Document Sample
saw Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                     CAT File No. C-0277-02

                                       CIVIL AVIATION TRIBUNAL


                                            David William Sawatzky

                                                       - and -

                                              Minister of Transport

Air Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 2, as am., s. 210(1)(a)

Flight when Certificate of Airworthiness not in Force

The applicant flew his aircraft when the certificate of airworthiness was not in force by reason of the
fact that a known fuel leak had not been inspected, repaired or deferred by a licensed AME prior to the
flight. The Minister imposed a fourteen day suspension.

On review, the Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision. The fuel leaks detected by Transport
Inspectors rendered the Certificate of Airworthiness not in force. The applicant elected to fly the
aircraft without the required AME signature or ferry permit, thereby contravening s. 210(1)(a).

                       REVIEW DETERMINATION                                MacPherson

August 13, 1992
Winnipeg, Manitoba
                                                                 on the grounds that you have contravened the
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION                                        following provision(s): Air Regulation 210(1)(a)
                                                                 in that at approximately 2357 UTC on November
BACKGROUND                                                       25, 1991 at Winnipeg, Manitoba you flew an
                                                                 aircraft, to wit a Piper 31T Canadian Registration
This review involves a Notice of Suspension dated                C-FEQB when the Certificate of Airworthiness
April 14, 1992 which reads as follows:                           issued under Part II was not in force, by reason of
                                                                 the fact a known fuel leak was not inspected,
    "NOTICE OF SUSPENSION                                        repaired or deferred by a licenced Air
                                                                 Maintenance Engineer prior to the flight."
    Pursuant to section 6.9 of the Aeronautics Act,
    the Minister of Transport has decided to suspend
    the above indicated Canadian aviation document
 2                                David William Sawatzky v. Minister of Transport

The Notice was issued under the authority of                get a ferry permit to enable the company to fly the
paragraph 210(1)(a) of the Air Regulations which            aircraft back to Thompson, Manitoba for repairs. The
reads as follows:                                           aircraft had not been inspected by an authorized
                                                            engineer for a ferry flight; therefore, the request was
     "210. (1) No person shall fly or attempt to fly        denied. Mr. Gagnon relayed this information back to
     an aircraft, other than a hang glider or an            Mr. Sawatzky in Winnipeg.
     ultra-light aeroplane, unless there is in force in
     respect of that aircraft                               Mr. Sawatzky went to the aircraft and took off a panel
                                                            or panels and could not visibly see a leak. The aircraft
           (a) a certificate of airworthiness issued        had been refuelled recently. Mr. Sawatzky surmised
           under this Part or under the laws of the
                                                            there was the possibility that a fuel overflow may have
           country in which the aircraft is
                                                            caused the wetness on the underside of the wing and on
                                                            the ground under the aircraft.
                                                            Mr. Sawatzky admitted there had been an intermittent
The Applicant David Sawatzky was the                        fuel leak on the aircraft that his maintenance
pilot-in-command of a Piper Cheyenne Model 31T              department had not been able to locate.
Registration C-FEQB on November 25, 1991.
                                                            Mr. Gagnon told Mr. Sawatzky he could not authorize
The aircraft was flown on a commercial Medevac trip         a ferry permit.
from Thompson, Manitoba, to Winnipeg, Manitoba,
and landed at 1:10 p.m. local time.                         Mr. Sawatzky had full knowledge that the fuel leaks
                                                            entry in the log book required a licensed engineer's
The pilot Mr. Sawatzky and the first officer                signature before the aircraft could be flown.
Mr. Bestland were scheduled to complete a pilot
proficiency ride and an instrument reviewal ride that       Mr. Sawatzky elected to fly the aircraft back to
afternoon.                                                  Thompson without the required signature or ferry
Two Transport Canada inspectors, Mr. Cal Winter and
Mr. Davis completed a ground briefing with the pilots,      The member questioned Mr. Winter and Mr. Sawatzky
and proceeded to the aircraft to finalize the pre-flight    about an overhead drawing of the Cheyenne aircraft
inspection of the aircraft.                                 (Exhibit M-5). On the drawing, the position of the fuel
                                                            tanks, wet areas, filler caps and overflow were
During the walk around the aircraft, a wet area was         detailed. The area from the fuel overflow to the wet
observed under the aircraft. Closer inspection by           area was dry. The wetness on the underside of the wing
Inspector Cal Winter determined the wetness was             was in the same vicinity as the wet area on the ground
caused by jet fuel. Inspector Winter instructed             beneath the wing. The wing fuel cell that was replaced
Mr. Sawatzky to enter the fuel leak into the aircraft log   was in the wet area.
book, and not to fly the aircraft until the aircraft had
been inspected and signed off as airworthy by an            DECISION
aircraft engineer.
                                                            Mr. Sawatzky assumed there might have been an
Mr. Sawatzky made several telephone calls, firstly to       overflow problem on refuelling the aircraft.
the company maintenance engineer, Mario Gagnon, in
Thompson, Manitoba to report the fuel problem.              Mr. Sawatzky knew he had to correct the defect before
Mr. Gagnon      telephoned    Transport      Canada         further flight.
airworthiness department in Winnipeg, Manitoba to
                          David William Sawatzky v. Minister of Transport   3

Mr. Sawatzky had knowledge of the regulations
surrounding the operation of the aircraft and his related

Based on the evidence before me, I find that
Mr. Sawatzky did fly a Cheyenne registration C-FEQB
without the certificate of airworthiness being in force.

The Minister's decision to suspend Mr. Sawatzky's
pilot licence for fourteen days is therefore upheld.

The fourteen day suspension shall come into effect at
24:00 hours on the fifteenth day following the date of
service of the present Determination on the applicant,
Mr. David Sawatzky.

I thank both Mr. Sawatzky and Mr. Pratt for their able

Shared By: