Approach Ban

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
A346Dude
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:22 pm

Approach Ban

#1 Post by A346Dude » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:56 pm

I heard a rumour that AC's new company-wide approach ban is RVR 1800 for a CAT I ILS. Does anyone have details on the specifics or know the reason for the reduction? Has there been a change to the Ops specs?
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
pilotbzh
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:33 am
Location: yyz

Re: Approach Ban

#2 Post by pilotbzh » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:09 pm

Yes it is.....
---------- ADS -----------

goingnowherefast
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Approach Ban

#3 Post by goingnowherefast » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:11 pm

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?
---------- ADS -----------

ant_321
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:43 pm

Re: Approach Ban

#4 Post by ant_321 » Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:38 am

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 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.
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7325
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Approach Ban

#5 Post by Rockie » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:21 am

No specific reason given, but AC is backing away from conducting instrument approaches in below published visibility conditions. 1800 RVR is the lowest we can do for a CAT I and that is contingent on airport lighting. 75% of published visibility is the lowest we can do on NPA's - and there are a boatload of conditions to meet before we can do that. We do not use 50% published visibility anymore as permitted by TC with the applicable OPS Spec.

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.
---------- ADS -----------

atphat
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: Approach Ban

#6 Post by atphat » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:42 am

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.
+1. The minimums are published for a reason.
---------- ADS -----------

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2463
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Approach Ban

#7 Post by altiplano » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:58 am

The rest of the world over charted vis is the minimum...

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.
---------- ADS -----------

ZBBYLW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am

Re: Approach Ban

#8 Post by ZBBYLW » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:07 am

+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?
---------- ADS -----------

tallyho
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: Approach Ban

#9 Post by tallyho » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:10 am

Using hard numbers gives a common standard, instead of having crews trying rummage through manuals trying to figure out which reduction applies to them. Is RVR 1800? Yes, carry on. Nice and simple. Is this in any way connected to Halifax?
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7325
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Approach Ban

#10 Post by Rockie » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:38 am

tallyho wrote:Nice and simple. Is this in any way connected to Halifax?
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.
---------- ADS -----------

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Approach Ban

#11 Post by mbav8r » Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:20 pm

Have been told very recently that TC intends to get rid of the approach ban and the published vis will be the required vis to attempt the approach.
---------- ADS -----------

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1374
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Approach Ban

#12 Post by fish4life » Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:47 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7325
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Approach Ban

#13 Post by Rockie » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:13 pm

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.
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?
---------- ADS -----------

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1374
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Approach Ban

#14 Post by fish4life » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:30 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------

rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2171
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Approach Ban

#15 Post by rigpiggy » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:06 am

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?
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.
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.
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!!
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Inverted2
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:46 am
Location: Ontario

Re: Approach Ban

#16 Post by Inverted2 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:57 am

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!
---------- ADS -----------

55+
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 pm

Re: Approach Ban

#17 Post by 55+ » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:19 pm

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!
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.........
---------- ADS -----------
Attachments
Pages from TP308E-C6.0.jpg
Pages from TP308E-C6.0.jpg (187.46 KiB) Viewed 4720 times

av8ts
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Approach Ban

#18 Post by av8ts » Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:24 am

I know that Jazz has many GNSS LPV approaches that have a 200 foot DH and required vis of RVR 2600 or 1/2 mile. Depending on lighting the approach can be done down to RVR 1200
---------- ADS -----------

jjj
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:53 am

Re: Approach Ban

#19 Post by jjj » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:36 pm

I've never been a believer in the approach ban. It only makes things safer in the same way we could prevent all airplane accidents if we never flew.

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.

JJJ
---------- ADS -----------

thenoflyzone
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 2:19 pm
Location: YUL

Re: Approach Ban

#20 Post by thenoflyzone » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:46 am

altiplano wrote:
FAA CAT I min you will see charted is 1800...
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.

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
---------- ADS -----------
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record ! We haven't left one up there yet !

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”