Ditto.....McPhoo wrote:Well, doesn't that tidy that one up so nicely! Good job fougapilot. Sure makes me wish I was 604! I still lose sleep over the insanity of this rule
App. ban am I the test case? HELP
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Goddamn I knew there was a reason I came to you guys for help! I'm spoiling for the fight now though and you tell me they aren't going to take the first swing? Feel like going back to 705 so I can break the ban again.
In all seriousness though... I still intend to take this up with the safety folks at TC, it still makes me tight in the belly thinking about how dangerous this reg. can be. Can't thank you guys enough for the help!
In all seriousness though... I still intend to take this up with the safety folks at TC, it still makes me tight in the belly thinking about how dangerous this reg. can be. Can't thank you guys enough for the help!
bronson - you can be in a hurry or you can be in an airplane, but don't ever get into both at once
These new changes are still a mystery to myself, and I too feel it's a crock and would like to see the old regs reinstated, but I'm not sure how the new rules might be dangerous.bronson wrote:...it still makes me tight in the belly thinking about how dangerous this reg. can be....
I'm still on the fence regarding the new regs, and would love to hear some scenarios on how they could be "dangerous".
My understanding - in reference to "conditions apply", (for 703+) is that for starters, if the runway heading is greater than 3 degrees off the final app course, reported vis minima to conduct the approach is 75% of cap. Does anyone know of a way around that one (aside from a contact)?Pratt X 3 wrote:I'll second what fougapilot said. Here's a chart that illustrates that you're good on this.
You will never live long enough to know it all, so quit being anal about it..
If you had the field at 100 miles back, wouldn't it be a safe bet that it's VFR at that airport? Wouldn't this be more of an issue with the FFS weather reporting abilities and not so much the approach ban?
And why wouldn't ATC issue an approach clearance? From what I've learned recently, ATC will not enforce this approach ban, or any approach ban for that matter. So why wouldn't an approach be issued?
I’m not being smartass either; I’m just trying to make sense of this whole thing like everyone else.
And why wouldn't ATC issue an approach clearance? From what I've learned recently, ATC will not enforce this approach ban, or any approach ban for that matter. So why wouldn't an approach be issued?
I’m not being smartass either; I’m just trying to make sense of this whole thing like everyone else.
Three options for you here...bronson wrote: In all seriousness though... I still intend to take this up with the safety folks at TC, it still makes me tight in the belly thinking about how dangerous this reg. can be. Can't thank you guys enough for the help!
Report an Aviation Incident
Civil Aviation Issues Reporting System
Securitas - Confidential Reporting
-
fougapilot
- Rank 7
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:49 am
FOG,
Conditions apply simply means that the operators seeking to lower their approach ban to 50% must request an OPS spec from TC. To gain such an ops spec, specific crew procedures (yes, only 2 crew airplanes can get the 50%) must be established (PMA approach is one of them), certain airplane equipment standard must be met, bla, bla, bla.
For example, at the management company where I work, not all airplane are listed on the Ops Spec for the 50%. We have an airplane in TO that does not meet the equipment standard and therefore is limited to 75% when on commercial operations. (most our airplanes are privately owned and fly 90% of their flights under CARs604 but do charter on occasion).
I think we better get use to the "new" reg. I cannot see TC going back. There are 2 main reasons why this came to force;
1st, 1200RVR is CatII wx. If you ever did an ILS approach in 1200RVR you know your chances of getting in (while not busting minumum might I add) are slim. Unless you are on a catII runway. So why even bother shooting an DNB in the same wx. Canada was one of the few country that did not meet ICAO recommendations on this specific issue. Most countries, the Vis listed on the approach plates is not a suggestion, but a limit. Try doing an ILS with less then 1800rvr in JFK and see if the FAA will call... they bloddy well will.
2nd, We are still feeling the repercusions of the CRJ in Fredericton. Had the new regs been in effect, this approach would have never been initiated, never mind ended up in the woods. This is what forced TC to reconsider their position and meet ICAO standards.
F
Conditions apply simply means that the operators seeking to lower their approach ban to 50% must request an OPS spec from TC. To gain such an ops spec, specific crew procedures (yes, only 2 crew airplanes can get the 50%) must be established (PMA approach is one of them), certain airplane equipment standard must be met, bla, bla, bla.
For example, at the management company where I work, not all airplane are listed on the Ops Spec for the 50%. We have an airplane in TO that does not meet the equipment standard and therefore is limited to 75% when on commercial operations. (most our airplanes are privately owned and fly 90% of their flights under CARs604 but do charter on occasion).
