YYT CATIII

[rxl]

Pretty expensive toys for the amount of use they would get.

If used properly and during all phases of flight, it is hardly a toy. There is a lot more benefit to it than just being able to conduct Category 3 approaches.

HGS(synonymous with HUD)

A HUD is part of an HGS. However you can have a HUD that is not part of an HGS. Two very different things. It's not the HUD that allows the Jazz RJ and Q fleets to do CAT3a. It's the HGS.

Expensive yes. Toy NO. The CAT IIIA capability it provides is a small part of the overall operational and safety enhancements provided by the HGS. The HGS provides: precise energy management in all phases of flight, precise guidance for wind shear escape and TCAS RA, runway centre line tracking, runway length remaining readout and AoA readout with additional very definitive indication of the aircraft's margin to stick shaker. All this and more all while being "heads up".
It's an invaluable tool.

[complexintentions]

It's the Canadian aviation mentality, to disparage technological advances as "toys". To try and cheap out in every conceivable way, from using a/c without the latest approach guidance, to airports not equipped to use it, to flight duty times that allow extreme crew utilization. With the occasional A320 off-airport landing to show for it. Meh. Good god, how long did it take to make TCAS mandatory? Mode C?

All of which would be somewhat forgivable in a poor, developing country. Not so much in a supposedly wealthy, advanced one.

Sorry if this offends, but it's an embarrassment in near-2017 to see some poor guy actually forced to explain/defend a great piece of kit like HGS.

[Eric Janson]

Here's a link to airbus "Getting to Grips with Cat2/Cat3 Operations".

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1480.pdf

[corytrevor]

In Canada CAT 3b approaches are most definitely authorized if the aircraft and crew and airport are.

[rxl]

Airports in Canada except for YYZ, YYC, YVR and maybe YUL ARE substandard.
The nation's capital airport doesn't even have a CATII approach for gawds sake.

[complexintentions]

That is correct. Either way, CAT III B approaches aren't authorised in Canada. The lowest any Canadian airport has are CAT IIIA approaches with a DH of 50 ft.

Only YVR, YYC, YYZ and YYT have CAT III A approaches in Canada.

vs.

In Canada CAT 3b approaches are most definitely authorized if the aircraft and crew and airport are.

Well, sure. We have the equipment, authorization, and training to do Cat 3b anywhere in the world that has the approach for it. But the first comment indicates that there aren't any airports in Canada that do.

So which is it?

[av8ts]

The HUD is a great tool however I'm not sure if it's worth it for the number of time I've cut my forehead on it. They put a big piece of glass inches in front of my face for hours every day, they could have at least put rounded edges on it

[corytrevor]

YYZ YYC YYT YVR all have CAT 3 approaches. If you are certified for CAT 3b then you can do it. Canada does not ban 3b. I have no idea where that came from. You need 600 rvr no DH.

[yycflyguy]

The nation's capital airport doesn't even have a CATII approach for gawds sake.

They don't even have an ILS on the runway into the prevailing west wind! For years it was only a BC.

[complexintentions]

YYZ YYC YYT YVR all have CAT 3 approaches. If you are certified for CAT 3b then you can do it. Canada does not ban 3b. I have no idea where that came from. You need 600 rvr no DH.

Ok, if you say so. I'm not based in Canada and not on a fleet than does fly to Canada. But I just checked our Jepp charts, and all our company plates for YVR Cat III approaches (26L and 08R) show Cat IIIA permitted, Cat IIIB and Cat IIIC specifically "NOT AUTHORIZED". Same for YYZ.

Yet, we routinely fly Cat IIIB to all kinds of airports all over the world. (B747/B777/A330) In other words we are "certified for CAT 3B". So if the limitation isn't the Canadian airports, I'm just trying to understand why they're not authorized? It isn't an aircraft or flight crew limitation. And I still haven't heard someone say they've actually flown Cat IIIb no DH approaches anywhere in Canada.

Anyone?

[Rockie]

Complex is correct. This is the definition of CAT IIIa from the TC Manual of All Weather Operations (TP 1490E):

Category III (A) “CAT III (A)” operation - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 m), or no decision height: and
b) a runway visual range not less than 600 feet (175 m) at each of RVR A, RVR B and RVR C.
(Exploitation de catégorie IIIA (CAT IIIA)).

In Canada there are no approaches lower than these limits. The difference is no Canadian airport is equipped with the required taxiway lighting for CAT IIIb AFAIK.

[fallex]

A320, Cat IIIA, No DH/RVR 600, w autoland/autobrakes. Life is good However, good luck getting a stable RVR readout in YYT if its down to minimums. They also bought the fancy RVR system that updates continuously. So with YYT WX being as "stable" as it is, the RVR should be all over the map

[corytrevor]

0 DH is what I was getting at. Sure you need 600 rvr that's what the "not authorized" on the chart means, but really how often does that happen. Besides the wind in YYT is beyond the autoland capabilities when you need it anyways!

