Approach Ban Poll

[mattedfred]

why not create a worldwide aviation body that issues all licenses, investigates all incidents/accidents and drafts all regulations?

would this make our industry safer?

would this further degrade what sovereignty we still maintain?

[Rockie]

Here's the approach ban in the UK which is even more restrictive than in Canada. And I'm pretty sure they're experienced at flying around in lousy weather.

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/curre ... 100_en.pdf

[yfly]

why not create a worldwide aviation body that issues all licenses, investigates all incidents/accidents and drafts all regulations?

would this make our industry safer?

would this further degrade what sovereignty we still maintain?

One government for all! Didn't somebody already try that?

Seriously though, I don't know that it would make a difference to safety but I also know the laws of the countries would also have to be aligned making it an impossible situation to arrange.

I still think an ICAO security pass would be nice though. One that is recognized by every ICAO country in the world. Last time I was in Ukraine the airport workers had an ID card with their picture, when swiped at the metal detector all their petinent data and a photo showed up on a monitor. The guard then allowed them access. No questions, no harassment. Not a bad system.

[mattedfred]

it has to be a compromise in my opinion

if canada can mirror an ICAO rule then they should do so but if they cannot then they should not

just as each reg may not work for every level of the industry and every area of our country

isn't it safer to allow those flying north of 60 to be able to shoot an approach given the fact that alternates can be difficult to find?

[yfly]

it has to be a compromise in my opinion

if canada can mirror an ICAO rule then they should do so but if they cannot then they should not

just as each reg may not work for every level of the industry and every area of our country

isn't it safer to allow those flying north of 60 to be able to shoot an approach given the fact that alternates can be difficult to find?

The compromise is the Ops Spec for "No Alternate IFR" but the destination wx requirements change significantly negating the approach ban as an issue. If the approach ban is an issue and you don't have an alternate, then you had better rethink departing.

[mattedfred]

you wouldn't be able to plan NAIFR if your destination wx was even close to the approach ban

[FlowPack]

At my company it is prohibited to fly into known moderate or heavy freezing rain. Shouldn't that be left up to me?

I wasn't aware of low visibility being able to change the shape and effectiveness of an airfoil.

Airlines have to calculate WAT data for every takeoff even if we know we can make it. Shouldn't that be left up to us?

Show me the low visibility column in your WAT chart.

I have to take enough fuel to meet certain criteria even if I think it's too much. Shouldn't I get to decide that?

Low visibility has not yet caused me a flameout and/or fuel starvation, etc.


I'm just interested in debating this approach ban thing - if you want to move to other topics, then say so. My point is not adherence to a particular rule, but of its conception and implementation.
Aviation law and associated requirements can only move in one direction, more restrictive. This is great for saftey, but we must consider all aspects. Safety is expensive, and thus needs to be balanced in reality. One end of the spectrum is having an aviation free for all; anarchy in the air. The other end is prohibition of it entirely due to its inherent danger. To find a working model we need to balance. I thought that was a large part of a pilots job - risk management. Every time a law is passed that removes the decision making process one step further from those shouldering responsibility, should we not consider the consequences?
I am not fortunate enough to fly ILS to ILS most days. I also have a great burden to balance load and fuel. So when I know that anything more than -SN causes two out of three auto stations report 0/0, should I head to my alternate 3 out of 5 days, or just cancel the service altogether? Or should I be allowed to shoot an approach, to minimums, and find out whether or not the observation is correct?
I am not a cowboy, I am realistic. Perhaps not scrapping the whole thing, just re-evaluate the restrictions and applicability (like airports served only with auto stations).

I usually don't say much, so I'm done now.

[yfly]

Being the approach bans were set to enhance safety, I would still like to know how approach bans make flying less safe. Maybe you would be a good guy to enlighten me flowpack.

[goldeneagle]

The real flaw with the approach ban, inconsistent weather reporting at stations that dont have things like RVR etc. I think back over the years, the number of times I've started an approach to tofino, where vis reports have gone from a couple of miles down to 1/4 while I was enroute. Arriving over the beacon at 10,000, used to always get an update with the question 'what are your intentions', and the answer was always the same 'came this far, cant hurt to go take a look', then fly the approach as published. On the vast majority of those attempts, I had the runway in sight at beacon inbound. Occaisionally, right after saying 'abc beacon inbound, runway in sight' on the radio, magically a special would come out showing better visibility. there have been times when i did arrive at the MAP, and saw nothing but white in the windscreen. I didn't think it was that big of a deal, sitting right in front of me on the chart holder, step by step directions on where to go next, it wasn't even difficult.

With the ban now in place, I cant even go down take a look.

