Approach Ban Changes

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Looks like some much-needed changes are coming to the Approach Ban to better align with the FAA and ICAO. No word on implementation date though.

https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/file ... 1-2024.pdf

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... lify-align

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... laboration

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... initiative

[goingnowherefast]

About time!

Hopefully TC does a reasonable job of copying the FAA. Don't allow the operators to push stupid little caviets to "get the job done" in atrocious conditions. I always love having decisions armchair quarterbacked when the approach ban and LVOP/RVOP rules require a PhD.

[pelmet]

Make it like the US. For private operators....no visibility restrictions.

But TC won't do that.

[‘Bob’]

Shouldn’t be like that.

Private operators are the highest risk for trying to “git er dun”. Just look at the atrocious safety record of US Part 91 operations. It’s the Wild West.

[goingnowherefast]

I have an easy and simple solution. EVERYONE IS BOUND TO THE NUMBER ON THE APPROACH PLATE.

The visibility numbers on Canadian approach plates would have to change to be more applicable. Can't approach ban an ILS at 2600, but maybe 1800 is okay? No approach lighting means the LPV is 2600?

[flyinhigh]

Nice to see it moving forward, the NPA went out a couple years ago. The change is coming as TC was lit up by the TSB in an accident that happened with a king air in New Brunswick (I believe).

Report said TC made it difficult for pilots to now whether or not they could even conduct the approach.

[digits_]

Nice to see it moving forward, the NPA went out a couple years ago. The change is coming as TC was lit up by the TSB in an accident that happened with a king air in New Brunswick (I believe).

Report said TC made it difficult for pilots to now whether or not they could even conduct the approach.

Which in itself is a ridiculous reason to blame TC. Even without an approach ban you don't have an excuse to go below minimums.

Unless you have super accurate weather reporting (big major international airports), approach bans are ridiculous in Canada.

I hope they use different values at night as well. Major difference landing during the day in a snow storm or fog at night.

[goingnowherefast]

Unless you have super accurate weather reporting (big major international airports), approach bans are ridiculous in Canada.

I remember the original NPA have some stupid shit about using GFA weather for a "departure ban" for airports with no visibility reporting. Anyone with 2 brain cells and sufficient free time submitted feedback that the idea was abused. I hope that portion stays in the dump.

[thepoors]

Shouldn’t be like that.

Private operators are the highest risk for trying to “git er dun”. Just look at the atrocious safety record of US Part 91 operations. It’s the Wild West.

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

[CpnCrunch]

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

But not with paying passengers.

[cdnavater]

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

But not with paying passengers.

What about the unsuspecting passengers who have no idea their pilot buddy is pushing the weather to a dangerous level, innocent people don’t necessarily have to pay for their flight to be victims.
It should be applied across the board, no reason some private pilot can land when airlines are diverting to their alternate.

[CpnCrunch]

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

But not with paying passengers.

What about the unsuspecting passengers who have no idea their pilot buddy is pushing the weather to a dangerous level, innocent people don’t necessarily have to pay for their flight to be victims.
It should be applied across the board, no reason some private pilot can land when airlines are diverting to their alternate.

Yes, agreed. Should have said passengers.

[Daniel Cooper]

I agree they should allow private operators to fly to IFR minimums in IMC if they want. If that is so dangerous than minimums should be changed. They already don't have access to RCAP approaches. For commercial ops it's different because the approach ban is protecting the travelling public from operators that push their pilots through subtle and not so subtle ways.

[digits_]

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

But not with paying passengers.

What about the unsuspecting passengers who have no idea their pilot buddy is pushing the weather to a dangerous level, innocent people don’t necessarily have to pay for their flight to be victims.
It should be applied across the board, no reason some private pilot can land when airlines are diverting to their alternate.

If approach ban values are correctly determined, that situation should never happen.

[cdnavater]

But not with paying passengers.

What about the unsuspecting passengers who have no idea their pilot buddy is pushing the weather to a dangerous level, innocent people don’t necessarily have to pay for their flight to be victims.
It should be applied across the board, no reason some private pilot can land when airlines are diverting to their alternate.

If approach ban values are correctly determined, that situation should never happen.

Make it like the US. For private operators....no visibility restrictions.

But TC won't do that.

Keep up digits, someone mentioned no restrictions for private

[digits_]

What about the unsuspecting passengers who have no idea their pilot buddy is pushing the weather to a dangerous level, innocent people don’t necessarily have to pay for their flight to be victims.
It should be applied across the board, no reason some private pilot can land when airlines are diverting to their alternate.

If approach ban values are correctly determined, that situation should never happen.

Make it like the US. For private operators....no visibility restrictions.

But TC won't do that.

Keep up digits, someone mentioned no restrictions for private

No approach ban restrictions doesn't mean you can bust minimums. If approach ban values are realistic and accurate, then nobody would make it in if minimums are respected.

[goingnowherefast]

The point of the approach ban is because when the visibility is low, objects and lights are too easily misidentified. Sure, it doesn't happen often, but how many crashes are acceptable?

If the approach ban was simply because nobody would make it in anyway, then there would also be a ceiling ban.

Yes, there will be lots of times when an otherwise visibility banned approach could lead to a landing, but the risk is too high for that approach, lighting and runway. Kinda like flying overweight. A little extra won't hurt, except when it does. I already hear the excuses "yeah, but I've landed in worse". Well there's also that other person "it'll carry more weight, I've done it".

The north, with their lack of infrastructure unfortunately can't have an approach ban in most places. Visibility isn’t reported due to a lack of infrastructure. Two levels of safety.

