Approach Ban Changes

[pelmet]

Keep up digits, someone mentioned no restrictions for private

No approach ban restrictions doesn't mean you can bust minimums. If approach ban values are realistic and accurate, then nobody would make it in if minimums are respected.

I think you are having a different conversation, somebody literally said NO VISISBILITY RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS, to which I said is a bad idea, ok. Are we clear on that yet! The quote above is the post I am talking about.

I think it is a good idea. Works well in the U.S.

My understanding is that is the way we are headed for Canada, an ILS won’t have published visibility of 2600/ 1/2sm, it will be similar to the US with published visibility associated with certain lighting, no ban table to decipher.

There you go....harmonization. Now lets do it for private operators.

Are you listening TC inspectors or is there some sort of control that you are unwilling to give up.

[ant_321]

No approach ban restrictions doesn't mean you can bust minimums. If approach ban values are realistic and accurate, then nobody would make it in if minimums are respected.

I think you are having a different conversation, somebody literally said NO VISISBILITY RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS, to which I said is a bad idea, ok. Are we clear on that yet! The quote above is the post I am talking about.

I think it is a good idea. Works well in the U.S.

My understanding is that is the way we are headed for Canada, an ILS won’t have published visibility of 2600/ 1/2sm, it will be similar to the US with published visibility associated with certain lighting, no ban table to decipher.

There you go....harmonization. Now lets do it for private operators.

Are you listening TC inspectors or is there some sort of control that you are unwilling to give up.

Just curious, why are you so eager to fly in shit wx? I spent 4000hrs bombing around in turboprops on the east coast so I’m plenty comfortable shooting approaches to mins but I would love for them to raise the mins. Wx below mins? Perfect. Stay home or go to an alternate. I’m not looking for a fight just legitimately curious why you want to be able to shoot an approach to mins when there is almost no chance in getting in and then preforming one of the most commonly messed up manoeuvres, the missed approach.

[nohojob]

AH the good old days when it was legal to shoot a cat 1 with 1200 RVR...
You got to admit it was exciting to do so in YHZ with a 30 KT of wind !

[ant_321]

AH the good old days when it was legal to shoot a cat 1 with 1200 RVR...
You got to admit it was exciting to do so in YHZ with a 30 KT of wind !

Is that 50% ops spec gone now? And 30? You had it easy, in YYT it was 50kts. Lol. I joke to the youngins that back in my day, if the wind was less than 30kts I didn’t even ask the direction.

[BTD]

No approach ban restrictions doesn't mean you can bust minimums. If approach ban values are realistic and accurate, then nobody would make it in if minimums are respected.

I think you are having a different conversation, somebody literally said NO VISISBILITY RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS, to which I said is a bad idea, ok. Are we clear on that yet! The quote above is the post I am talking about.
Also, WTF do you mean nobody would make it in If the minimums are respected, that’s absurd.
In the US the posted minimums are the minimum vis, no ambiguity, no approach ban chart to follow, on the plate based on the lighting available the min vis/rvr associated is published, that’s what you use.
My understanding is that is the way we are headed for Canada, an ILS won’t have published visibility of 2600/ 1/2sm, it will be similar to the US with published visibility associated with certain lighting, no ban table to decipher.

Let's put an example on it.

Let's say an ILS approach has posted minimums of 200 ft agl and 1/2 sm visibility.
The 1/2 sm visibility would be considered the approach ban.
If the airport reports 3/8 sm, the private guy can attempt the approach, the commercial guy can not.

There are now a few options:
1) The private guy goes missed. Ok, that's to be expected, all makes sense. One can argue about safety and if a private guy should be allowed to do this, but the system somewhat works.

2) The private guy makes it in. That's interesting. Assuming he wasn't creative and respected the 200 ft DH, the approach ban should not have been in effect at this point. Either the reported visibility was inaccurate, the approach ban value is too high for this airport or some other unknown reason occured. This is a silly situation, a commercial operator should have been allowed to attempt an approach in this situation. If the private guy was visual at DH, commercial traffic likely would have been as well.

3) The private guy makes it in, because he was too creative with the DH. This is a situation that has been hinted at in previous posts, and is an argument to implement an approach ban for private operators.

So, if we have a situation where the approach ban makes sense, and we measure everything accurately, then there should never be a situation where one could have made it in if the DH was respected.

The general idea of the approach ban is that it prohibits you to attempt an approach where you're almost guaranteed that you won't make it in. If there's doubt, you should be allowed to attempt the approach. It seems that some countries change this interpretation, and only allow you to attempt an approach when you're almost guaranteed that you will make it in, that's a different situation and in my opinion a badly designed approach ban.

