How can pilots and air operators be expected to operate legally (as well as safely and efficiently) when they are the subjects of such duplicity from the very service that is supposed to exist to assist them?
What a mess! I agree with Cat Driver’s comment.
I saw this coming about ten years ago when I was back here in Canada on time off, it was the introduction of the AOR...( I think that is the correct acronym? ) anyhow at the time I had a friend in FSS who told me about it and as soon as I heard about it I knew there was going to be big problems with Nav Can people having to choose between ratting out every little incident that could be possibly considered out of the ordinary as well as contrevention of the regulations.
It is obviously getting worse and quite frankly I can not understand the mentality of todays pilots putting up with this kind of crap.
The sooner a real open rift gets underway between flight crews and the Nav Can employees the sooner this mess will be cleaned up.
Seems TC has found a way to sit on their asses and force one segment of aviation to rat out another segment of aviation...what a fuckin deplorable situation......
If I have this all wrong then I will of course change my opinion.
---------- ADS -----------
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.
The reality is all parties (TC, FAA, ALPA, ATAC, etc ) realize that runway incursions are a signifiant risk. Is there a reason YYC, YWG, YYJ, YOW shouldn't have the ICAO standard markings ie Wigwags, etc???
Over all both TC and the industry have performed poorly. ATAC knew about this for years and just assumed TC would look after it or cx/delay it. TC made the rules but they gave plenty of notice. Most airlines issued last minute bulletins regarding this issue even though they knew about last summer for sure and probably air.
At hillybilly air where I work we knew about it in early August.
In reality if the airport has a plan in place then things will still move but at a lower pace (they probably should).
My first trip to YHZ we missed on the CAT 1 (33???) and then landed on the Cat 2 (24?)Neither of us had been there before. After landing we pulled out the taxi chart to try and figure out where to clear. We taxied to the apron and then got towed to the gate because we couldn't find it safely. It was no where near 1200 rvr by the terminal. If it would have been BOS or YYZ it would have been very interesting.
I'm glad I have never felt that disoriented in the air. I could have used a garmin car GPS that day.
How can pilots and air operators be expected to operate legally (as well as safely and efficiently) when they are the subjects of such duplicity from the very service that is supposed to exist to assist them?
What a mess! I agree with Cat Driver’s comment.
I saw this coming about ten years ago when I was back here in Canada on time off, it was the introduction of the AOR...( I think that is the correct acronym? ) anyhow at the time I had a friend in FSS who told me about it and as soon as I heard about it I knew there was going to be big problems with Nav Can people having to choose between ratting out every little incident that could be possibly considered out of the ordinary as well as contrevention of the regulations.
It is obviously getting worse and quite frankly I can not understand the mentality of todays pilots putting up with this kind of crap.
The sooner a real open rift gets underway between flight crews and the Nav Can employees the sooner this mess will be cleaned up.
Seems TC has found a way to sit on their asses and force one segment of aviation to rat out another segment of aviation...what a fuckin deplorable situation......
If I have this all wrong then I will of course change my opinion.
Your right CAT it should be like the good old days at church. Were you the drunk perverted priest who was relocated every couple of years or the altar boy he preyed on?? Everyone knew but nobody said or did anything. This syetm is far from perfect but there are enuf positives to try and work with it.
95% of Cador's are dealt with very easily thru SMS and the local POI.
The only way you can land with lower than the required taxi vis, is if the weather was above the min requirement prior to the FAF (like the approach ban). If it drops after that point, you are permitted to land, and then taxi in, despite the lower vis.
Your right CAT it should be like the good old days at church. Were you the drunk perverted priest who was relocated every couple of years or the altar boy he preyed on?? Everyone knew but nobody said or did anything. This syetm is far from perfect but there are enuf positives to try and work with it.
Whatever turns your crank bobcaygeon, the only concern I have now is if I have no choice but to fly on an airline to get someplace I can't drive to or take a train. You can rationalize it any way you want because it is not me that has to get my nuts felt by some moron working as a so called security person just to work in a environment where every move I make is subject to someone writing me up for the most insignificant of errors or a violation of some ruel no one really understands.......at least there seems to be a lot of pilots posting here who don't understand the rules...great system you have to work in .
The truth is going to an airport today to fly somewhere has become one of the most unpleasant experiences in society......so it is all yours friend enjoy it.
