When I was first starting out I would have cut off both of my nuts to have been accepted into the Air Force but I couldn't meet their physical requirements back then because I am a skinny runt so I had to learn the civilian way.
Fortunately I was not content to just meet the minimum standards and it kept me alive long enough to get to here.
All one has to do is look at all the airworthy airplanes pilots turn into scrap on a regular basis to see what the minimum standard produces.
Approach Bans
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Approach Bans
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Approach Bans
When studying for my ATPL and learning of this rule felt it quite strange. It is not one we have in the military. If I want to try and approach to 0/0 I can. If by some reason the weather clears enough as I get to MDA/DA great if not... missed and go to the alternate. I hate rules that are made because someone screwed something. Take responsibility for your actions.. be a pilot..if your too hot/fast and see the runway too late because of vis, go around and try again or go to the alternate. Just because someone did not do the right pilot thing shouldn't be reason to make some sort of rule for the rest. So long as I have the fuel to attempt the approach to 0/0 I should be allowed. Even stranger, if I was working part time commercially, I could shoot the approach flying military, but then when get in the com job, would not be allowed.
Dumb rule
Dumb rule
-
mattedfred
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1502
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:36 am
Re: Approach Bans
i can't think of too many rules that weren't created because someone screwed up. which rules would you choose to abolish? this would be a pretty subjective exercise as your risk tolerance may be much higher than the next persons. it all comes down to money. liability costs money. insurance costs money. lawsuits cost money. make a rule, reduce the liability and insurance and chance of a lawsuit and you save money because it all gets blamed on the person that broke the rule you made up. so why is north america one of the safest places to fly then?
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Approach Bans
Compared to where?so why is north america one of the safest places to fly then?
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Approach Bans
Yes, please substantiate that claim.. . wrote:Compared to where?so why is north america one of the safest places to fly then?
Re: Approach Bans
Sorry to interrupt. Doc would have given a runway vis report as to declare a localized phenomenon.
How the approach ban came about, Advisory Circular 0237:
Over a six-year period between 1994 and 1999, at least eight low visibility accidents occurred resulting in seven fatalities, 26 people who suffered injuries of varying degrees of severity, the loss of four aircraft, substantial damage to two aircraft, and minor damage to the other two aircraft. The most prominent were the EMB-110 accident at Little Grand Rapids, MB on 9 December 1997; a CRJ accident at Fredricton, NB on 16 December 1997; and two Beech 1900 accidents at St-Augustin and Sept Isles, PQ on 4 January 1999 and 12 August 1999 respectively.
Since 1999 several other accidents have occurred. Three recent occurrences involve large transport category aircraft, fortunately with no loss of life: a Boeing 737, veered off runway 12 at Edmonton International Airport after an approach in freezing fog with visibility RVR 1200 feet; a MD-83, veered off runway 34 at Calgary, AB and then conducted a missed approach in freezing fog with a visibility of RVR 1400 feet. A Boeing 737-7CT damaged a left wing on landing in Halifax, NS in fog with visibility of RVR 1200 feet.
The Canadian TSB Aviation Occurrence Report concerning the Air Canada CRJ accident recommended that, “The Department of Transport reassess CAT I approach and landing criteria (re-aligning weather minima with operating requirements) to ensure a level of safety consistent with CAT II criteria.” On the 26 May 1999, the Minister of Transport accepted the TSB’s findings, and a press release stated, “Transport Canada has now decided to develop regulatory amendments to strengthen standards for low-weather instrument approaches, based on the TSB recommendations announced today and on the department’s review of similar incidents. The draft amendments will be the basis of consultation with aviation stakeholders through CARAC as part of the regulatory development process.”
After the work of a Study Group reporting to the CARAC Part VI and Part VII of the CARs, Technical Committees, the CARC approved NPAs to the CARs on 10 March 2000. CARC decided to exclude general aviation and private operators from the significant changes to the approach ban, subject to a review of accident data two years following the date of coming-into-force.
For the past four years, the proposed changes have been under review by the Department of Justice and Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation, Regulatory Affairs Division. They were pre-published in Canada Gazette I on November 20, 2004, for public comment. As a result of public comments, CARC decided to amend the regulations so as to not impose an approach ban based on ground visibility north of 60 degrees North Latitude; to simplify the regulations by systematically aligning the visibility, at which the approach ban will take effect, as a factor of the visibility value determined by the approach procedure design, and to recognize an approach ban for APV approaches. (APV approaches include RNAV (GNSS) and RNAV (RNP) approaches with LPV or LNAV/VNAV minima.) The proposed changes to the regulations and standards will come-into-force after they are published in Canada Gazette II.
