Anyone know what this is about? Taken from north.cbc.ca
New landing rules concern northern airlines
WebPosted Apr 8 2004 08:20 AM CDT
YELLOWKNIFE - New rules proposed by Transport Canada may mean fewer northern flights may get to their intended destinations because of bad weather.
Transport Canada wants to increase the visibility standards a pilot must meet before landing a plane.
If those standards are not met, the proposed rules wouldn't allow a pilot to fly in lower to get a closer look at the runway.
That's something northern pilots often do during snowstorms.
An official with Transport Canada says the new rules are likely to have a big effect on northern airlines.
"Some of the aircraft that may be operating, some of the airports, are going to be smaller and may not have all the technological capabilities that other airports may have across the country," says department spokesperson Peter Coyles.
"This will provide a significant enhancement for safety for people in the North, in that it will stop the beginning of a landing of an aircraft at an airport should the weather conditions not be suitable."
Don Douglas, the executive director of the Northern Air Transport Association says he's worried the proposed regulation is bad news for northern airlines.
Douglas says it means planes won't be able to land at airports with bad weather as often. He says that will mean airline service in the North will deteriorate.
Douglas says the Northern Air Transport Association will be lobbying Transport Canada to keep the regulations the way they are.
New Rules?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Transport " considers?? "
Transport is an out of ideas monster with nothing better to do that dream up new ideas.
The problem is their efforts are directed toward building an ever bigger bureauracy to pad their paycheques.
Like all politicians they found a mantra that the public can not find fault with and the mantra is the constant use of the word " safety " to justify the most bizzare of ideas.
Fasten your seat belts, it's going to get worse.
Cat
Transport is an out of ideas monster with nothing better to do that dream up new ideas.
The problem is their efforts are directed toward building an ever bigger bureauracy to pad their paycheques.
Like all politicians they found a mantra that the public can not find fault with and the mantra is the constant use of the word " safety " to justify the most bizzare of ideas.
Fasten your seat belts, it's going to get worse.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Perhaps if companies actually flew according to the regulations instead of going below minimums on non-precision approaches or fly VFR in what are basically IFR conditions, it wouldn't be an issue. All we need is a regulator with some teeth to lean on the bad egg operators. whip
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Loopy :
Yes, and if the owners, operators who have been guilty of this intimidation of crews were dealt with on a serious level it would make things easier.
But it ain't gonna happen.........I've seen it for over fifty years and the culture has always been the same.....
If this were a third world country the owners could just pay bribes, but it is a little more refined in our wonderful country.
Just take a look at the Liberals and then connect the dots.......
Cat
Yes, and if the owners, operators who have been guilty of this intimidation of crews were dealt with on a serious level it would make things easier.
But it ain't gonna happen.........I've seen it for over fifty years and the culture has always been the same.....
If this were a third world country the owners could just pay bribes, but it is a little more refined in our wonderful country.
Just take a look at the Liberals and then connect the dots.......
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Loopy..
With you as far as safety is concerned, but try flyin 150 miles from your base to a dirt strip, without a taf for 300 miles, and an auto station cronicaly unreliable reading 100 ovc 1 min and 2500 few the next, and we are 1 hr enroute. We'd never leave
We are paid to make good decisions, not read rule books. I agree there is no room for cowboys, but let us get the job done, with good judgement and experience.
With you as far as safety is concerned, but try flyin 150 miles from your base to a dirt strip, without a taf for 300 miles, and an auto station cronicaly unreliable reading 100 ovc 1 min and 2500 few the next, and we are 1 hr enroute. We'd never leave
We are paid to make good decisions, not read rule books. I agree there is no room for cowboys, but let us get the job done, with good judgement and experience.
-
Bcn-In-Bnd
- Rank 3
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:29 pm
- Location: NWO
This is mainly as a result of the Air Canada accident in Fredericton in 1997.
Right now, landings are only governed by Decision Height or Minimum Descent Altitude, and the landing visibility on the charts is a recommended visibility that, being met, should probably be enough for you to safely manoeuvre to a landing from DH or MDA.
