Low vis/reduced vis operations

[Check Pilot]

The March 12, 2009 issue of the CAP GEN section has some new stuff regarding LVOP/RVOP operations. With a few exceptions, for most airports other than places like CYVR and CYYZ operations like takeoffs, landings and taxiing in and out are prohibited when the RVR goes below 2600 and/or 1/2 mile.

[Brown Bear]

Can't taxi if the vis is less than 1/2 mile? Another bright idea, brought to us by some Ottawa jerk off trying to justify his employment. Morons.

[bezerker]

A little later than originally planned due to many airports not having a plan in place when they were supposed to.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=44969

[swordfish]

In that thread (linked in bezerker's post) Calgary is conspicuous in its absence. That is bound to be 'fun' when the conditions go down. It's 'fun enough' already, trying to get deiced there.

[1&2SpooledUp]

Let the games begin..........

ST. JOHN'S/ST. JOHN'S INTL/NL

TAF AMD CYYT 211413Z 2114/2212 05018G28KT 1/4SM SN +BLSN VV004 TEMPO
2114/2118 1SM -SN BLSN VV008
FM211800 05020G30KT 1/2SM SN BLSN VV004 TEMPO 2118/2120 1SM -SN
BLSN VV008 PROB40 2118/2120 1/4SM +SHSN BLSN VV002
FM212000 05020G30KT 3/4SM -SN BLSN OVC004 TEMPO 2120/2202 2SM
-FZRA -PL BR OVC006
FM220200 09015G25KT 1/2SM -RA FG OVC003 TEMPO 2202/2207 1/4SM -RA
FG VV001
FM220700 14015KT 1/4SM -DZ FG VV001 TEMPO 2207/2212 1/2SM FG
VV003
RMK NXT FCST BY 211800Z=

[turbo-prop]

CFS hows RVOP operation 1/4 mile so you can still operate there.

[WF9F]

For your first post I can see you can cut and paste, good for you. If you had half a clue you would know that a March winter storm can hit anywhere. Check out West for tonight. Everyone is an expert and critic when it comes to weather in CYYT and most from guys who do not even live there. Makes me sick.Flying there seperates the men from the boys. In future if you want to make an educated and pertinent post under your topic I am sure it would garner some educated comments.
I myself am baffled as to why TC would implement a mninimum taxi RVR. It is the stupidest thing I have heard in years. Some airports will allow you to land but not allow to taxi. As well they talk about only allowing one movement at a time during low vis,one in one out.Companies are in avaition to try and make money as hard as that is and these idiotic rules will not help at all. The TC folks who came up with this need to understand that.

[A Regulator]

the airports always had a min vis

they had to meet TP312 for aerodromes
Certification that was 1/2 mile. Problem was no one knew or enforced it. Now that TC does not own them airport operators do not want to accept liability. (my guess ) Cost to install required equipment is not worth it for only a limited times that weather is below 1/2 mile

[trey kule]

A regulator

Please forgive an old guy who doesnt fly in Canada anymore, but I think you might have made a good point. The problem is I dont have a clue what a TP whatever is..Would you mind dumbing your post down a bit as I would like to understand.

The whole vis thing is a bit of a mystery to me ( as is NPA approach bans) so feel free to dumb it way down.

tks

[CD]

TP 312 - Aerodromes Standards and Recommended Practices is a document that basically sets out the design, construction and equipment standards for airports, including signage, marking and lighting. However, many airports apparently do not meet the minimum standards specified in the document for RVO/LVO...

[A Regulator]

Sure anytime trey kule, most Transport Canada publication have TP and a number in front of them, so that they can be ordered for your reading pleasure and from my understanding TP312 is the publication that sets out what is required for aerodromes etc. Try this link to TP312

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publi ... 2/menu.htm

Back in the old days an operator used to have a can of purple spray paint in the airplane and then have someone go down and mark the centerline of a gravel runway in the winter time so that you can take off since your company had below 1/2 mile limits. Problem was the airport never met the requirements for other items for reduced takeoff. Company kept telling everyone that was Ok, well it was not nothing has changed except that now it is written down and a lot easier to find out it what the runway is authorized for.

Back in the old days the aerdromes branch would go out and "audit" TCs airports to see if they still met the requirements etc, and guess that some did and some still did not... Remember the fire fighting issues just after or during the sell off of the airports.

