YYT CATIII

[complexintentions]

In the 757 we did CATIII approaches using three autopilots, again with a decision height of 50' but all you had to see was LAND3 in the annunciator. It was conceivable that you could land, rollout and brake to a stop without seeing anything.

Hmmm. According to another post there are no CATIIIB (aka "zero-zero") approaches in Canada. I can't be bothered to confirm that, actually I'm kinda surprised (well, not really) that even YVR or YYZ doesn't have 3B. But from my admittedly imperfect memory, for any other approach there are visual reference requirements.

CATII: 3 consecutive lights + a lateral element
CATIIIA: 3 consecutive lights
CATIIIB with DH: 1 centreline light
CATIIIB with no DH: no requirement for visual contact

You would definitely have to see more than just "LAND3" on the first three approaches and the fourth isn't available in Canada apparently. Apologies for the pedantry, I'm studying for some stupid exams on this stuff!

[pilotbzh]

Did a cat3 dual on 321 in Yyz no DA....600rvr don't forget to disconnect the ap to turn off..

[thenoflyzone]

Interesting. Wonder why Sunwing is only CAT II? We know the 737 can do CATIIIA, so is it a crew restriction? insurance? Savings on training costs? Less components to maintain on the 737?

I can see that there might not be an immediate need to certify the crew for CATIII. As I said, only 4 Canadian airports have it, and virtually no airports in the Caribbean have CATII, much less CATIII. Heck, most don't even have a CAT I ILS.

[Eric Janson]

In our operation we fly in meters.

A340 is certified for Cat3b no DH operations. This just requires 75m RVR.

There is no requirement to see anything prior to touchdown and after touchdown we need to have 1 centerline light in sight (EASA).

We are allowed to take-off with 125m RVR.

All of the above assumes the appropriate lighting and ILS calibration exist.

I've never flown in actual Cat3B weather - I've always seen the runway around 50'.

I've done a 200m RVR take-off in Milan - it was hard to even taxi to the runway.

At a previous company all landings below Cat1 limits were mandatory autolands. Nice and simple.

[Rockie]

Some fleets at AC are approved to CAT III(b) limits (no DH/RVR 150ft), in Canada however the lowest limits are No DH/RVR 600. The RVR limits are due to airport lighting as far as I know and level of service, none of which provide less than 600 feet required visibility.

[rxl]

Pretty expensive toys for the amount of use they would get.

If used properly and during all phases of flight, it is hardly a toy. There is a lot more benefit to it than just being able to conduct Category 3 approaches.

HGS(synonymous with HUD)

A HUD is part of an HGS. However you can have a HUD that is not part of an HGS. Two very different things. It's not the HUD that allows the Jazz RJ and Q fleets to do CAT3a. It's the HGS.

Expensive yes. Toy NO. The CAT IIIA capability it provides is a small part of the overall operational and safety enhancements provided by the HGS. The HGS provides: precise energy management in all phases of flight, precise guidance for wind shear escape and TCAS RA, runway centre line tracking, runway length remaining readout and AoA readout with additional very definitive indication of the aircraft's margin to stick shaker. All this and more all while being "heads up".
It's an invaluable tool.

[complexintentions]

It's the Canadian aviation mentality, to disparage technological advances as "toys". To try and cheap out in every conceivable way, from using a/c without the latest approach guidance, to airports not equipped to use it, to flight duty times that allow extreme crew utilization. With the occasional A320 off-airport landing to show for it. Meh. Good god, how long did it take to make TCAS mandatory? Mode C?

All of which would be somewhat forgivable in a poor, developing country. Not so much in a supposedly wealthy, advanced one.

Sorry if this offends, but it's an embarrassment in near-2017 to see some poor guy actually forced to explain/defend a great piece of kit like HGS.

[Eric Janson]

Here's a link to airbus "Getting to Grips with Cat2/Cat3 Operations".

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1480.pdf

[corytrevor]

In Canada CAT 3b approaches are most definitely authorized if the aircraft and crew and airport are.

[rxl]

Airports in Canada except for YYZ, YYC, YVR and maybe YUL ARE substandard.
The nation's capital airport doesn't even have a CATII approach for gawds sake.