I've pondered this scenario, but since the ban came into effect, I have always scrubbed flights without even trying when vis is changing out on the west coast. No point burning all that gas to get overhead the field, and just turn back without even getting a chance to try, because somebody on the ground said the vis is poor on the corner of the airport they sit at. But, should it happen, that i find myself overhead tofino sometime in the near future, and it went down below ban limits on the official report while I was enroute, I'll be very tempted to ask atc for a clearance to do the approach, with a planned miss, for training purposes. I'm curious now, what happens when i do that approach, announce 'runway in sight' at the beacon, then go miss as originally cleared. Am I allowed to go back and try it for real? or do I have to go back to yvr anyways ? If i do see the runway from the beacon, does that constitute a change in the reported visibility, and suddenly 'unban' the approach ?

If visibility reporting was accurate, and consistent, I wouldn't have such a big issue with the approach ban. Reality is, reports on visibility are very often inaccurate when vis comes down, and, you can call it a lot of things, but consistent is definitely not one of them. I've had a few times over the years, starting down with good reports of vis and ceilings, no expectation of missing, and at the MAP was left with no choice but execute the miss. But, I've had many many more times where I started down, fully expecting to miss, and found myself with a runway in sight from 3 to 5 miles back. That doesn't happen often at the big city airports, but, happens a lot at the smaller places 'out in the sticks' so to speak. Tofino comes to my mind immediately has the one that's historically the 'worst offender', but there's plenty more of them around.

[goldeneagle]

Being the approach bans were set to enhance safety, I would still like to know how approach bans make flying less safe. Maybe you would be a good guy to enlighten me flowpack.

Better question, how do they enhance safety ? The ban came about cuz a few folks ran off runways, which has little to do with wether or not they flew an approach, and a whole bunch to do with how they botched the landing after an approach.

What I really want to know, by preventing me from flying an approach as published, to the minimums defined as safe by tc themselves, and published in the cap, how does this enhance _my_ safety ? In 30+ years of doing this, I've never once hit anything flying the procedures in the cap. Have you ?

The ban doesn't make flying less safe, but, it sure does make it a less reliable mode of transport, particularily to outstations with poor visibility reporting. I cant see how it makes anything safer. Then again, I'm probably quite biased, I'm not scared to go miss, been there, done that, quite a few times over the years.

[yfly]

Safety is expensive, and thus needs to be balanced in reality. I thought that was a large part of a pilots job - risk management. Every time a law is passed that removes the decision making process one step further from those shouldering responsibility, should we not consider the consequences?

Safety should be paramount and never take back seat to operating profits or your pay, period. That is the reality and responsibility of the crew.

Pilots have been found to make enough judgement errors to warrant approach bans being in place. The consequences of not considering changes has been costly already.

Counter to common thought, TC employees don't sit around all day looking for ways to screw us working pilots over. They are rarely proactive and generally make regulatory changes reacting to statistics.

Nobody has taken away your responsibility, they have just given you a baseline for considerating an approach.

[yfly]

Being the approach bans were set to enhance safety, I would still like to know how approach bans make flying less safe. Maybe you would be a good guy to enlighten me flowpack.

Better question, how do they enhance safety ? The ban came about cuz a few folks ran off runways, which has little to do with wether or not they flew an approach, and a whole bunch to do with how they botched the landing after an approach.

What I really want to know, by preventing me from flying an approach as published, to the minimums defined as safe by tc themselves, and published in the cap, how does this enhance _my_ safety ? In 30+ years of doing this, I've never once hit anything flying the procedures in the cap. Have you ?

The ban doesn't make flying less safe, but, it sure does make it a less reliable mode of transport, particularily to outstations with poor visibility reporting. I cant see how it makes anything safer. Then again, I'm probably quite biased, I'm not scared to go miss, been there, done that, quite a few times over the years.

Golden Eagle, No, I have never hit a thing in my 30+ years either. Many have though and it hasn't been just a few runway excursions. Back to my question, how about answering what I asked?

[iflyforpie]

I didn't see anything in Flowpack's post about approach bans being unsafe.

This is great for saftey, but we must consider all aspects. Safety is expensive, and thus needs to be balanced in reality.

Sure, there is less risk if the aircraft decides to go to the alternate at the clearance limit rather than do an approach, missed approach, and then go to the alternate. It is a simpler procedure in that there is less to go wrong and the plane will have more fuel.

But does it have to be drawn up in black and white because some cowboys crashed because they either a) busted minimums trying to get in, or b) lost SA during the missed?

Going to an alternate based on conditions that may be caused by bird shit on the AWOS or a localized phenomenon is going to cost operators money and inconvenience the traveling public. It should be up to the captain whether it is worth it to 'go have a look'. If all we are doing is preventing the 'cowboys' from going in, approach ban isn't going to do anything but move the problem somewhere else.