How the approach ban came about, Advisory Circular 0237:
Over a six-year period between 1994 and 1999, at least eight low visibility accidents occurred resulting in seven fatalities, 26 people who suffered injuries of varying degrees of severity, the loss of four aircraft, substantial damage to two aircraft, and minor damage to the other two aircraft. The most prominent were the EMB-110 accident at Little Grand Rapids, MB on 9 December 1997; a CRJ accident at Fredricton, NB on 16 December 1997; and two Beech 1900 accidents at St-Augustin and Sept Isles, PQ on 4 January 1999 and 12 August 1999 respectively.
Since 1999 several other accidents have occurred. Three recent occurrences involve large transport category aircraft, fortunately with no loss of life: a Boeing 737, veered off runway 12 at Edmonton International Airport after an approach in freezing fog with visibility RVR 1200 feet; a MD-83, veered off runway 34 at Calgary, AB and then conducted a missed approach in freezing fog with a visibility of RVR 1400 feet. A Boeing 737-7CT damaged a left wing on landing in Halifax, NS in fog with visibility of RVR 1200 feet.
The Canadian TSB Aviation Occurrence Report concerning the Air Canada CRJ accident recommended that, “The Department of Transport reassess CAT I approach and landing criteria (re-aligning weather minima with operating requirements) to ensure a level of safety consistent with CAT II criteria.” On the 26 May 1999, the Minister of Transport accepted the TSB’s findings, and a press release stated, “Transport Canada has now decided to develop regulatory amendments to strengthen standards for low-weather instrument approaches, based on the TSB recommendations announced today and on the department’s review of similar incidents. The draft amendments will be the basis of consultation with aviation stakeholders through CARAC as part of the regulatory development process.”
After the work of a Study Group reporting to the CARAC Part VI and Part VII of the CARs, Technical Committees, the CARC approved NPAs to the CARs on 10 March 2000. CARC decided to exclude general aviation and private operators from the significant changes to the approach ban, subject to a review of accident data two years following the date of coming-into-force.
For the past four years, the proposed changes have been under review by the Department of Justice and Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation, Regulatory Affairs Division. They were pre-published in Canada Gazette I on November 20, 2004, for public comment. As a result of public comments, CARC decided to amend the regulations so as to not impose an approach ban based on ground visibility north of 60 degrees North Latitude; to simplify the regulations by systematically aligning the visibility, at which the approach ban will take effect, as a factor of the visibility value determined by the approach procedure design, and to recognize an approach ban for APV approaches. (APV approaches include RNAV (GNSS) and RNAV (RNP) approaches with LPV or LNAV/VNAV minima.) The proposed changes to the regulations and standards will come-into-force after they are published in Canada Gazette II.
Re: Approach Bans
Am I missing something? It's a great tool for getting out of a flight when there are other factors involved, @ night, in the mountains, a circling approach, high cross winds, poor rsc. You could have all of these at once and still be legal, you have the final say I know... But it's nice in my opinion to have a clean cut rule out there so you can make a call and say we can't shoot the approach do you want us to go up there and circle around a while and then fly to our alternate? Do you want to put us on another flight? Should I go home? Or how about, I get a coffee and call you back? I see these rules as a good thing, they will certainly prevent accidents and there a tool to be used when the only thing you have control over is safety.
Donny, you're out of your element!
Re: Approach Bans
There is a fundamental difference between the way the military operates airplanes and the civilian world does, especially in the fighter world. This is reflected in the fact the military is not governed by civilian air regulations. Also, this rule isn't about you, it's about the public sitting in the back of a civilian airplane.Skyhunter wrote:When studying for my ATPL and learning of this rule felt it quite strange. It is not one we have in the military. If I want to try and approach to 0/0 I can. If by some reason the weather clears enough as I get to MDA/DA great if not... missed and go to the alternate. I hate rules that are made because someone screwed something. Take responsibility for your actions.. be a pilot..if your too hot/fast and see the runway too late because of vis, go around and try again or go to the alternate. Just because someone did not do the right pilot thing shouldn't be reason to make some sort of rule for the rest. So long as I have the fuel to attempt the approach to 0/0 I should be allowed. Even stranger, if I was working part time commercially, I could shoot the approach flying military, but then when get in the com job, would not be allowed.
