| Pages:
1
2
3 |
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
| Quote: |
fired and demoted.
|
does that mean they lose their job but then get rehired at a lower position?
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
you are totally wrong in that assumption
| Quote: | Originally posted by Shark18
I just read this post from top to bottom. The Loreto airport closes at 7PM. It is clearly stated on the ASA website:
http://www.asa.gob.mx/wb/webasa/loreto_aeropuertos
You'd get the same hefty charges if you landed at at US airport of entry after hours. |
after hours ARR is permitted under certain circumstances and yes OT does apply but it is no where near $1000 US.
this was a shake down pure and simple. typ mexican jerks attempting to stretch their authority to an extreme.
yes it has happened before and the perps were dealt with after they attempted such extortion. ranging from demotion to dismissal to criminal charges.
edit - by the way, Customs ARR after hours at US AOAs is a flat $25. i have done it many times.
[Edited on 9-24-2008 by capt. mike]
edit - and my ref to OT ARR above is for mex airports, it is normally allowed with no big whoop and comes in at around $300 max.
in the states there are no rules for after hours ARR except as relates to customs services. airports are 24 hrs except by NOTAM and it is the tower
that may or may not have operating hours restrictions. if a tower is closed you still may land at the airport USA typ.
in mexico if the tower is closed you may not be permitted to land except with prior permission. in any event the plane's authority is a function of
DGAC not migracion or aduana.
DGAC had no issues with the after hours ARR - just the knot heads at M&A.
i hope Pam has success with local authorities over hotels and tourism.
[Edited on 9-24-2008 by capt. mike]
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
Shark18
Banned
Posts: 79
Registered: 5-4-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by capt. mike
after hours ARR is permitted under certain circumstances and yes OT does apply but it is no where near $1000 US.
this was a shake down pure and simple. |
Well, your original post never said how much they were charged, it was x'd out. That is a big hit. But, I also noticed that they landed at 8PM on 9/3
which is after sunset. Night VFR is illegal in Mexico and night time is defined as sunset, not 1 hour after sunset as in the US.
If I were those boys, I'd probably just suck it up before they find some smart Mexican that figures that out and things get even worse.
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
"Night VFR is illegal in Mexico and night time is defined as sunset, not 1 hour after sunset as in the US."
i do not know that they were NOT IFR. but -
ICAO rules specify the beginning of night as the end of legal civil twilight which is 30 minutes after official sunset.
the tables for that date's sunset state 19:50 MDT which i think Loreto is on. so - legal VFR would have been through 20:20 or 8:20 PM that eve.
if Loreto was on MST then they were illegal for VFR by 40 minutes.
otherwise they were within limits.
and in Mexico just like worldwide the pilot may deviate from the rules if/ as necessary anytime by calling an emergency.
your knowledge of night vs day VFR with respect to time of day is flawed.
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
Shark18
Banned
Posts: 79
Registered: 5-4-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by capt. mike
i do not know that they were NOT IFR. but -
ICAO rules specify the beginning of night as the end of legal civil twilight which is 30 minutes after official sunset.
the tables for that date's sunset state 19:50 MDT which i think Loreto is on. so - legal VFR would have been through 20:20 or 8:20 PM that eve.
if Loreto was on MST then they were illegal for VFR by 40 minutes.
otherwise they were within limits.
and in Mexico just like worldwide the pilot may deviate from the rules if/ as necessary anytime by calling an emergency.
your knowledge of night vs day VFR with respect to time of day is flawed. |
Well, make-believe Capt. Mike of make-believe Screaming Eagles Airlines, let me tell you exactly what you do not know. Before I do, I should also tell
you that I hold just about every pilot's rating there is, ATR, Helicopter, Helicopter Instrument rating, glider, CFI-II, etc. My pilot's license is
two pages long. So, I think I know a couple of things.
Your quoting of ICAO rules is interesting, but irrelevant. Those rules tell you when a pilot can log night flying time to meet international
standards. Every country gets to determine when a aircraft can be operated VFR. There are even some ICAO countries that do not allow VFR at all.
Imagine that?
I also happen to know that they were not IFR, even if they did file an IFR flight plan. Here is how I know. The Loreto tower was closed at 7PM. No
tower, no control zone and no weather observer. No IFR separation. Even if they did file IFR, the final segment of their flight, the approach to
Loreto would only be under VFR flight rules. Why do you suppose airlines don't operate into Loreto when the tower is closed? By the way Capt. Mike,
where was their IFR legal alternate airport? The only other legal alternates they could have filed were either Mexicali or La Paz, due to immigration
requirements.