Hope this helps a bit

[sakism]

Back in the old days an operator used to have a can of purple spray paint in the airplane and then have someone go down and mark the centerline of a gravel runway in the winter time so that you can take off since your company had below 1/2 mile limits. Problem was the airport never met the requirements for other items for reduced takeoff. Company kept telling everyone that was Ok, well it was not.....

(iii) the runway is equipped as detailed in the manual of Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices with serviceable and functioning high intensity runway lights or runway centre-line lights or with runway centre-line markings that are plainly visible to the pilot throughout the take-off run;



Not sure why you say this was not alright. One of the ciriteria for 1/4 mile take-off was centre-line marking visible for entire length of the take-off roll. Dye lines worked just fine and satisfied the requirement.

Perhaps airports were breaking rules, but pilots were not.

BTW - the old days??? Saw four dye lines yesterday.

[Hornblower]

.

[A Regulator]

Problem is that it is the pilots who do.
NavCanada will still issue taxi Clr, they do not care
As they expect you to know the rules and if below 1/2 mile with no lvops a report will be filed.

[flying4dollars]

For your first post I can see you can cut and paste, good for you. If you had half a clue you would know that a March winter storm can hit anywhere. Check out West for tonight. Everyone is an expert and critic when it comes to weather in CYYT and most from guys who do not even live there. Makes me sick.Flying there seperates the men from the boys. In future if you want to make an educated and pertinent post under your topic I am sure it would garner some educated comments.

What the heck sparked this rant??

I should really ask what ur smoking and where I can get some

[Widow]

1&2spooled up had started a new thread with his/her initial post above ... just a little confusion when the threads were merged.

[flying4dollars]

1&2spooled up had started a new thread with his/her initial post above ... just a little confusion when the threads were merged.

gotcha, cheers for clearin that up

[WF9F]

The rant was toward a poster that added nothing to this thread with his post of the latest weather as St.John's is equipped for the low vis taxi foolishness we find ourselves dealing with. I live in YYT and am well aware of what the weather was like as I took off there this morning. I get tired off guys unfamiliar or for that matter who have not even been there as I would guess is the case for 1&2spooled up, always eyeing the weather down east as somewhere akin to a lunar landing briefing. I am done with the rant towards this rookie.

As to what I am smoking, get ur own!!!

[LifeJet]

CADORS Number: 2009C0360 Reporting Region: Prairie & Northern

Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type: Incident Occurrence Date: 2009/02/10
Occurrence Time: 0410 Z Day Or Night: night-time
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0

Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYMM Aerodrome Name: Fort McMurray
Occurrence Location: Fort McMurray (CYMM) Province: Alberta
Country: CANADA World Area: North America

Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 104296-V1
TSB Class Of Investigation: 3 TSB Occurrence No.: A09W0026
Event Information
Aerodrome - other
ATC operating irregularity (other)
Conflict - near collision (VFR or IFR)
Weather - visibility
Aircraft Information
Flight #: CNK 411
Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA
Make: BEECH Model: 1900D
Year Built: 1998 Amateur Built: No
Engine Make: PRATT & WHITNEY-CAN Engine Model: PT6A-67D
Engine Type: Turbo prop Gear Type: Land
Phase of Flight: Takeoff Damage: No Damage
Owner: SUNWEST AVIATION LTD. Operator: SUNWEST AVIATION LTD. (5404)
Operator Type: Commercial

Detail Information
User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2009/02/11
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: CNK411 (Sunwest Aviation) departed runway while TK81 (sweeper) was still on the runway.

User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2009/02/12
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: UPDATE A09W0026: The Sunwest Beech 1900D, C-GSWZ, was departing Runway 25 at Fort McMurray with a visibility of about 5/8 of a mile. Just before reaching V1 the crew noticed headlights on the runway in front of them. They rotated immediately and passed about 100 to 150 feet over a snowplow. The snowplow had been waiting on taxiway "C" when called by the FSS operator to enter the runway and continue snow clearing operations. The snowplow operator was communicating on the ground frequency of 121.9. The Beech 1900D was communicating on the MF frequency of 118.1.

User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2009/02/13
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: UPDATE TSB reported that this incident will be the subject of a Class 3 investigation. A Minister's Observer from System Safety will be appointed.

