Approach ban is pretty much gone

[Check Pilot]

.

[Goose]

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but what new reg's?

[aileron]

Extra Extra, Read All About It:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/IMSdo ... 00-003.htm

PDF document: http://www.tc.gc.ca/Civilaviation/IMSdo ... 00-003.pdf

This is AC 300-003, Aerodrome Operating Visibility

In Vancouver, for instance, there is a RVOP/LVOP reduced/low visibility operation plan so RVR 1200 or 600 t/o is permitted (by Ops Spec., equipment, training & experience). It is allowed since the airport has a procedure in place to allow aircraft who have received their taxi clearance following their IFR clearance predicated on the vicinity of the airport they're taxiing from, the runway used, the time of day and the operator I believe. Essentially it is the coordination of aircraft movement to the departure end of the runway to complement the available movements allowed under the "playbook" with regard to arriving aircraft, minimums, probable landings, separation, etc, etc, etc...

Not familar with YXE these days, but if there is a RVOP/LVOP then taxiing for departure of a Ops Spec nature would be allowed. If you have just landed, the circular (and Cap Gen) shows, obviously, that you can taxi to wherever you're going eleswhere on the airport.

BTW, what a crappy new site layout at TC, I was just getting used to the god-awful previous navigation nightmare. Why can't the bureaucrats design a proper web site, and also why is it that their search function is the worst possible search function in the whole world - I mean really would it be that hard to put a google search button onto their pages?

[short bus]

My favourite part is that if it's below 2600rvr/ 1/2 mile, you can still taxi the airplane as long as it's not for the purpose of going flying. WTF??

[canpilot]

Aileron..

Yes, the search function is completely useless.. I tried looking up CARS reference numbers studying for the IATRA..I found it impossible.. I had to get my wife (tech leadership student) to help. You would think that the people who need to know the regs and learn them should have the regulations easily available to them without pulling out one's hair.. guess .. not so much

[Tim]

if it was easy EVERYONE would want to do it (learn the rules that is)

[DowneastGuy]

Someone correct me if I'm interpreting it wrong.

Using Fredericton as an example, I'm told to check the current CFS for the applicable status in the runway data section. The March 12 amendment states RVR 1200 for runway 09 and 15. Operating under 604, if the RVR is 1400 I should be legal to fly an approach, land and taxi in. Using an Ops Spec, I should be legal to taxi out and depart as well.

The restriction I see is at an airport that has centreline lighting and the RVR is below 1200. Under the new regulation I can taxi and depart under an Ops Spec at RVR 600 only if the airport has the required improvements and an approved LVOP, and some haven't yet.

[Liquid Charlie]

My understanding (I've been wrong before) but the is the knee jerk reaction to an audit by ICAO who stated that Canadian Airports are substandard for reduced vis ops -- echoing what i said before -- divert some of that money towards improving runways -- all these fancy terminals - look at Ottawa and not a centre line light to be seen and in the north -- well -- length and surface treatment and get those WAAS enabled approaches coming --

[Batman]

LC, amen brother, it totally pisses you off as a pilot when you read community news bragging about their new facility or their up and coming airport renos that will put ther city on the map as a major international center. And guess what, not one dime spent on upgrading a single approach or runway. To have a climate like YEG or YYC and no centerline lights is a joke. I applaud TCs recognition of a problem with 1/4 mile vis approaches to runways without centerline lighting but rather than change the mins mandate ceterline lights at these "major" airports.

[pitot]

So.... here is my inderstanding of this whole RVOP thing. Please correct me if i am wrong! If there is a Airport with no RVOP procedure, then if RVR is lower than 2600 you are not legally able to taxi for t/o or subsequently conduct an approach either. Even with the ops spec. If there is an RVOP procedure then you are able to conduct an approach according to the RVOP procedures. Now am i missing something because my understanding of some of the procedures out there are very restrictive and would cripple larger airports when vis is bad?

[DowneastGuy]

The way I read it:

If the airport is approved for LVOP, the CFS will show RVR 1200 in the runway data section and you're good to taxi down to RVR 1200. YFC rwy 09.

If the airport is approved for RVOP, the CFS will show RVR 600 in the runway data section and you're good to taxi down to RVR 600. YHZ rwy 23.

[fougapilot]

Pitot,

That's the way I read it to.

Further to this, after reading the Doc from TC, I believe this to be an airport issue, not an airplane/pilot issue. Baring certain approval requirements, most if not all airports (which support IFR operations) should be able to obtain approval for operation in Reduced Visual conditions. Whether they do or not is another topic all together.

F

[rd1331]

I was told that the improvements to, Thompson for example, would cost $1,000,000. So its not as easy as applying, there are many improvements that have to be made.

You cannot taxi at anytime from what I understand if the RVR is below the required value. You can't even taxi across the runway to position the aircraft at the terminal. But the aircraft can be towed to the terminal in these instances. This is the way I have been explained it.

[A Regulator]

The airport has to have LVOP in place. It is an airport issue & nothing about aircraft or the AOC holders authorities from what I understand. The revised low vis ops specs (RVR600/1200) for all AOC holders are suppose to be issued shorly with some new wording.

You will have to check for either NOTAMs, CFS or I think the CAP GEN section will have information to indicate if the runway and airport has LVOP in place. RUMOR has it that ATC will still issue taxi instructions if asked (even if the airport does not have a LVOP in place) but also issue a CADORs. (may want to ask or check into the ATC forum and ask them). If so I don't know why.

I think this LVOP issue is still being debated at TC/Navcanada in HQ can you see the finger pointing back and forth.

[lilfssister]

RUMOR has it that ATC will still issue taxi instructions if asked (even if the airport does not have a LVOP in place) but also issue a CADORs. (may want to ask or check into the ATC forum and ask them).

Correct, ATC and FSS to send an AOR when this occurs.

[linecrew]

RUMOR has it that ATC will still issue taxi instructions if asked (even if the airport does not have a LVOP in place) but also issue a CADORs. (may want to ask or check into the ATC forum and ask them). If so I don't know why.

Just for the sake of correctness, Nav Canada is not responsible for regulatory actions and only submit an Aircraft Occurence Report (AOR) when something is observed. TC creates CADORS files which are sometimes based on an AOR. After that, a decision is made whether or not regulatroy action is required.

[A Regulator]

Thank you linecrew, for correcting me on the CADORs process.

[Amateur Turbines]

This rule is dumb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!