When regulations matter

	My choice was to land in this weather or crash on a contaminated runway with excessive crosswinds.
	Violating regulations such as low flying in the wire environment for no good reason results in an accident looking for a place to happen.
	Flying single engine aircraft in the mountains during inclement weather or during darkness greatly increases risks - even though it is legal to do so in Canada.
	Flying single engine beyond gliding distance from land is an often bent regulation.
	Accidents can be very expensive in lost hull values - not to mention litigation.

During my training years as a young military pilot I was taught all the applicable rules and regulations for military pilots and knew them all by rote.

They were all important guidelines because low time pilots are often sucked into an unsafe quagmire that is well beyond their judgment capabilities when they can’t foresee the outcome of their actions.

Guidance provided by these regulations and laws steer fledglings away from lurking danger and this allows pilots to avoid accidents as they gain judgment skills and eventually understand the full intent of a given regulation.

Unfortunately, because some pilots don’t seem to learn their lessons by experience and often chose to disregard regulations and procedures, we witness more accidents occurring than is reasonable.

The legislator’s typical reaction to repeated accident scenarios is to create a new regulation that will preclude pilots from even approaching possible high risk situations. Meanwhile errant pilots will continue to push or break these new regulations too.

So, what we end up with is restrictive legislation that appears to be designed to curb poor pilots during the course of normal flying operations. Unfortunately, many of these new rules which are well intentioned often handcuff good, law-abiding pilots who are faced with an emergency or life threatening situation that is exacerbated by restrictive regulations.

One example of flagrant disregard for regulations is low flying. Virtually every pilot is aware of the various limitations for flying over built up (inhabited) areas and uninhabited land. Yet, during my soaring operations that are conducted well above the mountainous terrain of Vancouver Island we often view light fixed wing aircraft flitting up and down valleys and logging roads no more than 50 feet above obstacles.

One wonders what these errant aviators plan to do with an engine or propeller failure or when they tangle up with unmarked wires and logging rig cables.

I have not reported any of these aircraft, but it irritates me that their budding accident will affect my flying freedom in time as more regulations and control result from these travesties of regulations.

There I am more than a thousand feet above the terrain to allow me to glide to a suitable airport lest the engine does not return to life at my beckoning while they risk the aircraft occupants lives in not only illegal, but unsafe operations.

Mind you, there are provisions in the regs for intentionally violating the rules or for that matter an ATS clearance if the outcome of following same would jeopardize the safety of the flight.

In fact, over 40 years of committing aviation professionally, I have on numerous occasions violated regulations and the instances that come to mind saved lives. These included flying in climactic conditions that were below legal weather minima and conducting night medical evacuation flights when they were not permitted in the regulations.

In each case my training, currency and aircraft equipment were obviously up to the task and lives were saved.

The challenge is where to draw the line and commit a violation to the myriad of regulations (They may be the CARs, NavCanada clearances, dangerous goods carriage, town/municipality bylaws or rules promulgated by some other jurisdiction).

You may not even be aware of laws in place and I suggest there likely isn’t a reader viewing this article who has not broken a flying law. So, let there be no stone throwers amongst you.

Essentially, you should break the rules only when it is necessary to conduct the safe continuance of the flight. Some of you will remember my flight into Winnipeg in my Diamond Katana Xtreme motorglider into abysmal, unforecast winter storm several years ago.

I could continue straight ahead in below VFR conditions to the major airport and land directly into the strong wind or I could remain in marginal VFR weather and land on a snow contaminated runway with the wind out of crosswind limits and likely crash at an airstrip with no emergency services.

For me the decision was a "no brainer." However, for the aviator who is not prepared to consider the applicability of a regulation during current conditions, that person may have wrap his wife and self up in a ball of splintered fibreglass or shredded aluminium.

While I have never lost an aircraft in an accident, a friend and his wife who bought a high performance amateur built from me were trapped in a storm in Quebec and elected to make a forced landing in a farmer’s field and thereby incur damage to the plane rather than continue into IMC conditions. While it was illegal to land one’s airplane in that agricultural area, it was a regulation worth overlooking at the time.

So, where do you stand legally on bending or breaking the laws? Well, this is surprising. While the CARs will allow you to do whatever is essentially necessary to carry out the successfully and safe completion of the flight, you may find yourself in a court of law over other infractions that seemed logical at the time.

In fact, as a consultant to lawyers on aviation cases, I have learned it is common for a judge to consider the regulations and then commonly dismiss the rules as there were more important factors to be considered. Mind you, it may require professional legal counsel to get you off the hook for a violation.

