Approach Ban Poll

[Stearman]

Well I don't believe this has been done yet. We have been dealing with it for sometime now what does every one think about it?

[Flying Low]

Yep...it shouldn't even exist.

There is nothing unsafe about conducting an approach in 0/0 conditions (may not be the best use of resources, but not unsafe).

[yfly]

There is nothing unsafe about conducting an approach in 0/0 conditions (may not be the best use of resources, but not unsafe).

I agree. The problem is, it can be unsafe to attempt a landing without adequate visual reference. There have been numerous accidents related to that, which is what an approach ban is designed to prevent. It isn't perfect but some people require guidlines and let's face it, the system is dummed down to the lowest common denominator.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

the system is dummed down to the lowest common denominator.

The frightening thing about this situation is wondering how the system accepts people that are this dumb and lets them fly the unsuspecting public around in airplanes.

It really says a lot about how low the requirements are to get a license to fly public transport airplanes.

[Shiny Side Up]

The frightening thing about this situation is wondering how the system accepts people that are this dumb and lets them fly the unsuspecting public around in airplanes.

It really says a lot about how low the requirements are to get a license to fly public transport airplanes.

When you compare it to the rest of the things we let "dumb" people do, its really not suprising. It may however be more frightening if you want to think about it - though if you do you may not sleep at night or leave your house. After all it takes far less qualifications to:

* Drive our children in a school bus
* Transport dangerous goods in a vehicle
* Make sure all the oil, gas and electricity gets to where its supposed to go
* Run this country

And a lot of other jobs, that if not done safely or correctly can end in a big disaster but we trust are going to be done safely or correctly on a day to day basis.

The rules are there because, to boil it right down, people are generally "dumb" as you put it and need guidelines and rules to keep themselves out of trouble. Though since those people are probably in the majority, rather than consider them all "dumb", you might just want to consider yourself "smart".

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I take it you are satisfied that the ATPL in Canada is already at a high enough standard that it does not need to be improved Shiney Side Up?

The regulatory bodies in the last few countries I flew in don't seem to be all that impressed with a Canadian ATPL.

[FlowPack]

Approach bans are a reincarnation of "caution -contents hot" on your coffee cup.
To all the stupid people in the world - thank you.
Now when the auto stations report 0/0 because the plow is idling too close to the sensor, well...

Can the ban.

[Stearman]

I would just be happy if they just reversed it back to the old way of doing things.

[ettw]

It there and its not gonna get repealed.

I have always told new pilots that no one has ever been killed doing a properly temperature corrected approach followed by the missed approach. NO ONE!!

But there are some idiots out there so i guess this protects them from themselves. I guess.....

Cheers,

ETTW

[flying4dollars]

I'd say can the ban. Let the crew decide whether they will conduct the approach given the current scenario, situation, wx etc. That's what they're supposedly trained for and it's all part of the PDM process...right?

[Rockie]

Let's be honest here, people have been dumb for several thousand years and the people flying airplanes now are no dumber than they were 90 years ago. But we're killing fewer of them in part because of regulations which change the way people operate airplanes. The approach ban may be an affront to you the aviation god, but regulations are made for the industry as a whole. Learn to live with it because it's not likely to go away.

[Stearman]

ETTW - you say "that no one has been killed."

I don't know that it really has made a difference in safety. I am sure there has been approach to landing accidents since it has been implemented...that and how is it safer when you are conducting approaches in the far North, where it doesn't apply?

[FlowPack]

The approach ban may be an affront to you the aviation god, but regulations are made for the industry as a whole.

"minimums, no contact - go around".

If the ability to initiate that statement at the appropriate time and place make me a god rockie, you may be the first to bow down.
Personally, I thought the prerequisites were considerably higher.

[Bushav8er]

This is a rule on top of a rule.

At X distance you should be able to see the runway but DON'T go any lower than this altitude, go missed here. Why we can't even try the approach if the vis - a non-restrictive item - is below some arbitrary number is just dumb, especially when you can, for the 1 1/4 vis., ban at 1 mile, still request the 'contact'.

The whole point of the approach is to land using long established and proven procedures - rules - follow them and live, don't and you get what you deserve...but please don't make a rule to stop others from even trying!

To those that agree with this rule ...please exit now, leave the licence on the table and thanks for playing.

[iflyforpie]

It's funny how after the FAF everything is different. Like somehow 0/0 FZFG is okay for a missed if you got the report after the FAF but it is dangerous for a missed if you got the report before the FAF.

[Donald]

The whole point of the approach is to land using long established and proven procedures - rules - follow them and live, don't and you get what you deserve...but please don't make a rule to stop others from even trying!