95% of Cador's are dealt with very easily thru SMS and the local POI.
Hey if you enjoy the experience and it's your thing to work in that mindset like I said above enjoy, as for me I don't enjoy that lifestyle that's why I quit.
By the way is it O.K. with you if your local POI is a real asshole, what do you do then, bend over and pretend he is your priest?
---------- ADS -----------
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.
Pratt X 3 wrote: Since 1/8SM was being reported, technically no-one should have been moving on the airport.
If the visibility is less than the published vis for the runway or aerodrome an aircraft can taxi "for other purposes and is taxiing in accordance with the aerodrome's published RVOP/LVOP". (from the CAP Gen). The way I read it is that you CAN taxi with visibility zero provided you are just moving from place to place on the aerodrome and provided that the aerodrome has a "published RVOP/LVOP". I suppose the lack of published procedures is the issue here. I'm not aware of any "published" low visibility procedures in the CFS or CAP. YVR used to have a Low Vis Taxi Chart in the CAP, but it has been removed.
Does anyone know where these procedures are or will be published?
I haven't read into this yet. Mostly because I'm too lazy and think its ridiculous. What about uncontrolled airports with an auto station? What about localized phenomenon? Prince Rupert comes to mind where often in the fall the fog will sit just on the ocean side of the runway - where the auto station is- and be reporting 1/4 or1/8 all day while the runway itself is blue sky from one end to the other? Can the prevailing vis then be overruled by pirep?
Aerodrome Operating Visibility is the newest term to be introduced. Of course, there hasn't been an official definition published. According to the information published in the Advisory Circular 300-003 (which is paraphrased in the CAP GEN):
4.2 Aerodrome Operating Restrictions – Visibility
1. Paragraph 602.96(2)(b) of the CARs requires that before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) of the aircraft shall be satisfied that the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.
2. One factor that needs to be considered to ensure compliance with paragraph 602.96(2)(b) of the CARs is the Aerodrome Operating Visibility.
3. The visibility with respect to an aircraft is less than the minimum visibility required for taxi, take-off or landing if:
a. where the aerodrome does not have published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR located on the aerodrome, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than any of that aerodrome's operating visibility restrictions published in the CFS; or
b. where the aerodrome has published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations pertaining to the runway of the intended operation in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR or the runway visibility serving that runway, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than the aerodrome's operating visibility restriction published in the CFS for that runway.
4. Where the observed visibility as set out in paragraphs 4.2 (3)(a) and (b) of this AC, is less than the minimum visibility published in the CFS, taxi operations shall be deemed to be occurring below the published aerodrome operating visibility, except when:
a. visibility deteriorates below the published aerodrome operating visibility after the aircraft has commenced taxi for take-off;
b. visibility deteriorates below the published aerodrome operating visibility after the aircraft has landed and is taxiing to the destination on the aerodrome; or
c. the aircraft is taxiing on the manoeuvring area for purposes other than take-off or landing as authorized by the aerodrome operator in accordance with the aerodrome's RVOP/LVOP.
5. Where the observed visibility as set out in paragraphs 4.2 (3)(a) and (b) of this AC, is less than the minimum visibility published in the CFS, an aircraft landing shall be deemed to occur below the published aerodrome operating visibility, except where:
a. at the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the Final Approach Fix (FAF) inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted;
b. the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR and the ground visibility is equal to or greater than the minimum visibility;
c. the ground visibility is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum ground visibility and the RVR is equal to or greater than the minimum visibility;
d. both the RVR and the ground visibility are varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum visibility; or
e. prior to 1,000 feet above aerodrome elevation the PIC determines that a localized meteorological phenomenon is affecting the ground visibility by observing that the runway of intended landing and the taxi route to the destination on the aerodrome are seen and recognized.
As you can see in paragraph 5(e), they have provided for a localized phenomenon.
Why does everything have to be so difficult. 3/4 of this, unless you have an ops spec. for that.... unless you're a private operator and then you can do whatever you want.
ONE set of rules, ONE number in ONE publication. Somebody is going to drive an aircraft into the ground or run out of fuel trying to figure out if they can legally shoot an approach. Take the Cap, put a number that when below, an approach is not authorized EVER. ATC will not clear you for an approach without making it clear that that you will be breaking the rules.