I think we better get use to the "new" reg. I cannot see TC going back. There are 2 main reasons why this came to force;
1st, 1200RVR is CatII wx. If you ever did an ILS approach in 1200RVR you know your chances of getting in (while not busting minumum might I add) are slim. Unless you are on a catII runway. So why even bother shooting an DNB in the same wx. Canada was one of the few country that did not meet ICAO recommendations on this specific issue. Most countries, the Vis listed on the approach plates is not a suggestion, but a limit. Try doing an ILS with less then 1800rvr in JFK and see if the FAA will call... they bloddy well will.
2nd, We are still feeling the repercusions of the CRJ in Fredericton. Had the new regs been in effect, this approach would have never been initiated, never mind ended up in the woods. This is what forced TC to reconsider their position and meet ICAO standards.
F
Go back to the first page like Bronson suggested and read Bronson's post that's about 1/3 down the page (#13 I think.)J Roc wrote:If you had the field at 100 miles back, wouldn't it be a safe bet that it's VFR at that airport? Wouldn't this be more of an issue with the FFS weather reporting abilities and not so much the approach ban?
And why wouldn't ATC issue an approach clearance? From what I've learned recently, ATC will not enforce this approach ban, or any approach ban for that matter. So why wouldn't an approach be issued?
I’m not being smartass either; I’m just trying to make sense of this whole thing like everyone else.
I Sobered up and took the time to read the whole thread. Yeah, it sure does sound like a pretty dangerous situation. I'm glad it worked out for the best though.-
noonespecial
- Rank 0
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:55 pm
Hello gents. Now I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed by a long shot. And I've been out of the game for a few years now and I must admit I haven't paid attention to this since I got a desk job. But I do know this:
Letters to MPs, media exposure, rational debate... Forget it guys. This precise scenario that Bronson was faced with was one of many that were war gamed at the CARAC process. They just don't give a shit.
I had the opportunity to give my first submission on this proposal back in 2000, and used precise examples of situations at the airport that would have been Bronson's alternate in this case. They (TC) don't care. They just don't care. They have been given the marching orders, and they will march.
This whole new approach ban issue incidentally goes back to the AC RJ crash at Fredricton, that's where this came from. Which I think is beautiful. Air Transat scrwes up, fine their ass off, AC screws up, change the regulations, that must be the problem.
The third tier of the industry, who ends up with most of the non-precision approaches, has fought this rule vigourously since it was first proposed over five years ago, and TC has shown not the slightest interest in the opinion of the industry. So we can forget about getting it changed.
My question on this is, how do they do this, Bronson? Do they simply refuse to issue you an approach clearance when the ground vis is below minimums?
If that is the case, does it matter that we are 60-whatever or 70-whatever? Wouldn't they get us for entering a control zone in IFR without a clearance?
This has got to be the stupidest rule in the world. Problem is, even after somebody dies observing it, it still won't make a difference.
"HE COMPLIED WITH REGULATIONS!"
You can carve those word on my stone Brothers.
Letters to MPs, media exposure, rational debate... Forget it guys. This precise scenario that Bronson was faced with was one of many that were war gamed at the CARAC process. They just don't give a shit.
I had the opportunity to give my first submission on this proposal back in 2000, and used precise examples of situations at the airport that would have been Bronson's alternate in this case. They (TC) don't care. They just don't care. They have been given the marching orders, and they will march.
This whole new approach ban issue incidentally goes back to the AC RJ crash at Fredricton, that's where this came from. Which I think is beautiful. Air Transat scrwes up, fine their ass off, AC screws up, change the regulations, that must be the problem.
The third tier of the industry, who ends up with most of the non-precision approaches, has fought this rule vigourously since it was first proposed over five years ago, and TC has shown not the slightest interest in the opinion of the industry. So we can forget about getting it changed.
My question on this is, how do they do this, Bronson? Do they simply refuse to issue you an approach clearance when the ground vis is below minimums?
If that is the case, does it matter that we are 60-whatever or 70-whatever? Wouldn't they get us for entering a control zone in IFR without a clearance?
This has got to be the stupidest rule in the world. Problem is, even after somebody dies observing it, it still won't make a difference.
"HE COMPLIED WITH REGULATIONS!"
You can carve those word on my stone Brothers.
