Approach Ban is here

highlander · Post by **highlander** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:52 am

On December 1, 2006, a new approach ban came into effect. Just wondering if people have encountered issues with this yet.

One Cap approach we have has a vis of 2 1/4. Therefore we are restricted to nothing less than 1 3/4. At that point we should just get special VFR

Seems like this could cause more headaches than anything else

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:58 am

IIRC from reading it on the weekend, the CAP GEN states that if there is no RVR and no ground visibility report, therefore there is no approach ban.

Obviously, as a "cost savings measure", the ground visibility reporting should be disposed of, at as many airports as possible

3H · Post by 3H » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:26 pm

Does anyone have a link to the new rules?

CD · Post by CD » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:30 pm

You can find all of the recent amendments at the following link:

2006-2 Amendment Summary

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:30 pm

Read your CAP GEN. Or, click on this:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/comme ... AC0237.htm

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 pm

Pretty stupid move.

Hardly see how an approach ban with 1-2 miles of vis is going to make things any safer... Special VFR will be the name of the game if we're going to get in on many days. Those AWOS stations are so accurate too - they're always right...

Get your heads outta your asses TC and dump this stupid thing!

Rotary guys probably like it though. Make f-all difference to them...

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:37 pm

It may actually be safer to go VFR at 500-1 than to do the old chop and drop in the same wx. Think about it...with the chop and drop you're transitioning from fully on instruments to "oh shit there it is power idle full flap check gear....BANG! Full reverse..."

At least VFR you can already be stabilized, inspect the runway, and hopefuly there are no new cell phone towers...

highlander · Post by **highlander** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:02 pm

The irony is that the approach ban stems from several accidents including one at Little Grand Rapids. However, technically, under the new rules, ZGR still would have NO ban since there is no weather reporting. Seems counter productive.

Also, notice how this applies to commercial ops only, not GA (I guess GA is safer

)

SuperDave · Post by **SuperDave** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:53 pm

I find the logic of this new rule hard to understand. How exactly does it make IFR safer? With our ops spec I could - theoretically - fly around all day in the Otter with just basic VFR instruments and a GPS at 300' and 1SM under VFR. Yet when I go IFR in a IFR capable airplane, I can’t shoot an approach into Pickle Lake for example unless I have 1 1/4SM or something like that?

I can see a lot of people choosing to fly MVFR instead of the safer IFR, or cancelling IFR early while still in IMC and shooting an approach. Can someone please enlighten me what the real benefit of this new rule is, and how exactly it will make things safer. I read the blurb about how a series of accidents in Quebec, the First Air off-runway excursion in YEG, and other ones prompted the new approach ban, however it seems to me that TC did jump the gun a bit with this one.

Does anyone know how they go about making these rules? What is the process, who is involved? Do they ask any operator’s or is it just a bunch of pen-pushers sitting comfortably at their desk in Ottawa trying to justify their 100K/yr job? Just curious, ‘cause this one will end up costing companies a lot of money, while in my opinion not doing a whole lot for safety.

Take care,

Super

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:53 pm

Little Grand? You mean Sowind's Bandit?

Wasn't that a case of the "northern hero" gonna get in at all costs. It had nothing to do with approach ban as far as I'm concerned. As far as I know busting minimums was illegeal then and still is now so what's new?

2R · Post by 2R » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:35 pm

Who had the company motto ?
"We will get you there or die trying "

Flybaby · Post by **Flybaby** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:10 pm

I heard a rumour that this is TC first step towards eliminating single pilot IFR in Canada.

Rubberbiscuit · Post by **Rubberbiscuit** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:37 pm

I was told one of the reasons is to streamline the rules with FAA procedures. The big flaw there of course is that almost every damn airport in the states have an ILS. Whereas Saskatchewan only have a couple of ILS's in the entire province. Also, an Instrument rated pilot is certified to judge and pass on ground visibility. So a pilot on the ground in bf nowhere can pass on ground visibility to other aircraft arriving if there are no other sources available.

CD · Post by CD » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:40 am

SuperDave wrote:Does anyone know how they go about making these rules? What is the process, who is involved? Do they ask any operator’s or is it just a bunch of pen-pushers sitting comfortably at their desk in Ottawa trying to justify their 100K/yr job? Just curious, ‘cause this one will end up costing companies a lot of money, while in my opinion not doing a whole lot for safety.

This information should help:

Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC)

Final Report - Regulations Respecting Take-Off Minima, Landing, Minima and Approach Ban Working Group

One of the original proposed NPAs...

NPA 2000-001 (602.129 & 602.130) Approach Ban - General and Approach Ban - CAT III

"After two days of meetings, and despite some strong differences of opinion, a large degree of consensus was reached by the SG members. The consensus achieved through compromise was sufficient to formulate recommendations concerning the approach ban and dictate the intent of new regulations and standards. This NPA is one of a package of NPAs which relate to the Approach Ban and include:

Subpart 101 - Interpretation regulations,
Subpart 602 - Operating and Flight Rules regulations,
Subpart 622 - Operating and Flight Rules standards,
Subpart 604 - Private Operator Passenger Transportation regulations,
Subpart 624 - Private Operator Passenger Transportation standards,
Subpart 703 - Air Taxi Operations regulations,
Subpart 723 - Air Taxi Operations - Aeroplane standards,
Subpart 704 - Commuter Operations regulations,
Subpart 724 - Commuter Operations - Aeroplane standards,
Subpart 705 - Airline Operations regulations,
Subpart 725 - Airline Operations standards, and
Commercial & Business Aviation advisory material on pilot monitored approach (PMA)."

