TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

[pelmet]

We had SA for CAT II in the US at a previous company. I think it is the training and equipment that allows this.

[thenoflyzone]

So you will eventually see a few SA CATII approaches pop up across the country. It will get the job done.

Until some airplane ends up off the edge because they lost the centerline (no lighting).

What you describe can't happen, because of the requirement to fly it with autoland or HGS. You can't "lose the centerline".

These SA CAT II's have been in operation in the US for a number of years now on runways that don't meet conventional CAT II requirements. They're tried and tested. If it wasn't safe, TC wouldn't implement them.

[thenoflyzone]

We had SA for CAT II in the US at a previous company. I think it is the training and equipment that allows this.

Exactly. There are a lot of airports in the States with SA CATII's. It's not new. It's only new here in Canada.

[hithere]

Very interesting, thanks for the explanation

[CaptDukeNukem]

Interesting that the government is putting the onus on operators to get expensive equipment rather than actually spend money on the airport.

[jpilot77]

Interesting that the government is putting the onus on operators to get expensive equipment rather than actually spend money on the airport.

Nothing new about that, in Canada aviation is treated as a cash cow as opposed to vital infrastructure.

[goldeneagle]

Interesting that the government is putting the onus on operators to get expensive equipment rather than actually spend money on the airport.

I see it quite the opposite. Lots of operators already have the equipment, now they can make proper use of it.

[CaptDukeNukem]

Interesting that the government is putting the onus on operators to get expensive equipment rather than actually spend money on the airport.

I see it quite the opposite. Lots of operators already have the equipment, now they can make proper use of it.

I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you.
Operators have paid millions for this equipment ahead of the fact that this country’s capital city gets a BS SA Cat 2 approach. Those operators either inherited the airplanes with such equipment, or decided that those few tails are flying to airports where minimums can be a problem is worth the extra cost. The cost of a CAT 2 at a nation’s capital should be simple enough. YWG has one for Christ’s sake.

I’ve flown over municipals in the USA that have CAT 2s on both ends. Cost cutting and red tape is all this is. You’re telling me you need a full HGS or auto land to land on a Cat2 in YOW?? Crazy.

I’m gonna edit one more:

What’s the cost of getting the special authorization from TC?

[goingnowherefast]

Interesting that the government is putting the onus on operators to get expensive equipment rather than actually spend money on the airport.

I see it quite the opposite. Lots of operators already have the equipment, now they can make proper use of it.

I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you.
Operators have paid millions for this equipment ahead of the fact that this country’s capital city gets a BS SA Cat 2 approach. Those operators either inherited the airplanes with such equipment, or decided that those few tails are flying to airports where minimums can be a problem is worth the extra cost. The cost of a CAT 2 at a nation’s capital should be simple enough. YWG has one for Christ’s sake.

I’ve flown over municipals in the USA that have CAT 2s on both ends. Cost cutting and red tape is all this is. You’re telling me you need a full HGS or auto land to land on a Cat2 in YOW?? Crazy.

I’m gonna edit one more:

What’s the cost of getting the special authorization from TC?

The operators put the equipment in their airplane for CAT III approaches (HUD, autoland). That was the business decision. Now they need airplanes essentially equipped for CAT III approaches, but only able to fly to CAT II limits?

All operators should be pissed. The ones that made the airplane and pilot training investment for CAT III want to fly to CAT III limits. The operators that made the decision to stay with CAT II level of equipment and training, aren't able to utilize the approach. Everyone is stuck 1 CAT higher than they are equipped and trained for. All because our nation's capital doesn't want to equip the runway appropriately.

[flieslikeachicken]

Two things that need changing in the interest of safety. The ridiculous approach ban, and the convoluted Notam dissemination system.

Nothing better than going into Newark and looking for the important NOTAMs between all of the HLDG PSN SIGN OTS garbage.

[thenoflyzone]

YYC 17R/35L getting a conventional CATII on both sides as of next publication cycle (27 November 2025). Runway now has centerline lighting, TDZL and ALSF-2 approach lights. From what I can see, no rapid exit taxiway centerline lights or stop bars were added. Taxiways on that side of the airport don't have centerline lights either, so the runway level of service will stay at RVR1200.

Either way, it's good news. One more runway in this country with centerline lights and CAT II or III minimums.

[thenoflyzone]

Looks like runway 12/30 at YEG is getting a CAT III, as part of the new ICH (international cargo hub).

https://www.navcanada.ca/en/038sup2026en.pdf

[EPR]

To have an area where there is approach ban and another area where there isn't just shows how screwed up the thought process and the law makers implement the rules. Just like FDT there is far too much lobbying and industry influence to make the rules as they should be. Typical Canadian mentality, trying to make people happy and turn out pure crap and you end up with requiring legal advice and interpretation before commencing a manoeuvre.

I have ignored approach bans because of local conditions and did a pirep just to have something on the tapes but in reality I could have been charged because I initiated the approach below the ban. I never hear a thing so I have no idea how far up the ladder the filed report would have gone.

Back in the day with the old "below minimums" approach one would get some indication from ATC, like anyone who has tried the approach has landed, and he is saying fill your boots if you want or go to your alternate.

We have had corner turning incidents, Fredericton for one, that has motivated TC and the law makers to "dumb down" and create a rule to basically remove missed approaches and pretty much assure a landing. We all know you can't just make rule that are so complicated with exceptions and variables that confuse everyone.

A one hour pilot briefing before a ride is ridiculous and the check airman needs to bone up on his job, I have been a check airman and I know this type of thing indicates that even the check pilot is a little apprehensive as well. Doing the new course to become a TC check pilot is information overload and rule driven but common sense must prevail.

What's the solution, I think a stream lining of the rules, the international rules are pretty straight forward and in Europe an approach ban is an approach ban and you work with what your company has operationally but ATC will not issue approach clearance once it goes below approach ban limits and will actually ask what your company limits are. Canada needs to go this way and bring the rules in line with the rest of the world and ignore the urge to be influenced by the USA. This means the CAPs would be for general aviation and for companies without reduced limits authority. To go below the public minimums companies would need to have a cat 2 and/or cat 3 authority. TC will also visit LVP limits as well for reduced minimums. This mean mom and pop operations would likely be stuck with the CAP minimums as they should be and for companies who have been large enough to initiate cat 2 at least will be required to set up training and equipment to qualify.

The bottom line is approach bans should be enforced by ATC, by not issuing an approach clearance and not by the pilot, just like the rest of the ICAO would. Unfortunately, uncontrolled airspace is another animal, how do you enforce a place where an IFR flight plan isn't necessary. It should never be reduced to a point where pilots rat out pilots and of course if there is now official wx how can one even prove it as well.

It's a mess which likely could have been the post rather than all these ramblings

I believe that some "TC Quebecois francophone" (pigs Latin), wrote the rules in the CAP GEN, and then translated it to English...which clearly doesn't translate!..lol