You missed another possibility. The approach is completed to minimums, at which point visual reference is made with a single light or small part of the runway environment, so the approach is continued. However in reality it isn’t enough to properly maneuver the aircraft and situational awareness is lost and the aircraft crashes. It met the standard to continue but not the design intent. This has happened repeatedly in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

I think arguments can be made either way. But in my opinion we should do it like the US and most of the rest of the world. Design the approach criteria based on the approach precision and lighting. Then stamp that on the approach plate. 1/2 mile, RVR 2600, RVR 1800. Like the US. Whatever it is. If it below that value no approach.

The accidents like this don’t tend to happen because someone busted mins. It is because they saw something continued and lost SA because that wasn’t the design criteria of the approach.

[nohojob]

I think it used to be standard minimum for an ILS. If I remember well, the 50% came after (showing my age).
So as crazy as it seems, it was legal to shoot those approaches with an old half deiced Navajo...

[‘Bob’]

You missed another possibility. The approach is completed to minimums, at which point visual reference is made with a single light or small part of the runway environment, so the approach is continued. However in reality it isn’t enough to properly maneuver the aircraft and situational awareness is lost and the aircraft crashes. It met the standard to continue but not the design intent. This has happened repeatedly in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

This doesn’t meet the standards at all.

The rules are objectively written so that the Required Visual Reference is sufficient to orient and maneuver the aircraft to a safe landing.

REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCE:
In respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that section of the approach area of
the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enables the pilot to
make an assessment of the aircraft position and the rate of change of position relative to the
nominal flight path.
The visual references required by the pilot to continue the approach to a safe landing should
include at least one of the following references for the intended runway and should be distinctly
visible and identifiable to the pilot.
a. the runway or runway markings;
b. the runway threshold or threshold markings;
c. the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings;
d. the approach lights;
e. the approach slope indicator system;
f. the runway identification lights;
g. the threshold and runway end lights;
h. the touchdown zone light;
i. the parallel runway edge lights; or
j. the runway centre line lights.

Just because you can see the approach lights or even the runway doesn’t mean you have Required Visual Reference.

[cdnavater]

You missed another possibility. The approach is completed to minimums, at which point visual reference is made with a single light or small part of the runway environment, so the approach is continued. However in reality it isn’t enough to properly maneuver the aircraft and situational awareness is lost and the aircraft crashes. It met the standard to continue but not the design intent. This has happened repeatedly in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

This doesn’t meet the standards at all.

The rules are objectively written so that the Required Visual Reference is sufficient to orient and maneuver the aircraft to a safe landing.

REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCE:
In respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that section of the approach area of
the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enables the pilot to
make an assessment of the aircraft position and the rate of change of position relative to the
nominal flight path.
The visual references required by the pilot to continue the approach to a safe landing should
include at least one of the following references for the intended runway and should be distinctly
visible and identifiable to the pilot.
a. the runway or runway markings;
b. the runway threshold or threshold markings;
c. the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings;
d. the approach lights;
e. the approach slope indicator system;
f. the runway identification lights;
g. the threshold and runway end lights;
h. the touchdown zone light;
i. the parallel runway edge lights; or
j. the runway centre line lights.

Just because you can see the approach lights or even the runway doesn’t mean you have Required Visual Reference.

What are you talking about bob!
It literally says right above your bolded comment, one of the following, d. the approach lights
If you can see the approach lights it should be sufficient to continue, however, this is based on the pilots perception and they may think they can continue or are not actually seeing what they think they are seeing and continue when they shouldn’t have.
Who is better equipped to make that call, an airline pilots with thousands of hours or the weekend warrior who is barely current for IFR?
I’ll wait while you ponder the question?

[BTD]

You missed another possibility. The approach is completed to minimums, at which point visual reference is made with a single light or small part of the runway environment, so the approach is continued. However in reality it isn’t enough to properly maneuver the aircraft and situational awareness is lost and the aircraft crashes. It met the standard to continue but not the design intent. This has happened repeatedly in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

This doesn’t meet the standards at all.

The rules are objectively written so that the Required Visual Reference is sufficient to orient and maneuver the aircraft to a safe landing.

REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCE:
In respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that section of the approach area of
the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enables the pilot to
make an assessment of the aircraft position and the rate of change of position relative to the
nominal flight path.
The visual references required by the pilot to continue the approach to a safe landing should
include at least one of the following references for the intended runway and should be distinctly
visible and identifiable to the pilot.
a. the runway or runway markings;
b. the runway threshold or threshold markings;
c. the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings;
d. the approach lights;
e. the approach slope indicator system;
f. the runway identification lights;
g. the threshold and runway end lights;
h. the touchdown zone light;
i. the parallel runway edge lights; or
j. the runway centre line lights.

Just because you can see the approach lights or even the runway doesn’t mean you have Required Visual Reference.

