Approach ban / RVR

[Flyca30]

I am looking for a clear explanation on how to interpret Canadian approach ban regulations. Here’s the situation:

At airport XYZ, let’s say the runway is 27-09 and there’s only one RVR sensor (RVR A) located at touchdown of rwy 09.

If the runway in use for landing is rwy27, does the RVR from 09 still governs, or am I now limited by ground vis rules?

Ok, now let’s say that this scenario was to happen in Canada north of the 60th parallel, unless the RVR is U/S by NOTAM, it governs, that I understand. But what if I plan on using the opposite runway (which has no RVR sensors). Now, do I consider having « No RVR », and therefore, having no approach ban limitations?

[flyingcanuck]

This is for 705 unsure if it changes on 703 or other ops.

Departures
If it has a tower, RVR governs the intended runway. No tower governs the whole field.

Arrivals
RVR governs that specific runway.

If the RVR is U/S, you can not use an RVR app ban. You'd have to use the "OR" visibility. Example: ILS 27 may need "RVR50 or 1" so then you'd need 1sm vis.

[fish4life]

I am looking for a clear explanation on how to interpret Canadian approach ban regulations. Here’s the situation:

At airport XYZ, let’s say the runway is 27-09 and there’s only one RVR sensor (RVR A) located at touchdown of rwy 09.

If the runway in use for landing is rwy27, does the RVR from 09 still governs, or am I now limited by ground vis rules?

Ok, now let’s say that this scenario was to happen in Canada north of the 60th parallel, unless the RVR is U/S by NOTAM, it governs, that I understand. But what if I plan on using the opposite runway (which has no RVR sensors). Now, do I consider having « No RVR », and therefore, having no approach ban limitations?

No approach ban north of 60 but the airport still needs to have the Level of Service (LOS) required so that’s another factor to consider

[PostmasterGeneral]

If you really need to get out, just go before the tower opens. "Pilot observed visibility" trumps all!

[averageatbest]

I am looking for a clear explanation on how to interpret Canadian approach ban regulations. Here’s the situation:

At airport XYZ, let’s say the runway is 27-09 and there’s only one RVR sensor (RVR A) located at touchdown of rwy 09.

If the runway in use for landing is rwy27, does the RVR from 09 still governs, or am I now limited by ground vis rules?

Ok, now let’s say that this scenario was to happen in Canada north of the 60th parallel, unless the RVR is U/S by NOTAM, it governs, that I understand. But what if I plan on using the opposite runway (which has no RVR sensors). Now, do I consider having « No RVR », and therefore, having no approach ban limitations?

I have never seen a runway where there was RVR on one end of the runway but not the other. Usually the way it works there is one on either end plus sometimes one mid-runway.

[Redneck_pilot86]

I am looking for a clear explanation on how to interpret Canadian approach ban regulations. Here’s the situation:

At airport XYZ, let’s say the runway is 27-09 and there’s only one RVR sensor (RVR A) located at touchdown of rwy 09.

If the runway in use for landing is rwy27, does the RVR from 09 still governs, or am I now limited by ground vis rules?

Ok, now let’s say that this scenario was to happen in Canada north of the 60th parallel, unless the RVR is U/S by NOTAM, it governs, that I understand. But what if I plan on using the opposite runway (which has no RVR sensors). Now, do I consider having « No RVR », and therefore, having no approach ban limitations?

I have never seen a runway where there was RVR on one end of the runway but not the other. Usually the way it works there is one on either end plus sometimes one mid-runway.

You need to get out more

[braaap Braap]

I have never seen a runway where there was RVR on one end of the runway but not the other. Usually the way it works there is one on either end plus sometimes one mid-runway.

CYTS

[averageatbest]

You need to get out more

I wouldn't be surprised if I've been places that has it on one side and not the other... if I never see it or think about it, I wouldn't know.

[BTD]

Medium sized airports with only 1 ILS usually only have 1 RVR, Saskatoon, Regina, Sault St Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay are all examples.

The CAP gen lays out the approach ban, depending on general aviation or commercial. Keep in mind you also have to take into account level of service. Which ever is most restrictive is limiting.

From an approach ban perspective, if the RVR is fluctuating above and below required you may continue if the ground vis is reported above. However, level of service or aerodrome operating vis does not take that into account and for approach and landing RVR for intended runway is always limiting.

Here are the references from the cap gen. Relevant sections bolded.

An RVR report takes precedence over a runway visibility report or a ground visibility report, and a runway visibility report takes precedence over a ground visibility report…..