Ok, first off let me say that I agree and we should not have an approach ban rule.

However, imagine you are the regulator. You have an MD-83 off the side of runway 34 in YYC after an approach with an RVR of 1400, a B737 off the side of runway 12 in YEG after an approach with an RVR of 1200, an RJ in the woods in YFC after an approach with an RVR of 1200, as well as other incidents. What do you do ignore them? Or come up with some sort of rule, or training to prevent this? Limiting the ability of the crews to shoot approaches in min visiblity is certainly one way to prevent it from happening again. Also, there is some sort of standard set by ICAO that Canada was not in line with. As the regulator what would you do (knowing the public has an expectation not to end up in the woods, or off the side, or doing a missed approach after going off the side)?

[Liquid Charlie]

First I will say that the approach ban they implemented here is ridiculous -- true Canadiana - it's so simple - adopt the ICAO standard and be done with it.

Now reading here there is a group who say remove approach bans altogether -- so is that a desire to return to the "gunslinger days" of 30 years ago -- there are a few of us here who experienced that first hand -- NDB approaches to 200 feet and less - zero zero take offs -- ils approaches to 600 rvr single pilot and flying 2 hours on time and heading on a back bearing and letting down to 200 feet with a map in your hand -- with an extrapolated altimeter setting) -- is that what you are looking for --

I have no problems with approach bans -- puts everyone on a level playing field and there is no argument that it is far safer - just think back -- well maybe you can't but when they passed the seat belt law -- the out cry was enormous but we all know that they do save lives -- so what's the beef with an approach ban -- it's just how we stupid f'ing canuks out thought ourselves -- AGAIN!!! and created absolute bullshit -- I love the KISS principal -- rewrite the approach ban to ICAO standards and for christ's sake spend more money on runways - all those fancy terminal buildings and little runway upgrades. As far as I'm concerned -- any runway with an ILS should be at least CAT 2

[swordfish]

Donald says:

You have an MD-83 off the side of runway 34 in YYC after an approach with an RVR of 1400, a B737 off the side of runway 12 in YEG after an approach with an RVR of 1200, an RJ in the woods in YFC after an approach with an RVR of 1200, as well as other incidents.

All pilot/crew error, or letting their egos get in the way of rational and disciplined flying, or simply a breakdown in CRM: "Runway 11 o'clock - I have control" or if you do PMA's: "Visual, landing; I have control"

You can't legislate for a lack of common sense, massive egos, or over-confidence. I don't know what the vis was when the Air France 340 overran the runway at YYZ, but there again is a classic example of a Captain who wanted to save face by saving the landing.

The real idiocy/irony of the ban is that fact that we can ignore it north of 60 (except at airports where there is an RVR), and continue into poor conditions with less/poorer/substandard/NO ground aids than what would preclude the continuation of an approach down south.

You either make it universal, or bin-13 it. Personally, I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to the accidents donald alluded to. What difference would it have made to those accidents? (none)

[Bushav8er]

Give me a break guys. We are not talking about 0/0 we are talking about the vis (CAR 602.128 specifies that landings are governed by published
DH/MDAs. - not vis) published as 1 mile but banned if it goes to 3/4 mile or 1 1/2 to 1 1/4! An approach should still be allowed - that ain't 'gun slinger' days.

If you want a 'rule' for yourselves, one that would make more sense is..."if the ceiling and vis is reported as below that on the CAP - no approach passed the FAF" - duh to simple. If you can't complete a landing from a STABLE approach with ceiling at or above published and vis as low as 1/2 to 3/4 mile you shouldn't be flying. Only until recently VFR was clear of cloud and 1 mile!

Those accidents weren't because the CAPs were wrong they were because crews didn't follow them - perhaps it is DISPATCH/MANAGEMENT that needs the training and a ban on pressuring crews and pushing schedules

[Rockie]

The approach ban may be an affront to you the aviation god, but regulations are made for the industry as a whole.

"minimums, no contact - go around".

If the ability to initiate that statement at the appropriate time and place make me a god rockie, you may be the first to bow down.
Personally, I thought the prerequisites were considerably higher.

You're missing the point because this isn't about you or your ability. What this rule does is remove any pressure your company may apply on you for commercial reasons to land when the weather isn't suitable. Late at night when you're tired and you really would prefer to just go to your alternate and call it a day, this makes it easy. However if the visibility falls below minimums after you pass the FAF you still get to display the decision making prowess you allude to here (which I congratulate you on by the way), and then go to your alternate. Except you'll have less gas and be at the wrong end of the line of airplanes diverting ahead of you who made the decision early.

[Shiny Side Up]

I take it you are satisfied that the ATPL in Canada is already at a high enough standard that it does not need to be improved Shiney Side Up?

