from work it is refreshing and interesting, when you've
got bugger all else to do it kinda loses its appeal. -- C Speed

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, (andrew m. boardman) said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.

Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.

FDC NOTAM 2/5319
[...]

Oops. Thanks for the reminder. I'd like to think I knew about that the
last time it was relevant to me and have simply forgotten since. (A
couple of years ago I started dealing with this sort of thing strictly
IFR. Somewhat lazy, perhaps, but it removes many hassles. Especially
with the DC ADIZ, which can be an utter disaster VFR.)

Mind you, Toronto Terminal still didn't want to deal with me VFR (making
KIAG-CYTZ hops a couple of years ago), but the important thing for
2/5319 is talking to US ATC, which was never an issue.

[I previously posted another instantiation of this, but had a weird
newsreader glitch and it seems to have vanished. My apologies if it
turns up twice.]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:19:32 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, (andrew m. boardman) said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.

Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.

FDC NOTAM 2/5319
"PART 2 OF 8 .. SPECIAL NOTICE .. OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE
U.S. PART II. U.S., MEXICAN OR CANADIAN REGISTERED AIRCRAFT CONDUCTING
IFR/VFR OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF
THE U.S. NO PERSON MAY OPERATE AN AIRCRAFT UNDER VFR OR IFR TO OR FROM THE
TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BELOW: A. PART 91 VFR
OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF
GROSS WEIGHT OF 95,000 POUNDS OR LESS, BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE U.S.,
CANADA, AND MEXICO, PROVIDED ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: 1. THE
AIRCRAFT IS REGISTERED IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO. 2. THE FLIGHT CREW
AND ONLY KNOWN PASSENGERS ARE ON BOARD. 3. THE PILOT FILES AND ACTIVATES A
FLIGHT PLAN. 4. THE PILOT IS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE GOVERNING ATC
FACILITY AT THE TIME OF THE BOUNDARY CROSSING. 5. THE AIRCRAFT IS
SQUAWKING AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ASSIGNED DISCRETE BEACON CODE. 6. THE
PILOT COMPLIES WITH ALL U.S. CUSTOMS NOTIFICATIONS AND COMPLIES WITH
REQUIREMENTS TO LAND AT AIRPORTS IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO DESIGNATED
AS PORTS OF ENTRY. END PART 2 OF 8"

I draw your attention to part 4 and 5.

But you seem to forget that the whole section refers to flights TO/FROM
foreign LOCATIONS. Passing through Canadian airspace when both origin and
destination are in the US is not covered by this whole section.