I am going to assume you haven't shot many approaches to minimums. I have shot countless CAT 1 approaches with 1200 rvr (sometimes 3 or 4 a day) and have only missed for not making visual contact a couple of times. And no, I have never busted minimums. This post isn't meant to brag about my superior ability, just simply saying that with good lighting, a stable approach and consistent rvr (not fluctuating down) you will see the runway at minimums a very high percentage of the time with low but legal rvr.goingnowherefast wrote:The recommended vis for CAT I on the plate is still 1/2sm, 2400 RVR. Is there any point in attempting the approach when the vis gets that low? The CARs may allow it, but what's the use unless you want to practice your missed approach procedures?
I applaud it all and think we should back all the way off to published minimums only just like the entire rest of the planet outside of Canada.
+1. The minimums are published for a reason.Rockie wrote: I applaud it all and think we should back all the way off to published minimums only just like the entire rest of the planet outside of Canada.
FAA CAT I min you will see charted is 1800...
AC is simply trying to move to a consistent program. If only Canada TC/NC could get on board on soooo many issues we lag on.
As I said, no specific reason was given. However when that report finally hits the street I think you will see things in Canada done more in line with the rest of the world from a regulatory standpoint. Otherwise I think pointed questions to the government as to why not are in order.tallyho wrote:Nice and simple. Is this in any way connected to Halifax?
Canada isn't the only place in the world with snow, wind and fog. Are our eyes better than everybody else's that we can see the runway sooner?fish4life wrote:it depends what is causing the rvr to be low, if it is blowing snow you can do an NDB with 1 1/2 mile charted vis and land in 1/4 mile RVR before the days of RVOP / LVOP. 1/4 mile in BLSN is completely different than 1/4 in fog. Also the octas of BLSN makes a huge difference a lot of the rest of the world doesn't operate in the types of places we do thats why our rules shouldn't be the same.
Navcanada doesnt put in the infrastructure, that is the relevant airport authority. Yhz last year was the HIAA replacing the old system that they couldn't switch ends. If I remember the A320 in question didn't have LNAV/VNAV so an NC approach wouldn't have helped.ZBBYLW wrote:+2. Honestly by going down to 50% (even 75%) we are just making up for Nav Canada not putting the appropriate infastructure and our nations airports. Doing a CAT I down to 1200 RVR (which I've done too) normally works out okay (JetsGo had some issues in YYC years back), but why should we be satisfied with that? Why not put a little pressure on NC to but some more Cat 2 or better approaches in?
There have been times in yhz where i can see the button to 14 from Windsor, but am restricted due to rvr's. RVR 1200's were standard till what 2010, fly the approach to minimums, look up, if nothing seen go around. Pas de probleme!!fish4life wrote:Not necessarily, but the vis will be called 1/4 mile but you can see the runway from 3 miles back because it's just ground blow. If you see BLSN 2 octa's it's a good sign you will see the runway if it's 8 octas you won't because it's no longer ground blow. You can get 1/4 mile and SKC in the same weather report, yet with our ridiculous Canadian rules if you land it's a violation.
The minimum visibility published for a non-precision IAP is 1sm, you won't see any NPA's with a vis lower than 1sm by design criteria. Authorization for lower visibility requirements are company specific. I didn't know Jazz and EVAS had that authority.........Inverted2 wrote:There were 3 landing accidents in a relatively short span with light blue aircraft. (AC YHZ, Jazz YAM, and EVAS YQX) all involving landing in low vis so I'm sure some changes are coming. Hopefully it will be a simpler process instead of the flow charts my company currently uses. The minimums on the approach plate would be a good start!
- Pages from TP308E-C6.0.jpg (187.46 KiB) Viewed 4720 times
In a pre approach ban world - have you ever shot an approach when the FSS or tower was reporting pea soup only to have the runway materialize well above minima? Have you ever shot an approach when the weather was reported as sunshine and lollipops only to find a windscreen full of cloud at minimums? I have had both - and when the weather did not cooperate I went around.
Approach bans don't do shite.
Not always. There are conditions for having a CAT I approach with RVR 1800 ft. Centerline lighting (CL), touchdown zone lights (TDZL) and high intensity approach lights are required.altiplano wrote:
FAA CAT I min you will see charted is 1800...
If the runway is not so equipped, the minimums are higher, usually 2400 ft.
If the aircraft is equipped with a HUD, they may shoot the approach down to RVR 1800ft, even without CL or TDZL.
They also have Special authorization CAT I and CAT II (SA CAT I/II). SA CAT I is basically a CAT I with 150ft/RVR 1400 minimums, because of the use of a HUD.
Same thing for a SA CAT II. No CL and TDZL required if you have a HUD.
So you see, the FAA also has different approach bans, depending on OPS SPECS and such. The main difference being, the FAA publishes these lower minimums directly on the approach charts. NavCan doesn't.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation ... O12002.pdf