Rudy · Post by **Rudy** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:09 am

Rubberbiscuit wrote:So a pilot on the ground in bf nowhere can pass on ground visibility to other aircraft arriving if there are no other sources available.

So you're saying a pilot can land and then inform the competition that an approach ban is now in effect?

highlander · Post by **highlander** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:10 am

co-joe- If you read the introduction in the CBAAC, they reference ZGR whether or not this had anything to do with it or not.

Let's face it the approach ban is here. Apparently in 2005 (spring) operators were notified about the proposed changes. (I could be wrong on the date)

I suppose that no one said anything at that time and therefore the rule went through.

[/quote]

CD · Post by CD » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:17 am

highlander wrote:Apparently in 2005 (spring) operators were notified about the proposed changes. (I could be wrong on the date)

I suppose that no one said anything at that time and therefore the rule went through.

The proposed changes were first published for full public comment in the Canada Gazette on November 20th, 2004:

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, VI, VII and VIII)

Consultations with operators took place much earlier as seen in the link above to the working group, where some were represented...

Apache64_ · Post by **Apache64_** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:39 am

This approach ban is going to make alot of PIREPS. If you drop down to your MSA and fly over the airport, make a PIREP that you have the required vis for the approach, you are now good to go, as far as I know. As well a runway visibility report? Not going to happen, unless its a pilot from your company, I cant imagine a FSS Specialist or CARS operator is going to stroll out to the runway at -40 with a 30 knot wind at 2 am to check the runway vis for ya!

It will be interesting.

Cheers

Apache

highlander · Post by **highlander** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:41 am

It would be interesting to see statistically how often this will happen. Clearly weather patterns region to region will play strong in this.

Not to mention that this ban does not apply to operators beyond north of 60 latitude.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:56 am

Does anyone have the ops-spec yet

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:29 pm

Flybaby wrote:I heard a rumour that this is TC first step towards eliminating single pilot IFR in Canada.

What you sayin'? Ain't it so now?

703.41 (2)
No person shall continue a non‑precision approach or an APV unless
(amended 2006/12/01; previous version)

(a) the air operator is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate;

(b) the aeroplane has a minimum flight crew composed of a pilot‑in‑command and a second‑in‑command;

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:09 pm

Kind of looking forward to all the "fly by at sectors" I'm going to be doing. It's good to know that somebody who knows way more than I do has taken the guess work out of it for me! Gee, I can't go...pity......"Waiter! Whiskey! And Whores for my men!"

gonefishin' · Post by **gonefishin'** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:22 pm

Going in to YXT this morning, the reported vis was 1/2, the RCAP calls for 3/4 therefore the vis needed to shoot the approch was 5/8. METAR also reported vis was fluctuating between 3/8-5/8, so we asked ATC if we were good to try with the new ban limits... he replied ..."HUH?!?!? what are you talking about..." we explained the new rule and referred to page 17 of the CAPGEN, after 10 mins of him trying to get an answer he still did not have a definitive reply, however by this time the vis had dropped to 1/4, so we were SOL, anyway.
It is really nice to know that the guys that write the rules have no idea about them when the shit hits the fan.

zzjayca · Post by **zzjayca** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:27 am

gonefishin' wrote:Going in to YXT this morning, the reported vis was 1/2, the RCAP calls for 3/4 therefore the vis needed to shoot the approch was 5/8. METAR also reported vis was fluctuating between 3/8-5/8, so we asked ATC if we were good to try with the new ban limits... he replied ..."HUH?!?!? what are you talking about..." we explained the new rule and referred to page 17 of the CAPGEN, after 10 mins of him trying to get an answer he still did not have a definitive reply, however by this time the vis had dropped to 1/4, so we were SOL, anyway.
It is really nice to know that the guys that write the rules have no idea about them when the shit hits the fan.

???

ATC doesn't write the rules. Never has. I'll say this slowly:
T..R..A..N..S..P..O..R..T...C..A..N..A..D..A is responsible for the change. Furthermore, ATC have been briefed not to police this approach ban just as we were not supposed to police the previous approach limits. If you want the approach, we will clear you for it regardless of what the METAR's, PIREP's, etc. report.

This is as it should be since you should, as the PIC, know whether you can legally conduct an approach.

Personally, I couldn't care less what you or your company's approach limits are. So don't bother asking me if you are allowed to conduct an approach. I also don't give two s@#$s what your EGT is on number two. Are you now going to ask me if it is within limits?

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:09 am

I agree, the limits for an approach or departure can change depending on your equipment and ops specs.
It not ATC's problem.