If you wanted to follow your ridiculous logic, then anybody with an IFR rating could fly at night in Mexico. Even if the flight were between two dirt
strips.
OK, so let's summerize what we know about your Bonanza boys: They flew into Mexico where the first landing is required to be at a legal airport of
entry, when the published data says that the airport would be closed at their scheduled arrival times, with no customs and immigration. They landed at
night time at an uncontrolled airport where Mexico's rules state that no night VFR is allowed. I think those boys got ripped off by the Mexicans, but
that happened because the Mexicans knew those boys really screwed up and took advantage of the situation.
Like I said before Mike, I think those guys really screwed the pooch and they should probably just suck it up.
Oh, and one more thing Mike. Let me tell you what I used to tell my flying students. "It does not matter what you know about airplanes, it is what you
do not know that kills you."
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
well....i guess you told me!! but enough of that Sharks, let's be friends. i like friendly debate as well so continuing.......
"where was their IFR legal alternate airport?" you ask.
if the WX at the destination, intended point of landing and at ETA was within the WX minimums specified forecast as NOT mandating a filed alternate,
then no alternate is required but only fuel minimums apply. i have an instrument rating too. i am not current however so would not file legally
without obtaining my currency.
as a CFII you should know that? yes?
we still have not determined whether their ARR was legal night or day VFR regardless of tower ops. Perhaps you obtained a copy of their flt plan
records?
you don't respond to my explantion of what constitutes day vs. night AR times. if i am wrong please state so. We both cannot be right. you are the
CFII. are YOU current to teach? i'd just like confirmation for pedigogical reasons. As you know - the FARs is like 2 inches plus thick today. i went
through the online version and couldn't find it but only as a ref to the AIM which is not here now.
and i do not have the MMLT approaches here to look at (mine are in my plane's GPS navigator's data base and MFD) but if MMMZ center had them in radar
contact which they can at certain altitudes, could they not clear them for the approach, any approach that is approved sans tower? just like the
thousands of IFR approaches to uncontrolled fields all over the USA? with tower closed the field might have been simply uncontrolled. i don't know
just speculating. but i am going to look at the available approaches to find out the restrictions. and i will report here.
i have used my make believe license to fly my various make believe planes in a very REAL mexico for hundreds if not a thousand or more hours the last
30 years beginning with flights to puerto penasco in 1978 and starting to baja in 1980.
why don't you regale us here of your mexico flying experiences? i'd like to read more. i love flying stories. you must have some. i am ever learning.
i hold only airplane SEL and INSTR ratings. it's all i need recreationally. and i HAVE flown IFR in mexico several times including getting pop up
clearances on the fly due to lowering minimums enroute while at the same time being current therefore legal. it is a blast and the mexican controllers
are much more liberal with enroute clearances making it fun.
welcome shark18 - we need more pilots here!
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
Hi guys, I asked the pilot subject of these messages, if he was flying IFR or VFR and he told me IFR.
|
|
|
Chris Holmstead
Banned
Posts: 34
Registered: 1-3-2004
Location: Spartanburg, SC (after July 4, 2008)
Member Is Offline
|
|
Having read this thread , Its obvious that Flyfishinpam is missing the point here.
Her clients broke the rules and paid the price . Just because you are an american pilot does not mean you get a pass on the local rules. I also find
it to be very arrogant of anyone who thinks that just because they own a business that caters to americans, they can somehow get around these flight
rules by complaining to the powers that be.Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Shark18
Banned
Posts: 79
Registered: 5-4-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by capt. mike
if the WX at the destination, intended point of landing and at ETA was within the WX minimums specified forecast as NOT mandating a filed alternate,
then no alternate is required but only fuel minimums apply... the FARs is like 2 inches plus thick today. i went through the online version and
couldn't find it but only as a ref to the AIM which is not here now. |
Mike, I really hope you do not have this much trouble getting your arms around an issue in your everyday life. Let me just tell you a few things that
seem to have gone right over your head here:
You gave me a bunch of stuff from the FAR's (well actually, what you gave me wasn't even the FARs as that stuff about weather minimus at ETA is wrong.
The FARs have a time window for a period before and after ETA). Well guess what, Mike? We're taking about Mexico. They don't care jack about FAR's.
They have Reglamento de Operación de Aeronaves Civiles
Let me just give you a few heads up, because you may have been flying in Mexico since 1978, but I'm reading you don't know the Mexican flight rules.
