New Approach Ban Limits?

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:16 pm

From AIN Online

Approach Limits Raised in Canada
Responding to recommendations from Canada’s Transportation Safety Board after at least two low-visibility landing accidents, Transport Canada will increase the minimum visibility required before beginning an approach from the current 1,200 feet (370 meters) to 1,600 feet (500 meters), effective December 1. The visibility measurement can be made by a sensor or by a qualified observer if a visibility sensor has not been installed or is out of service. The regulations have been amended to prohibit commercial operators, including air-taxi services, from beginning an approach under conditions where a successful landing is unlikely. However, the rule will not apply to operators and crews already approved to lower visibility limits at specified runways. Transport Canada stated that the new rule will help harmonize Canadian regulations with international standards. The amendments will be published on September 20 in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

fanspeed · Post by **fanspeed** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:50 pm

personally, I want the chance at 1200. I'm not going to push it, and I've seen plenty of successful landings in 1200 RVR.

J31 · Post by **J31** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:25 pm

fanspeed wrote:personally, I want the chance at 1200. I'm not going to push it, and I've seen plenty of successful landings in 1200 RVR.

And you will....on a Cat II

fanspeed · Post by **fanspeed** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:35 pm

Fair enough. Just one more box to check off on the next ride..........

sanjet · Post by **sanjet** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:53 pm

Any official link?

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:55 pm

Canada’s Transportation Safety Board after at least two low-visibility landing accidents

One of those was Jet's Go and I am sure the accident chain started well before the approach portion of the flight.

Whatever another "increase" in safety by TC. After all the accidents in BC alone in the last year how many were caused by approaches in 1200 RVR weather ? Sorry I just don't think it will do anything for safety.

arctic navigator · Post by **arctic navigator** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:25 pm

The second accident must be First Air's in Edmonton...

This isn't going to do anything for Aviation Safety for private or commercial operators... What they could do that may make a difference is completely change the approach ban, and make it applicable for all approaches, ie. 1/2 the published altitude or vis. mins for the approach being conducted... the only way to make this work would be for the government to invest in more Weather Observers or Observing Systems, which I think would make all our jobs a lot easier when flying in remote areas...

my 2 cents anyways

RB211 · Post by **RB211** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:31 pm

sanjet wrote:Any official link?

Try this:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/comme ... AC0256.htm

Oops, wrong one. I should actually read things before posting.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:31 pm

Talk about a knee jerk reaction. Were the accidents caused by missing after attempting an approach and overshooting prior to dropping below minimums? If not I don't see how denying someone to step down and take a look will make any difference. If you go in at 1600 or 1200 it doesn't matter cause when it hits the fan it is no longer at 1600 or 1200. It doesn't require you to see more reference points to continue the landing, just better vis when you're passing the NDB. This small change in numbers is going to delay a large number of flights for no good reason. Did the pencil pushers in the office come to this solution or did they actually talk to someone who should know something?

jjj · Post by **jjj** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:26 am

So there I was... flying an approach.

The RVR was reported as being 1200 RVR. At minima I saw nothing.

I did a go-around - went to my alternate and the day was done.

The next day i did an approach at the same runway and the RVR was reported as 5000. At minima I saw nothing.

I did a go-around - I went to my alternate and the day was done.

The next day I did an approach at the same ruway and the RVR was reported as 1800. At minima I saw a few lights but I couldn't positively acquire enough visual cues to land so I did a go-around. - I went to my alternate and the day was done.

The next day I went back to that same airport and flew the approach. The RVR was 2600.

Inbound from the FAF the RVR was reported as 600 for both A and B.

At minima I saw the Lights and then I saw the runway - I had adequate visual reference to maneuver the airplane to land - I landed.

Do planes crash because of approach bans being violated or do planes crash because pilots are operating outside of "The envelope."

Most of my go-arounds are in situations where the airplane was stabilized on approach and the weather was reported as OK. So there I was - at minima - sometimes there were a few lights and sometimes there weren't - When I couldn’t maneuver to land I got the @#$! out.

Approach bans are created by lawyers but do not make aviation safer.

If there was a way for lawyers to make a "@#$!-head" ban - then perhaps aviation would be safer.

jjj

The Hammer · Post by **The Hammer** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:42 pm

If you have the training and the equipment 1600 rvr limit is no big deal. why not ban the dipshits who do ndb's at 1200 RVR with +1 mile limits??

