FAA working the PR machine on the effects of sequestration. FAA statement attached.

[danielfindling]

It looks like the FAA is reporting delays on commercial airline flights to stir public opinion in favor of more funding.
Has EAA issued a statement on the effects of sequestration on GA?

Daniel



FAA Statement
Date: April 25, 2013
Contact: Laura J. Brown
Phone: 202-267-3883


As a result of employee furloughs due to sequestration, the FAA is implementing traffic management initiatives at airports and facilities around the country. Travelers can expect to see a wide range of delays that will change throughout the day depending on staffing and weather related issues. For example, the FAA is experiencing staffing challenges at the Cleveland, Washington and New York En Route Centers, the Chicago, San Antonio, Southern California and Tampa TRACONs, and Newark, LaGuardia and JFK and Regional South West Florida Airports. Controllers will space planes farther apart so they can manage traffic with current staff, which will lead to delays at airports including Newark, LaGuardia, JFK, Chicago O’Hare, Regional South West, and Tampa. The FAA also expects delays at a number of other airports because of weather and winds.

The FAA will continue to work with the airlines throughout the day to try and minimize delays for travelers. We encourage all travelers to check their flight status and also to visit fly.faa.gov for the latest airport delay information.

Yesterday more than 863 delays in the system were attributable to staffing reductions resulting from the furlough at the New York, Washington, Cleveland, Jacksonville and Los Angeles En Route Centers, the Potomac, Dallas and Southern California TRACONs and Detroit Tower. There were more than 2,132 additional delays as a result of weather and other factors.

Subscribe to FAA updates on Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/FAANews (http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTMwNDI1LjE4MTU4MDExJ m1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDEzMDQyNS4xODE1ODA xMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3NTM1NTEyJmVtY WlsaWQ9ZGFuaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9ZGF uaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2Y XJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&100&&&http://www.twitter.com/FAANews))
Get daily updates from FAA on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/FAA (http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTMwNDI1LjE4MTU4MDExJ m1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDEzMDQyNS4xODE1ODA xMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3NTM1NTEyJmVtY WlsaWQ9ZGFuaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9ZGF uaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2Y XJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&101&&&http://www.facebook.com/FAA))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can view or update your subscriptions, password or email address at any time on your User Profile Page (http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTMwNDI1LjE4MTU4MDExJ m1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDEzMDQyNS4xODE1ODA xMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3NTM1NTEyJmVtY WlsaWQ9ZGFuaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9ZGF uaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2Y XJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&102&&&https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAFAA/subscriber/edit?preferences=true#tab1). All you will need are your email address and your password (if you have selected one).
This service is provided to you at no charge by the Federal Aviation Administration. Visit us on the web at www.faa.gov (http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTMwNDI1LjE4MTU4MDExJ m1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDEzMDQyNS4xODE1ODA xMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3NTM1NTEyJmVtY WlsaWQ9ZGFuaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9ZGF uaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2Y XJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&103&&&http://www.faa.gov/).

If you have any questions or problems with the subscription service email support@govdelivery.com for assistance.




This email was sent to daniel@findlinglaw.com using GovDelivery, on behalf of: U.S. Federal Aviation Administration · 800 Independence Avenue, SW · Washington, DC 20591 · 1-866-TELL-FAA (1-866-835-5322)
https://service.govdelivery.com/banners/GOVDELIVERY/logo_gd_poweredby.gif (http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTMwNDI1LjE4MTU4MDExJ m1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDEzMDQyNS4xODE1ODA xMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3NTM1NTEyJmVtY WlsaWQ9ZGFuaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9ZGF uaWVsQGZpbmRsaW5nbGF3LmNvbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2Y XJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&104&&&http://www.govdelivery.com/portals/powered-by)

[Floatsflyer]

Come to Canada where the word "sequestration" is just another word for "not in our vocabulary" and the fully manned national air traffic control system works so well we seldom ever think about it.

[mikw53]

Come to Canada where the word "sequestration" is just another word for "not in our vocabulary" and the fully manned national air traffic control system works so well we seldom ever think about it.
It should be pointed out that Canada sold the assets to the entire Air traffic control system in 1996 for 1.5 billion dollars and is now run by NavCanada as a not for profit model.
If the Americans had done the same it probably would look and feel the same but would be run far more efficiently as is usually the case between public (where money is just a tax payer away;)) and private .

[Joe LaMantia]

mikw53,

Tell us more... I assume the Canadian govt. still writes the aviation rules and there must be some kind of system to insure that the rules are followed. Is NavCanada put through some "audits"? If it's a "private" organization who would actually invest money in it without a profit? What did NavCanada do with the 1.5 billion? I know Canada has already implemented what we're calling "NextGen" and that should be a more cost effective system from an operations standpoint. What we've seen in the US is of course a great resistance to any change, somebody is already happy with things as they are and changes could be negative for some segment. We have "privatized" some things that we're formerly run buy the various parts of our governmental system like toll roads in Indiana and parking meters in Chicago, not to mention parts of military operations, such as the Blackwater thing. Unfortunately, the US "system" sets us up for failure when these "deals" are made, all too often a handful of people get paid a lot while results remain below expectations.

Joe
:cool:

[martymayes]

NavCanada is far from perfect. They have delays for no apparent reason, just like anywhere else, they have unexplained failures in the system just like anywhere else.

I prefer that ATC remain essentially a gov. service, thank you.

[hogheadv2]

Fear mongering, Giving the "News" channels something to exploit.

[mikw53]

mikw53,

Tell us more... I assume the Canadian govt. still writes the aviation rules and there must be some kind of system to insure that the rules are followed. Is NavCanada put through some "audits"? If it's a "private" organization who would actually invest money in it without a profit? What did NavCanada do with the 1.5 billion? I know Canada has already implemented what we're calling "NextGen" and that should be a more cost effective system from an operations standpoint. What we've seen in the US is of course a great resistance to any change, somebody is already happy with things as they are and changes could be negative for some segment. We have "privatized" some things that we're formerly run buy the various parts of our governmental system like toll roads in Indiana and parking meters in Chicago, not to mention parts of military operations, such as the Blackwater thing. Unfortunately, the US "system" sets us up for failure when these "deals" are made, all too often a handful of people get paid a lot while results remain below expectations.

Joe
:cool:
This explains a bit about their operation http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles%5CNewsroom%5CInTheNews%5C20 12%5Citn0401_EN.pdf
Mikehttp://www.zoominto.com/zoomapi/ZoomButt.gif

[wacoc8]

NavCanada is the user fee system that EAA, AOPA, and NBAA are fighting against instituting here in the U.S.

[WLIU]

Be careful what you wish for. Canadian regulations require that you file a flight plan, which qualifies as using ATC services, if you go more than 25 miles from your starting point. And it is interesting for an American to have bills for ATC services show up in the mail after a short flight into Canada.

We do not want a NavUS.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Frank Giger]

It's also VERY important to know that delays at major hubs are an artificial effect purposefully put into motion by the FAA.

Every department was allowed to decide how to implement sequestration. The FAA took the lead of the air traffic controller's union (union is an old school definition of a DNC PAC) to where any furloughs would be spread out through airports regardless of the amount of traffic.

So while a furlough would have zero actual impact if placed, say, in Tuscaloosa, AL very sleepy tower to the general public and commercial traffic and keep things rolling in Atlanta, there isn't a political statement served that way.

They willfully rejected prioritization of airports in order to make a political point - at the cost of the very citizens they are supposed to be serving.

[wacoc8]

We do not want a NavUS.



I could not agree more. A couple of months ago I flew a trip from BTR to CYYZ (Toronto) and then back to DTW. The NavCanada bill for ATC services was $286 US dollars.

Fly smart,
Dave

[PaulDow]

The FAA PR machine won't work because we know the truth. This is a big hissy fit because there's finally some push back to the unlimited spending increases the government has seen these past seven years. If there was no pain, the taxpayers would think they didn't need to be taxed as much.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/04/25/LaHood-and-Obama-to-America-Go-Fly-a-Kite.aspx

Personally I like my seacrustation either deep fried, or with lots of melted butter.

Remember in November!

[Joe LaMantia]

Mission Accomplished!,

I stirred the pot! User fees get the grass roots of aviation stirred up in the USA just like gun restrictions get the NRA "up in arms" (excuse the pun)! As for the current cuts, well the Red Tribe wants to cut some big numbers and the Blue Tribe wants to spend more or at least hold the line. They cannot agree period, so they kicked the can down the road with a relatively small cut "across the board", that will increase over the next several years barring some agreement. That "agreement" will come after the 2014 elections with a "new" House and Senate, mostly the same old members. At this point, it's the best they can do and I think Paul is onto something!

Joe
:cool:

[Floatsflyer]

Canadian regulations require that you file a flight plan, which qualifies as using ATC services, if you go more than 25 miles from your starting point.

Wes
N78PS


I don't know where you got this misinformation from but it is patently UNTRUE. VFR flight plans are mandatory for international flight only, otherwise they are voluntary beyond 25NM. In lieu of a flight plan, a flight itinerary can be "filed"(beyond 25NM) which can be verbal or written notification to a "responsible person"(that means anyone). Canadian Aviation Regulations:

602.73 (http://eaaforums.org/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-602-2436.htm#602_73) - Requirement to File a Flight Plan or a Flight Itinerary

[WLIU]

Thanks for the info. When I go to Canada I rely on the folks at the FBO's to guide me to make sure that I follow their regulations. Perhaps my Quebecois "friends" were setting up an ignorant American to put a few more $$ into their system? I have noticed that Americans who do not speak Quebec French get somewhat less friendly handling. Will keep the info in mind on my next trip.

Oh, I tried to click on your link and it did not work.

Wes
N78PS

[Floatsflyer]

Thanks for the info. When I go to Canada I rely on the folks at the FBO's to guide me to make sure that I follow their regulations. Perhaps my Quebecois "friends" were setting up an ignorant American to put a few more $$ into their system? I have noticed that Americans who do not speak Quebec French get somewhat less friendly handling. Will keep the info in mind on my next trip.

Oh, I tried to click on your link and it did not work.

Wes
N78PS


Oh, those Quebecers(in the key centres they all speak english, sometimes they just choose not to) can have fun with you! But it's not just relegated to Americans, Canadians can have their challenges as well. As far as ATC is concerned I've never had a problem with english communications, afterall english is the international language of aviation. In areas outside Montreal and Quebec City, you will hear lots of french spoken on the radio but I haven't heard of a reluctance to speak english when required. Now on the ground there can be a reluctance, even in Montreal and Quebec City but since these are major tourist destinations, it's just in small pockets.

Here it is:

602.73 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft in IFR flight unless an IFR flight plan has been filed. (2) No pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight unless a VFR flight plan or a VFR flight itinerary has been filed, except where the flight is conducted within 25 nautical miles of the departure aerodrome.
(3) A pilot-in-command may file an IFR flight itinerary instead of an IFR flight plan where
(a) the flight is conducted in part or in whole outside controlled airspace; or
(b) facilities are inadequate to permit the communication of flight plan information to an air traffic control unit, a flight service station or a community aerodrome radio station.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Division, no pilot-in-command shall, unless a flight plan has been filed, operate an aircraft between Canada and a foreign state.
Contents of a Flight Plan or a Flight Itinerary
602.74 A flight plan or flight itinerary shall contain such information as is specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement.
Filing of a Flight Plan or a Flight Itinerary
602.75 (1) A flight plan shall be filed with an air traffic control unit, a flight service station or a community aerodrome radio station.
(2) A flight itinerary shall be filed with a responsible person, an air traffic control unit, a flight service station or a community aerodrome radio station.
(3) A flight plan or flight itinerary shall be filed by
(a) sending, delivering or otherwise communicating the flight plan or flight itinerary or the information contained therein; and
(b) receiving acknowledgement that the flight plan or flight itinerary or the information contained therein has been received.

[WLIU]

"No pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight unless a VFR flight plan or a VFR flight itinerary has been filed, except where the flight is conducted within 25 nautical miles of the departure aerodrome."

Isn't this the rule that forces you to participate and pay for ATC services? From say Bromont to St Hyacinthe is more than 25 miles. So it looks like a call to NavCanada is required. Yes?

As for the language, I can report that when entering the pattern at Bromont, the Unicom refused to speak English despite multiple calls to attempt to confirm the runway in use.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Joe LaMantia]

Guys,

Let's move away from the Red vs Blue stuff and take a hard look at the Canadian system vs what we have today. I read most of the link Mike provided and it provides some history and an overview but not much detail.
The Canadian federal system was "sold" for $1.5 billion that included the infrastructure and over 6000 employees who overnight became part of a "private" enterprise. NavCanada spent $1.7 billion, reduced headcount to 4800 and implemented NextGen very quickly in comparison to our FAA. The NavCanada board of directors has 4 directors from the airlines and one from the GA sector along with a govt representative. Assuming it's funded via "User Fees", then the biggest supplier of funds would be the airlines and that is why they have 4 directors on the board. Our system is in theory funded by fuel taxes, again the biggest supplier of funds are the airlines, so they have all kinds of lobbys and connections pushing their agenda in D.C. The advantage of the Canadian system today is that all the money collected in user fees is held in "private" hands so it goes back into the aviation system. Our congress has the power to spend all the money it takes in without regard to "trust funds" which provide political cover for collecting taxes. If your for lower taxes and more efficient use of funding then the "Private" sector with user fees may be the solution. Note both President Bush and President Obama have pushed for that solution. Now if you want to keep the current system then you can expect the same slow pace and high costs and continued raiding of the aviation "trust fund" by Congress. That "raiding" has been going on for decades by both Red and Blue teams, that fight is only about who benefits from the raid. I would sure like to get some more facts on the "user fees" system in Canada and whatever is being proposed here in our own congress, hopefully somebody out there can enlighten us.

Joe
:cool:

[martymayes]

All the US needs to do is adjust Air Traffic Controller pay and benefits to a level commensurate with skills required. That could save a boatload of money and not have to charge for that service. Sorry, but a controller not worth an average pay of $110K/yr.

[Bill Greenwood]

Marty, what heresay? Are you suggesting the a pilot or in the case of corporate or airlines, at least two pilots, can actually make a flight without the all knowing controller to hold their hand and be there to reassure them if they get lonely or lost if they occasionally fall asleep and overshoot their destination?:"
That they might have to look up from that spiffy glass cockpit or the fancy I pod and even look out the window?
Heck, that would be setting aviation back decades. Now some folks will say the guys like Lindberg or Dolittle may have done it just that way, but what do they know, after all they didn't have some very important people in the back who could not be delayed on their way to lobby Congress for a new contract or to the Superbowl or Masters.

[mikw53]

Hi Joe .
Here is a link to the Nav Canada user fees. http://www.navcanada.ca/navcanada.asp?Language=en&Content=ContentDefinitionFiles%5CServices%5CCharge sAndAdmin%5Cdefault.xml
No system is perfect .There are always trade offs but for a weekend pilot flying strictly VFR I am happy and secure with our system.The flight service employees are friendly and always willing to help.
At least that has been my limited experience in south western Ontario.
Sunny skies always,
Mike


QUOTE=Joe LaMantia;29910]Guys,

Let's move away from the Red vs Blue stuff and take a hard look at the Canadian system vs what we have today. I read most of the link Mike provided and it provides some history and an overview but not much detail.
The Canadian federal system was "sold" for $1.5 billion that included the infrastructure and over 6000 employees who overnight became part of a "private" enterprise. NavCanada spent $1.7 billion, reduced headcount to 4800 and implemented NextGen very quickly in comparison to our FAA. The NavCanada board of directors has 4 directors from the airlines and one from the GA sector along with a govt representative. Assuming it's funded via "User Fees", then the biggest supplier of funds would be the airlines and that is why they have 4 directors on the board. Our system is in theory funded by fuel taxes, again the biggest supplier of funds are the airlines, so they have all kinds of lobbys and connections pushing their agenda in D.C. The advantage of the Canadian system today is that all the money collected in user fees is held in "private" hands so it goes back into the aviation system. Our congress has the power to spend all the money it takes in without regard to "trust funds" which provide political cover for collecting taxes. If your for lower taxes and more efficient use of funding then the "Private" sector with user fees may be the solution. Note both President Bush and President Obama have pushed for that solution. Now if you want to keep the current system then you can expect the same slow pace and high costs and continued raiding of the aviation "trust fund" by Congress. That "raiding" has been going on for decades by both Red and Blue teams, that fight is only about who benefits from the raid. I would sure like to get some more facts on the "user fees" system in Canada and whatever is being proposed here in our own congress, hopefully somebody out there can enlighten us.

Joe
:cool:[/QUOTE]

http://www.zoominto.com/zoomapi/ZoomButt.gifhttp://www.zoominto.com/zoomapi/ZoomButt.gif

[Joe LaMantia]

Thanks Mike!,

That is a very useful link that provides a ton of information. If anyone on this thread wants to see just what kind of charges are placed on the aviation segment you can click on "Services" and go to "Charges" and download the whole PDF file. As a another low and slow VFR pilot I can see why your comfortable with the system.

Just to be clear here, I'm not advocating a user fee system, given our lack of competence with Washington politicians. But I do think one could be beneficial if we actually could take the "politics" out of the equation and develop our own system based on "Global Best Practices". Come to think of it, that is what most private companies do when setting goals and measurements for planning purposes. Unfortunately our politicians aren't measured in $$$ saved or spent, just votes on election day.

Joe
:cool:

[Jim Hann]

All the US needs to do is adjust Air Traffic Controller pay and benefits to a level commensurate with skills required. That could save a boatload of money and not have to charge for that service. Sorry, but a controller not worth an average pay of $110K/yr.

Marty, what heresay? Are you suggesting the a pilot or in the case of corporate or airlines, at least two pilots, can actually make a flight without the all knowing controller to hold their hand and be there to reassure them if they get lonely or lost if they occasionally fall asleep and overshoot their destination?:"
That they might have to look up from that spiffy glass cockpit or the fancy I pod and even look out the window?
Heck, that would be setting aviation back decades. Now some folks will say the guys like Lindberg or Dolittle may have done it just that way, but what do they know, after all they didn't have some very important people in the back who could not be delayed on their way to lobby Congress for a new contract or to the Superbowl or Masters.

Obviously neither of you has flown internationally. Our FAA and Contract controllers are worth every dollar we pay them and more.

[Joe LaMantia]

Your right Jim,

That "average pay" number will include the supervisory and management levels who also play a role in the system. In the end most of the US budget is spent on people either directly employed by the Govt. or working for "private" companies who count on govt. contracts to keep them in business, profitably. All of these people live in the same economy and pay the same prices for everything they purchase. The system for controllers is like most careers in and out of govt. , you start at the bottom and pay your dues while you work your way up the ladder. Experience counts and is rewarded, if our system is too costly then those who are responsible for managing the organization should be measured on improving efficiencies without reduces services, that means doing more with less and in some cases using technology to improve productivity. I could go on here and talk about process mapping, quality circles, managing by objectives, and strategic planning all of which is done inside and outside govt organizations. Unfortunately, Congress on the govt. side can and does "meddle" whenever, things get "over regulated" which is code for actually doing what congress intended in the first place.

Joe
:cool:

[martymayes]

Apparently, the services provided by "contract" ATC employees has less value than those same services provided by government employees, despite the fact that a contract employee has the same productivity as 2.6 government ATC employees:

"A 2011 report by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General said contract towers cost on average $537,000 a year to operate, compared with $2 million for comparably busy FAA-staffed towers. The lower costs were chiefly from lower staffing and salary levels at contract towers, which had an average of six controllers, while FAA towers had 16. And a typical contract controller near Tampa, Florida, received a base pay of $56,000 per year, compared with a base pay ranging from $63,000 to $85,000 a year for an FAA controller in Sarasota, Florida, the study said."

Contractors appear to offer higher productivity for less pay. Humm, I wonder which one most people would prefer.......

[David Pavlich]

Well, my wife flew from New Orleans to Bush International to Newark this morning. She was nearly 1/2 hour EARLY into Newark! Must have been a dandy tailwind.

David

[Floatsflyer]

"No pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight unless a VFR flight plan or a VFR flight itinerary has been filed, except where the flight is conducted within 25 nautical miles of the departure aerodrome."

Isn't this the rule that forces you to participate and pay for ATC services? From say Bromont to St Hyacinthe is more than 25 miles. So it looks like a call to NavCanada is required. Yes?