Transport would like to include visibility as a legal requirement for landing. I'm not sure what form it's going to be, but I imagine it would be something like you will legally have to have 1/2 mile visibility if you use the ILS approach at an airport to landing.
A good summary of the accident can be found here:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1997/971216-0.htm
Here's a paragaph reproduced from aviation-safety.net about the accident:
Although for the time of the approach the weather reported for Fredericton--ceiling 100 feet and visibility mile--was below the 200-foot decision height and the charted ½ -mile (RVR 2600) visibility for the landing, the approach was permitted because the reported RVR of 1200 feet was at the minimum RVR specified in CAR 602.129
Full text of the TSB findings from the Fredericton accident can be found here:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/communiqu ... int_view=1
The paragraph relevant to this post is:
In order to reduce the risk of accidents in poor weather during the approach and landing phases of a flight, the Board has recommended that the Department of Transport reassess approach and landing criteria for this type of instrument approach, taking into account such conditions as the actual visibility on the runway, the approach and runway lighting, the aircraft's onboard equipment, and the pilots' qualifications and recurrent training.
Basically what I expect to see is that the visibility numbers next to your landing minima will be a legal requirement. No more ILS's with visibility 3/8 of a mile unless you have special training, or no more NDB approaches at certain northern strips unless the visibility is 1 1/2 miles etc. I have no idea what they are going to do about the many strips with no weather reporting. Perhaps they'll let the PIC make the final decision, which seems to have worked mostly okay up until now.
Right now, landings are only governed by Decision Height or Minimum Descent Altitude, and the landing visibility on the charts is a recommended visibility that, being met, should probably be enough for you to safely manoeuvre to a landing from DH or MDA.
Transport would like to include visibility as a legal requirement for landing. I'm not sure what form it's going to be, but I imagine it would be something like you will legally have to have 1/2 mile visibility if you use the ILS approach at an airport to landing.
A good summary of the accident can be found here:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1997/971216-0.htm
Here's a paragaph reproduced from aviation-safety.net about the accident:
Although for the time of the approach the weather reported for Fredericton--ceiling 100 feet and visibility mile--was below the 200-foot decision height and the charted ½ -mile (RVR 2600) visibility for the landing, the approach was permitted because the reported RVR of 1200 feet was at the minimum RVR specified in CAR 602.129
Full text of the TSB findings from the Fredericton accident can be found here:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/communiqu ... int_view=1
The paragraph relevant to this post is:
In order to reduce the risk of accidents in poor weather during the approach and landing phases of a flight, the Board has recommended that the Department of Transport reassess approach and landing criteria for this type of instrument approach, taking into account such conditions as the actual visibility on the runway, the approach and runway lighting, the aircraft's onboard equipment, and the pilots' qualifications and recurrent training.
Basically what I expect to see is that the visibility numbers next to your landing minima will be a legal requirement. No more ILS's with visibility 3/8 of a mile unless you have special training, or no more NDB approaches at certain northern strips unless the visibility is 1 1/2 miles etc. I have no idea what they are going to do about the many strips with no weather reporting. Perhaps they'll let the PIC make the final decision, which seems to have worked mostly okay up until now.
I've read a metar that said OVC 500, 1/2sm..
We were heading to timmins and we were at North Bay, clear blue skies all around. You're telling me that the weather had just disappeared before we got to Timmins that day?
Mets and Tafs are frequently incorrect.
OW, I'd have to agree with Groo, sometimes you just need to do what looks correct even though paper says otherwise.
It's like our last discussion about flight times, someone mentioned they've been able to fly longer then they're allowed to, but on some occasions they were fatigued and wouldn't fly even though legally the operator could insist they fly since their duty day isn't up.
TC is quick to blame the PIC for any mishap, so if they're going to blame everything on the PIC maybe the PIC should be allowed to make his own rules and decisions. The way it's now is TC is in Command and the Pilot is the one who takes the lumps.
We were heading to timmins and we were at North Bay, clear blue skies all around. You're telling me that the weather had just disappeared before we got to Timmins that day?
Mets and Tafs are frequently incorrect.
OW, I'd have to agree with Groo, sometimes you just need to do what looks correct even though paper says otherwise.
