Question for Porter folks

[Troubleshot]

Here's an example of Jazz operating in low vis, not sure if it was breaking the rules but it did warrant a CADORS

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/c ... 0&narr=RVR

[Canoehead]

If he was on his blackberry or iphone checking the weather the he was violating the CARS as well, because lets face it sitting in the back i`m not able to tell the vis or rvr acturatly enough to sat only if i were in the front.

Lots of assumptions in this thread, and some folks are not reading everything carefully before they post. Case-in-point: EC was not commuting on Porter (at least he never said he was). He was not checking wx from the back of the plane. He was probably sitting in the holding area wondering WTF? Why is 7811 not getting in but these guys are? I'd be curious too. His original question was a simple question. If EC is who I think he is, he is not a bitter guy, even though he says he is

As for the folks who think Jazz guys are ungrateful about the J/S on PD- wrong. There are nothing but good things said on our union web board about them. Frustrated at times because of the phone issue, yes, but not bitter or ungrateful. Mattedfred, for example, takes 'the long way to work'... Porter, because it costs big bucks to use his own company (sad), and he is treated very well and likes the service. He is one of several who do this.

As for the actual topic at hand, before you start preaching the rules, make sure you know what you are talking about! This LVOP BS is confusing for us all, but there are plenty of resources out there. And just because a dispatcher says 'you can do it', doesn't mean a thing.

Finally- two things that I see above are glaringly wrong.
1) CYSB is an uncontrolled airport now, operating with a FSS. They are not controllers there, but they will gladly write you up if you don't follow the rules.
2) CYSB has no centerline lighting on any runway.

[El Comat]

Update: Just got off the horn with Transport Canada in Thunder Bay, apparently, if your OPS SPEC allows for the low vis approach, you CAN land and taxi in with the visibility below the operating minima for the airport. You cannot however taxi for departure if the vis is below the operating minima, no matter what ops spec your company may have. Unless the airport HAS a reduced or low vis ops spec you're hooped, it HAS to be 1/2 mile vis. If an operator is operating outside those limits then yes, something should be done in the name of safety. Personally my wife would kill me if I came home dead!

Seems that the TC inspector you talked to is contradicting his own rules. Here is a quote from the TC site:

27. Will aircraft be permitted to commence the approach and land where visibility is above approach ban limits but below the runway published level of service?

In accordance with the CAP GEN, the aircraft may commence the approach. However, if a visibility report below the runway published level of service is received prior to the aircraft reaching the Final Approach Fix (FAF), the landing would be deemed to occur below the published aerodrome operating visibility.

For the 1,000th time, YSB DOES NOT have LVOP/RVOP, so ALL ground movements (including taxiing after landing) are governed by the lowest of any one of the following three: RVR2600, reported vis (1/2sm) or pilot vis (1/2sm).

And for the goof that thinks I was onboard using my iphone...let me REPEAT that I was in the boarding lounge using getting updates from Aeroweather (best wx app ever) and the NavCanada site. It was below 1/2sm and RVR2600 from 1200 until ~1445. Porter landed at ~1327, and departed at ~1409 (according to FlightAware).

These are the facts as I know them, I'm open to correction.

EC

[Sea Legs]

Obviously YSB CANNOT have LVOP since it only govern's airports with CAT 2 or 3 certification. So YSB only falls under RVOP. From the link provided by YXU Pilot. Here are a FAQ concerning the RVOP ops.

5. Are LVOP and RVOP required?

LVOP is required by CAR 302. While a RVOP is not mandatory by regulation, it is strongly recommended that they be developed.

Here is where I ask you a question and you tell me how you interpret this response from TC concerning TAXI vs. LANDING on the Runway.

6. Who is responsible to establish the level of service for reduced or low visibility operations at an aerodrome?

The Aerodrome Operator is responsible for establishing the level of service for their aerodrome and for ensuring that the aerodrome is equipped and/or operated to support that level of service and that the aerodrome and runways meet the requirements for taxi and runway operations below RVR 2600 (½ SM).