[yfly]

I didn't see anything in Flowpack's post about approach bans being unsafe.

This is great for saftey, but we must consider all aspects. Safety is expensive, and thus needs to be balanced in reality.

Sure, there is less risk if the aircraft decides to go to the alternate at the clearance limit rather than do an approach, missed approach, and then go to the alternate. It is a simpler procedure in that there is less to go wrong and the plane will have more fuel.

But does it have to be drawn up in black and white because some cowboys crashed because they either a) busted minimums trying to get in, or b) lost SA during the missed?

Going to an alternate based on conditions that may be caused by bird shit on the AWOS or a localized phenomenon is going to cost operators money and inconvenience the traveling public. It should be up to the captain whether it is worth it to 'go have a look'. If all we are doing is preventing the 'cowboys' from going in, approach ban isn't going to do anything but move the problem somewhere else.

I am sure that at some point you have all seen the original Air Regs for the US. Why over such a short period of time did those 17 rules change into the FAR's? Because people just don't think for themselves. Not all, the majority are very good, but the numbers related to specific human factors accidents have caused this change to take place. Simple really.

[yfly]

Safety is expensive, and thus needs to be balanced in reality.

In the hearing following your demise, what would your mother say when the TC guys come up with "well yeah, we knew by statistics there was a problem but hey, safety is expensive"?

[goldeneagle]

Golden Eagle, No, I have never hit a thing in my 30+ years either. Many have though and it hasn't been just a few runway excursions. Back to my question, how about answering what I asked?

The approach ban does make things less safe, it means we are going to have folks carrying on to an alternate, so, on arrival they will be committed to land, no more options. Many of those could likely have arrived at the original planned destination, but were not allowed to even try, simply because the windows were foggy when somebody looked out to estimate visibility 50 minutes earlier.

But then again, why not carry your logic to the extreme. All approach/land accidents will be cured if we just simply ban the takeoff completely. Leave all the airplanes chained to the ground, every one of them becomes 100% safe.

The problem with your arguement is, you want to tar everybody with the same brush. Because some yahoos plopped a 737 down beside the runway, and another group of cowboys ran off the end, you are assuming we are all cowboys out trying to do things 'unsafe'. It aint so.

But hey, if you think you need somebody on the ground telling you if it's safe to do an approach or not, then quite possibly you do. I know for a fact, I dont, and, having done it a time or two over the years, I figure I am much better qualified to assess the visibility out my windscreen than somebody a mile or two away on the ground.

If the official visibility reports were coming from an observer a half mile back from the approach end of the runway, above treetops, then I'd probably agree, no point even trying, but, they aren't. Most of them are a mile or more away from the spot that really matters, and, in many places, that mile is the often the difference between good and bad visibility. I cant count how many times I've done approaches into airports reporting less than a mile vis, and never entered the muck till after the wheels were on the ground. In lots of those cases today, i wouldn't even be allowed to start the approach. That's just stupid.

If you really think the ban makes you safer, then, I have to start agreeing with other folks here, it's probably high time you hand the license back to TC, and go do something else, because, you are very likely a hazard in the sky, incapable of thinking for yourself.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I figure I am much better qualified to assess the visibility out my windscreen than somebody a mile or two away on the ground.

I agree totally but it would seem that TC does not agree with us G. E.

[yfly]

Golden Eagle, No, I have never hit a thing in my 30+ years either. Many have though and it hasn't been just a few runway excursions. Back to my question, how about answering what I asked?

The approach ban does make things less safe, it means we are going to have folks carrying on to an alternate, so, on arrival they will be committed to land, no more options. Many of those could likely have arrived at the original planned destination, but were not allowed to even try, simply because the windows were foggy when somebody looked out to estimate visibility 50 minutes earlier.

But then again, why not carry your logic to the extreme. All approach/land accidents will be cured if we just simply ban the takeoff completely. Leave all the airplanes chained to the ground, every one of them becomes 100% safe.

The problem with your arguement is, you want to tar everybody with the same brush. Because some yahoos plopped a 737 down beside the runway, and another group of cowboys ran off the end, you are assuming we are all cowboys out trying to do things 'unsafe'. It aint so.

But hey, if you think you need somebody on the ground telling you if it's safe to do an approach or not, then quite possibly you do. I know for a fact, I dont, and, having done it a time or two over the years, I figure I am much better qualified to assess the visibility out my windscreen than somebody a mile or two away on the ground.

If the official visibility reports were coming from an observer a half mile back from the approach end of the runway, above treetops, then I'd probably agree, no point even trying, but, they aren't. Most of them are a mile or more away from the spot that really matters, and, in many places, that mile is the often the difference between good and bad visibility. I cant count how many times I've done approaches into airports reporting less than a mile vis, and never entered the muck till after the wheels were on the ground. In lots of those cases today, i wouldn't even be allowed to start the approach. That's just stupid.