As for the language, I can report that when entering the pattern at Bromont, the Unicom refused to speak English despite multiple calls to attempt to confirm the runway in use.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

With the example you gave, there would be no requirement to use or contact ATC services as Bromont and St. Hyacinthe are uncontrolled fields. Just a flight itinery notification with your wife or mother would suffice.

Re language problems in Quebec, yes they can at times be a nuisance and annoyance at some of these uncontrolled private or municipal airports. If they refuse to speak to you in english, then just proceed with your call outs before entering and while in the pattern so others are aware of your locations/intentions and keep an eagle eye lookout.

[WLIU]

I think I see how we are talking past each other. When I read "flight itinerary", my FAA-centric experience leads me to expect that there is a form to be filled out. Are you representing that when in Canada I can satisfy this Canadian reg by simply verbally telling the desk staff at the FBO that I am leaving from that I am going to destination X?

Thanks!

Wes
N78PS

[Floatsflyer]

Yes, verbally providing all information you care to communicate to any "responsible person" including ETA, etc.

[Bill Greenwood]

My experience with flying in Canada as a U S citizen and U S pilot was in the past so the info may not be current, but it went pretty easy.
Back in the 90s I flew my own plane, U S registered, to an airshow at Abbotsford, B, C, I had virtually no problem or delay crossing the border and going through customs going in. I didn't need a Canadian pilot license , just my U S one. No problem going or coming back into the U S at Seattle.

About 5 years ago, I was invited to fly with a group based in Ontario. We sent a copy of my U S license and probably ratings by fax to the Canadian version of the FAA, I think it is Transport Canada. We got a temporary pilot license for me back by fax promptly, good for a year I believe.
One thing that was a little different than the U S was that the paperwork specificed not only the make and model of the experimental plane I could legally fly there, but one specific plane. I had about 900 hours in type but could not legally fly another one of the same type without getting specific approval for that N number. I think this may only have applied to experimental types, since the next year I also flew a Harvard, not experimental and without needing any further paperwork.
We went from Ontario to Thunder Over Michigan at Willow Run, Michigan with no real problem with the custom people in either the U S or Canada, the only small item was that the office we used on the way out on Friday afternoon was closed on Sunday when we returned so we had to make another stop.

It it pretty country up there in the summer, all the green fields sort of remind you of Wisconsin, but with more beer and less cheese.
The Canucks have lots of folks that love EAA type flying and airplanes, sort of seems like it used to be in the U S.
Both experiences have been among the highlights of my flying times.

[Floatsflyer]

The Canucks have lots of folks that love EAA type flying and airplanes, sort of seems like it used to be in the U S.
Both experiences have been among the highlights of my flying times.

Keep coming, almost hassle free and far less onerous attitudes on the part of government. Transport Canada tends to leave GA alone not looking to invent unneccesary restrictions. In 39 years I've never been ramped checked or cited for an alleged offense, in fact outside of a Transport Canada office, I've never come in contact with an official except at Oshkosh.

There is full receprocity between our countries when it comes to GA and border crossings and it does as you say, make things easy and comfortable(even since 9/11). I have a permanent US license on the basis of my Canadian one and you can do the same. I wanted it to make it easier to rent planes in the US. Funny story about that. I went to the FAA office in Farmingham, Long Island decades ago to apply for it. As a resident of Toronto, Ontario, Canada that's what went on the application form. Three months later I got it but on the FAA envelope was typed Toronto, British Hondurus(former name of Belize). How I ever got the letter is still a mystery. And of course the address on the licence was the same as the envelope. It took awhile to sort out but the FAA finally sent me a proper version. I do feel for all of you and the problems you endure with the FAA.

[Frank Giger]

Except us Sport Pilots. We're not allowed in Canada!

At least as pilots, anyway.

[martymayes]

Except us Sport Pilots. We're not allowed in Canada!

At least as pilots, anyway.

That's alright Frank, we don't allow Canada owner maintained airplanes to fly in the U.S. so I guess we don't recognize those as aircraft. At least not as safe aircraft, anyway.

[David Pavlich]

Hey Frank...is the fact that Sport Pilots are verbotten in Canada etched in stone or is there a way to get an exemption? My wife is from Winnipeg, so you can see where this is going. :)

Thanks!

David