So if your authorized to conduct an approach below RVR 2600 into YSB, considering that they DO meet the requirements for this! (ie Runway Lighting and centre line markings) How does this NOT meet the requirements for TAXI? When the aerodrome operator is specifically responsible to ensure Level Of Service for taxi AND Runway operations? Basically I understand it, that if you land in YSB under the approach ban rule even with the OPS spec. You legally can taxi in.
Take-Off is different. But again, there is the ops spec to allow 1200RVR take off. YSB's RUNWAY's meet the requirements! So if the runway meets the requirements then so does taxi? Correct?? I've been known to be wrong so don't hassle me for interpreting the TC website incorrectly!

[teacher]

That's why this is a dumb rule. It applies to taxiing not take off if I remember correctly. Sure the runway can handle it but you can't get there because you have to have 1/2 to taxi. I didn't look anything up and this is just off the top of my head.

[sanjet]

Does YSB have a RVOP?

[Troubleshot]

Here's a few more CADORS from Jazz operating in low vis...just to keep things fair during this slag-fest



http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/c ... 0&narr=RVR


http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/c ... 0&narr=RVR

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/c ... 0&narr=RVR

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/c ... 0&narr=RVR

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/c ... 0&narr=RVR

[countryhick]

Departure or Arrival at sites with an operational ATC tower:

The visibility must be at or above the level of service in order of precedence:

§ The reported RVR for the runway you plan to takeoff from; or

§ In the absence of a reported RVR the reported ground visibility (METAR) and

§ The Pilot-in-command must be satisfied that the required visibility exists.



Departure at sites without an operational ATC tower:

All of the follow reported visibilities must be at or above the level of service:

§ Any reported RVR

§ The reported ground visibility (METAR)

§ The Pilot-in-command must be satisfied that the required visibility exists.



Once Taxi has begun you can continue taxi to the runway for takeoff regardless of the reported visibility as once you are taxiing the limits as defined under take-off visibility become your only concern. These are the same limits that have been in effect for many years.

Take-off visibility, in order of precedence, is defined as:

a) the reported RVR of the runway to be used (unless the RVR is fluctuating above and below the minimum or less than the minimum because of a localized phenomena); or

b) the reported ground visibility of the aerodrome (if the RVR is unavailable, fluctuating above and below the minimum or less than the minimum because of localized phenomena. A local phenomenon is deemed to be occurring if the RVR readout is less than the reported ground visibility); or

c) when neither (a) nor (b) above is available, the visibility for the runway of departure as observed by the pilot-in-command.



Arrivals at sites with or without an operational ATC tower:

If operating into an airport with a level of service less than RVR2600 1/2sm the approach ban limits (Table 1 or 2, as appropriate) are essentially the only requirements you need to be concerned with.

If operating into an airport that doesn’t support a lower level of service, the operational limit is RVR2600 1/2sm and operations below this limit are not allowed.

The visibility must be at or above the level of service based on the order of precedence:

§ The reported RVR for the runway you plan to land on; or

§ In the absence of a reported RVR the reported ground visibility (METAR); or

§ In the absence of RVR or reported ground visibility the visibility as reported by an instrument rated pilot or other qualified person holding short of the runway of planned arrival. (CAR 602.131)

[2.5milefinal]

Does YSB have a RVOP?

Nope
______________________________________________________________
There are only 2 airports in Ontario that have runways with Center-Line lighting, YYZ and YHM.

[sanjet]

Does YSB have a RVOP?

Nope

If no RVOP is in place then doesn't take off minimums govern a taxi? If you are legal to take off in an aerodrome with no RVOP in place then you are legal to taxi. In Porter's case im sure it's 1200RVR at YSB. I don't see the problem unless im missing something?

[The Hammer]

Does YSB have a RVOP?

Nope

If no RVOP is in place then doesn't take off minimums govern a taxi? If you are legal to take off in an aerodrome with no RVOP in place then you are legal to taxi. In Porter's case im sure it's 1200RVR at YSB. I don't see the problem unless im missing something?

