localized phenomenon

[TreeBlender]

Just wondering if anyone has a current CAP GEN in front of them and can quote the bit on...

"a localized phenomenon is deemed to be occurring when the reported ground visibility is higher than the RVR."

[BEFAN5]

"with respect to approach restrictions, in the case of local phenomenon or any fluctuations that affect RVR validity, where the ground vis is reported by ATC or FSS to be at or above 1/4 mile, an approach may be completed."

Is that the part you are looking for?

With all this LVOP RVOP bs I think it is time we fill that second officers seat with an attorney at all times to help us find the appropriate loopholes to land.

[TreeBlender]

haha... actually looking for the bit on departure minimums. It says that RVR takes precedence over ground visibility unless a localized phenomenon is occurring and then below that it says a local phenomenon is deemed to be occurring anytime the RVR is lower than the ground visibility. Just looking for the exact language.

[BEFAN5]

Sorry. I tried.

This has got to be one of the most difficult aspects of flying. I really don't have time, nor do I want to have to go through my clipboard contents entering an airport control area and trying to figure out if I can land or not.

It should be as simple as Minimums.

Flying IFR is so safe providing you don't bust those. If RVR is 1 foot and VV is 000 and I want to shoot the ILS down to 200, why can't I? As long as I know when to go around I am not creating a danger to anyone.

[Beefitarian]

Too many people squeezing 200 to 190,180,140, CFIT? Making rules becomes a game of how to prevent morons from bending airplanes while "interpreting" them, instead of setting simple reasonable boundries for everyone. Sounds like they're allowing for a couple more reasons to back up, "We can't see here, go land at the next place. Unless you could see and landed, then it wasn't our fault, just kidding." Making it my fault for crashing when weather gets iffy, yet allowing for them to refuse to look out the window and notice it's sunny now. The CYA culture is well out of control in my opinion.

I agree with what you're saying, most pilots will know and respect when to go around.

[BEFAN5]

True.

Except this doesn't prevent anything (or morons from busting minimums). All it results in is a CADOR saying "C-ABCD landed when RVR was 50feet". Or I guess it could just as likely read "C-ABCD hit the McDonalds arch on main street after busting minimums".

[Beefitarian]

I'll admit I don't know much about IFR, my dual hour of actual didn't really help round out my training in that area but...

I'm pretty sure if he comes out of cloud at any height and sees the arches there are some other issues with his ILS approach not directly related to RVR. I laughed for sure though.

[Number1]

This is a little out of date, but...
http://members.shaw.ca/canuckpilotapps/CAPGEN.pdf

[TreeBlender]

So for some clarification, here are two scenarios and answers to whether it is a go or no go. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

On Departure the RVR is below min but the ground visibility is above. Even though the RVR takes precedence, you can still depart because...

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);

The same holds true on approach if the RVR is below min but the ground visibility is above. Even though the RVR takes precedence, you can still approach because...

The following exceptions to the above prohibitions apply to all general aviation aircraft:

d) the RVR is less than the minimum RVR, and the ground visibility at the aerodrome where
the runway is located is reported to be at least 1/4 mile;

[Beefitarian]

This is a little out of date, but...
http://members.shaw.ca/canuckpilotapps/CAPGEN.pdf

Thanks for the link.

Is there one for Flight sup? It's a pain when I'm trying to look for something like runway but don't have a copy at home.

[BTD]

So for some clarification, here are two scenarios and answers to whether it is a go or no go. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. It used to be slightly different in regards to whether you needed both or one or the other. You can read the previous versions of the relevant CARs to see that.

But as it stands, you're right.

BTD

[2.5milefinal]

d) the RVR is less than the minimum RVR, and the ground visibility at the aerodrome where
the runway is located is reported to be at least 1/4 mile;

That 1/4 mile vis only applies at a few airports that have Low Visibility Procedures.
At most airports you will need 1/2 mile vis.

[TreeBlender]

That 1/4 mile vis only applies at a few airports that have Low Visibility Procedures.
At most airports you will need 1/2 mile vis.

The approach ban is 1/4 mile RVR (1200RVR)?

The approach ban says that you cannot continue the approach if it is below 1200RVR (1/4mile) except for the following exceptions including 1/4 mile vis on the field.

The whole low visibility procedures is something in and of itself.

[2.5milefinal]

Agreed.
But you can not taxi,takeoff or land (at most airports) unless you have 1/2 VIS.
So the 1/4 thing seems not to matter ...at most airports.
Aerodrome Operating Visibility
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca- ... 02-002.pdf