Dumb rule
The government doesn't want you attempting an approach if the weather is reported below minimums, but they give you a little bit of a buffer in there of 25% just in case the RVR or weather reporter has it slightly wrong. There are lets in there in the case of fluctuating or localized visibility, and they give precedence to a pilot observation taken at the end of the runway over a weather observer somewhere off to the side. On top of that if you are past the FAF you can continue even if the weather is then reported 0/0. I don't have a problem with any of that.
The company I work for is even more conservative than that and has lots of restrictions and conditions on top of the government ones. They are strictly in the interest of safety, and they are willing to take a hit on customer service to accomodate it.
When you come and join us out in the civvy world remember that a big part of your job is complying with government and company regulations and procedures whether you agree with them or not. There is almost always a reason for them even if you can't see it yourself yet.
Re: Approach Bans
And at that, this ban is not in effect if you are flying privately.
My ambition is to live forever - so far, so good!
Re: Approach Bans
.....or north of 60. Any of you "its all about safety" and "obey the rules man" types wonder why it is safer north of 60?
When soemthing does not make sense, it needs to be changed, not dogmatically defended.
When soemthing does not make sense, it needs to be changed, not dogmatically defended.
99% of pilots give the rest a bad name
What we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history
What we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history
Re: Approach Bans
The new approach ban rules don't apply to private aircraft because the paying public doesn't ride on private airplanes. And the north has always operated a little outside the norm due to the harsh conditions and dearth of IFR airports. Giving northern operators a little more leeway under those conditions could easily be deemed equivalent level of safety which is how TC justifies excemptions from the letter of a regulation.
If every rule was changed everytime someone didn't agree with it, it would be a very confusing world out there.
If every rule was changed everytime someone didn't agree with it, it would be a very confusing world out there.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Approach Bans
True Rockie as evident by the clear easy to interpret CAR's your regulator has written for you to make sure no one is confused.If every rule was changed everytime someone didn't agree with it, it would be a very confusing world out there.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Approach Bans
So if it were actually possible to know of all
the regulations, and completely comprehend
them all, and strictly obey every one of them
during every monent ... then I am given to
understand that one is guaranteed a safe flight?
Hm.
Where is the regulation that says you can't fly
through a thunderstorm?
I presume that in Canada, since there is no
regulation that says you can't legally fly through
a thunderstorm, that it must therefore be safe
to do so?
the regulations, and completely comprehend
them all, and strictly obey every one of them
during every monent ... then I am given to
understand that one is guaranteed a safe flight?
Hm.
Where is the regulation that says you can't fly
through a thunderstorm?
I presume that in Canada, since there is no
regulation that says you can't legally fly through
a thunderstorm, that it must therefore be safe
to do so?
Re: Approach Bans
Rockie, I am not speaking of private aircraft.
To quote you about the north...harsh conditions..fewer IFR airports.....and a paying public sitting in the back..takes a real leap to consider this equivalent.
You are quite right about changing regs everytime someone is unhappy with them...What about changing regs everytime a few pilots do stupid things and the public screams for TC to do something...so they change the regs..
I recognize it is all about the paying public in the back...but I also fail to see how "equivalent safety" is attached to the exemption north of 60. I would expect that it was the result of the operators up there letting TC know this was a typical knee jerk reaction by TC to a public screaming for them to do something, and it would be a level of unsafety being created by the regs...dont think the big carriers down south give a rats butt about NPA's to much so they would not be oposing it. And, after all, as long as the word safety gets included, who can argue?
What we need, as some other countries' regulators seem to do, is regulation of the pilot qualifications (specific to the company), mandatory line training for charter operators, and better audits from TC to insure that the training so nicely documented in the training file, was, in fact done. The companies who send their pilots out for professional training, make certain BOTH crew members are experienced, and have proper training programs, dont seem to be in the accident stats very often..
What we dont need, is more regulations to allow the continued dumbing down of flight crew abilities....and thats I am afraid, is the direction we are taking.
Feel free to disagree....I am just being the devil's advocate here
To quote you about the north...harsh conditions..fewer IFR airports.....and a paying public sitting in the back..takes a real leap to consider this equivalent.
You are quite right about changing regs everytime someone is unhappy with them...What about changing regs everytime a few pilots do stupid things and the public screams for TC to do something...so they change the regs..
