Low vis/reduced vis operations

[Pratt X 3]

Aerodrome Operating Visibility is the newest term to be introduced. Of course, there hasn't been an official definition published. According to the information published in the Advisory Circular 300-003 (which is paraphrased in the CAP GEN):

4.2 Aerodrome Operating Restrictions – Visibility

1. Paragraph 602.96(2)(b) of the CARs requires that before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) of the aircraft shall be satisfied that the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.


2. One factor that needs to be considered to ensure compliance with paragraph 602.96(2)(b) of the CARs is the Aerodrome Operating Visibility.


3. The visibility with respect to an aircraft is less than the minimum visibility required for taxi, take-off or landing if:

a. where the aerodrome does not have published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR located on the aerodrome, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than any of that aerodrome's operating visibility restrictions published in the CFS; or

b. where the aerodrome has published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations pertaining to the runway of the intended operation in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR or the runway visibility serving that runway, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than the aerodrome's operating visibility restriction published in the CFS for that runway.


4. Where the observed visibility as set out in paragraphs 4.2 (3)(a) and (b) of this AC, is less than the minimum visibility published in the CFS, taxi operations shall be deemed to be occurring below the published aerodrome operating visibility, except when:

a. visibility deteriorates below the published aerodrome operating visibility after the aircraft has commenced taxi for take-off;

b. visibility deteriorates below the published aerodrome operating visibility after the aircraft has landed and is taxiing to the destination on the aerodrome; or

c. the aircraft is taxiing on the manoeuvring area for purposes other than take-off or landing as authorized by the aerodrome operator in accordance with the aerodrome's RVOP/LVOP.


5. Where the observed visibility as set out in paragraphs 4.2 (3)(a) and (b) of this AC, is less than the minimum visibility published in the CFS, an aircraft landing shall be deemed to occur below the published aerodrome operating visibility, except where:

a. at the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the Final Approach Fix (FAF) inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted;

b. the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR and the ground visibility is equal to or greater than the minimum visibility;

c. the ground visibility is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum ground visibility and the RVR is equal to or greater than the minimum visibility;

d. both the RVR and the ground visibility are varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum visibility; or

e. prior to 1,000 feet above aerodrome elevation the PIC determines that a localized meteorological phenomenon is affecting the ground visibility by observing that the runway of intended landing and the taxi route to the destination on the aerodrome are seen and recognized.

As you can see in paragraph 5(e), they have provided for a localized phenomenon.

[Kosiw]

I still will need a lawyer in the jumpseat to translate all that, and do it while on short final

[tired of the ground]

Why does everything have to be so difficult. 3/4 of this, unless you have an ops spec. for that.... unless you're a private operator and then you can do whatever you want.

ONE set of rules, ONE number in ONE publication. Somebody is going to drive an aircraft into the ground or run out of fuel trying to figure out if they can legally shoot an approach. Take the Cap, put a number that when below, an approach is not authorized EVER. ATC will not clear you for an approach without making it clear that that you will be breaking the rules.

Taxi vis is even dumber. If the higher ups, who fly 6.2 hours a year in a citation at 95 kts, 300 miles from touchdown with gear down and full flaps, decide we need this then so be it. We can't change their mind with logic and reason, it's been tried before. Make it idiot proof. Apparently we aren't smart enough to decide if we can move around without bumping into things, so put a number in the cap; Something like MIN VIS FOR TAXI = 1/2sm.

If we allow this ridiculousness to continue, it will be absolutely impossible to fly around in 10 years. We'll be required to have 6 autopilots, 5 crew members (4 of whom are MPL holders), need 10 hours of reserve fuel and can only fly on even days when it's sunny; Unless authorized by the minister.

End of Rant

[Cat Driver]

Taxi vis is even dumber. If the higher ups, who fly 6.2 hours a year in a citation at 95 kts, 300 miles from touchdown with gear down and full flaps, decide we need this then so be it. We can't change their mind with logic and reason, it's been tried before. Make it idiot proof.

The idiots are the ones who are writing this crap.

What Canadian aviation needs is a revolution to get rid of idiots writing all these convoluted moronic rules that even a room full of lawyers would have problems figuring out what in @#$! it means.

Thank you God / Allah or whoever is in charge for allowing me to retire relatively sane.

[jjj]

Excellent rant.

Airlines have recently met with TC on the issue of RVOP/LVOP and the rest of the taxi BS.

Despite this - the likes of Air Canada, WestJet, and the rest were unable to come away with clear guidance to pass on to their flight ops departments.

I wish I was allowed to publish the contents of that communication.

Ergo - TC was unable to clarify how their own rules impact normal day to day ops, when exactly exceptions apply, and how pilots are to make the correct choices in the heat of the moment. It also seems that various airports have various spins on interpreting the rules as well to make things worse.

