Ground vis vs. flight vis....

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:02 pm

Gee, they're the same...right? I mean, standing on the runway, and flying a few hundred feet above it? Same vis. Right? And a seagull is just like a flying pig. Right? I mean, a guy on the ground will be able to tell me what I can see from the front seat of my airplane. Right? I mean, these people are trained. Right? Back to that flying pig......

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:33 pm

Other than the fact that ground vis is in SM and flight vis is in NM, yeah, they're the same.

Maybe we just need someone...anyone on the ground to call in a report that they see more than the required visual reference. Anyone can enter a Notam right?

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:20 am

Especially in snow, flight vis is 99% of the time better than ground vis.
You will see the airport at a distance 2 to 3 times more, minimally, than the ground observer.

My son recently was a victim of the approach ban. He sat, freezing, with passengers at a remote airstrip until destination quit passing wx for the day and therefore the ban was not in effect.

Completed the trip after five hours stuck in the wilderness, went VFR, and saw the airport 3 miles back, ten minutes after the last METAR. Ground observers saw his lights about 5 miles back.

It is just a crock of shit, and somebody is going to get hurt following this nonsense.

A crew getting banned does not fly to the nearest FBO and sit drinking coffee and watching CNN. (And how much fuel ie added load, added risk, less payload, etc does a crew have to plan to do a 30 minutes trip but then go to an alternate over 60 minutes away?)

TC has no clue. No, crews are not sitting in a comfortable FBO as TC probably imagine, they are battling the elements with ludicrous legal cannonballs tied to their feet.

Idiots!!!!!

Percy · Post by **Percy** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:38 am

Couldn't agree more........how but the safe and proven "cancel the IFR and proceed Special VFR" to destination. What a joke!

2R · Post by 2R » Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:35 am

Working on mysteries without any clues.
Usually during the promulgation process of a new regulation there is usally input from user groups does anyone have that input or did the gods just decide to change this on their own.

CD · Post by CD » Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:21 am

2R wrote:Usually during the promulgation process of a new regulation there is usally input from user groups does anyone have that input or did the gods just decide to change this on their own.

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)."

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...

The final changes were published in the Canada Gazette on September 20th, 2006:

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

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:55 am

" Other than the fact that ground vis is in SM and flight vis is in NM, yeah, they're the same. "

Why doesen't Canada publish the visibility in meters and conform to ICAO?

So everyone has the same unit of measurement?

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:17 pm

Hey I still think we'd be better off as a country if we joined the EU and left the US to their impending bankruptcy alone. Metres, Millibars, euros... bring it on.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:04 pm

co-joe wrote:Other than the fact that ground vis is in SM and flight vis is in NM, yeah, they're the same.

Maybe we just need someone...anyone on the ground to call in a report that they see more than the required visual reference. Anyone can enter a Notam right?

My understanding of how the ground vis thing is going to work, at ATS staffed facilities, is we must have a request from an inbound aircraft to request one from someone on the ground. IF there is someone available to provide the ground vis, it will be valid for 20 minutes from the time it is issued. We must record who gave it to us (I'm thinking that's a laibility issue for some, and they may not want to provide it).

No, not "anybody" can enter a NOTAM. You must have the authority to ask that NAVCANADA issue a NOTAM (aiport operator, service provider (i.e. unavailability of fuel or services), NAVCANADA tech, company person responsible for lighting on towers, etc.). If the "NOTAM" does not meet the criteria the NOTAM Office works with, they can refuse to publish it. And this is not a NOTAM. It will not be publicized, but will only be available on request, and for the 20 minute valid window mentioned above.

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:15 pm

Don't you mean file it as a PIREP!?!?

That way anyone who holds a licence can report it?

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:21 pm

Rowdy wrote:Don't you mean file it as a PIREP!?!?

That way anyone who holds a licence can report it?

Not going to qualify as a PIREP either, since a vehicle operator can provide it, and it will not be put out on the wx reporting system (since there is no way to "cancel" a PIREP 20 minutes later).

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:19 pm

Cat Driver wrote: " Other than the fact that ground vis is in SM and flight vis is in NM, yeah, they're the same. "

Why doesen't Canada publish the visibility in meters and conform to ICAO?

So everyone has the same unit of measurement?

Same unit? I use every unit at work, so everyone should be happy, right?

Vis in statute miles, distances in nautical, pressures in hectopascals (WTF, over?) and inches of mercury, temperatures in celcius, height in feet, wind speed in knots... So 3 different systems at least, in every METAR. Hooray.

How old is the metric system?