[pelmet]

The point of the approach ban is because when the visibility is low, objects and lights are too easily misidentified. Sure, it doesn't happen often, but how many crashes are acceptable?

How many general aviation crashes are acceptable. Take a look at the floatplane carnage. GA has a fairly high accident rate. We could save many lives(including many non-pilots) by banning non-essential flying. But there is a different standard for non-paying passengers and private pilot flying.

Transport Canada should adopt American regulations for private flying when it comes to approach bans. But they won't because they want more control, not less. We saw that with the proposed night flying regulations. I bet not many TC pilots proposing these particular regulations are affected by them much.

I follow the American accidents on a different forum. In spite of the much larger amount of private flying, it is rare that there is an accident involving approach ban issues.

[thepoors]

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

But not with paying passengers.

I was half joking - it's like states that allow riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Also if it's FAA Part 91 (i.e. CARs 604), by definition there shouldn't be any paying passengers.

[goingnowherefast]

Pelmet, you're right.

I've noticed most private GA IFR pilots set their own personal higher limits. 1000-3, often even more. An approach ban won't affect them because they already limit themselves higher.

GA accidents are more accepted because those involved are more risk aware than a Jonny Q Public passenger. Nobody is expecting to shut down GA.

[pelmet]

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

But not with paying passengers.

I was half joking - it's like states that allow riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

I wear a helmet on more than one aircraft that I currently fly and don't wear on other aircraft.

Someone once suggested that GA accident rate is comparable to motorcycle riding. I'm not sure if that is true but I sure have met quite a few pilots that died, and most of us have.

[rookiepilot]

It's called "freedom" bud. If you want to go out and kill yourself, have at 'er.

But not with paying passengers.

Why commercial ratings and AOC’s exist.

[cdnavater]

If approach ban values are correctly determined, that situation should never happen.

Make it like the US. For private operators....no visibility restrictions.

But TC won't do that.

Keep up digits, someone mentioned no restrictions for private

No approach ban restrictions doesn't mean you can bust minimums. If approach ban values are realistic and accurate, then nobody would make it in if minimums are respected.

I think you are having a different conversation, somebody literally said NO VISISBILITY RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS, to which I said is a bad idea, ok. Are we clear on that yet! The quote above is the post I am talking about.
Also, WTF do you mean nobody would make it in If the minimums are respected, that’s absurd.
In the US the posted minimums are the minimum vis, no ambiguity, no approach ban chart to follow, on the plate based on the lighting available the min vis/rvr associated is published, that’s what you use.
My understanding is that is the way we are headed for Canada, an ILS won’t have published visibility of 2600/ 1/2sm, it will be similar to the US with published visibility associated with certain lighting, no ban table to decipher.

[digits_]

Keep up digits, someone mentioned no restrictions for private

No approach ban restrictions doesn't mean you can bust minimums. If approach ban values are realistic and accurate, then nobody would make it in if minimums are respected.

I think you are having a different conversation, somebody literally said NO VISISBILITY RESTRICTIONS FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS, to which I said is a bad idea, ok. Are we clear on that yet! The quote above is the post I am talking about.
Also, WTF do you mean nobody would make it in If the minimums are respected, that’s absurd.
In the US the posted minimums are the minimum vis, no ambiguity, no approach ban chart to follow, on the plate based on the lighting available the min vis/rvr associated is published, that’s what you use.
My understanding is that is the way we are headed for Canada, an ILS won’t have published visibility of 2600/ 1/2sm, it will be similar to the US with published visibility associated with certain lighting, no ban table to decipher.

Let's put an example on it.

Let's say an ILS approach has posted minimums of 200 ft agl and 1/2 sm visibility.
The 1/2 sm visibility would be considered the approach ban.
If the airport reports 3/8 sm, the private guy can attempt the approach, the commercial guy can not.

There are now a few options:
1) The private guy goes missed. Ok, that's to be expected, all makes sense. One can argue about safety and if a private guy should be allowed to do this, but the system somewhat works.

2) The private guy makes it in. That's interesting. Assuming he wasn't creative and respected the 200 ft DH, the approach ban should not have been in effect at this point. Either the reported visibility was inaccurate, the approach ban value is too high for this airport or some other unknown reason occured. This is a silly situation, a commercial operator should have been allowed to attempt an approach in this situation. If the private guy was visual at DH, commercial traffic likely would have been as well.

3) The private guy makes it in, because he was too creative with the DH. This is a situation that has been hinted at in previous posts, and is an argument to implement an approach ban for private operators.

So, if we have a situation where the approach ban makes sense, and we measure everything accurately, then there should never be a situation where one could have made it in if the DH was respected.

The general idea of the approach ban is that it prohibits you to attempt an approach where you're almost guaranteed that you won't make it in. If there's doubt, you should be allowed to attempt the approach. It seems that some countries change this interpretation, and only allow you to attempt an approach when you're almost guaranteed that you will make it in, that's a different situation and in my opinion a badly designed approach ban.

[goingnowherefast]

The point of the approach ban is because when the visibility is low, objects and lights are too easily misidentified. Sure, it doesn't happen often, but how many crashes are acceptable?

If the approach ban was simply because nobody would make it in anyway, then there would also be a ceiling ban.

Yes, there will be lots of times when an otherwise visibility banned approach could lead to a landing, but the risk is too high for that approach, lighting and runway. Kinda like flying overweight. A little extra won't hurt, except when it does. I already hear the excuses "yeah, but I've landed in worse". Well there's also that other person "it'll carry more weight, I've done it"

The above is applicable to commercial operators. Although, I'll argue, it should apply to everyone