[complexintentions]

That is correct. Either way, CAT III B approaches aren't authorised in Canada. The lowest any Canadian airport has are CAT IIIA approaches with a DH of 50 ft.

Only YVR, YYC, YYZ and YYT have CAT III A approaches in Canada.

vs.

In Canada CAT 3b approaches are most definitely authorized if the aircraft and crew and airport are.

Well, sure. We have the equipment, authorization, and training to do Cat 3b anywhere in the world that has the approach for it. But the first comment indicates that there aren't any airports in Canada that do.

So which is it?

[av8ts]

The HUD is a great tool however I'm not sure if it's worth it for the number of time I've cut my forehead on it. They put a big piece of glass inches in front of my face for hours every day, they could have at least put rounded edges on it

[corytrevor]

YYZ YYC YYT YVR all have CAT 3 approaches. If you are certified for CAT 3b then you can do it. Canada does not ban 3b. I have no idea where that came from. You need 600 rvr no DH.

[yycflyguy]

The nation's capital airport doesn't even have a CATII approach for gawds sake.

They don't even have an ILS on the runway into the prevailing west wind! For years it was only a BC.

[complexintentions]

YYZ YYC YYT YVR all have CAT 3 approaches. If you are certified for CAT 3b then you can do it. Canada does not ban 3b. I have no idea where that came from. You need 600 rvr no DH.

Ok, if you say so. I'm not based in Canada and not on a fleet than does fly to Canada. But I just checked our Jepp charts, and all our company plates for YVR Cat III approaches (26L and 08R) show Cat IIIA permitted, Cat IIIB and Cat IIIC specifically "NOT AUTHORIZED". Same for YYZ.

Yet, we routinely fly Cat IIIB to all kinds of airports all over the world. (B747/B777/A330) In other words we are "certified for CAT 3B". So if the limitation isn't the Canadian airports, I'm just trying to understand why they're not authorized? It isn't an aircraft or flight crew limitation. And I still haven't heard someone say they've actually flown Cat IIIb no DH approaches anywhere in Canada.

Anyone?

[Rockie]

Complex is correct. This is the definition of CAT IIIa from the TC Manual of All Weather Operations (TP 1490E):

Category III (A) “CAT III (A)” operation - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 m), or no decision height: and
b) a runway visual range not less than 600 feet (175 m) at each of RVR A, RVR B and RVR C.
(Exploitation de catégorie IIIA (CAT IIIA)).

In Canada there are no approaches lower than these limits. The difference is no Canadian airport is equipped with the required taxiway lighting for CAT IIIb AFAIK.

[fallex]

A320, Cat IIIA, No DH/RVR 600, w autoland/autobrakes. Life is good However, good luck getting a stable RVR readout in YYT if its down to minimums. They also bought the fancy RVR system that updates continuously. So with YYT WX being as "stable" as it is, the RVR should be all over the map

[corytrevor]

0 DH is what I was getting at. Sure you need 600 rvr that's what the "not authorized" on the chart means, but really how often does that happen. Besides the wind in YYT is beyond the autoland capabilities when you need it anyways!

[Rockie]

0 DH is what I was getting at. Sure you need 600 rvr that's what the "not authorized" on the chart means, but really how often does that happen. Besides the wind in YYT is beyond the autoland capabilities when you need it anyways!

Not correct I'm afraid. No DH and 600 RVR are CAT IIIa limits, and there are no approaches in Canada below that because no airports have the required equipment. Once airports get the required equipment for CAT IIIb then TC will issue the approval I'm sure. Looking at you YYT and YVR...

[hst]

When LVP approach ban was discussed in the past the answer from company management (after presumably checking with airport operators) was that the ban was an airport limitation. If an aircraft were to land below RVR600 a taxi clearance could not be given (from a legal standpoint). That's how it was explained 10 years ago. TC has recently issued an AC that allows for taxi clearance below RVR600 down to RVR300 (75m). To my knowledge, no airport in Canada has these lower minimums published as yet. Not even sure if any operator has requested this SA. It would follow that once this occurs part of the Cat3B operations puzzle will be filled. I'd agree that it will rarely be used but many airports around the world have this lower minima for take-off and landing available to operators.

TC AC 700-035 https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca ... 00-035.pdf