The following exceptions to the above prohibitions apply to all aircraft:
•when the visibility report is below the required value and the aircraft has passed the FAF inbound or;
•the pilot-in-command has informed the appropriate ATC unit that the aircraft is on a training flight and that the pilot-in-command intends to initiate a missed approach procedure at or above the DA(H) or the minimum descent altitude, as appropriate;
•the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR; •the ground visibility is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum visibility;
•a localized meteorological phenomenon is affecting the ground visibility to the extent that the visibility on the approach to the runway of intended approach and along that runway, as observed by the pilot in flight and reported immediately to ATS, if available, is equal to or greater than the visibility specified in the CAP for the instrument approach procedure conducted; or
•the approach is conducted in accordance with an Ops Spec issued in accordance with subparts 703, 704 or 705 of the CARs.


One factor that needs to be considered to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements above is the Aerodrome Operating Visibility. A.The Aerodrome operating visibility is defined as follows:
At sites with an active Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower (in accordance with published airport operational procedures)
For arrivals and departures, the aerodrome operating visibility is in accordance with the following hierarchy:
1.Runway Visual Range (RVR) for the runway of intended use
2.Ground visibility (METAR)
3.Tower visibility
4.Pilot visibility

Note:Tower observed visibility does not take precedence over reported ground visibility. Where ground visibility is reported, tower observed visibility is considered advisory only. However, where ground visibility is either not reported or the visibility reported by the AWOS is non-representative of the prevailing visibility at the airport, tower reported visibility, when available, replaces ground visibility and needs to be considered in the determination of the aerodrome operating visibility. At sites without an active ATC Tower (outside ATC operating hours, MF, Unicom, CARS, or advisory sites, etc…)

For arrivals, the aerodrome operating visibility is in accordance with the following hierarchy:
1.Runway Visual Range (RVR) for the runway of intended use
2.Ground visibility (METAR)
3.Pilot visibility

[karmutzen]

Yep, one RVR only on the ILS , below limits so approach ban, if we felt lucky we'd try the opposite runway (no rvr, no ban). But seriously, long runways can have localized weather and the other end might work out. Tools in your toolbox.

[JeppsOnFire]

'the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR'

Love this one. Except, what exactly does that mean. Like it was above 5mins ago but now its below - we good? It was above 45 mins ago but now its below - bad? Or it was above, then below then above 27 minutes ago but 2 minutes ago its below- we good? Paperwork?

Super easy. No wonder when the vis goes down Canadian pilots start side-eyeing each other...

[bobcaygeon]

'the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR'

Love this one. Except, what exactly does that mean. Like it was above 5mins ago but now its below - we good? It was above 45 mins ago but now its below - bad? Or it was above, then below then above 27 minutes ago but 2 minutes ago its below- we good? Paperwork?

Super easy. No wonder when the vis goes down Canadian pilots start side-eyeing each other...

The METAR, ATIS, and ATC report pretty clearly:
Metar is: 1/2 SM R18R/0700V1000FT
ATIS and ATC say: The RVR for "Runway 18 Right is 0700 variable One Thousand"

Anything outside of that you are being creative and you own it if you get tagged later.

[co-joe]

I am looking for a clear explanation on how to interpret Canadian approach ban regulations....

We'd all love a clear explanation of it, but alas, this is Transport Canada's house/ their rules, so what we're left with is this F'n garbage to sort through.

[Mach .28]

I am looking for a clear explanation on how to interpret Canadian approach ban regulations....

We'd all love a clear explanation of it, but alas, this is Transport Canada's house/ their rules, so what we're left with is this F'n garbage to sort through.

They are set to be changed sometime probably after the spring sitting of parliament. Even the TSB has been saying since 2018 they were too complicated

A20-01 - “The Department of Transport review and simplify operating minima for approaches and landings at Canadian aerodromes.”
Transport Canada Response to Recommendation A20-01

TC agrees with Recommendation A20-01 and, as outlined below, has already initiated work to implement improvements to the regulations governing approaches and landings at Canadian aerodromes.

Regulations amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Approach Ban)
Enabling act

Aeronautics Act (R.S.C, 1985, c. A-2)
Description

The proposed regulatory changes would implement prescribed approach visibility minima nationally. Introducing prescribed approach visibility minima in Canada will work to address several Transportation Safety Board recommendations and would achieve safety benefits that are applicable to all operations in Canada. This national approach would allow for a clearer, simpler set of rules for all operators in Canada, while further aligning with International Civil Aviation Organization and international partners.