Non-precision approach ban coming soon to an airport near u

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
User avatar
cargo_guy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:06 pm
Location: Toronto

Non-precision approach ban coming soon to an airport near u

Post by cargo_guy »

I was just recently reading the latest Aviation Safety Letter. The article about the Navajo that crashed when doing a low vis approach. At the end of the article it says that the new approach ban regulations went to the Canada Gazette part I Nov 20,2004.

Being the curious cat that I am, I went and looked it up online. Here is the link for those interested: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2004/2 ... -13847.pdf

Here is a summary of the changes coming for part VII operators:

Non-precision Approach banned if:
(Part 700.09 proposed)

- RVR or rwy vis less than 4000'
- if no RVR or rwy vis available ground vis 3/4sm or 1/2 of published vis (whichever is greater)

There are specific restrictions for 703,704, and 705 that may allow for slightly lower limits. (proposed Car 703.35, 704.30 and 705.38 ).

Also, there are provisions which allow for lower limits if performing a Stabilized Constant-Descent-Angle (SCDA)Non-Precision Approach. Special training and procedures are required.

Oh, get this, the proposed precision approach ban will be at 1800 or 3/8sm for commercial ops (with a few exceptions). But Joe private pilot will still be good down to the old limits of 1200 and 600. :shock:

Later,

Flyboy
---------- ADS -----------
  

SkyKing
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: CYYC

Post by SkyKing »

fine by me...keeps us all safer ultimately.
reduces potential pressure on pilots from owners.
i like it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2153
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Post by Donald »

Okay then, why do they use that Navajo crash as a measuring stick? One of the conclusions in the article, is that the pilot descended below MDA without the required visual references. First of all, I'm not sure how they know what the pilot did/didn't see, although I realize that with the given weather there's a pretty good chance he saw nothing.

But more importantly, if you raise the limits or ban approaches when certain vis requirements aren't met, what keeps this guy from trying anyway? Nothing. Crashes like this will still occur.

Take a look at true northern ops. Alot of camps or small villages have no "official" weather reporter, just somebody taking a sometimes educated guess. Most companies operating in this environment know when to pack up and when to dispatch and give it a go. When they get there, if it's too flat or they just don't see it, they go home. If low vis approaches were so dangerous, don't you think there would be 1-2 crashes in the north every week? The last really bad one (fatalities) that comes to mind, is the Skyvan in Port Radium back in '00. Can anyone remind of other (recent) ones?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
swede
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:47 am
Location: punksatahawnee

Post by swede »

Low vis approaches are not "dangerous". No more so than guns, for instance, guns are not dangerous - just some of the people who use them. Unfortunately, all have to pay for the mistakes of a few. I do not agree in the slightest with any legislation which infringes on our ability to do our jobs and which does not make anyone "safer". That notion is a crock, always was and always will be. You do not legislate away bad attitudes, contrary to what some idiots sitting in ivory towers may think.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

" contrary to what some idiots sitting in ivory towers may think. "

Many of whom were so inept as pilots that no one would give them a job flying, but now that ther are regulators they have a hammer to get back at those of us who can fly and think.
---------- 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.

User avatar
greenwich
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:17 pm

Post by greenwich »

SkyKing wrote:fine by me...keeps us all safer ultimately.
reduces potential pressure on pilots from owners.
i like it.
Great attitude! I wish more pilots had your attitude when it comes to IFR. Too many of us are all about 'getting in'. And I can't stand that certain group of pilots who push the limits and bend/break the rules and somehow always seem to get-in. What they don't understand is how much insane pressure them getting-in puts on the rest of us up there in a shitty IFR day!

I shoot the approach to minimums (DH, MDA, etc.) and then get the rock-out-of-dodge. Fly the missed. Then when safe ask my customers what they want. 10 out of 10 times they have said, "head off to an alternate". Never once have I had a passenger say, "ahhh, lets try that again, maybe we'll get in the 2nd time"!

G
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by greenwich on Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bizjet_mania
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:37 am

Post by bizjet_mania »

greenwich wrote:
SkyKing wrote:fine by me...keeps us all safer ultimately.
reduces potential pressure on pilots from owners.
i like it.
Great attitude! I wish more pilots had your attitude when it comes to IFR. Too many of us are all about 'getting in', and it is that certain group that push the limits and bend/break the rules and somehow get-in. What they don't understand is how much insane pressure them getting-in puts on the rest of us up there in an IFR day!