As a consequence, my approach planning will commence no later than 250nm prior to an approach as I sit in cruise with my COM in my lap and a fist full of plates as I work through the rules and draw a quick spreadsheet of permutations in the event of a runway/weather changes and what to do as changes happen inside or outside the FAF. I will also balance this with the approach ban and everything else that is required knowledge. I will also try not to confuse these ops specs with the other governing ops specs from other countries that are within my normal area of operation. For trips that are 250hm or shorter - well - I guess I just added 10 minutes to my preflight duties. I work for WS so I guess that means less grooming for me on 6 leg days!!!

Despite my best efforts to be procedurally correct - I will likely make an error eventually. It will likely be at the end of a 12 hour day on the last day of a pairing. Then some dude with a shitty little tie on who is not remotely capable of doing my job will throw the book at me because of the placement of a comma within a sentence.

Oh well - life goes on.

[Flybaby]

A couple of months ago I was flying a missed and heading to my alternate where the weather 800 and a mile. It was good enough to land safely, but 20 minutes out I thought I might have to choose another alternate because of the approach ban. So I whipped out my plates and checked. I was safe to fly the approach, the approach ban came into effect at 3/4 for that side, for the other side it would have been 1 1/4. That would mean I would have to go to my second alternate. Good thing I put on enough fuel to navigate around all these safety regulations.

[sakism]

As you can see in paragraph 5(e), they have provided for a localized phenomenon.

Of course, that is only a provision for landing. CYYQ occasionally has a very low RVR on Runway 15/33 with a ground visibility much higher. I've seen RVR <3000, and visibility 5SM.

According to the rules, as I read them, we could not depart if the RVR is below 2600' even though visibility at the other end of the airport is VFR.

Is there a reason YYC, YWG, YYJ, YOW shouldn't have the ICAO standard markings ie Wigwags, etc???

Those airports probably should have those things in place. What about all the other aerodromes in Canada?? There are many, many aerodromes where these things are not only virtually impossible to install but also ridiculously unnecessary.

[Morav]

Now I'm confused.

3. The visibility with respect to an aircraft is less than the minimum visibility required for taxi, take-off or landing if:

a. where the aerodrome does not have published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR located on the aerodrome, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than any of that aerodrome's operating visibility restrictions published in the CFS; or

b. where the aerodrome has published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations pertaining to the runway of the intended operation in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR or the runway visibility serving that runway, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than the aerodrome's operating visibility restriction published in the CFS for that runway.

For an airport does not have a published procedure for taxi, take-off and landing, when the rvr is below 2600 for a certain runway, but the vis is great due to localized phenomenon you still cannot taxi for takeoff from a runway with no rvr or even from a runway reporting rvr above 2600?????

[sakism]

I don't see any other way it can be interpreted. Otherwise why the use of the word 'any'??

[planett]

It has been applied to all aircraft.

[planett]

That's interesting, it wouldn't be the first time TC has had such diverging interpretations from the CAP GEN. Our POI advised us that despite our 600RVR and Cat II authority, we are limited to 1/2 mile (2600) at most airports in Canada now, except where indicated in the CFS. We operate under a Private OC.

[bobcaygeon]

This is not an operator dependent issue. It is an airport issue. It affects operator's greatly but they have no ability to change it internally ie training, ops spec, etc. (Other than lobbying or perhaps assisting their local airports get their operating plan in place).

This is not limited to 700 series operations. A.C.'s apply to all aircaft unless specified otherwise.

I could easily make the arguement that private aviation is even more susceptible to the runway incursions this is trying to reduce . Private/corporate avaition is only exempt from the approach ban rules because when you crash it it usually only kills a few people (< 10 nobody cares ie like 703 ops) A private baron, navajo, or King air that makes a runway incursion in low vis has the capacity to kill a lot more people than just it's occupants.

You may not agree with me but it is definitely an issue nobody was vouluntarily willing to address even at large airports without TC involvement. This plan was publicly release to airports/ operators in summer of 2006. Not exactly short term notice.

[Cat Driver]

It's good to see you back posting Clunkdriver, us older guys have a tough time here because a lot of the younger generation think we are out of touch with reality and jaded.

[Flybaby]

a lot of the younger generation think we are out of touch with reality and jaded.

I though jaded was just a synonym with aviation experience.

[Cat Driver]

jad⋅ed
   /ˈdʒeɪdɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jey-did] Show IPA
–adjective
1. dulled or satiated by overindulgence: a jaded appetite.
2. worn out or wearied, as by overwork or overuse.
3. dissipated: a jaded reprobate.

Maybe us older retired ones could be described as jaded when one looks at the meaning of the word.

However working pilots would be better described as " depressed "

de⋅pressed
   /dɪˈprɛst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-prest] Show IPA
–adjective
1. sad and gloomy; dejected; downcast.
2. pressed down, or situated lower than the general surface.
3. lowered in force, amount, etc.
4. undergoing economic hardship, esp. poverty and unemployment.
5. being or measured below the standard or norm.
6. Botany, Zoology. flattened down; greater in width than in height.
7. Psychiatry. suffering from depression.

[hydraulic fluid]

Cat Driver......I enjoy your posts till you get on the T.C rants,we all know by now that they did you wrong.You do have alot to offer the young fellows,so keep posting without crying about t.