The US has far superior approachs, runway lighting, and over all better operating conditions (no 1200 rvr ndb approachs to snow/ ice covered runways) than here and their approach limits are higher than 1200 rvr and they haven't ground to a halt because of it.

Hey maybe you should throw that GPS away, after all pilots flew for like 80 years without them. IMHO

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:36 pm

" Hey maybe you should throw that GPS away, after all pilots flew for like 80 years without them. IMHO "

Great idea, I'm gonna throw my GPS away and go back to using an ADF.

Should I use one with BFO capabilities, or should I stick with a he man straight ADF unit?

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:18 pm

The Hammer wrote:If you have the training and the equipment 1600 rvr limit is no big deal. why not ban the dipshits who do ndb's at 1200 RVR with +1 mile limits??

Never seen a runway with RVR serviced by an NDB only, not sure what you're getting at here. Also, only runways with RVR have approach bans the +1 mile limits that you speak of are only visibilities at which a landing can probably be expected.

If it say's 1 mile beside the minimums, you can fly the approach at any vis to minimums and if the reported vis is 1 mile or greater you can expect to have the vis to meet the required visual ques to conduct the landing. If the vis is lower than a mile, you can still conduct the approach, just plan on doing a go around cause chances are you won't see anything. Like many people have experienced and stated, RVR or vis is often very misleading and where a 1200 RVR provides an easy landing one day, the next day a 2400 RVR might prove to be difficult. To not allow someone to step down and take a look at 1200 RVR is a typical knee jerk reaction to make it look like they are somehow increasing safety. If RVR is 0 on a different runway and the reported vis is 0, you can still conduct an NDB approach, so why is it so unsafe to conduct a precision approach at 1200RVR?

3Green · Post by **3Green** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm

This is really going to make the Atlantic Canada operators happy.
Transport, Customs, and CATSA. We sure are surrounded by some winners. @#$!.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:04 pm

Hey if its just ground fog, you could do a crossing runway approach and circle to a parallel taxiway. I feel safer already!

The Hammer wrote:The US has far superior approachs, runway lighting, and over all better operating conditions (no 1200 rvr ndb approachs to snow/ ice covered runways) than here and their approach limits are higher than 1200 rvr and they haven't ground to a halt because of it.

Still not sure what this means. In Canada we have a number of flights that frequently are cancelled because of their American insurance approach standards. If I can get out of the country on a Canadian carrier I'll take it during the bad weather seasons. Chances are I won't be delayed departing or arriving.

Sure the US has more ILS's, better lighting, but we have no 1200 RVR ndb approaches, we do have 0 RVR ndb approaches and yes it does snow up here and occasionally that turns to ice.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:18 pm

I'm still waiting for Hammer to let me know if I should stick with an ADF with BFO capabilities.

Or should I just bite the bullet and be a he man and just use a straight ADF?

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:16 pm

You could only be He Man if that avatar cat of yours turns into a tiger.

The Hammer · Post by **The Hammer** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:10 pm

fixed card, BFO or nothing man!!!

Unfortunately Jetsgo in YYC, First Air in Yeg, AC in YFC plus numerous others with smaller carriers have caused this problem. Imho this makes my job easier.
Pilot's repeatedly push limits on wx, duty times, loads, etc even when they have a union backing them. Why? Cause their lazy, whining whore's for the most part who think of themselves mostly. Transport is very company friendly and Canada has some of the loosest duty day, wx and Mel's in the civilized world. So any raising of the bar is an improvement.

Ps Why can an avaition employer force his staff to work 14 hrs but Mc Donalds employees can say no at 12 hrs. Cause pilots are whores....

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:18 pm

Hammer, you must have been flying for a while to understand the signifigance of using the BFO capabilities of an ADF.

As to your comments on duty times and selective lax enforcement of safety rules that is another shame on your industry in Canada.

May I help you out here with an addition to your comment?

you said:

" Ps Why can an avaition employer force his staff to work 14 hrs but Mc Donalds employees can say no at 12 hrs. Cause pilots are whores...."

May I add.

Working for whoremasters and protected by eunuchs

Cat

twinpratts · Post by **twinpratts** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:20 am

jjj wrote:If there was a way for lawyers to make a "@#$!-head" ban - then perhaps aviation would be safer.

jjj

Nice!