Incorrect, for departure from YSB you must have 1/2 sm for departure regardless of your aircraft or crew qualifications. If any RVR or vis on the field is reported at less than 1/2 sm or 2600' you are stuck there.

You can land if the approach ban is not in effect.

North of 60 I can land in 1/4 sm in BS (common occurrence) but I can not depart if the weather is reported at less than 1/2sm . The aircraft and crews are 1/4 sm qualified.

[BTD]

There is no RVOP at YSB. No tower, only FSS.

Regardless of what ops specs you have for 1/4 mile take-off etc, you cannot taxi out unless the vis is 1/2 mile (2600 RVR).

As to approach and landing. Approach ban limits for most commercial operators with the ops specs is 1/2 of the CAP advisory vis. To a min of 3/8 (1600 RVR) unless there is high intensity centreline lighting etc, in which case your ban is 1200 RVR.

To land in Sudbury:

1. The Approach ban requires at least 1600 RVR 3/8s mile.

2. The Aerodrome Maneuvering rules require 1/2 mile 2600 RVR.

If outside the FAF #2 is limiting and you cannot shoot the approach if you know you cannot taxi after landing. Inside the FAF all bets are off and you can complete the approach and taxi after landing regardless of reported vis.

If no RVOP is in place then doesn't take off minimums govern a taxi?

No, RVOP allows down to 1/4 mile taxi. If no RVOP you are at the default of 1/2. Which is above most operator's 1/4 mile ops spec.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Another bitter Jazz pilot trying to get someone else in trouble. Stay classy Jazzers.

These are the same people complaining that Porter doesn't answer their phone fast enough for them to book a free flight.

Yes, I am slightly bitter. I watched Porter blatantly break the CARs (barring some weird Ops Spec that I've never heard of), and in the process they embittered even more Air Canada customers (who indirectly put food on my table). All through the boarding gate I heard people muttering things like "if Porter can go, why can't Air Canada?" and "well there's another reason to fly Porter!"

If you can offer a better product at a better price, then you deserve the extra business and success that goes with it. However, if you're breaking the CARs to get people to choose you, then that's very low and unprofessional. I'd hate to think that we're losing customers because we follow the rules. I hope that's not the case. Competition is cut-throat enough in this industry without nonsense like this. Let's at least, as pilots, all follow the CARs and let our managment worry about the competition.

You stay classy, too.

I could not believe it when I read your original post, and even more shocked when I read your second. I would be embarrassed if I was you, and I would also be embarrassed if I was Jazz. Your reason for coming to AvCanada (as judged off your second post) was not out of concern for safety, but to simply shine your spray painted wings all over the board. You failed.

Second time in 7 days I have witnessed an individual from the AC / Jazz umbrella :

a) bashing other carriers

b) diving into "possible" issues which are none of their damn business.

I am not going to get technical, complicated, etc. Go circle jerk around the minister, do what you have to do, and move on. If PD is blatantly breaking the CARs they will be dealt with accordingly. Let me make myself clear that no carrier has a right to put others in jeopardy for revenue. Shit does happen, however, keep in mind that not everyone can be as “perfect” as jazz.

A lesson with regards to humility and professionalism would do you some good.

[Canoehead]

Perhaps if we (and I mean that in the collective) want to start slagging people, a PM would be the more prudent, 'professional' thing to do.

Just a thought.

[2.5milefinal]

BTD is totally correct.
If you think he is wrong then get ready to back it up if and or when TC gives you a call.

Have fun all.

[dignifly]

I was flying into YSB yesterday at 1200 local and the visibility was exactly 3/8 and rvr 1800. We have the ops spec and could make the approach but I had my doubts about this whole RVOP/LVOP stuff. I read through the cap gen and found it to be very poorly worded and up for a lot of different interpretations. It also mentioned consulting the CFS for the airport's level of service and operating visibility. I couldn't find anything there either and thought it was likely 1/2 a mile. I finally got fed up with it and just asked the MF controller what his interpretation was. He came back and said that YSB's operating visibility is 1/2 a mile and agreed the regulations are poorly worded and that he and his colleagues were also not 100 percent about it. He said their interpretation was that yes, I could do the approach with the 1800 rvr as long as we had the ops spec but that as soon as I touched down and exited the runway I would have to stop there and wait for 1/2 a mile, or shut down and get someone to tow our plane in if we didn't want to wait there. He stated that if we were to come in and land then proceed to taxi then he would have to write it up as they have in past circumstances.