Bronson
This new ban is bogus and a trap. Here is a boilerplate version that I will always tell and see if the TC gestapo can PROVE otherwise.
The descision to land is governed by whether you see the runway environment at or before DH or MDA + MAP.
The approach ban prevents you from continuing past the FAF, or where non exists, final track inbound.
My story, and I'm sticking to it, is I saw the lights before the FAF. The only person at my vantage point was me. I had the required visual reference and chose to land. As for the FSS dude or worse, the AWOS, I can't help that they were determining visibility by looking in the wrong direction.
This new ban is bogus and a trap. Here is a boilerplate version that I will always tell and see if the TC gestapo can PROVE otherwise.
The descision to land is governed by whether you see the runway environment at or before DH or MDA + MAP.
The approach ban prevents you from continuing past the FAF, or where non exists, final track inbound.
My story, and I'm sticking to it, is I saw the lights before the FAF. The only person at my vantage point was me. I had the required visual reference and chose to land. As for the FSS dude or worse, the AWOS, I can't help that they were determining visibility by looking in the wrong direction.
W0X0F wrote:Bronson
This new ban is bogus and a trap. Here is a boilerplate version that I will always tell and see if the TC gestapo can PROVE otherwise.
The descision to land is governed by whether you see the runway environment at or before DH or MDA + MAP.
The approach ban prevents you from continuing past the FAF, or where non exists, final track inbound.
My story, and I'm sticking to it, is I saw the lights before the FAF. The only person at my vantage point was me. I had the required visual reference and chose to land. As for the FSS dude or worse, the AWOS, I can't help that they were determining visibility by looking in the wrong direction.
Yeah, the problem with that is; if the FAF is 6 or 7 miles from the airport, and FSS is reporting 1/2 mileX in snow - TC is going to know your cock is out a foot when you claim to have had the runway in sight, prior to hitting the FAF. Your scenario may work for an airport with AWOS, or patchy fog obscuring the airport where FSS has an observer. Your ass will be in a sling for solid snow and similar obscuring phenom.
You will never live long enough to know it all, so quit being anal about it..
No it wont. They will have NO way to call you a liar if you claimed good vis 6 miles out. If they claim local vis at 1/2....how would they know what's 5-6 miles out? And, flight vis IS different than ground vis. I've had no problems landing on at least two occasions and then almost couldn't taxi!
If I shoot an approach, and see a runway, I is a landing!...see you in court TC!
If I shoot an approach, and see a runway, I is a landing!...see you in court TC!
-
fougapilot
- Rank 7
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:49 am
According to the CARs, a localized phenomenon exist if the reported visibility (by a pilot) is greater then the official vis. However, the pilot must report it immediately. Not after he has landed in an attempt to save his ass.
(e) a localized meteorological phenomenon is affecting the ground visibility to the extent that the visibility on the approach to the runway of intended approach and along that runway, as observed by the pilot‑in‑command in flight and reported immediately to ATS, if available, is equal to or greater than the advisory visibility specified in the Canada Air Pilot in respect of the runway of intended approach for the instrument approach procedure conducted;
Happy 007
F
(e) a localized meteorological phenomenon is affecting the ground visibility to the extent that the visibility on the approach to the runway of intended approach and along that runway, as observed by the pilot‑in‑command in flight and reported immediately to ATS, if available, is equal to or greater than the advisory visibility specified in the Canada Air Pilot in respect of the runway of intended approach for the instrument approach procedure conducted;
Happy 007
F
IMHO pilot decision making trumps printed rules and regulations. Based on the info provided there is no judge in the land that would find you guilty. TC may not agree and they may fine you or sanction you but don’t be intimidated by them. When actually challenged in court they often loss and this case would definitely be a winning candidate.
Michael Cullhhane, the fellow that writes all those studies guides we’ve all used is an aviation lawyer and you can be sure he knows his rules and regs inside and out. He would be the guy I would be calling if I was facing a showdown with TC.
His number is 604-279-0179
To all reading this. I understand no one here wants to butt heads with TC and risk getting a smug on their license. But never ever let rules get in the way good pilot decision making and doing the safest thing at that given moment.
Michael Cullhhane, the fellow that writes all those studies guides we’ve all used is an aviation lawyer and you can be sure he knows his rules and regs inside and out. He would be the guy I would be calling if I was facing a showdown with TC.
His number is 604-279-0179
To all reading this. I understand no one here wants to butt heads with TC and risk getting a smug on their license. But never ever let rules get in the way good pilot decision making and doing the safest thing at that given moment.