Taxi vis is even dumber. If the higher ups, who fly 6.2 hours a year in a citation at 95 kts, 300 miles from touchdown with gear down and full flaps, decide we need this then so be it. We can't change their mind with logic and reason, it's been tried before. Make it idiot proof. Apparently we aren't smart enough to decide if we can move around without bumping into things, so put a number in the cap; Something like MIN VIS FOR TAXI = 1/2sm.
If we allow this ridiculousness to continue, it will be absolutely impossible to fly around in 10 years. We'll be required to have 6 autopilots, 5 crew members (4 of whom are MPL holders), need 10 hours of reserve fuel and can only fly on even days when it's sunny; Unless authorized by the minister.
Taxi vis is even dumber. If the higher ups, who fly 6.2 hours a year in a citation at 95 kts, 300 miles from touchdown with gear down and full flaps, decide we need this then so be it. We can't change their mind with logic and reason, it's been tried before. Make it idiot proof.
The idiots are the ones who are writing this crap.
What Canadian aviation needs is a revolution to get rid of idiots writing all these convoluted moronic rules that even a room full of lawyers would have problems figuring out what in @#$! it means.
Thank you God / Allah or whoever is in charge for allowing me to retire relatively sane.
---------- ADS -----------
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.
Airlines have recently met with TC on the issue of RVOP/LVOP and the rest of the taxi BS.
Despite this - the likes of Air Canada, WestJet, and the rest were unable to come away with clear guidance to pass on to their flight ops departments.
I wish I was allowed to publish the contents of that communication.
Ergo - TC was unable to clarify how their own rules impact normal day to day ops, when exactly exceptions apply, and how pilots are to make the correct choices in the heat of the moment. It also seems that various airports have various spins on interpreting the rules as well to make things worse.
As a consequence, my approach planning will commence no later than 250nm prior to an approach as I sit in cruise with my COM in my lap and a fist full of plates as I work through the rules and draw a quick spreadsheet of permutations in the event of a runway/weather changes and what to do as changes happen inside or outside the FAF. I will also balance this with the approach ban and everything else that is required knowledge. I will also try not to confuse these ops specs with the other governing ops specs from other countries that are within my normal area of operation. For trips that are 250hm or shorter - well - I guess I just added 10 minutes to my preflight duties. I work for WS so I guess that means less grooming for me on 6 leg days!!!
Despite my best efforts to be procedurally correct - I will likely make an error eventually. It will likely be at the end of a 12 hour day on the last day of a pairing. Then some dude with a shitty little tie on who is not remotely capable of doing my job will throw the book at me because of the placement of a comma within a sentence.
A couple of months ago I was flying a missed and heading to my alternate where the weather 800 and a mile. It was good enough to land safely, but 20 minutes out I thought I might have to choose another alternate because of the approach ban. So I whipped out my plates and checked. I was safe to fly the approach, the approach ban came into effect at 3/4 for that side, for the other side it would have been 1 1/4. That would mean I would have to go to my second alternate. Good thing I put on enough fuel to navigate around all these safety regulations.
Pratt X 3 wrote:As you can see in paragraph 5(e), they have provided for a localized phenomenon.
Of course, that is only a provision for landing. CYYQ occasionally has a very low RVR on Runway 15/33 with a ground visibility much higher. I've seen RVR <3000, and visibility 5SM.
According to the rules, as I read them, we could not depart if the RVR is below 2600' even though visibility at the other end of the airport is VFR.
bobcaygeon wrote: Is there a reason YYC, YWG, YYJ, YOW shouldn't have the ICAO standard markings ie Wigwags, etc???
Those airports probably should have those things in place. What about all the other aerodromes in Canada?? There are many, many aerodromes where these things are not only virtually impossible to install but also ridiculously unnecessary.
3. The visibility with respect to an aircraft is less than the minimum visibility required for taxi, take-off or landing if:
a. where the aerodrome does not have published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR located on the aerodrome, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than any of that aerodrome's operating visibility restrictions published in the CFS; or
b. where the aerodrome has published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations pertaining to the runway of the intended operation in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR or the runway visibility serving that runway, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than the aerodrome's operating visibility restriction published in the CFS for that runway.
For an airport does not have a published procedure for taxi, take-off and landing, when the rvr is below 2600 for a certain runway, but the vis is great due to localized phenomenon you still cannot taxi for takeoff from a runway with no rvr or even from a runway reporting rvr above 2600?????