So there you have it. Exact same circumstance on the exact same day. Was the MF controller right? Who knows? But I sure know that we were going to get written up if we landed then taxi'd in so we held for about a half hour to see if the vis would go up before diverting to the alternate. I sure would be interested in seeing the cadors for yesterday and if Porter got written up. If indeed they didn't have the 1/2 mile before the FAF, landed and then taxi'd in then I would fully expect a write up as the controller had previously stated would happen to my flight.

I think what we can all agree that no one is 100 percent sure on this topic as can be seen with the amount of posts. It is such a frustrating topic and this can be seen in many posts. But clearly this is not a Porter issue, or Jazz issue, or AC or whoeverelse has in someone's opinion violated these rules. The main issue is that Transport Canada has to clarify this and can do so by coming up with examples of the four circumstances that are up for debate here. Ideally, they would put this in the next CAP and AIM. I've tossed my interpretations in the brackets here but it sure would be nice if TC just came out and clearly stated the correct answers.

1) Aircraft outside of FAF has vis to make approach but that visibility is below the airport operating visibility (my interpretation is you can do the approach but then you can't taxi on the ground)

2) Aircraft past FAF and airport operating vis drops below mins. (you can land and taxi)

3) Aircraft has not begun to taxi or received clearance and vis is below operating vis (you can't taxi)

4) Aircraft began taxiing and then operating vis drops below mins (you can continue to taxi in this situation... taking off though, well that's another story depending on several variables and what airport you're at)

[El Comat]

Dignifly,

I believe you (and BTD) have hit the nail on the head.

This was not meant to get everyone's feathers ruffled. I simply wanted to know how Porter circumvented the CARs...perhaps they had an Ops Spec. I was pretty sure they didn't, so my question was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I watched one carrier break the rules, while my company took heat for being "crappy old Air Canada (Jazz)". I had 50-75 Jazz pax giving me dirty looks and asking me stupid (and some rude) questions. One clown even accused ALPA of contractually not letting us fly in low vis like Porter .

Anyway, there's nothing new for me to add. As you were....

EC

[Fresh Prince of King Air]

Does Poter have HUDs?

[BTD]

He said their interpretation was that yes, I could do the approach with the 1800 rvr as long as we had the ops spec but that as soon as I touched down and exited the runway I would have to stop there and wait for 1/2 a mile, or shut down and get someone to tow our plane in if we didn't want to wait there

Although I agree with the rest of your post, the MF guy had it wrong. According to the rules before they re wrote the cap gen a couple of months ago:

If the weather is below taxi vis while on approach before you reach the FAF, you cannot shoot the approach because you are aware that when you land you cannot taxi. You are effectively banned from doing the approach due to taxi vis.

If, however, the vis drops once inside the FAF it can drop to the minimum possible for you to succeed at doing the approach and once you land you are allowed to taxi in. Even if the vis is 0.

I will try to find the reference now that they re wrote the wording in the cap gen.

Think about it from a common sense point of view. If you they know that you cannot taxi once landed why allow you to complete the approach in the first place. If however, you are able to land because you are inside the FAF, why prevent you from taxiing in?

This whole taxi off the runway and get towed in stuff just doesn't make any sense. Even for TC.

[BTD]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ca


5. Where the Aerodrome operating visibility as set out in paragraph 4.2 (2), is less than the minimum visibility published in the CFS, a landing is deemed to occur below the published aerodrome operating visibility for the runway of intended use; except where:


Meaning that if you land with the vis below taxi vis, then you have violated the taxi rules. The relevent exception to this is.

a. At the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted;

If you are not inside the FAF or following one of the 3 other exceptions (which don't relate to position on approach) you are not allowed to land.

