IFR Differences between Canada and the US

[Nark]

I can't believe they don't correct for cold temps in Alaska, IFR.

Nark?

It's not published nor talked about. However some plates have a foot note.
I never used a cold weather correction, mostly because at the extreme cold temps it was severe vfr.

[mbav8r]

I'll answer for Jazz, we use No-ALT IFR fairly often.

[CID]

Two more words to add to the list: Marker Beacon.

[swordfish]

721.19 No Alternate Aerodrome - IFR Flight
....
Used to be that each runway had to have an independent IFR approach - but that requirement was dropped

I don't see it in your post or quote, but I believe you've got to have a Type A or B dispatch system also. Is that correct?

[OceansEdge]

I don't see it in your post or quote, but I believe you've got to have a Type A or B dispatch system also. Is that correct?

Yep, my goof again (darned search function) quoted 721.19 - which is Foreign Air Operations

Should have quoted 724.27 (704) or 725.35 (705) - both of which require a Type A or B Operational Control System
Otherwise all three are virtually identical

[photofly]

10. I don't think the US has a rule about squawking 1000/2000 for uncontrolled IFR below/above 18000

[vcollazo]

Just to clarify a couple of misstatements made earlier. Down here in the US there is a difference between Part 121/135 operations and Part 91 as far as shooting an approach when weather is reported below minimums. For the commercial operators, if they get the below mins report before the FAF/glideslope intercept they are not allowed to shoot the approach. Part 91 it's legal to do so no matter when you get the report. In both cases if you do shoot the approach and have any part of the approach lights at mins then you are allowed to go down to 100 feet above TDZ. At 100 feet if you have the red terminating lights, the threshold lights, threshold markings, touchdown zone markings or lights, VASIs or PAPIs, you can continue and land from the approach. Unless specifically stated in the approach chart or your ops specs. ceiling minimums are not used by civilian operators, just visibility. Our military however does use both.

[swordfish]

Thanks for this clarification, vcollazo. The thread is of particular interest to me as I hold both FAA and Canadian licences, but rarely fly in the USA.

It's easy to get out of touch with the differences in our regs; a thread like this is highly educational!

[photofly]

Hi vcollazo,

FAR 91.175 (c) says

c) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless--
...
(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and
...

That means (to me) that you can't go below MDA or DA/DH without the visibility on the plate - and - 91.175(d) says

(d) Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, may land that aircraft when--
...
(2) For all other part 91 operations and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135 operations, the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used.

I also have an IFR text by a respected FAA author/instructor who goes to great lengths to describe methods to determine if you have the required visibility in order to land.

So while (under part 91) it's not the reported visibility that affects whether you can continue the approach and land, it looks like it's not enough in FAA-land to shoot the approach and just get the required visual references; you have to get them early enough in the approach to know for a fact you have the visibility minima met too.

Which is definitely different in Canada - here there are no visibility minima.

[photofly]

11. Cancelling IFR in the air in Canada doesn't close your flight plan or terminate SAR services; cancel IFR en-route in the US and your flight plan is closed - and nobody will be looking for you.

12. In respect of the visual references required to descend below DH/MDA, FAR 91.175 says that if all you have is the approach lighting you still can't go below 100' unless "the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable". The CARs and TC AIM don't have a 100' limitation in such a case.

[swordfish]

11. That's not completely correct. If you cancel enroute (in Canada), before you have been handed off to a tower controller, your IFR plan is cancelled and goes to flight-plan heaven. You will not be flight followed unless you request: "Keep alerting services open until landing, please" Or of course unless your flight is being followed by your own company.

However, when you are handed off to a CTZ controller, the tower controller will follow you until landing without such a request.

[Canoehead]

As I understand it (during Category 2 operations):

In Canada, a flight needs to be specifically cleared for an ILS CAT 2 approach.
In the US, a flight will be cleared for an 'ILS approach', and whether you fly it as a CAT I or CAT II is up to you.

[swordfish]

Yeah, that would not surprise me. Here, if you do an ILS onto one runway (initially intending to land on it) and decide at the last moment to circle for another runway, you have to be cleared for that! AND...the tower controller can't do that himself! He has to get the clearance from centre, which all takes time, so you get the circling clearance while you're turning final for the landing runway. Yeee-haaw.

Oh yes, I wised up on that after a CADORS... Now I ask for the option, of course...

Just wondering if they have the same in the US?

[swordfish]

yes, it's an anal policy or reg or whatever it is...