Heads up number 1. Mexican VFR rules are 3 miles and 1,500 foot ceiling (not 1,000 like the FARs).
Heads up number 2. Mexico forbids night VFR, and night is defined as legal sunset to legal sunrise, not 1 hour after sunset or one hour before
sunrise, like the FARs.
Heads up number 3. A Mexican IFR flight plan requires two (yes two) alternates.
Heads up number 4. A Mexican IFR flight plan does not require an alternate airport if the weather at the intended time of arrival is predicted
to be visual conditions, as reported in the manual of operations for that airport. That is an entirely different set of rules than the FARs.
Heads up number 5 (this one is going to make you sit up) In order to fly under IFR flight rules in Mexico, the aircraft must have two (yes, two)
sensitive altimeters. FARs only require one. By the way Mike, does your airplane -- you know, the one you filed IFR in Mexico in -- have two sensitive
altimeters?
[Edited on 9-25-2008 by Shark18]
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
Chris - the issue and concern here is that they were overcharged for any legitimate violation. reasonable and expected or published overtime fees are
one thing but outright excess and extortion and taking advantage of the situation is another thing altogether. they were ripped off for cash, receipts
not provided and seek redress. my guess is they'll get some positive action.
now Sharks - i stand corrected on all you say assuming it is correct. and i know the time window, its 1 hour before to one hour after....i didn't
mention it cause was sure you knew that. the 1-2-3 rule respective to IFR flt plans.
funny that after a late afternoon arr in mexicali years ago the comandante would not let us proceed to san felipe after consulting the tables and
ADDING 30 min to our establish our intended arr said it would be past time for legal daylight and we had to stay.
if their ARR inder IFR was expected to be visual, why did they need an alternate? you say mex IFR requires 2 alts then you say under the condition one
is not req'd?? please edify me here. like i said, i am all about learning.
the altimeters is interesting. i will check on that, i would be surprized that applies to private non comm'l ops - like 91 vs 135. you'll probably
soon tell me that mexico does not have 91 and 135 equivalents.
so - what do you fly now and where do you go?
i am asking the BBP about the mex rules stated here.
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Chris Holmstead
Having read this thread , Its obvious that Flyfishinpam is missing the point here.
Her clients broke the rules and paid the price . Just because you are an american pilot does not mean you get a pass on the local rules. I also find
it to be very arrogant of anyone who thinks that just because they own a business that caters to americans, they can somehow get around these flight
rules by complaining to the powers that be.Unbelievable. |
I think Pam is on point here. Gouging visitors for the maximum amount possible is a big change for Loreto, which has a tradition of fair and friendly
service. For people in a business such as Pam's, this change toward hard headed, and hard hearted bureaucrats is bad for business, bad for the town,
and it's in her best interest to protest.
I could go on about the obvious lunacies going on out at the airport but Paula's calling and I gotta run now!
|
|
|
beercan
Senior Nomad
Posts: 670
Registered: 4-3-2005
Location: North of da Bear
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy to be in Baja
|
|
Don, I am going to disagree with you --
I fly regularly into Mexico and I live in Baja during Winters.
My approximate 10 -12 trips thru Loreto have been anything but fair or friendly. They have cheated and gouged me multiple times to the point that I
will never return !!! Others have had the same type of treatments .
| Quote: |
I. Gouging visitors for the maximum amount possible is a big change for Loreto, which has a tradition of fair and friendly service.
|
[Edited on 9-26-2008 by beercan]
* libs, all about choice until you choose different
* B. Hussein Obama - an Empty Suit for Empty Minds.
* Annoy a liberal - Work hard and be happy!
* Arguing facts & truth to libs is like bringing a warm smile to a gun fight.
* Lets win the War on Terror
|
|
|
DR.EVIL13
Banned
Posts: 3
Registered: 9-25-2008
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pondering
|
|
Sounds like an unfriendly town.All that extortion going on.Hmmmm
A million dollars
|
|
|
Shark18
Banned
Posts: 79
Registered: 5-4-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by capt. mike
if their ARR inder IFR was expected to be visual, why did they need an alternate? you say mex IFR requires 2 alts then you say under the condition one
is not req'd?? please edify me here. like i said, i am all about learning.
the altimeters is interesting. i will check on that, i would be surprized that applies to private non comm'l ops - like 91 vs 135. you'll probably
soon tell me that mexico does not have 91 and 135 equivalents.
so - what do you fly now and where do you go?