The regulatory bodies in the last few countries I flew in don't seem to be all that impressed with a Canadian ATPL.

Never said that I was satisfied with it, there's always room for improvement and I've always made my position clear on how the system in this regard should be improved, and that starts from the bottom up, not just the ATPL. That's another story though.

In the previous I was merely remarking upon the fact that you have chosen ATPL holders to be afraid of, when they're pretty far down the list of qualification vs responsibility for public safety. Fortunately for the rest of us, the majority of those holding an ATPL have for the most part chosen to be better than the system requires them to be - otherwise air travel in this country would have disappeared long ago in a deluge of disasters. I won't argue that the system needs improving, but don't paint those that are in it with the same bad brush.

[ettw]

ETTW - you say "that no one has been killed."

I don't know that it really has made a difference in safety. I am sure there has been approach to landing accidents since it has been implemented...that and how is it safer when you are conducting approaches in the far North, where it doesn't apply?

I would like to believe that the approach ban removes some pressure from the crew flying the approach.

Lets be honest, a landing from an ILS down to DH with an RVR of 1200 feet is full of risk. How many of us, despite what we were trained, have accidently dipped the GS in a marginal vis transition from the ILS to the flare? How about that flare and touchdown in blowing snow where the rwy markings disappear due to snow snakes? IT'S A VERY RISKY SCENARIO. Have we all done it? Yes. Is there alot of busted aluminum scattered around? No. So I conclude that we are good at what we do. Maybe some luck but mostly skill developed from experience.

Does the ban improve safety? I'm not sure it does. When this first came into effect I remember watching jets doing the back course on 17 and CIRCLING for a landing on 35 due to RVR ban in effect on 35. I'm pretty sure we would all agree that the straight in option is the safest one but this was one way to get around the ban and it was LEGAL. Yet another example of something legal but less safe.

I also have to add that the ground vis portion of the ban does not apply to the areas that I fly and I'm glad. Lots of blowing snow 10 feet deep up here and the ground vis ban would have screwed us. Of course the Reduced Vis and Low Vis ground ops limitations will not be another thorn in our sides. Just reading our memo on that new limitation.

Cheers,

ETTW

PS...the LVOPS and RVOPS limitations are partly driven by ANY rvr on the airport, NOT necesarily the rvr for the runway you intend to use.

[FlowPack]

The approach ban may be an affront to you the aviation god, but regulations are made for the industry as a whole.

"minimums, no contact - go around".

If the ability to initiate that statement at the appropriate time and place make me a god rockie, you may be the first to bow down.
Personally, I thought the prerequisites were considerably higher.

You're missing the point because this isn't about you or your ability. What this rule does is remove any pressure your company may apply on you for commercial reasons to land when the weather isn't suitable. Late at night when you're tired and you really would prefer to just go to your alternate and call it a day, this makes it easy. However if the visibility falls below minimums after you pass the FAF you still get to display the decision making prowess you allude to here (which I congratulate you on by the way).

So many what-ifs.
What if you're tired. What if you're pressured. What if you're uncomfortable.
Go to your alternate.
What if you're not tired. What if the weather is different on the approach path. What if (god forbid) pilots make their own decisions.

Let's imagine for a moment, that even with this approach ban in effect, several airplanes still manage to pile in. What should the course of action be? Shall we hold those pilots responsible, or should we spread the blame around and penalize the whole lot? Perhaps the next step is advisory vis plus 75% for any approach. Or maybe an approach ban for temperature. I know, we could use a ban on dark, moonless nights too, just in case. Or maybe if your name is Bill, cuz 'a guy named Bill crashed his plane last week, and we don't want that to happen again'.

I'm not suggesting that a straight-in VOR approach in 1 mile vis (when 2 is required) should always be conducted, the problem I have is in regards to the element of decision being removed from the pilots.

I would be a fool to accept Responsibility without Authority.

[Rockie]

At my company it is prohibited to fly into known moderate or heavy freezing rain. Shouldn't that be left up to me?

Airlines have to calculate WAT data for every takeoff even if we know we can make it. Shouldn't that be left up to us?

I have to take enough fuel to meet certain criteria even if I think it's too much. Shouldn't I get to decide that?

ATC is telling me to hold short of a runway even though I can see there's no one on final. What's with that?

I have to follow SOP's even though I know for a fact there are better ways to do some things. It's just not fair and an insult to my intelligence.

There are lots of air regulations that just don't seem to make sense to me, so why should I follow them?

Get used to it.

[Stearman]

Unfortunately I am use to it.

It would however have been nice to get this landing limit thing more in line with the rest of the world of aviation. Another wasted oppritunity by Transport.