[photofly]

11. That's not completely correct. If you cancel enroute (in Canada), before you have been handed off to a tower controller, your IFR plan is cancelled and goes to flight-plan heaven.

Could be; although you disagree with Michael Oxner (respected ATCO and author) at http://bathursted.ccnb.nb.ca/vatcan/fir ... Topic.html. I don't have a definitive reference either way though.

The only time I've cancelled en route in Canada (with Toronto Centre; no Tower at destination) they explicitly asked if I wanted to keep alerting services.

[howard40]

If you cancel ifr enroute in Canada they are usually anal about what you want to do with the "alerting services" . often you hear folks say "Cancel em both" meaning ifr and alerting services, atc will repeat back " understand cancelling both ifr and alerting services at this time. In fact sometimes folks cancel ifr when they break out a mile or so back of a runway at an uncontrolled airport, get atc on the other freq and they still leave the option for alerting service, some like to keep it and call them 60 secs later safe on the ground (usually commercial charter types) . Those of us used to vfr will often cancel them both if talking to anyone on the ground on the ATF. etc..
have fun , fly safe.

[PunkStarStudios]

And to clarify... no alt filing in Canada is only available to commercial ops. Private guys, or even private company planes that are not operating under an OC have to file for an Alternate.

[it'sme]

And to clarify... no alt filing in Canada is only available to commercial ops. Private guys, or even private company planes that are not operating under an OC have to file for an Alternate.

Perhaps to further clarify, no alt filing in Canada is available to operators of aircraft that are elegible to receive the appropriate Ops Spec (normally requires an OC of some sort) whether it be commercial ops or private ops.

Yes, I'm being anal today.

[photofly]

13. In the US, an instruction from ATC to "DESCEND VIA [Star] AND MAINTAIN [altitude]" clears you for an immediate and unrestricted descent to the given altitude via the star lateral track. in Canada, "VIA [Star] DESCEND TO [altitude]" requires you to abide by published altitude restrictions and descend no lower than the given altitude. Canada is ICAO-compliant, and the US is not, in this respect. See http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... 010_21.pdf

14. Clearances have a different format. In the US: Clearance limit, Route, Altitude, departure Frequency, Transponder code (CRAFT). In Canada: Clearance limit, SID (if there is one), Route (if not), Altitude, Departure instructions, Squawk code, Special instructions. (CSRA-DSS - a bit less catchy). Again I think the Canadian way is the ICAO way.

[BEFAN5]

Heard an n rregistration flying into a mf airport a few days back. Centre cleared them for the rnav approach and switch to mf. There was some hesitation in their voices as they read it back. Three minutes later they switched back and asked for confirmation that they could go lower. Centre was very helpful and cleared it up for them.

Flying into the states confuses me. I usually send a good day or two reviewing charts before doing my damm flight!

[PunkStarStudios]

I'll do the occasional flight down to the US, either Chicago, Teterboro, or more often right down to Boca Raton Florida (that's some pretty busy space let me tell you).

Occasionally I'll get some terminology that I'm not clear on, so I just ask.

PS - I love it when they pronounce my call sign as "Canadian Golf...."

[turbo-prop]

Punkstar

To your earlier commentabout no alternate, yes you can do no alternate IFR under 604. Op spec #2 covers it in the POC manual.

[photofly]

15. In Canada you must cross each fix already at or above the higher minimum enroute IFR altitude applicable to flight. In the US you should begin a normal climb to the new higher MEA when passing the fix unless a minimum crossing altitude is shown.

[photofly]

Here, if you do an ILS onto one runway (initially intending to land on it) and decide at the last moment to circle for another runway, you have to be cleared for that! AND...the tower controller can't do that himself! He has to get the clearance from centre, which all takes time, so you get the circling clearance while you're turning final for the landing runway. Yeee-haaw.

It makes sense: if you're in controlled airspace you must fly your clearance, you can't change the direction of your landing or the runway from what you've been cleared for. If the tower isn't an IFR tower or if there's only an MF then they have to go back to ATC to re-clear you. This happened to me at CYSN last week. If your destination has no control zone then you leave controlled airspace at some point during the approach ("CXYZ is cleared out of controlled airspace via the RNAV 08 approach") then you can land however you like.

I suspect it would be the same in the US.

[photofly]

16.

CAR 602.123 "Except when taking off or landing, aircraft in IFR flight shall be operated at least 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within a radius of 5 NM of the aircraft" except for mountainous regions etc.

FAR Part 91.177: "Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below ... In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown."