Major change to IFR very soon

Big Bird Anonymous · Post by **Big Bird Anonymous** » Fri May 14, 2004 7:32 pm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegSe ... 000001.htm

This Notice of Proposed Ammendment is in the process of being signed at the Justice Dept. It will be the next major change to IFR in Canada.

A non-precision approach ban!!!!

Any thoughts?? Fredricton was a catalyst for sure so let's not drag out the usual TC slagging, only the impact on operations.

chewsta · Post by **chewsta** » Fri May 14, 2004 7:42 pm

I can't even remember all the rules and conditions and exceptions the way it is now. Makes me wonder if the people who wrote this have ever been in a cockpit and tried to decypher their own legislation while trying to fly.

So the impact on operations: a whole lot more "WTF?!?!?!?! From now on we only operate VFR or put a lawyer in the jumpseat"

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri May 14, 2004 8:33 pm

I just quickly read the Proposed Rule and I do not think it will make much of a change at all. There is constant referance to RVR which means the airport has a high probability of inclenent weather and a high utilization factor and therefore Runway Visual Range equipment is installed. Rubber Boot Manitoba or Gopher Hole Sask (you know the places) will not be affected unless they install RVR equipment and hire trained people to monitor the equipment. The problem crops up when a pilot shoots an approach and lands when the weather is below limits. No Shit!!!! Has it not always been that way. If the RVR is below 1200, you cannot shoot the approach and land. If it is above 1200 RVR, you can shoot the approach and land!! Right???? Wrong, the visibility has to be 1/2 mile to land if it is a standard Cat 1 ILS. At 1200 RVR, you are just legal to go take a look. Since it is almost imposible to accurately measure the ceiling 1/2 mile back from the runway, it is almost impossible to get a conviction for landing below limits because it is almost impossible to prove that the pilot could not see the runway environment. That is why the authorities use visibilities. That is something that can be measured from the ground. That is why you can be violated for taking off below limits because you are in the same boat as the weather witch and can see what he/she sees. To break things down to the simplest denominator, the AC crew in Fredricton simply screwed up. Period. There is a golden rule in Aviation. If you point the nose up, you need power. They simply ran out of airspeed, altitude and ideas.

duplicate2 · Post by **duplicate2** » Fri May 14, 2004 9:25 pm

Another difference will be that they are changing the Approach Ban limits for precision to 1800 RVR or 3/8 SM instead of 1200 or 1/4 SM.

Perhaps I'm interpreting what oldtimer says incorrectly, but I didn't think that the 1/2 SM advisory visibility for standard CAT I (or any other approach) was a limitation, only a suggestion that you are not likely to get in without that. I thought the only thing that mattered for landing legally (if the approach ban was not in effect) was whether the runway environment was visible at DH or MDA, regardless of the REPORTED visibility, RVR, ceiling or anything else.

As for proof of violations, having more restrictive and specific approach ban limits will mean TC will not have to try to prove the impossible (whether the crew could see the runway) since there will be a definite answer as to whether it was legal to attempt the approach in the first place. But of course it will only be relevant at airports that have RVR, and it will only be definite if you can understand the new wording. I'll wait and see what the CAP GEN says.

Big Bird Anonymous · Post by **Big Bird Anonymous** » Fri May 14, 2004 9:26 pm

The way I read it is that:

(3) The "new" CAT 1 Precision Approach Ban is in effect if:

RVR values are less than 1800 or ground vis is 3/8 mile, take off vis is less than RVR 1800, take off vis not available

The pilot must discontinue approach unless:

(a) past the FAF

(b) training flight etc.

(c) the RVR is reported to be fluctuating RAPIDLY greater than and less than the minimum RVR

(d) the take off vis is greater than 1800 RVR or 3/8 mile

This one is the key...
(e) a localized phenomena is affecting the reported ground visibility, to the extent that THE VISIBILITY ON THE APPROACH to the LANDING RUNWAY and ALONG THE LANDING RUNWAY is greater than the visibility specified in the Canada Air Pilot for the instrument approach procedure to be flown...(Only the pilot can determine that, am I right in assuming that?)

(f) you have an "ops spec"

(g) approach to CAT II or III

The non-precision approach ban is basically the same except for the higher vis requirements.