2R · Post by 2R » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:26 pm

Excellent references' CD .
One 705 airplane slides off a runway in NB and the 703 704 operators get the shaft.Other airplanes doing stuff they should not have been and the rest of us get the shaft.
There was a lack of representation from the GA sector,703 and 704 operators at the CARAC.
Not many 703 operators will be fitting Huds to get around the rules.
And from what i have heard the reliability of huds will mean even those that can afford them will end up cancelling flights because of problems with the technology.
If the department of transport keeps this up you will not be allowed to drive your car on the roads .The scariest part of my day is the drive to the airport.
Lots more to read in those references should keep a fella busy for a month or two. Big fines in there too

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:20 pm

If the limits on my "plate" are 400 and a mile and a half, and I get to 400 feet, and see a runway.....then the vis is good enough.....and I am landing! And, that's the bottom line! If I don't see the runway, I is a going elsewhere! "I've got a mile and a half vis here. Mark the tapes. See ya in court!"

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:44 pm

Doc wrote:If the limits on my "plate" are 400 and a mile and a half, and I get to 400 feet, and see a runway.....then the vis is good enough.....and I am landing! And, that's the bottom line! If I don't see the runway, I is a going elsewhere! "I've got a mile and a half vis here. Mark the tapes. See ya in court!"

Damn shame that it has come to this within the industry. How one wishes that this segment of the world could escape the dumbing-down of operations that in so many cases is because of the media and the lawsuits that have followed certain accidents.

Sigh.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:19 am

Nobody moves and no one gets hurt, and thats what TC wants, to legislate safety.

bbb · Post by **bbb** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:51 pm

I can just see the TC response to an approach accident now..."..and despite the new improved regulations banning approaches under less-than-suitable (read skc, 6+vis) weather, the pilot(s) elected to continue the approach using their judgement to assess that the weather although reported as xxx was actually xxx, and crashed when unable to land."

You all watch - it'll unfortunately happen this winter, and instead of presenting it like our hands were tied, it'll be put forth that the great gods of TC just knew that we shouldn't conduct approaches in that stuff, rather than stating that we could do it VFR, but it would be far safer to do it IFR, had we been allowed!
The last 2 audits, and 1 inspect our company has had, I've spent more time hearing TC tell me that I should change something in our manuals or procedures because "..if it ever went to court..." not because (heaven forbid) it might actually be safer and more practical, or make more sense. Definitely they are driven by what may happen in court than what does happen in real life, and how to make real life as safe and practical as possible.

CD · Post by CD » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:30 pm

Cat Driver wrote: " Other than the fact that ground vis is in SM and flight vis is in NM, yeah, they're the same. "

Why doesen't Canada publish the visibility in meters and conform to ICAO?

So everyone has the same unit of measurement?

That's an interesting question but doesn't tell the whole story. Currently, Annex 5 permits the use of different units. SI was introduced as a standard back in 1979 along with the identification of non-SI units that would be permitted on a "temporary" basis.

The non-SI units permitted include nautical mile, foot and knot. There is a provision within Chapter 4 to cancel them but there is no indication when this will occur and I don't recall seeing any published proposals to do so...

CHAPTER 4. TERMINATION OF USE OF NON-SI ALTERNATIVE UNITS

Introductory Note. - The non-SI units listed in Table 3-3 have been retained temporarily for use as alternative units because of their wide-spread use and to avoid potential safety problems whick could result from the lack of international coordination concerning the termination of their use. As termination dates are established by the Council, they will be reflected as Standards contained in this Chapter. It is expected that the establishment of such dates will be well in advance of actual termination. Any special procedures associated with specific unit termination will be circulated to all States separately from this Annex.

As long as there is an option, I suppose there is no urgency to make a change. Besides, after spending time reading some of the postings on this site, can you imagine most of the pilots that frequent this forum being able to make the transition? There would be all the questions about non-SI units in the limitations section of the POH and whether flap could or couldn't be used for takeoff...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:26 pm

" Besides, after spending time reading some of the postings on this site, can you imagine most of the pilots that frequent this forum being able to make the transition? "

You are assuming a lot of these posters are pilots???

Actually the conversion is not any real problem, and once you get the picture you are comfortable flying anywhere out side of N. America with reading the vis format in meters.

CD · Post by CD » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:36 pm

Cat Driver wrote:You are assuming a lot of these posters are pilots???

Good point...

Cat Driver wrote:Actually the conversion is not any real problem, and once you get the picture you are comfortable flying anywhere out side of N. America with reading the vis format in meters.

Very true...