Yes that is correct. Too bad we can’t tell it to all of the pilots who are dead because they made that error.

If a community and individuals keep making an error while doing their honest best to follow a rule, but end up dying anyway, then it is a bad rule.

Ensure that the outcomes of following the regulations all lead in the same direction. When the rule says that you must have adequate visual reference to maneuver, don’t create another rule that by design will make it extremely challenging to follow the first rule. Near every other country on Earth has figured this out. We have not.

[pelmet]

I think you are having a different conversation, somebody literally said NO VISISBILITY RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS, to which I said is a bad idea, ok. Are we clear on that yet! The quote above is the post I am talking about.

I think it is a good idea. Works well in the U.S.

My understanding is that is the way we are headed for Canada, an ILS won’t have published visibility of 2600/ 1/2sm, it will be similar to the US with published visibility associated with certain lighting, no ban table to decipher.

There you go....harmonization. Now lets do it for private operators.

Are you listening TC inspectors or is there some sort of control that you are unwilling to give up.

Just curious, why are you so eager to fly in shit wx? I spent 4000hrs bombing around in turboprops on the east coast so I’m plenty comfortable shooting approaches to mins but I would love for them to raise the mins. Wx below mins? Perfect. Stay home or go to an alternate. I’m not looking for a fight just legitimately curious why you want to be able to shoot an approach to mins when there is almost no chance in getting in and then preforming one of the most commonly messed up manoeuvres, the missed approach.

Sometimes it is a fog bank.

[digits_]

I think you are having a different conversation, somebody literally said NO VISISBILITY RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS, to which I said is a bad idea, ok. Are we clear on that yet! The quote above is the post I am talking about.
Also, WTF do you mean nobody would make it in If the minimums are respected, that’s absurd.
In the US the posted minimums are the minimum vis, no ambiguity, no approach ban chart to follow, on the plate based on the lighting available the min vis/rvr associated is published, that’s what you use.
My understanding is that is the way we are headed for Canada, an ILS won’t have published visibility of 2600/ 1/2sm, it will be similar to the US with published visibility associated with certain lighting, no ban table to decipher.

Let's put an example on it.

Let's say an ILS approach has posted minimums of 200 ft agl and 1/2 sm visibility.
The 1/2 sm visibility would be considered the approach ban.
If the airport reports 3/8 sm, the private guy can attempt the approach, the commercial guy can not.

There are now a few options:
1) The private guy goes missed. Ok, that's to be expected, all makes sense. One can argue about safety and if a private guy should be allowed to do this, but the system somewhat works.

2) The private guy makes it in. That's interesting. Assuming he wasn't creative and respected the 200 ft DH, the approach ban should not have been in effect at this point. Either the reported visibility was inaccurate, the approach ban value is too high for this airport or some other unknown reason occured. This is a silly situation, a commercial operator should have been allowed to attempt an approach in this situation. If the private guy was visual at DH, commercial traffic likely would have been as well.

3) The private guy makes it in, because he was too creative with the DH. This is a situation that has been hinted at in previous posts, and is an argument to implement an approach ban for private operators.

So, if we have a situation where the approach ban makes sense, and we measure everything accurately, then there should never be a situation where one could have made it in if the DH was respected.

The general idea of the approach ban is that it prohibits you to attempt an approach where you're almost guaranteed that you won't make it in. If there's doubt, you should be allowed to attempt the approach. It seems that some countries change this interpretation, and only allow you to attempt an approach when you're almost guaranteed that you will make it in, that's a different situation and in my opinion a badly designed approach ban.

You missed another possibility. The approach is completed to minimums, at which point visual reference is made with a single light or small part of the runway environment, so the approach is continued. However in reality it isn’t enough to properly maneuver the aircraft and situational awareness is lost and the aircraft crashes. It met the standard to continue but not the design intent. This has happened repeatedly in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

I think arguments can be made either way. But in my opinion we should do it like the US and most of the rest of the world. Design the approach criteria based on the approach precision and lighting. Then stamp that on the approach plate. 1/2 mile, RVR 2600, RVR 1800. Like the US. Whatever it is. If it below that value no approach.

The accidents like this don’t tend to happen because someone busted mins. It is because they saw something continued and lost SA because that wasn’t the design criteria of the approach.

Good point. Which accidents were caused by this though? I don't recall any but I'm sure there are some.

[BTD]

Let's put an example on it.

Let's say an ILS approach has posted minimums of 200 ft agl and 1/2 sm visibility.
The 1/2 sm visibility would be considered the approach ban.
If the airport reports 3/8 sm, the private guy can attempt the approach, the commercial guy can not.

There are now a few options:
1) The private guy goes missed. Ok, that's to be expected, all makes sense. One can argue about safety and if a private guy should be allowed to do this, but the system somewhat works.