BTD

[midwingcrisis]

Jeez, In the old days we had to answer questions like this in about 30 seconds without a CAP GEN or CFS....looks like everyone gets clouded with rules and figure them out later here. Almost what Ross Perot used to call....Gotcha Politics. Has anyone a definitive answer?

[sakism]

Despite the convoluted wording in the CAP GEN this is really not complicated.

Each runway has a designated visibility, found in the runway section of the CFS. If no visibility is given for a particular runway then the default minimum visibility is 1/2 mile.

For departures:
- if the visibility is below LVOP/RVOP limit you cannot taxi for takeoff
- if the visibility is LVOP/RVOP limit or better you can taxi for takeoff
- if the visibility is LVOP/RVOP limit mile and you start to taxi for takeoff and then the visibility drops to less than RVOP
limit you may continue the taxi and takeoff

For arrivals:
- if, at the time you cross the FAF (or intercept the final approach course if no FAF), the visibility is at or above
LVOP/RVOP limit, and at or above the approach ban limit, then you may continue
- if you get to the FAF and it is below LVOP/RVOP limit or below approach ban limit then you cannot continue the
approach
- if the visibility drops to below LVOP/RVOP limit or approach ban limit once past the FAF you may continue the
approach, and if you land you may taxi to wherever you need to go

The LVOP/RVOP restrictions and the Approach Ban restrictions are TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE SETS OF RULES. They both have to be adhered to.

The north of 60 exemption applies only to approach ban limits. LVOP/RVOP still has to be adhered to.

[sanjet]

Is there anywhere in CAP GEN or CAR's that state the taxi limit is 1/2 mile at an aerodrome without RVOP? I seem to not be able to find it. We all understand the limits at aerodrome's with set RVOP/LVOP.. But what about aerodromes without these RVOP's and LVOP's such as YSB? Where does it state that it is automatically 1/2 mile?

[QKDH8]

I'm having a hard time believing the ongoing discussion on this topic, when the answers are so clearly available in black and white in the guidance material given by TC.

People quoting their chief pilots, some FSS operator they talked to one time, and "the last captain I flew with", need to dedicate a little time on their next day off to READ THE REGULATIONS. It's not hard, we all learned (or should have learned) to navigate the CARs when we wrote our PSTARs, so why would you take someone else's opinion as the gospel truth and regurgitate it on this board over and over again? Why wouldn't you as the professional pilots you all claim to be go to the source and look it up? When a lawyer is preparing for a case he looks up the relevant laws, he doesn't just say "Well a senior partner at my firm says that the criminal code reads xxxxx" Honestly guys, you wanted to be treated like professionals, then prove that you have a reading level that surpasses primary school, get on the Transport Canada website and find some answers for yourself. You'll be a better pilot for it. And if and when you do, you'll see that correct answers look exactly like BTDs. This entire thread (which the exception of ECs initial question) would be moot if people would take that time to learn the material instead of passing on myths.

One person writes

If it drops AFTER you have landed, then you can still taxi, but I cannot get a real firm answer for what happens if it drops below operating minima PAST the FAF and BEFORE you land. Two chief pilots basically said that you "shut down, chock it, and walk away."

If that is true, I'd go so far as to say those CPs are UNFIT to be operating in that capacity. I find it pretty scary that such misinformation is being passed on by chief pilots. If you can, I'd suggest writing an SMS and following up with a call to your POI at TC.

Oh btw CYXU pilot, you can't get an answer for that? How long did you spend looking it up and who have you consulted? The neighbours dog? Your local boat mechanic? Because in about 60 seconds I was able to get an answer, and here is it. The following all comes from 1 google search, "CARs RVOP LVOP". Which leads to the following pages:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 02-302.htm
Paragraph 4.2.5 A)

--

Now that my rant is over why not a little free lesson for the AvCanada users out there?