GARRETT · Post by **GARRETT** » Fri May 14, 2004 10:01 pm

I thought only ILS runways had RVR measuring equipment, correct me if I'm wrong. That would pretty much make the new regulation pointless at most Northern airports.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Fri May 14, 2004 10:20 pm

Part of the reccomendations made was to add RVR to all runways served by non precision approaches.

flyboy · Post by **flyboy** » Fri May 14, 2004 10:35 pm

I believe it also mentioned if there is no RVR, then reported visibility, must be no less than 3/4mile or no less than half of the published visibility required for the approach.
This was in regard to nonprecision approaches.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I only glanced at it.

Big Bird Anonymous · Post by **Big Bird Anonymous** » Fri May 14, 2004 10:48 pm

From what I understand from the proposal committee, (key industry personel included) RVR technology is relatively cheap, therefore more airports will likely install the equipment over the next several years. That will actually attract more flights in the long run.

Since the vast majority of accidents are CFIT which occur in IMC in the approach and landing phase and with the growth of GPS stand alone approaches, more empahasis will be towards non-precision safety.

Look at the glass technology of the ATR's, RJ's, SAAB's, the new KA200's, Citations etc. That is what these changes are designed for.

Nothing too complex in the short term, but you will need to have the concept "cold" in the long run.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Sat May 15, 2004 1:57 am

RVR technology is relatively cheap...just like AWOS was/is...19015G25V35000 6 -SHRA 2 OVC 6 OVC 80 OVC 120 OVC M14/M22 ETC...

I guess you get what you pay for.

Beacon Final · Post by **Beacon Final** » Sat May 15, 2004 6:46 am

Why are they doing this?

When will these changes come into effect????

Knowing my luck, the changes will happen right before my renewal ride and I won't know the new standards, and not even make it to the plane!!

BF

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sat May 15, 2004 9:11 am

Duplicate, sorry to burst your bubble, but the current approach ban states that the minimum visibility for a precision approach is 1/4 sm, and of course the advisory vis is just that....ADVISORY...it means that with a 1/2 sm vis you SHOULD be able to see at least one of the visual cues to complete a safe landing past your DH or in the case of a non precision approach, your MDA. But of course it is possible to complete a landing with 1/4 sm. I've done it.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sat May 15, 2004 9:13 am

I'm sorry , i should have said what ever the advisory vis is, wether it's 1/2 or 1 or 2....

duplicate2 · Post by **duplicate2** » Sat May 15, 2004 1:39 pm

Carl, I'm not exactly sure how you are bursting my bubble since it sounds like we are saying the same thing. Is there something in my post you don't agree with?

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Sat May 15, 2004 7:24 pm

Think you all better read this a bit more carefully. Flyboy was right - notice these sections:

Non-Precision

(d) the reported ground visibility is less than the greater of three-quarters ( 3/4 ) statute mile, or one-half the published visibility for the approach procedure flown, if

(i) an RVR does not serve the landing runway;

(ii) an RVR report is not available; or

(iii) a current take-off visibility is not available

Precision

(d) the reported ground visibility is less than three-eighths ( 3/8 ) statute mile, if

(i) an RVR report is not available; or

(ii) a current take-off visibility is not available

This means that the approach ban will be able to be enforced wherever ground visibility is reported.

This will affect everybody in a significant manner. Lot more people going to alternates, that's the way I see it.

twinpratts · Post by **twinpratts** » Sat May 15, 2004 9:19 pm

2 words... "Cancel IFR"

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Sat May 15, 2004 9:34 pm

At which point you need SVFR to be in the control zone, which you will not get as the vis is not 1 mile.

swordfish · Post by **swordfish** » Sun May 16, 2004 1:47 am

Helloe...? Is anyone home?

Do you expect to be able to land off a NPA and descend from an MDA of 400 or 500' in under 1½ times the length of the approach lights? What's the emergency, over?

The issue here is not that there will be an approach ban, but how will the vis be determined in the approach environment. If it is reported to be 3/4 mile by an observer at a height of 6' above the ground at the point of obs, what validity does that have 2 miles away in the approach for a runway (Yellowknife is a classic, recurrent example; even the RVR cannot 'see' to the south).

Except when an approach ban is in effect, you are not limited for landing by the visibility, however it is assessed; you are inhibited from landing by being unable to see the "runway landing environment" well enough to complete the landing from a specified height (MDA or DH).

The implication that BBA made in the reference to CFIT accidents is misleading, and should be taken with a grain of salt. CFIT accidents DO happen occasionally from aircraft attempting to land in ridiculous conditions, but they MOST OFTEN happen because of a chain of breakdowns in CRM, or the absence of good CRM – or good discipline, not because the vis was lower than what is suggested for an approach.

An approach ban under certain visibility conditions is nothing to get excited about. If you want to get stirred up, read the CBAAC #0123R, Use of GPS for Approaches. The near-paranoid approach to the use of this aid needs to be seriously reassessed.

it'sme · Post by **it'sme** » Sun May 16, 2004 7:00 am

First of all bear in mind that for a great number of airports that are served only by NPA’s there is no weather reporting at all so an approach ban has no effect to operations at those facilities. But, for many of the airports that are served only by NPA’s and do have wx reporting one of the problems that I can see repeatedly coming up is the timeliness of said wx reporting. Many of the personal that are doing the reporting at these places are CWO’s employed by the airport operator and often have other duties at the airport. Lets suppose that a METAR is issued on the hour that as a result will invoke the proposed approach ban to that runway. Now the CWO is off carrying out other duties that keep him/her away from the window for a period of time. In that period of time the wx changes for the better, maybe not significantly but enough that the approach ban would no longer be in effect. This improvement is not known to flight-crews or a remote ATC unit and the result is that you have aircraft wanging around in circles waiting needlessly or heading to alternates when they could have done the approach and carried out a completely safe and successful approach and landing. That is where we will see the impact, not when you couldn’t have gotten in anyway.

JACKASS · Post by **JACKASS** » Sun May 16, 2004 6:52 pm

Nav Canada is going broke and they want to purchase RVR's for all airports with NPA's.........................................SMACK!!!!!!!!!!!

The Airport Operators are going to issue an approach ban and leave to do other duties...................................................SMACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what's missing from this BB is a ten seconed delay. Seriously, you people cannot be this dumb.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sun May 16, 2004 9:17 pm

Jackass yes people can be that dumb. What I see is a method of some sort of enforcing the rules. I think everone should reread swordfishes comments. Like I said in the beginning, I do not think there will be any major changes to the instrument approach procedures. I think it is like what happened on the Deerfoot Trail in Calgary and what is not happening in the Lower Mainland in BC. In Calgary, the speed limit is 100 Klicks but everyone drove at 140 till Multinova cameras were installed. That helped weed out the idiots. Nothing was changed, just enforced. Here in BC, the lobbyists defeated the cameras and now you have people who are unsafe in an auto at 50 klicks doing 80 because there is no enforcement. How did they ever get a drivers license? They bought one from the Dragon Driving School. The owner is up on charges now. We have the same thing in the world of aviation. Why all the talk about Advisory visibility, Advisorys are for mere mortal shmucks. I am better than the experts, I am smarter than the experts, I am the greatest, I am the best. There has never been any pilot as good as me. I can do things that no body else can do, I don't need to be hampered by rules, why don't all you mere mortals just get out of the way and watch. I will show you how it is done. I don't need rules. They just get in the way. All I need is for you to pick up the pieces when I @#$! up because I will. But even the crash will be the best ever. (Shouting, punching the air pounding my chest, coughing, catching my breath, You have seen it all before)
Do I make any sense?

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Sun May 16, 2004 10:53 pm

Oldtimer you nailed it!!! Something about bold pilots, old pilots but no old bold pilots......Now watch this......mmmrrrrrm....whack.
.
.

JACKASS · Post by **JACKASS** » Sun May 16, 2004 11:58 pm

Your right. Nav Canada's biggest priority right now is to make sure that they add a shit load of money onto there payroll to have quilified Wx advisors on every airport with a non precision approach, and pay millions of dollars to add the equipment at those airports.

As far as those vans on the side of the road with the camras in them, Slow down going by them.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be nice if there was someone at every airport what I'm saying is that no matter how dumb you are you can't seriously believe that Nav Canada would make that large of an investment. To maybe curb one type of accident that could happen even if they did make that investment.

it'sme · Post by **it'sme** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:25 am

The Airport Operators are going to issue an approach ban and leave to do other duties...................................................SMACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what's missing from this BB is a ten seconed delay. Seriously, you people cannot be this dumb

Have you been around small airports lately? Yes, it does happen! Just like everybody else these folks are doing things with less warm bodies. The airport operator doesn't issue the approach ban of course, that is a result of the below limits METAR.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:30 am

Obviously the solution (at smaller NPA airports with no RVR) is to get rid of the reported ground visibility.

That should keep everybody happy. No rules are being broken if there's no outdated, incorrect ground visibility.