Obviously, one doesn’t want to disregard the rules – unless the stakes are high i.e. life-threatening.

Even then, one must consider the applicability of laws before breaking them. This might include factors such as: pilot experience, aircraft condition and equipment, inclement weather, potentially other options for the successful completion of the flight and perhaps other risk factors that may be applicable in a given instance.

There have been many who have not balanced this equation of risks when they pushed weather or other limitations and a good example is the helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) industry in the USA.

When the big market boom for these helicopters began years ago the accident rate was appalling. It almost appeared pilots were killing as many as they were saving.

The phenomenon occurs when pilots continue in high risk conditions in attempts to save their critically ill patient/passengers and get over-extended with weather. Having been there before on several instances, it is often tough and soul-searching to make a "go-no go" decision that can affect the lives of others.

For example, I can imagine a rig worker’s anguish and pain when he accidentally cut off his leg and a call was placed for me to fly the company Bell 205 Huey at night in a 200 and a half snow storm in hilly terrain.

I declined the flight as I knew there was an IFR equipped, twin turbine helicopter locally on stand-by that was much better equipped for the task and the crew was familiar with the drilling rig location and the invisible obstacles that would surround it in the darkness.

Little did I know at the time they also declined the flight and the injured worker was driven to the city emergency ward in the back of a pick up over rough back roads.

Do I regret my decision knowing of his pain on that ride? No. Better he live with the pain than potentially die in a helicopter crash.

If asked what the likelihood of successfully completing that flight would be, I would hazard a guess of only 60 per cent. Definitely not worth the risk.

How many pilots would risk icing on the blades, engine inlet and windshield while flying in minimal visibility and landing at an obstacle strewn pick up site with invisible antennae and associated wires along the route? Add to that the normal flight challenges like the adequacy of the Huey’s fuel capacity for that mission and a no-go decision is obviously prudent. (I wonder if all readers reach the same conclusion… is it possible some helicopter pilots would have attempted this flight?).

Such are the challenges of these life and death decisions on potentially contravening regulations. Had I foolishly taken the flight, and successfully landed in Edmonton, I would have contravened a dozen or so regulations along the way and with a bit of bad luck acquired a few violations that would mar my professional reputation and potentially result in significant fines.

 

The true costs of violations and accidents

What if one has an accident whilst bending the rules? You will certainly garner the interest of many parties.

Transport Canada could become very interested in the conduct of your flight and decision making. Injured passengers and their families may force you into an expensive legal case. The company that insured the aircraft may very well chose to deny coverage since you also violated their stipulations that the aircraft must be flown with full regard to all of the applicable regulations.

As a result, you or your company may not only be paying the deductible on the insurance, but also the full replacement price of the aircraft. If the aircraft is in commercial operation, there may also be significant loss of revenue and a private aircraft will likely mean a loss of transportation capability.

 

Aberrations in regulations

If you follow regulations, does that ensure your safety? Of course not. However, it does provide additionally safety margins on most flights.

It’s important to note there are flying activities you can legally undertake in Canada that may not be safe. Some that come to mind, that are not legal in many other countries include: the right to fly in formation after a briefing, the ability to fly a single engine aircraft at night in mountainous terrain.

There are many other instances of permissible flight that pilots in command should question in terms of acceptable risk. Each flight one undertakes is essentially a challenge in risk assessment and management. For instance, many, if not most aircraft taking off from Victoria International airport on a cross country will end up flying over open bodies of water and for a portion of the flight will be beyond gliding distance of land.

The regulations require additional equipment for these flight segments and I can guarantee few aircraft are suitably equipped.

An aircraft remaining in the circuit might reasonably expect to be within gliding distance of land at all times; however, the controllers during busy periods will often direct aircraft out over the water at 1,000 feet AGL with no hope of reaching land in the event of an engine failure. None of the operators in the tower were likely based here when a high performance homebuilt on an initial flight test plunged into the bay years ago.

 

Conclusions

There are many regulations in place to provide guidance for aviators to maximize the safe conduct of flight. Rarely, to ensure the safe outcome of a flight, it will be prudent to violate some laws.

Because of the various potential outcomes of these actions, breaking regulations should not be taken lightly. Oftentimes detailed flight planning and considering alternatives will preclude the need to consider bending the rules.

Ken is a director on the COPA Board. He lives in Victoria, B.C. and provides services internationally in advanced training, expert witness, flight test and aircraft sales. He has logged more than 15,000 hours on 375 types of fixed wing and rotary aircraft. Soaring his Diamond Xtreme is what he does for pleasure.