i am asking the BBP about the mex rules stated here. |
Good to hear that after flying in Mexico for 30-years you are now going to check on the rules. Here is a source for you, it's all in Spanish.
http://dgac.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/Leyes/Rglmto_ROAC.pdf
And here is the main page, so you can read up on it:
http://dgac.sct.gob.mx/
I see from you posts that you actually do seem to have a significant reading comprehension issue, not to mention a problem with understanding the
subject matter that is being discussed. First you rattled of the ICAO night rules -- which of course were totally irrelevant. Then you gave me a lot
of FAR rules -- which are also totally irrelevant. Now you are asking me if they were flying IFR and expecting visual rules...yada, yada, yada. Mike
go back and read the posts. I never said they were expecting visual. How in hell would I know what they were expecting or under what flight rules they
were flying? If they arrived at night and were expecting visual flight rules, they were wrong. There is no night VFR, I think we just covered that. If
they were on an IFR flight plan with a planned visual approach to Loreto, they would have had to cancel IFR with Mazatlan Center before they lost
radio contact when they dropped into Loreto. That would have made them VFR at night -- still illegal. And if they didn't cancel IFR, just how did they
plan to cancel their IFR flight plan at Loreto if the tower was closed and the Commandante was gone?
Those Bonanza boys are dead meat any way you look at it. Why don't you ask those geniuses why they flight planned to Loreto for an arrival after
closing?
I no longer fly. I sold my last plane about 10 years ago when I retired and didn't need to travel for business anymore. I have owned 8 airplanes.
Besides, its cheaper to travel commercial.
|
|
|
fishbuck
Banned
Posts: 5318
Registered: 8-31-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sharks, I can only imagine you quit flying because the way you do it there is no fun in it. Lighten up dude!
But ya, the Bonanza guys goofed up alright.
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." J. A. Shedd.
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. – Albert Einstein
"Life's a Beach... and then you Fly!" Fishbuck
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
the subject here is abuse by officials at the airport. it has to stop. it is in the city's best interest to welcome visitors. tourism is our only
industry that is why it is so important. i am not being arrogant, i am and was providing customer service to my clients in order to ease their
tensions and allow them to enjoy their vacation. i did much of the legwork while they fished because they were on vacation and i believe they
shouldn't have had to waste a day or half a day with this issue. it was appreciated. the comandante was extremely cordial very open and very
concerned about what happened to these guys in the plane but the overpayment part was out of his control as he wasn't present when it took place.
|
|
|
fishbuck
Banned
Posts: 5318
Registered: 8-31-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ya, the over payment is the issue. They made a mistake but it shouldn't have cost that much. Hope it works out but I doubt they will get there money
back.
But you have provided valuable information to anyone who might fly to Loreto.
Make sure you are totally legal when you fly in there. Otherwise you will get taken advantage of by corrupt officials.
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." J. A. Shedd.
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. – Albert Einstein
"Life's a Beach... and then you Fly!" Fishbuck
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
you also left out, make sure that any and all payments get receipts. if you knew the whole story you would understand how it happened in the first
place but it shouldn't have happened at all. especially in a tourist town that relies on visitors like these guys.
|
|
|
elizabeth
Senior Nomad
Posts: 742
Registered: 7-30-2004
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Chris Holmstead
Having read this thread , Its obvious that Flyfishinpam is missing the point here.
Her clients broke the rules and paid the price . Just because you are an american pilot does not mean you get a pass on the local rules. I also find
it to be very arrogant of anyone who thinks that just because they own a business that caters to americans, they can somehow get around these flight
rules by complaining to the powers that be.Unbelievable. |
You're right, just because you are a US pilot doesn't mean you get a pass anywhere, maybe they deserved the fines, maybe not...but, you are definitely
wrong attacking Pam. It doesn't seem to me that there is anything arrogant about her questioning whether or not there were over payments. Seems to
me that it is the responsible thing to do. She lives here, she works here, she has an obligation to question whether or not a fine is legitimate.
|
|
|
beercan
Senior Nomad
Posts: 670
Registered: 4-3-2005
Location: North of da Bear
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy to be in Baja
|
|
Typical mexican response--which is total BS!
If he is in charge, he is responsible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Quote: | by ffp
but the overpayment part was out of his control as he wasn't present when it took place.
|
* libs, all about choice until you choose different
* B. Hussein Obama - an Empty Suit for Empty Minds.
* Annoy a liberal - Work hard and be happy!
* Arguing facts & truth to libs is like bringing a warm smile to a gun fight.
* Lets win the War on Terror
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