[Cat Driver]

You do have alot to offer the young fellows,so keep posting without crying about it.

Crying about it?????

You have to be kidding, there is a big difference between crying about something and doing something about it.

At least I stood up for what is right and lawful, and by doing so I had my career improved ten fold by having to work outside of Canada.

I guess you feel widow is just crying about her problems also?

[hydraulic fluid]

Cat Why you bring widow into this is beyond me....What happened to you was along time ago,no one was killed.I was referring to you hi jacking most threads about how transport did you wrong.I commend you for taking action against them.but to keep bring up how they shut you down is getting old.As for widow and anyone else fighting for improved safety in aviation I wish them the best of luck.

[Cat Driver]

I commend you for taking action against them.but to keep bring up how they shut you down is getting old.As for widow and anyone else fighting for improved safety in aviation I wish them the best of luck.

You really don't understand where I am coming from hydraulic fluid, because TC shutting me down as you call it was a foregone conclusion when I decided to take them on.

I brought widow into it because both her and I have a similar goal, to improve aviation, also she has copies of the documentation that clearly show that on my initial contact with the DGCA at the time Art LaFlamme I told him that I was sure that by bringing my complaints against wrongdoing by several of his employees I would end up bankrupt.

He of course immediately wrote back and assured me that would never happen.....but it did...

I had expected to be denied the approval for my FTU OC but I did not expect they would prevent me from even working in the industry...but they did.

I appreciate your being annoyed at my frequent posts showing dissatisfaction with the way TC operates, however I wonder how you would react if you were me and you were denied what every Canadian citizen is supposed to get from their government , Due Process?

[Carrier]

You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. If you do and say nothing in the face of obvious wrongs to others then you are part of the problem.

We all have a duty and responsibility towards our society. An old saying is that a nation gets the government it deserves. That is a broad brush statement that deservedly applies to the majority who caused it but equally undeservedly also applies to the minority who wanted and were prepared to work for something better but who have been dragged down by the great unwashed. More people need to complain and press for improvements at TC and elsewhere in our society. We should all support and encourage those who speak out, not complain about them doing so.

Until the attitude, ethics and performance levels at TC change all those who have either suffered or might in future suffer should continue to apply pressure. What is required from TC is to see them admit their errors, identify and deal with the individual culprits, and issue apologies and restitution to the victims or their survivors.

I am not holding my breath!

[Koizie1]

I hate to drag up an old topic, but I will...

Going through CADORS there seems to be a lot of reduced visibility issues. The latest I found at YXE from yesterday.

User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2009/06/18
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: Aviation Enforcement
Narrative: Saskatoon Tower reported that the following aircraft taxied in reduced visibility conditions: SLG 1M landed on Runway 33 at 1217z and taxied to Apron 5; RVR Runway 09 1200 feet JZA 583 taxied for departure on Runway 33 at 1219z; RVR Runway 09 1400 feet C-GTTG taxied for departure on Runway 09 at 1231z; RVR Runway 09 2000 feet CNK 112 landed on Runway 33 at 1238z and taxied to the hangar; RVR Runway 09 1600 feet. This visibility issue was reported to be a localized phenomenon with blue skies in all quadrants around YXE.

Four planes all around the same time. There is no visibility stated other than the RVR for 09. Three of these four planes landed or departed a different runway 33, and I happen to know there is no RVR on 33. The RVR for all these 'alleged infractions' is constantly below 2600, fair enough. It then clearly states a localized phenomenon was happening with blue skies in all quadrants.

Now, CAPGEN operating minima pg2 3(e) clearly says if prior to 1000ft AAE the PIC determines a localized phenomenon exists and can clearly see the intended runway for landing, and the taxi route are seen and recognized then they can land.

Now, why does it even appear in the CADORS if as is clearly stated by Navcanada that a localized phenomenen exists?

Or does a pilot now have to state that he is landing in reduced visibiltiy conditions following an observed localized phenomenon as per Canadian Air Pilot General Pages Operating Minima subsection 3(e), pg 12. All questions to be forwarded to my lawyer at 1-866-AIR-AMBULANCE. Check cleared to land.

Someone please explain this to me.

[sakism]

Now, CAPGEN operating minima pg2 3(e) clearly says if prior to 1000ft AAE the PIC determines a localized phenomenon exists and can clearly see the intended runway for landing, and the taxi route are seen and recognized then they can land.

This only helps aircraft that are landing - the ones taxiing for take-off are clearly in violation of the rules (as there is no relief for localized phenomenon except for landing), as ridiculous as they might be.

[Koizie1]

Fair enough Sakism, but still two of the planes were landing. I wonder if its just SOP for Navcanada to CADOR it wether localized phenom exists or not. would be nice if someone from Navcanada or transport could clarify as I have know idea how to find this out.

[lilfssister]

I wonder if its just SOP for Navcanada to CADOR it wether localized phenom exists or not. would be nice if someone from Navcanada or transport could clarify as I have know idea how to find this out.

Yes

[Koizie1]

Thanks lilfss