[complexintentions]

I get tired off guys unfamiliar or for that matter who have not even been there as I would guess is the case for 1&2spooled up, always eyeing the weather down east as somewhere akin to a lunar landing briefing.

heheh I was based in Torbay for awhile and you do have to admit, the place gets some "special" weather...everyone should be fortunate enough to fly NF/Lab coast in the winter for a season or two, you'll never complain about weather anywhere else again! (Not to mention the most fun you will ever have living in St. John's...)

But on topic, 1/2 mile taxi restriction does seem dumb. I can't be arsed to read the document but do I understand that to mean you can't even taxi out to hold short to try and depart during RVR fluctuations?

[bezerker]

Six aircraft in the CADORs for taxiing below minima operations in YYC on April 3rd.

There has been about as much info put forward about this as there was info about the new licenses. It is there, but you have to dig for it. With six occurrences on probably the first foggy day in YYC since the new rules were to be enforced, it makes me wonder how many operators and pilots are aware of the implications of the new enforcement policies and how to determine if you are breaking the rules.

As best as I can figure, almost every airport in Canada is now restricted to 1/2 mile operations, regardless of any OPSPECS a company may hold or if you are north of 60. The only exceptions being YVR, YYZ, and YHZ (I'm sure there are a few more,but I am too lazy to hunt for all of them). This info is somewhat hidden in my opinion.

The new CAP GEN has a new section regarding low visibility taxi procedures. It tells us that information about airports can be found in the IAIP, which I will admit, I had never heard of, and nor has anyone I have asked. It stands for "Integrated Aeronautical Information Package" which according to an old AIP GEN 3.1.3 (the only reference I could find) includes the following publications:
• AIP Canada (ICAO) and related amendment service
• AIP Canada (ICAO) Supplements
• Aeronautical Information Circulars
• NOTAMs

Unfortunately none of these helped me very much when trying to determine if I am allowed to taxi or not at a given airport.

After hunting around, I found the answer hidden in the CFS. In the runway information box, after the runway length, it will say 600, 1200, 1/4 or nothing. According to the instructions in the CFS, if it says nothing, the runway AND airport is only certified for 1/2 mile/2600 RVR operations. If it says one of the other numbers, the runway and airport are certified to that limit. Pretty much every airport in the country says nothing, so 1/2 mile is the limit.

I apologize if everyone already knows this and I am just slower than most, but hopefully this will enlighten at least some people. Or perhaps someone can further enlighten me if I am incorrect in my interpretations (that my POI was unable to help me with).

I truly can't understand why they just can't put in the taxi chart in the CAP a big box that says minimum airport operating visibility 1/2 mile or something obvious like that.

[2milefinal]

I truly can't understand why they just can't put in the taxi chart in the CAP a big box that says minimum airport operating visibility 1/2 mile or something obvious like that.

....noooo kidding

[clarence oveur]

So if nobody is allowed to taxi then why does the ground controller issue taxi instructions? And then turn around and file a CADORS on you? One would think if you were given instructions you'd be ok to go.

[bobcaygeon]

Most major airports have issued notam's advising which runways are 1200 or 600 rvr qualified. It's not in the CFS because the cutoff date is quite early. It should be in the next one.

AC 300-003 issued March 12 states all the relevant info. including where to find runway limitaions. Most airports with an approved plan for LVOP/RVOP's have public information about the details of their plan. The airport I deal with regularily is even going to send our operation an email every time they implement or cancel RVOP\LVOP's.

The major issue is lack of certified plans. This is an airport operator and a TC (lack of manpower) issue.

On the positive note I have an email that states to ATAC from the upper level of TC that this issue will be dealt with via sms/local POI and not Enforcement. Let's hope operators doen't do something to change that view.

In reality at a place like YYC with ATS, there really shouldn't be an issue because ground/tower are responsible for ensuring compliance with the RVOP/LVOP ). It's at "xxx Radio" where they allow you to hang yourself.

IMHO

[Cat Driver]

Well if you look at this from a safety point of view you have to admit that being able to only see half a mile ahead of the airplane would mean it would be very dangerous to try and taxi the thing, how could you ever get it stopped in half a mile at taxi speeds?

I'm all for the filing of CADORS and in fact think that any crew attempting to taxi in visibilities less than half a mile should be arrested and put in jail for ten years.

It is about time there were some real well thought out safety regulations put in force and thankfully TC has stepped up to the plate and done the right thing.

When I was a pilot I would never have even dreamed of doing anything so reckless as attempting to taxi in such poor conditions, in fact I would never release the brakes unless I had at least a mile vis.