It's very important to differentiate between "Take-Off Minimums", "Approach Ban" and "Aerodrome Level of Service". All these items are separate and distinct and must not be mixed up. For a takeoff you must consider both the Level of Service and the Take-Off Minimums. For landing you must consider both the Level of Service and the Approach Ban.

The Level of Service will be determined by one thing only, what kind of plan the aerodrome has submitted to TC, and it falls into 3 categories:

1) - No Plan - Limited to standard 1/2 mile or RVR 2600. - (This is the case in YSB)
2) - RVOP - "Reduced Visibility Operations Plan" - Allows operations below 1/2 mile down to and including 1/4 mile
3) - LVOP - "Low Visibility Operations Plan" - Allows operations below 1/4 mile (Only applicable at Cat 2/3 airports like YHM, YYZ, YUL etc.)

How do you know that the Level of Service is for your airport / runway?
The only official source is the CFS. It's under runway data. Look up Toronto Pearson (YYZ). Under the RWY DATA section. See runway 6L? It says RVR 600. See runway 24R? It says RVR 1200 (1/4sm). Depending on what runway you're landing on, that is the aerodrome Level of Service. Obviously YYZ has an RVOP and LVOP. Now look up Sudbury (YSB). There's nothing there. That means it has no plan, and as such the aerodrome Level of Service is standard, or 1/2sm / RVR 2600.

Now we know what the limit for our runway is, how do we use it?

Don't think of the Level of Service as a "Taxi Ban", as it has become to be known. Think about it like you may not START to use that aerodrome if the visibility is below it, either for takeoff or arrival. The Level of Service applies only in the following 2 situations:

Approach - BEFORE THE FAF. After you have passed the FAF, you are no longer governed by this "Ban"
Takeoff - COMMENCING THE TAXI. Once you have moved, this "ban" no longer applies.

What this means:

On approach - So as long as you have the required level of service visibility, and approach ban visibility as you cross the FAF, you can continue to fly the approach, land and taxi in, regardless of what happens to the vis (Provided you see the runway at minimums). Maybe your CP will even buy you a beer because you didn't need to have someone come out and tow your airplane off the runway (I'm still fuming about that, what a pathetic piece of advice given by a clueless CP)

On takeoff - So long as you have the required level of service visibility when you release the brake, you may now continue to the runway, and as long as you comply with take-off minimums (ops specs and all) you are legal to take off, regardless of that happens to the vis.

How do you know to use RVR or Ground Vis though?

With one exception the "hierarchy" is always:
-RVR of the runway USED
-Ground Vis
-Pilot Vis

So if there is an RVR for the runway you're using it's governing. If not, use the ground vis. If that's not reported use pilot vis.
The one exception is DEPARTING from an uncontrolled airport, then ALL (Not just the runway you're using) REPORTED RVR has to be above the minimums plus the ground vis and pilot vis must be above minimums.

--

So using our new found knowledge here's what we know:

If Porter crossed the FAF, with the RVR for the RWY they were landing on below 2600', a violation of the CARs occurred
If Porter released the brakes to taxi with any RVR below 2600', or the reported ground vis less than 1/2sm, a violation of the CARs occurred.

That is a fact. If you can't figure out why, I can't believe you hold a valid instrument rating. You need to stick to VFR flying. It's that simple.

Now let's get back to the discussion. Did Porter do the above? If yes, EC has every right to be concerned. If not, then great job to the Porter crew.

*Edited to correct an error in the paragraph reference above.

[QKDH8]

In the time it took for me to reply it seems a few people have come out of the woodwork with the correct answers. The first 1 1/2 pages of this thread were unbelievable. It's nice to see there are people out there who are able to quote the rules correctly.

Sanjet in answer to your question

Is there anywhere in CAP GEN or CAR's that state the taxi limit is 1/2 mile at an aerodrome without RVOP?

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 02-302.htm

Section 4.1.1 of that Advisory Circular states

"The standard minimum visibility required for ground operation and take-off at an aerodrome is Runway Visual Range(RVR) 2600 feet (1/2 SM)."

Hope that helps.