I recognize it is all about the paying public in the back...but I also fail to see how "equivalent safety" is attached to the exemption north of 60. I would expect that it was the result of the operators up there letting TC know this was a typical knee jerk reaction by TC to a public screaming for them to do something, and it would be a level of unsafety being created by the regs...dont think the big carriers down south give a rats butt about NPA's to much so they would not be oposing it. And, after all, as long as the word safety gets included, who can argue?
What we need, as some other countries' regulators seem to do, is regulation of the pilot qualifications (specific to the company), mandatory line training for charter operators, and better audits from TC to insure that the training so nicely documented in the training file, was, in fact done. The companies who send their pilots out for professional training, make certain BOTH crew members are experienced, and have proper training programs, dont seem to be in the accident stats very often..
What we dont need, is more regulations to allow the continued dumbing down of flight crew abilities....and thats I am afraid, is the direction we are taking.
Feel free to disagree....I am just being the devil's advocate here
99% of pilots give the rest a bad name
What we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history
What we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history
Re: Approach Bans
Polar One
You are quite right that the northern operators screamed bloody murder at the approach ban because it would not work up north. The reasoning they gave was, I'm sure, completely rational and correct. Transport Canada may have disagreed with them but I doubt it. "Equivalent level of Safety" is the mechanism by which Transport Canada can work around the strict wording of an air regulation when it doesn't fit a particular circumstance. Don't scoff at it because it's what makes your life as a professional pilot a little easier.
You are quite right that the northern operators screamed bloody murder at the approach ban because it would not work up north. The reasoning they gave was, I'm sure, completely rational and correct. Transport Canada may have disagreed with them but I doubt it. "Equivalent level of Safety" is the mechanism by which Transport Canada can work around the strict wording of an air regulation when it doesn't fit a particular circumstance. Don't scoff at it because it's what makes your life as a professional pilot a little easier.
Re: Approach Bans
Don't know where you got that from. Certainly not anyone from Transport Canada.Hedley wrote:So if it were actually possible to know of all
the regulations, and completely comprehend
them all, and strictly obey every one of them
during every monent ... then I am given to
understand that one is guaranteed a safe flight?
Re: Approach Bans
CAR's are not written by the regulator .. CAR's are concieved by the regulator with help from stakeholders in the industry, but they are actually written by the lawyers in the Justice Department. That may be the source of your confusion.. . wrote:True Rockie as evident by the clear easy to interpret CAR's your regulator has written for you to make sure no one is confused.If every rule was changed everytime someone didn't agree with it, it would be a very confusing world out there.
And just so no one gets the wrong idea, I am not a Transport Canada cheerleader. But I also don't think they're the evil empire.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Approach Bans
Rockie, don't be so condescending, for your information I spent three years in a struggle with TCCA over their twisting of the CAR's to suit their agenda of the moment and in the end I won my case in spite of all their lawyers in Ottawa.
CAR's are not written by the regulator .. CAR's are concieved by the regulator with help from stakeholders in the industry, but they are actually written by the lawyers in the Justice Department. That may be the source of your confusion.
If you have become an expert on the reading of and interpretation of CAR's and I ever have need of someone to advise me I will ask you to explain it all to me.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Approach Bans
Oh. Are you implying that some of the regulations areDon't know where you got that from
not necessary for flight safety? So, you only have to
obey the "important" regulations? If so, which are the
"important" regulations?
Re: Approach Bans
Don't know where you got this from either Hedley, certainly not from me.Hedley wrote:Oh. Are you implying that some of the regulations areDon't know where you got that from
not necessary for flight safety? So, you only have to
obey the "important" regulations? If so, which are the
"important" regulations?
Re: Approach Bans
I'm well aware of your history with TCCA as you know, and I wasn't being condescending, merely pointing out something that other people, and maybe even you didn't know. Don't be so delicate and easily wounded.. . wrote:Rockie, don't be so condescending, for your information I spent three years in a struggle with TCCA over their twisting of the CAR's to suit their agenda of the moment and in the end I won my case in spite of all their lawyers in Ottawa.
CAR's are not written by the regulator .. CAR's are concieved by the regulator with help from stakeholders in the industry, but they are actually written by the lawyers in the Justice Department. That may be the source of your confusion.
If you have become an expert on the reading of and interpretation of CAR's and I ever have need of someone to advise me I will ask you to explain it all to me.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Approach Bans
Yes I was well aware of who actually writes the final wording of the CAR's.
People have described me as being many things but delicate and easily wounded is not one of them.Don't be so delicate and easily wounded.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Approach Bans
So can I shoot the approach yet?
I am bingo fuel!
I am bingo fuel!
- NoseDraggers Suck