I shoot the approach to minimums (DH, MDA, etc.) and then get the rock-out-of-dodge. Fly the missed. Then when safe ask my customers what they want. 10 out of 10 times they have said, "head off to the alternate". Never once have I had a passenger say, "ahhh, lets try that again, maybe we'll get in the 2nd time"!

G
I am glad your customers always tell you to divert. But it should be your decision not theirs as you are the pilot in command. And should you kill yourself and everyone noone will know that they told you to shoot for it again, itll just be blamed on you. Its very tempting to go for it, but in the heat of the moment you need to decide whats more important, your job or your life.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
greenwich
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:17 pm

Post by greenwich »

'bizjet',

I understand what you are saying...believe me I know it's MY decision! I was simply trying to make a point that the customer in the back would sooner take the safer option as well.

Too many IFR pilots out there think that they are heroes by getting-in on a shitty IFR day! The heroes are the guys that land at their alternates!

G
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Croissant Wrench
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Hull

Post by Croissant Wrench »

"The proposed Regulations will also address the recommendations made by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) following their investigation of an accident at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on December 16, 1997.1 The TSB stated that Canadian regulations with respect to visibility limits for approaches and landings are more liberal than those of other countries. They recommended the reassessment of Canadian criteria for attempted approaches and landings under conditions of poor visibility. Following their investigation of a later accident at Sept-Îles, Quebec,
in August 1999, the TSB recommended that these proposed approach ban regulations be expedited." (quote from the gazette)

What the new regulation says in a nutshell is that your aircraft and crew must be certified and qualified (equipped and trained)to use lower minimums. That's the same principal as the CAT II/CAT III approaches.

If all there is is a non-precision approach at an airport and the vis is that bad, the ceiling is likely the no-go consideration anyway.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2153
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Post by Donald »

What complete and utter crap! The later investigation of Sept-Iles 1999?!? The crew in Sept-Iles flew a made-up bullsh*t GPS approach, and setup a constant descent to be 100agl 1 mile final?!? How is changing the rules and raising limits/prohibiting approach attempts going to save us from individual thinking such as this? Mind boggling.

In case you are unfamiliar with this crash, here is the link:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/199 ... 9q0151.asp
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
odpilot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:12 pm

Post by odpilot »

Is the limits the same for multi crew and single pilot ops
---------- ADS -----------
  

fougapilot
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:49 am

Post by fougapilot »

Canada is one of the few countries out there with such loose regulations on vizibility for landing from an IFR approach. The viz number published on the approach plates are (in Canada) advisary only. That is in effect not in accordance with ICAO regs. Now I know countries have the chioce to obide or not with ICAO regs. In most other countries, it is illegal to land the airplane if the reported viz is below the number published on the plate. Take an ILS for example, the viz is 1/2 or 2600rvr, in most countries land with the reported viz is below that number and you would be violated; in Canada the ban is much lower (btw, our approach ban is actually ICAO CatII minumums...)

In the US, commercial operators can conduct an ILS to a lower minimum (1800rvr Vs 2600rvr) provided they have the required OPS SPEC and are trained to do so.

I suspect TC is simply trying to have our regs standardized with the rest of the world. Don't worry, we aren't the only country going through this, the FAA is also "standardizing" their FARs and the Us pilots are also voicing their concerns (not to say bitching...)

Cheers,

Dan
---------- ADS -----------
  

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2153
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Post by Donald »

I don't mind a little standardization or commonality among international regs, but why use such irrelevant crashes to mask the truth? Does TC not even read the TSB findings/causes in their analysis? The YFC Air Canada incident is the only one I see them "trumpeting" that seems to make sense.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cap'n P8
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: Dorval (rarely)

Post by Cap'n P8 »

Of course in the US, almost every airport has an AWOS/ASOS and you have a multitude of alternates available in any direction.

Up here we are just making it harder for most operators to find a legal alternate. How is any legislator going to prove that you broke the approach ban going into somewhere like Webequie.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Post by altiplano »

The bottom line is that a missed approach if required is still safe. The problem is and will continue to be pilots that blow minimums or don't know when to go. I wrote Lapierre about this several months ago and it is not yet certain that this will become a new regulation.

He did write back (or at least his staffer did), which impressed me a bit...