2) The private guy makes it in. That's interesting. Assuming he wasn't creative and respected the 200 ft DH, the approach ban should not have been in effect at this point. Either the reported visibility was inaccurate, the approach ban value is too high for this airport or some other unknown reason occured. This is a silly situation, a commercial operator should have been allowed to attempt an approach in this situation. If the private guy was visual at DH, commercial traffic likely would have been as well.

3) The private guy makes it in, because he was too creative with the DH. This is a situation that has been hinted at in previous posts, and is an argument to implement an approach ban for private operators.

So, if we have a situation where the approach ban makes sense, and we measure everything accurately, then there should never be a situation where one could have made it in if the DH was respected.

The general idea of the approach ban is that it prohibits you to attempt an approach where you're almost guaranteed that you won't make it in. If there's doubt, you should be allowed to attempt the approach. It seems that some countries change this interpretation, and only allow you to attempt an approach when you're almost guaranteed that you will make it in, that's a different situation and in my opinion a badly designed approach ban.

You missed another possibility. The approach is completed to minimums, at which point visual reference is made with a single light or small part of the runway environment, so the approach is continued. However in reality it isn’t enough to properly maneuver the aircraft and situational awareness is lost and the aircraft crashes. It met the standard to continue but not the design intent. This has happened repeatedly in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

I think arguments can be made either way. But in my opinion we should do it like the US and most of the rest of the world. Design the approach criteria based on the approach precision and lighting. Then stamp that on the approach plate. 1/2 mile, RVR 2600, RVR 1800. Like the US. Whatever it is. If it below that value no approach.

The accidents like this don’t tend to happen because someone busted mins. It is because they saw something continued and lost SA because that wasn’t the design criteria of the approach.

Good point. Which accidents were caused by this though? I don't recall any but I'm sure there are some.

The one that started all the approach ban changes from the old 1200 RVR 1/2 mile around 2005 was the Air Canada RJ in Fredericton 1997.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-rep ... h0011.html

The Halifax accident had similar factors. Others I’d have to go dig up.


Below are from the Fredericton report. Rarely is the cause 1 dimensional. But why set us up for failure. It’s not how the approach was designed.

Findings
1. Although for the time of the approach the weather reported for Fredericton - ceiling 100 feet and visibility 1/8 mile - was below the 200-foot decision height and the charted ½-mile (RVR 2600) visibility for the landing, the approach was permitted because the reported RVR of 1200 feet was at the minimum RVR specified in CAR 602.129.

….

5. In the occurrence environmental conditions, the lack of runway centre line and touchdown-zone lighting probably contributed to the first officer not being able to see the runway environment clearly enough to enable him to maintain the aircraft on the visual glide path and runway centre line.


4.2. Action Required

Canadian regulations permit Category I approaches to be flown in visibilities lower than would be permitted in most other countries (including the United States), and the regulations are not consistent with what is recommended in ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices. ICAO Annex 14 recommends the use of visibility limits whereby pilots are not permitted to carry out an approach if the reported visibility is below the limit specified for the approach. In Canada, however, the visibility values, other than RVR, are advisory only; pilots are permitted to carry out an approach regardless of the visibility, and continue descent to ground level if they have acquired the runway environment. If an airport is RVR equipped, RVR visibility limits do apply in Canada; however, these limits are lower in Canada for a Category I approach than they are in other countries (including the United States). Although an approach for landing is not permitted if the RVR for a runway is below limits, the number of approaches conducted in poor visibility in Canada will likely increase because of the predicted increase in air traffic and the "level" number of airports served by RVR equipment.

[TG]

Good point. Which accidents were caused by this though? I don't recall any but I'm sure there are some.

There is couple of good examples listed by TC to justifying their course of action and that type of issue. It's buried in one of those links that started this tread.
https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/file ... 1-2024.pdf
The Halifax accident is one yes.

[flyinhigh]

Nice to see it moving forward, the NPA went out a couple years ago. The change is coming as TC was lit up by the TSB in an accident that happened with a king air in New Brunswick (I believe).

Report said TC made it difficult for pilots to now whether or not they could even conduct the approach.

Which in itself is a ridiculous reason to blame TC. Even without an approach ban you don't have an excuse to go below minimums.

Unless you have super accurate weather reporting (big major international airports), approach bans are ridiculous in Canada.

I hope they use different values at night as well. Major difference landing during the day in a snow storm or fog at night.

Completely agree with point one and two no question. Issue stands to the way it is written, tower open, tower closed, low vis, high vis, etc. Companies need to provide a flow chart just so you know if you can conduct the approach. Should purely be charted mins, like everywhere else full stop.

I'm not sold on point three. While I do agree with what you're saying, somehow TC will screw it up again and make it just as convoluted.