Bonjour Drapo,
Je vais te recontacter pour une visite de centre lors du voyage que j'organise avec des Français en Septembre comme tu me l'avais proposé. Je crois qu'on vas devoir être d'accord d'être en désaccord sur ce point mais en suivant ta logique.
Un opérateur privé peut disposer d'OPS SPEC donc je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord avec ton point qui indique que seul l'alinéa c) s'applique mais en poussant cette logique jusqu'au bout, voici des éléments complémentaires que je peux te donner pour tenter de te convaincre.
La structure du RAC est telle qu'elle donne les interdictions et les exceptions. Je n'ai pas encore trouvé d'interdiction du genre. Nul ne peut décoller en régime de vol IFR d'un aéronef pour lequel une procédure n'est pas décrite dans le Canada Air Pilot.
Voici un extrait d'un Manuel de formation d'un cours Intégré de pilotage approuvé par Transport Canada à titre de lecture intéressante.
Selkirk College - IFR For Professional Pilots
Unassessed Runways
It was mentioned earlier that not every runway in Canada has been assessed for IFR departures. What should a pilot do if departing from an airport that has not been assessed?
If the airport is to be used on a regular basis, especially for commercial purposes, it may be worth the expense of having a professional assess the runways. If a standard 1⁄2 mile departure is safe it would be good to know that. If a greater than standard climb gradient is needed it is important to know that, and if SPEC VIS is required it would be good to find the most efficient safe route.
For an occasional IFR departure, such as a medevac from an uncontrolled airport that normally does not handle IFR traffic, the pilot is on his own to determine a safe procedure and decide whether standard conditions exist.
If the airport is in the middle of Saskatchewan the pilot might be satisfied to check the local charts for towers and finding none assume that standard conditions apply. The pilot might also consider that the turbo-prop airplane s/he is flying normally climbs at a gradient of 1,000+ ft/NM. Given these facts the pilot might feel confident that a takeoff in 1⁄2 statute miles is safe. Most likely the pilot would turn at 400’ agl, but it is CRUCIAL to realize that this would be no more than a habit. If no assessment has been formally done then no criteria exist.
In more rugged parts of Canada the pilot might realize that obstacles do exist and that a standard 1⁄2 mile takeoff is NOT advisable. In this case the pilot must devise a “home made” SPEC VIS procedure. The pilot can do this in many ways but in most cases the pilot will use one of the following strategies:
1. A visual climb to airway MEA. Of course the weather must be quite good for this.
2. If there is an IFR departure procedure nearby the pilot may choose to fly VFR to that airport and then depart IFR.
3. If there is an IFR approach procedure the pilot may climb visually to the missed approach point then follow the missed approach procedure. Alternatively the pilot may fly the approach procedure backwards
It should be clear that when departing from an unassessed runway great care must be taken. The law permits 1⁄2 mile takeoff, but the safety of doing so is questionable. The pilot must be completely certain that no obstacles impinge on the aircraft’s climb gradient.
[/quote]
On a un discours équivalent dans Transport Canada Instrument Procedures Manual.
Ainsi que dans d'autres ground school manuals
Departure Obstacle and Terrain Clearance
IFR departure procedures can be ground into two broad categories—procedures that are specified and procedures that are unspecified.
Unspecified Departure Procedures
Included in the category of airports with unspecified IFR departure procedures are departures from airports not listed in the Canada Air Pilot or the Jeppesen Airways Manual. It is quite legal to make an IFR departure from these so-called “VFR” airports,1 but there are no specified IFR departure procedures to follow. Conversely, there are also airports that appear in CAP/JEP with published instrument approach procedures, but which have not been assessed with respect to IFR departures—i.e., obstacle and terrain clearance required. The IFR departure procedure for these airports is published as “not assessed.” “Not assessed” airports are becoming more and more rare.2
Where IFR departure procedures are unspecified, it is the pilot’s sole responsibility to ensure terrain and obstacle clearance.
En gros, vous avez bien compris que le RAC est sur la base de "no person shall" a tour de bras donc faute d'interdiction, ce n'est pas à vous de vous en créer.
Le respect des marges de franchissement des obstacles a toujours été la responsabilité du pilote (sauf sur des vecteurs radars pour lesquels le contrôleur en prend une responsabilité).
Enfin, comme indiqué plutôt transport canada a publié TP 12772
TP12772—Aeroplane Performance provides a graphical method of using the gradients published in the CAP departure procedures to comply with the obstacle clearance requirements of the CARs.
This method provides a means to plot the vertical take-off flight path to ensure that the aeroplane climbs at or above an obstacle clearance surface associated with a specific gross climb gradient. This method is intended as a means of compliance with the obstacle clearance requirements without conducting an aerodrome analysis.
Il (Transport Canada) estime que cette méthode est acceptable (Acceptable Mean of Compliance) pour la vérification du respect de la MFO (Marge de Franchissement des Obstacles).
Je vous invite a demander une interprétation juridique mais je serais étonné que Transport Canada Québec ait une interprétation différente mais on peut s'attendre à tout.
Cordialement,
Marc-Olivier