It's like our last discussion about flight times, someone mentioned they've been able to fly longer then they're allowed to, but on some occasions they were fatigued and wouldn't fly even though legally the operator could insist they fly since their duty day isn't up.
TC is quick to blame the PIC for any mishap, so if they're going to blame everything on the PIC maybe the PIC should be allowed to make his own rules and decisions. The way it's now is TC is in Command and the Pilot is the one who takes the lumps.
One of you older experienced guys like Ol'feller or Cat correct me if I'm wrong: Didn't once upon a time, if I heard correctly from one or more of my mentors, those landing visibilites, were they not restrictive? I thought they changed to advisory in more recent times? 
If that's the case, we may be going full circle.
If that's the case, we may be going full circle.
-
Jet Dog
- Rank 3
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:38 pm
- Location: If I knew that I wouldn't be lost
if they raise the mins, I can bet there'll probably be more guys busting mins, after all lets say the current 800-2 for non-prec. transport raises to say 1000-2, while lil' jonny pilot made the approach hundreds of times to 800 safely....and those bases are say 'round 900, hmm.. what will lil' jonny do...????
-
Bcn-In-Bnd
- Rank 3
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:29 pm
- Location: NWO
From what I have been hearing. TC is in the finel process of making this LAW.
By the way people an approach ban is an appraoch ban.
If the CAPS say you need 2 miles, then you need two miles to start the approach. (or at least finish it)
There will be no more of this "lets just go have a look see" stuff.
By the way people an approach ban is an appraoch ban.
If the CAPS say you need 2 miles, then you need two miles to start the approach. (or at least finish it)
There will be no more of this "lets just go have a look see" stuff.
-
Swamp Donkey
- Rank 3
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:56 pm
- Location: West
Yes for all domestic and foreign aircraft operating in the US the visibilities are legally governing. The lowest RVR that you will see on an ILS is 1800 RVR and it will be a Cat II runway with centre line lighting. Although not all runways with centre line lighting have RVR’s as low as 1800 some are 2600. The MDA, decision height, required visibilities are determined by the runway environment and lighting. If you get into special training and or aircraft equipment (Cat II, duel and triple auto pilots, and heads up displays) the limits can be reduced under special authorization.Swamp Donkey wrote:apparently those "advisory" vis's on the Jep plates for the States are law and are definately governing! Any guys doing charters in the States know for sure?
I think TC is working on the same thing in Canada but have not seen any “papers
” on it.
loopy, your comments have me thinking and that is always dangerous. I can remember when I was a kid and just got my drivers licence, cops used to be able to pull us over and charge us with speeding because "in his expert opinion" but enough people challenged this that they put out rubber hoses to time you across a known distance and then finally radar. The same thing happens to IFR minima. Take-off is governed by visibility because you as a pilot are in the same boat as the "regulators" and use the same criteria to determine vis. In a court of law, it is a battle of the lawyers. For landing, having the runway environment in sight at minimums is required, but if you say you have the runway environment in sight, who is there to dispute it. Now RVR is like a radar, someone has a device that will measure vis along the landing runway so they give you the benifit of the doubt and say if the MEASURED visibility is below a certain standard. you cannot complete the approach. What we call the approach ban. I have not had time to study this but I will. It might be a good discussion for a recurrent ground school. I will keep you posted. It is quite obvious that the reporters do not have a firm grasp of what the problem is and are trying not to envoke a lot of technical mumbo jumbo that all makes sense to us but to the average reader??? Anmyway, stay tuned, it could get ugly.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
-
Mostly Harmless
- Rank 5
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
- Location: Betelgeuse
Transport has been working on aligning the CAR’s with the FAR’s for years now, so no surprise here. The only problem is that we are not the US; we don’t have the same level of nav aids and approach aids that are available south of the boarder. We don’t have an ILS on almost every runway in the country, nor can we afford it. That fact doesn’t seem to go across to well in Ottawa, where if it isn’t an airline it’s not really that important. Our government has no concept of the fact that general aviation makes up the majority of aircraft movements and employs most of us pilots. I wonder where the pilots for the airlines will come from after the government successfully kills the “small” aircraft industry in this country. Do you see the Air Canada Flight Academy in our future?