If you really think the ban makes you safer, then, I have to start agreeing with other folks here, it's probably high time you hand the license back to TC, and go do something else, because, you are very likely a hazard in the sky, incapable of thinking for yourself.

Wow. Complete with an insult a 12 year old would make as well. Gee, do I live in my parents basement and watch internet porn all day too?

Eagle, sorry, the gold has worn off. You have in the past written some very good quality advice for the youth today. The piece on icing conditions was outstanding. This however, is not your best and brightest and I will assume it is your first fiction work.

If you really think flying a missed because the regs won't let you land, and having to fly to your alternate is dangerous, it is you who should be handing in your license.

I couldn't agree more that we, (some of us professional) as aviators are in the best position to judge flight visibility but numerous accidents over the years by statistic show otherwise, and TC has ruled accordingly. If you feel so strongly, take it up with the Minister's delegate. You had better come up with a more convincing argument though. This one is total crap.

You and I are miles apart on this one so I am happy to agree to disagree with you on this. It's just a discussion forum. No need for juvenile behavior.

[AuxBatOn]

But does it have to be drawn up in black and white because some cowboys crashed because they either a) busted minimums trying to get in, or b) lost SA during the missed?

Usually, rules like that are put in place not only because of 1 accident, but several accidents in the past (re-occurence). Again, statistics prove that pilots do not always make the best decision. Pressure has a lot do to in your decision making, wether it's pressure from your employer or self-induced pressure (get homeitis anyone?). This rule is to remove that pressure aspect of "trying to get it in at all cost". No, not all pilots will bust the minima to get in or land from a hot and high position, however, some will. And with the current approach ban, it gives you the option to try for the approach, even though the ceiling/vis is lower than the recommended publised minima.

We are often our own worst enemy and anyone here that says he never took a decision that he tought was silly after looking back at the situation is a liar.

Going to an alternate based on conditions that may be caused by bird shit on the AWOS or a localized phenomenon is going to cost operators money and inconvenience the traveling public. It should be up to the captain whether it is worth it to 'go have a look'. If all we are doing is preventing the 'cowboys' from going in, approach ban isn't going to do anything but move the problem somewhere else.

If it is a defect with the equipment, hopefully someone one the ground will report it and a NOTAM will be issued. Otherwise, if you can see that the ceiling and vis are nowhere near what the AWOS is saying, report it to ATC and try the approach. That way, you cover you ass and have a valid reason to carry on with the approach, even though the AWOS reports something that would otherwise prevent you from doing it.

If it's a localized phenomenon, the approach ban takes that into consideration.

[boilerplate49]

Let's be honest here, people have been dumb for several thousand years and the people flying airplanes now are no dumber than they were 90 years ago. But we're killing fewer of them in part because of regulations which change the way people operate airplanes. The approach ban may be an affront to you the aviation god, but regulations are made for the industry as a whole. Learn to live with it because it's not likely to go away.

These rules are like taxes, they dont get rescinded even if they are not enforceable at uncontrolled airports. Notwithstanding, people are imho considerably dumber than they were 90 years ago - blame it on an adulterated food supply and chemicals, more knowledgeable yes, but that doesnt mean anything if you can't use it.

[square]

The whole point of the approach is to land using long established and proven procedures - rules - follow them and live, don't and you get what you deserve...but please don't make a rule to stop others from even trying!

You can say the pilot got what he deserved, but what did his passengers deserve? The approach ban is there to protect passengers from pilots. There is otherwise no effective way to keep a pilot from going below minimums to get in, then lying that he was visual at the MDA & MAP. Unless you can come up with something else, I think we do need a rule as crude as this to protect passengers from the few bad apples we all know are out there.

[sluggo]

If it's statistically proven to reduce accidents and prevent injury then I guess it's a good thing. Then again TC could impose a myriad of convoluted regs to ensure we never go flying. That would prevent even more accidents.

[square]

There are ops specs available that bring weather mins way down, for all those who have sweet enough equipment to make it easy..

[xkbal]

My issue with the ban is the lack of decent vis reporting. Won't even discuss auto stations as they are virtually useless. But even manned stations, went to yxs a while back and they were calling it RVR 1000. We picked up the runway visual descending through about 12,000 and 30 miles back. There was traffic holding at the FAF hoping for them to release a weather report that actually reflected what everyone in the air was actually seeing.

[floydb]

The poll results tell the story, TC GET RID OF IT. The ban has been unenforceable at uncontrolled airports since it's inception, it is a load of hooey and everyone knows how to get around it so just dump the thing.