EMB
I'll stand behind my earlier comment re 'recommended'.
If you read the NAS 2C SGM 10/05, and AIP ENR Page 1.4-6, specifically 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, and consider CAR 166 defines 'in the vicinity of' rather than recommended procedures, I think you will agree:
1. A pilot operating by the NAS2C material or AIP could claim to have operated legally under appropriate guidance.
2. The calls are
recommended - for high speed at 30 Nm not 10 Nm.
3. CAR 166 would not hold up as a penalty point provider, particularly as the NAS2C material defines the CTAF as a procedure not a dimension.
There's even a let out in the AIP where operational considerations prevent calls.
Too much prescription and the CAR 166 unable to cope with reality.
Re comments of others about the USA. The USA NAS is now probably as old as the Harvard and that's tired, out of date, and needing lots of care. After my recent ride in a Jeep, I don't hold the USA up as excellent in any way. Perhaps WE need to define our airspace and procedures to suit OUR country which is entirely different to the USA. (sorry Dick)
Wonder what the Toyota definitions of airspace could bring us