His response:

"At the outset, I should explain that comments received as a result of the prepublication of the proposed Approach Ban Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I, are currently being reviewed by Transport Canada. This being the case, a copy of your correspondence has been forwarded to the appropriate departmental officials for their consideration within the context of the review. I should note that individual comments will not be responded to; however, the views of all respondents will be given full consideration before a final decision is made on the outcome of this regulation proposal. Please note that a disposition of the comments received, including the responses provided by Transport Canada, will be made available upon request. Should you wish to obtain a copy, I would invite you to contact Ms. Nicole Girard, Chief, Regulatory Affairs, at girardn@tc.gc.ca.I trust that the foregoing has clarified the department's position with respect to this matter. Thank you for writing to the federal government.

Yours sincerely,

Hon. Jean-C. Lapierre, P.C., M.P."
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Localizer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: CYYZ

Post by Localizer »

Too many ppl talking the talk in here .. no sense in trying to prove yourself or show everyone your balls are made of brass .. the safer the better ..
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3138
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Post by Bede »

Regulations such as this simply take the dicision making process away from the pilots and move it to the beaurocrats. I have many, many times missed after seeing the runway at minimums, but I was simply to close to the field. While we can do many things to improve safety (and we should), the only way to have zero accidents is legislate everyone out of the air. It is sad to see that this is the direction that TC is taking.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sakism
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:32 am

Post by sakism »

Non-precision Approach banned if:
(Part 700.09 proposed)

- RVR or rwy vis less than 4000'
- if no RVR or rwy vis available ground vis 3/4sm or 1/2 of published vis (whichever is greater)
Everyone seems impressed with the increased safety, but let's look at this a little closer.

The 1/2 of published visibility - let's say advisory vis is more than 2. We've only got 1 mile vis. That means we can't do the IFR approach - the one that's been designed to keep us from obstacles, etc. We can, however, do a contact approach or even cancel IFR and request SVFR (if in a control zone).

This does not sound safer to me.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

If ya cant get in IFR, ya can always get in VFR....right, Cat?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
cargo_guy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:06 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by cargo_guy »

sakism wrote: We can, however, do a contact approach or even cancel IFR and request SVFR (if in a control zone).

This does not sound safer to me.
Good point! I hadn't even thought about the contact in that scenario.

Cargo_guy
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

Doc :

There are some things I don't talk about here because there are just to many low timers who may get hurt trying to experiment.

All I can say is regulations to a point are necessary, over regulation and especially confusing regulations accomplish only two things.

(1) Keep vast hives of drones employed.

(2) Results in non compliance.

Cat
---------- 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.

User avatar
hz2p
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:38 am

Post by hz2p »

It would appear to me that the reported ground visibility is the problem.

It certainly is no help to the pilot. Since it's not helping anyone, obviously save the money and get rid of the ground visibility reporting, and ta-da, no approach ban, and we are back where we should be - the pilot makes the call at MDA/VDP, depending upon what he can see at that place, at that time.

The visibility (eg on the ground 50 minutes prior) may have been quite different - better or worse. Completely irrelevant, in any case.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5110
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

Reminds of direction given to a friend of mine by the chief pilot of a small west coast flying service.

"if its VFR take the 182, if its IFR take the Aztec, if its below IFR take the 185 on floats".
---------- ADS -----------
  

Flying Nutcracker
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:14 pm

Post by Flying Nutcracker »

Interesting mix of reactions to this implementation I have to say... Are we trying to please our boss or ourselves when we shoot our approaches??? Who is flying the airplane???

It's just a new set of rules that we all will learn to live with. Some choose to use the rules one way, some the other way.

Wouldn't it be nice for once to have ATC or FSS tell you that you can't shoot the non-precision approach, instead of having to make that decision yourself??? Sorry Boss, they wouldn't let us do it... no pressure in that one!!! Unless you're way up north in no-mans-land... different story.

We all know that some pilots will try everything, while others would rather just get the approach over with so they can go to their alternates. This will perhaps be the middle-way that helps both sides???

Like I said... we will learn to live with the rules as we have in the past years!

FN
---------- ADS -----------
  

loopy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:59 am

Post by loopy »

It's going to play hell when the vis given is almost an hour old. It may not be so bad if there is automated equipment with an AWOS or something that is giving current info. :?

Does that mean small airports where the wx isn't reported after a given hour are unusable? :smt017

Will there be lower vis limits for non-prcision approaches that give vertical guidance, as some GPS and FMS systems give? :smt102
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”