TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2120
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by Gilles Hudicourt »

https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... q0030.html



This investigation states that approach minimum regulations, and the approach ban itself, are far too complicated in Canada. I agree with this wholeheartedly.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Thu May 21, 2020 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Plausibledeniability
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:27 pm

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by Plausibledeniability »

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:36 pm
https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... q0030.html



This investigation states that approach minimums, and the approach ban itself, is far too complicated in Canada. I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Not too mention required Airport Operating visibilities as well!!

Completely agree that this needs to change.
---------- ADS -----------
  

bring me the horizon
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:48 pm

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by bring me the horizon »

"...go have a look and see where the runway is." Ahh yes, the ol' lookie loo
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by digits_ »

Just get rid of the approach ban. It's silly.
---------- ADS -----------
  
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship

matt foley
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by matt foley »

I work, and fly all, for a 703/704/705 operator. Some aircraft will operate as several categories in a single day depending on configuration and crewing etc. My last PPC ground briefing was just under an hour most of which was answering the question "Can you conduct an approach under conditions ABC at airport XYZ?" I was more confused afterwards than I was going in. Guess I will continue doing what I think is right and face the music when the time comes...brutal!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Kosiw
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 613
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:12 pm

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by Kosiw »

About 'effing time that TC got called out to get off their collective asses and make positive changes in the interest of safety.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Gravity always wins

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2158
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by Donald »

The captain mistakenly believed the approach was legal.

The captain was also the company chief pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3225
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: The Sandbox

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by Panama Jack »

Thanks for sharing this- it is very interesting.

The approach ban always had me scratching my head. I when I converted my FAA Instrument Rating to the Canadian one (pre-IPL era) a lot of mental energy was spent trying to get to grips with this. While I get that it was probably intended to provide a minimum level of safety to keep pilots from doing ”look see” approaches when there really was no realistic chance of getting in, the Canadian Approach Ban minima were an inadequate fix and perhaps introduced its own set of hazards, and this accident illustrates the point.

The FAA policy, if I am not mistaken, is that Part 121 or 135 (for hire) operations require the plated or Ops Spec minimum visibility/RVR to shoot the approach. For Part 91 (private operations) there is no approach ban but you need the required flight visibility and required visual references to continue to land. While I personally find the Part 91 standards a little loose, it makes sense to me that for-hire operations carrying the unsuspecting public prescribe a higher standard to guarantee a minimum level of safety and relieve commercial pressures from air crews.

I now fly for an overseas carrier. Don't have to deal with the CAP plates or the confusing Canadian approach ban methodology. We use Jepps and have a separate Jepp plate which shows the Company minimums for all the approaches at the said aerodrome.

There are so many ’gotchas’ in aviation, we could use a few less.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan

co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by co-joe »

Without the flow chart I'm not completely lost, but possibly slightly unsure of whether any particular IAP is legal.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by valleyboy »

To have an area where there is approach ban and another area where there isn't just shows how screwed up the thought process and the law makers implement the rules. Just like FDT there is far too much lobbying and industry influence to make the rules as they should be. Typical Canadian mentality, trying to make people happy and turn out pure crap and you end up with requiring legal advice and interpretation before commencing a manoeuvre.

I have ignored approach bans because of local conditions and did a pirep just to have something on the tapes but in reality I could have been charged because I initiated the approach below the ban. I never hear a thing so I have no idea how far up the ladder the filed report would have gone.

Back in the day with the old "below minimums" approach one would get some indication from ATC, like anyone who has tried the approach has landed, and he is saying fill your boots if you want or go to your alternate.

We have had corner turning incidents, Fredericton for one, that has motivated TC and the law makers to "dumb down" and create a rule to basically remove missed approaches and pretty much assure a landing. We all know you can't just make rule that are so complicated with exceptions and variables that confuse everyone.

A one hour pilot briefing before a ride is ridiculous and the check airman needs to bone up on his job, I have been a check airman and I know this type of thing indicates that even the check pilot is a little apprehensive as well. Doing the new course to become a TC check pilot is information overload and rule driven but common sense must prevail.

What's the solution, I think a stream lining of the rules, the international rules are pretty straight forward and in Europe an approach ban is an approach ban and you work with what your company has operationally but ATC will not issue approach clearance once it goes below approach ban limits and will actually ask what your company limits are. Canada needs to go this way and bring the rules in line with the rest of the world and ignore the urge to be influenced by the USA. This means the CAPs would be for general aviation and for companies without reduced limits authority. To go below the public minimums companies would need to have a cat 2 and/or cat 3 authority. TC will also visit LVP limits as well for reduced minimums. This mean mom and pop operations would likely be stuck with the CAP minimums as they should be and for companies who have been large enough to initiate cat 2 at least will be required to set up training and equipment to qualify.

The bottom line is approach bans should be enforced by ATC, by not issuing an approach clearance and not by the pilot, just like the rest of the ICAO would. Unfortunately, uncontrolled airspace is another animal, how do you enforce a place where an IFR flight plan isn't necessary. It should never be reduced to a point where pilots rat out pilots and of course if there is now official wx how can one even prove it as well.

It's a mess which likely could have been the post rather than all these ramblings :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by valleyboy »

dbl post
---------- ADS -----------
  

GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by GoinVertical »

Glad to see the TSB focusing on this as a result of this report...

I do find it funny though some of the things they mentioned in the report that they didn't put much focus on - especially the lack of de-icing available with 1/4-1sm in snow, calm winds, and temperature of -2... also the fact that the captain clams he had visual reference and the FO had nothing.

I'm pretty sure we all know that the skipper of this flight knew exactly what he was doing when it came to trying this approach at 1/4sm and having "visual reference" when the FO didn't... just didn't work out for him this time.

Again, despite all of these (common amongst northern 703 operators) issues, good report, and glad to see them focusing on the approach ban.
---------- ADS -----------
  

iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by iflyforpie »

The revamp is mainly needed for a logistical/legal standpoint. Tell me if I can legally do the approach in an easy to follow manner—without having to remember what a percentage of advisory vis actually is and whether it’s inclusive or exclusive and whether TC considers an LPV precision or non precision (the definition in the CARS and TCs literature conflict) and ops specs and exceptions and exceptions to exceptions, etc.

Canada is not like the US or Europe and in lots of places, a simple and controlled approach ban won’t work due to the lack of weather information, the lack of ATC control or monitoring, or many other situations where approach ban simply does not apply.

But the root cause of the problem is continuing the approach beyond minimums without the required visual references. I’ve done 50% advisory vis and made it in no problem more times than I can remember—particularly off an ILS or LPV into an aerodrome with HIALS at night. See the lead in lights.. in Canada you can continue. Not waiting a second or two after DH. Not dipping below an MDA. Not “forgetting” to put in cold weather corrections. Not because I desperately needed to get in or management or customer told me to go try or get in or else.

I’ve also gone missed with airport reporting 3 miles vis because of ragged bottoms or a low cumulus cloud or a rain squall right at the MAP.

Approach ban is like the 12 hour rule. Pilots who showed up to work drunk when it was 8 hours will still show up to work drunk. It just ruins it for the rest of us who might want a single beer after work.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

User avatar
TurkeyFarmYQX
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:38 am

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by TurkeyFarmYQX »

I really hope they can make some changes, would've made my INRAT so much easier.
---------- ADS -----------
  

golden hawk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 679
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:43 am

Re: TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

Post by golden hawk »

---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”