Question from a N registered pilot.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

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

Post Reply
Supsup
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:49 pm

Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by Supsup » Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:17 pm

Can canadian operators get authorization to land below published mins?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
just curious
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 3592
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by just curious » Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:21 pm

Yes.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
just curious
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 3592
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by just curious » Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:21 pm

Yes. Pilots flying for the Canuck equivalent of a part 135, 121, or part 91 company generally work for companies will note in their company operations manual a specification in their Govt Authorization a deviation from the published limits. It specifies the aircraft, airport, and approach considerations, the SOPs to be adopted.

The main catch (and there is a bunch of them!) is that you might legally land, but then not be able to taxi.

Takeoff is a different matter. If the standard takeoff via is say a half mile, you can't take off unless you have completed sim training and a ride in addition to the authorization.

Whether you have the approach authorization or not, if you land a CADOR (occurrence report) is generated. Transport Canada looks to see if your company had the authorization or not. If not, then sadness, paperwork, re-training, and fines are generally in one's future.
---------- ADS -----------
  

whistlerboy02
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by whistlerboy02 » Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:37 pm

Yep we can land,
but not always able to taxi legally from the runway to the terminal
---------- ADS -----------
  

Supsup
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by Supsup » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:06 pm

Thanks for the replies guys. At yyt the published mins is 2600 rvr, what would your typical corporate operator be able to land with? Also, for the record I throughly enjoy George street :lol: ,
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
just curious
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 3592
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by just curious » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:17 pm

Wrong part of the country for me. But as I dimly recall it has centreline lighting so 1/4 mile
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Chaxterium
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 428
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:28 pm
Location: Probably in Africa

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by Chaxterium » Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:25 am

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it depends. Without specific approval from Transport Canada, a commercial operator may not conduct an approach unless the reported visibility is greater than or equal to 3/4 of the published visibility. In the case of a published RVR of 2600 that would be RVR 1600 (or 3/8 mile). If you have a copy of our CAPGEN check out page 16 and you'll see what I'm referring to.

If your company has the specific approval from Transport Canada (we call it an Ops Spec up here incase you aren't familiar with the term) then you can fly the approach if the reported visibility is greater than or equal to half of the published visibility. In your case as just curious mentioned you'd be good to go with 1/4 mile. This is shown on page 18 of the CAPGEN.
Supsup wrote:Thanks for the replies guys. At yyt the published mins is 2600 rvr, what would your typical corporate operator be able to land with
I'm assuming that you're company does not have the Ops Spec so you would be limited to 3/8 mile.

Again, if anyone here disagrees please let me know.

Cheers,
Chax
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cap'n P8
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: Dorval (rarely)

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by Cap'n P8 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:17 am

Then there's the low vis take off...

There are a lot of US corporate Part 91 operators getting pee pee slapped (so I am told).

I used to work corporate (604 POC). We had one CDN a/c and a sister fleet in the US part 91. We all did the same Trg, but because we had a POC, we could put the applicable ops specs on it. If they were part 135, they could have gotten a foreign operator certificate from TC and been good to go. However, there is presently no mechanism to do that with a 91, despite the fact that our whole dept was IS-BAO certified!

Tried to go to TC to get a waiver, they wanted written notice from FAA saying that they were authorized for lower, but FAA wouldn't play ball. Thy stated that they didn't authorize less, they just dont prohibit less (part 91 can depart 0/0 in th US). Ain't bureaucracy great.

End of story, we would have two a/c sitting on ramp in YYT. Canadian departs US waits
---------- ADS -----------
  

Supsup
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by Supsup » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:20 am

Cap'n P8 wrote:Then there's the low vis take off...

There are a lot of US corporate Part 91 operators getting pee pee slapped (so I am told).

I used to work corporate (604 POC). We had one CDN a/c and a sister fleet in the US part 91. We all did the same Trg, but because we had a POC, we could put the applicable ops specs on it. If they were part 135, they could have gotten a foreign operator certificate from TC and been good to go. However, there is presently no mechanism to do that with a 91, despite the fact that our whole dept was IS-BAO certified!

Tried to go to TC to get a waiver, they wanted written notice from FAA saying that they were authorized for lower, but FAA wouldn't play ball. Thy stated that they didn't authorize less, they just dont prohibit less (part 91 can depart 0/0 in th US). Ain't bureaucracy great.

End of story, we would have two a/c sitting on ramp in YYT. Canadian departs US waits
Yes Cap'n P8, there has been some mild pee pee slapping. Your story sounds very familiar??? Thanks again everyone for your replies.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cap'n P8
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: Dorval (rarely)

Re: Question from a N registered pilot.

Post by Cap'n P8 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:12 am

Are you perhaps one of my former co-workers?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”