[Rockie]

0 DH is what I was getting at. Sure you need 600 rvr that's what the "not authorized" on the chart means, but really how often does that happen. Besides the wind in YYT is beyond the autoland capabilities when you need it anyways!

Not correct I'm afraid. No DH and 600 RVR are CAT IIIa limits, and there are no approaches in Canada below that because no airports have the required equipment. Once airports get the required equipment for CAT IIIb then TC will issue the approval I'm sure. Looking at you YYT and YVR...

[hst]

When LVP approach ban was discussed in the past the answer from company management (after presumably checking with airport operators) was that the ban was an airport limitation. If an aircraft were to land below RVR600 a taxi clearance could not be given (from a legal standpoint). That's how it was explained 10 years ago. TC has recently issued an AC that allows for taxi clearance below RVR600 down to RVR300 (75m). To my knowledge, no airport in Canada has these lower minimums published as yet. Not even sure if any operator has requested this SA. It would follow that once this occurs part of the Cat3B operations puzzle will be filled. I'd agree that it will rarely be used but many airports around the world have this lower minima for take-off and landing available to operators.

TC AC 700-035 https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca ... 00-035.pdf

[corytrevor]

Canada calls No DH and 600 rvr Cat IIIa, but ICAO would call it CAT IIIb as it is less than 700 rvr. Bottom line is that earlier someone said you need a 50 DH minimum in Canada which you do not.

[complexintentions]

Canada calls No DH and 600 rvr Cat IIIa, but ICAO would call it CAT IIIb as it is less than 700 rvr. Bottom line is that earlier someone said you need a 50 DH minimum in Canada which you do not.

From ICAO "Manual of All-Weather Operations"

Category IIIA (CAT IIIA) operation. A precision instrument approach and landing with:

a) a decision height lower than 30 m (100 ft) or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range not less than 175 m.

Category IIIB (CAT IIIB) operation. A precision instrument approach and landing with:

a) a decision height lower than 15 m (50 ft), or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range less than 175 m but not less than 50 m.

Same as TC. ICAO does not "call it CAT IIIb as it is less than 700 rvr", and I haven't seen any Cat IIIb approaches in Canada. I'm just curious as to how the definition of a Cat IIIa approach is apparently being used to conduct no-DH landings.

Just because the definition of a Cat IIIa approach is DH <100 ft or no DH, doesn't mean that operationally you don't necessarily "need a 50 DH minimum", that's specified by one's Ops Spec. Ours authorizes a minimum RVR 200m, DH of 50ft for a IIIa; RVR 75m, AH 200ft, no DH requirement for IIIb. Same as at previous company, pretty standard. The 50 DH on the IIIa is because Cat IIIa doesn't require a rollout control/guidance system, or to be fail-operational - it can be fail-passive. So looking at that YVR chart I posted, we could only do a Cat IIIa approach, and DO definitely need a 50 DH minimum. The chart specifically forbids Cat IIIb.

So I guess in essence I'm saying I'd be curious to know what other operators have in their Ops Spec - do they allow no-DH landings off a Cat IIIa approach?

[Rockie]

No DH means no DH. As long as you are "fail operational" meaning "CAT 3 DUAL" for the bus the 100 ft alert height applies and both pilots remain heads down. If before the approach some fault degrades the system to fail passive (CAT 3 SINGLE) then a DH 50' applies. Boeing has their own criteria with the 3 autopilots but I can't off the top of my head recall the terminology.

[Eric Janson]

Our company minimums for Cat 3a are 50' DH (Fail Passive or Fail Operational).

So if I was flying one of our aircraft to Canada we would have to use the 50'DH as we always use the highest of State/Chart/Company minimums.

[complexintentions]

Yep Eric, that was what I was getting at - the company minimums are governing. Yours are the same as mine. We cannot legally fly a no-DH Cat 3a approach. I guess some operators just use "fail operational" as the sole determinant for a no-DH landing if the RVR is met...? (Assuming other LVO airport criteria etc etc.)

Rockie, the Boeing concept is identical, the terminology is "Land 3" (triple redundancy) for fail operational and "Land 2" (two systems) for fail passive. It's a bit different in operation because with the three autopilots vs. two the pilot doesn't choose a specific one, the system does when it's engaged. It also automatically configures for autoland (self-test, electrical switching for power isolation etc) at 1,500ft on every approach if the approach is armed. If I'm not mistaken, I believe on Airbus you engage one autopilot at a time, except for autoland? I stand to be corrected.

Anyway, it would appear that your ops don't specify a DH for Cat3a, which I found interesting. Also I didn't know there was an alert height of 100' on the 320. Always learning...

YYZ YYC YYT YVR all have CAT 3 approaches. If you are certified for CAT 3b then you can do it. Canada does not ban 3b. I have no idea where that came from. You need 600 rvr no DH.

Never did get a definitive answer as to if anyone does Cat 3b approaches, either. Some say no, others say, that's crazy talk, of course you can. I do know we cannot legally do them, as per the YVR chart. Some comments about airports not having the taxi lighting, etc lead me to believe there are no Cat 3b yet.

What conclusion does the AvCanada brain trust arrive at?