IMHO, the nail in the coffin of the approach ban is the contact approach - until they modify it's designation that is. A pilot can request a contact approach regardless of wx reported (provided the place meets the approach aid requirements for a contact) at intended destination and continue to land at that airport with no reprecussion. Obviously there will be days when it is woxof and you are not going to land period, I am refering to the days when some dufus is sitting in a cab calling the wx less than legal and you find it to be otherwise, or at the least a very safe approach and landing is possible. The contact requires 1 mile flightvis. No one but the pilot can state or argue that the flight vis was less than what is legally required for the given day, and most pilots would not bother to mention that it was less than that, after they land and go home for the day, case closed.
You will never live long enough to know it all, so quit being anal about it..
First, I have thousands of hours but am new to IFR.
If the TC dogma is, as they publicly state, about "safety" then it follows that an approach to minimums would mean: see nothing - don't land - preceed to alternate, you are already as low as safety would allow and, if you do see the 'enviroment' - land. WHY you would be prevented, legally, from even attempting an approach seems to be counter to safety and more politically motivated - some union is saying, 'ah, its low anyway, lets take a break' - time to conduct other duties, increased due to funding cuts and lack of manpower, and being a 'private' organization - to make money, at any cost. Example: FSS in one location, London in this area, instead of actual 'eyes' at the airports.
I would think that you have a case just based on the weather reports given by Navcan - VFR and remaining so. That was from them and it was incorrect (changed) placing you in harm and, also from 'them', leaving you no 'legal' way out. You continued the approach - based on ACTUAL conditions. An approach should be permitted based on ACTUAL conditions NOT forecast ones and in any case ALWAYS PERMITTED.
What ever happened to save your ass first, explain later? The pilot being legally allowed to, dispite rules, take the action he deemed nessessary for safety - PDM.
Enforcement seems to be more about collecting fines than safety, and I would NOT be surprized to learn that they have a quota to fill!
Correct me if I'm wrong but casual observation seems to indicate that TC is slowly, but intentionally, forcing GA and small carriers out.
Ah, good to see it cleared up. Nice explaination.
If the TC dogma is, as they publicly state, about "safety" then it follows that an approach to minimums would mean: see nothing - don't land - preceed to alternate, you are already as low as safety would allow and, if you do see the 'enviroment' - land. WHY you would be prevented, legally, from even attempting an approach seems to be counter to safety and more politically motivated - some union is saying, 'ah, its low anyway, lets take a break' - time to conduct other duties, increased due to funding cuts and lack of manpower, and being a 'private' organization - to make money, at any cost. Example: FSS in one location, London in this area, instead of actual 'eyes' at the airports.
I would think that you have a case just based on the weather reports given by Navcan - VFR and remaining so. That was from them and it was incorrect (changed) placing you in harm and, also from 'them', leaving you no 'legal' way out. You continued the approach - based on ACTUAL conditions. An approach should be permitted based on ACTUAL conditions NOT forecast ones and in any case ALWAYS PERMITTED.
What ever happened to save your ass first, explain later? The pilot being legally allowed to, dispite rules, take the action he deemed nessessary for safety - PDM.
Enforcement seems to be more about collecting fines than safety, and I would NOT be surprized to learn that they have a quota to fill!
Correct me if I'm wrong but casual observation seems to indicate that TC is slowly, but intentionally, forcing GA and small carriers out.
Ah, good to see it cleared up. Nice explaination.
So just to clarify...
If you are a comercial operator, the new absolute minimums are 75% of the published mins?
In which case, 75% = Go, 74% = No Go?
As I also understand, anything can now cause a ban. Vis (sm), RVR and this fancy RW Vis, am I correct?
Any ponderances, suppositions or speculations are appreciated!
What pisses me off the most is that TC did everything they could to notify us of the ban by the most confusing means possible. I'm sure most of you saw the billion page legal document that was mailed to all the operators...
PS, good to see you're alright Bronson!
If you are a comercial operator, the new absolute minimums are 75% of the published mins?
In which case, 75% = Go, 74% = No Go?
As I also understand, anything can now cause a ban. Vis (sm), RVR and this fancy RW Vis, am I correct?
Any ponderances, suppositions or speculations are appreciated!
What pisses me off the most is that TC did everything they could to notify us of the ban by the most confusing means possible. I'm sure most of you saw the billion page legal document that was mailed to all the operators...
PS, good to see you're alright Bronson!
