Okay, it's 900 OVC and 1 mile......
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Okay, it's 900 OVC and 1 mile......
Not a problem! My mother could get in at 900 and 1! But, I can't shoot an IFR approach. Now, I did notice a big hole in the overcast about 20 miles back, so I'll just back track and cancel! Down through the hole I'll go! Yup, there's the plan! Now, the good old GPS will lead me back to the airport, no problems! Gawd I love GPS! I have a pretty good idea where I am! There's a switch! This will work slicker than snot through the beak of a goose! Nobody can come in IFR, but I, the master of deception, can come in VFR! About 5 back I request a special. And, IN I go! Maybe the odd pesky Otter down here, but what the hey? Some complete bloody idiot, sitting at a desk, picking his nose, and scratching his nuts has decided this is a safer way. And what would I know? I'm just a dumb pilot!
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
I sure don't agree with you on most of your posts, well, pretty much all your posts, but this new ban really does make me wonder what they hell where they thinking. You can't come in IFR but you can get svfr and go right on it.
Great job TC, making our skies safer.
I been talking with our other pilots, and if I'm not understanding this new ban, someone please clarify it for me on how it makes our operation any safer.
Great job TC, making our skies safer.
I been talking with our other pilots, and if I'm not understanding this new ban, someone please clarify it for me on how it makes our operation any safer.
-
Scuba_Steve
- Rank 7
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:10 pm
correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there an allowance for the pilot to determin vis is higher than reported prior to crossing the faf and continue the approach? maybe I misread that part.
if thats the case I see a whole lot of " yeah looks like I have 2.5 miles here, I'm continuing"
cheers
if thats the case I see a whole lot of " yeah looks like I have 2.5 miles here, I'm continuing"
cheers
-
2milefinal
- Rank 6
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:36 pm
I think this is what I would try.Scuba_Steve wrote:correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there an allowance for the pilot to determin vis is higher than reported prior to crossing the faf and continue the approach? maybe I misread that part.
if thats the case I see a whole lot of " yeah looks like I have 2.5 miles here, I'm continuing"
cheers
Has anyone out there don this or what Doc talked about?
What happens after? Does TC look into it, or something?
-
tumbleweed
- Rank 1
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:08 pm
- Location: Hell - if it froze
I had a conversation with a TC certification guy last week and he mentioned that the new approach ban was originally only supposed to affect 705 ops, but when it landed in Ottawa somebody......
Cancelling and getting special VFR is 100% legal. If your operation has the ops spec you can go as low as 300' and clear of cloud, until you hit the controlled airspace around the aerodrome.
Cancelling and getting special VFR is 100% legal. If your operation has the ops spec you can go as low as 300' and clear of cloud, until you hit the controlled airspace around the aerodrome.
-
The Wizard of OZ
- Rank 1
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:48 pm
- Location: Not CYXD
Hedely,
Below is the reference for the localized Phenomenon from CARS 700.10(3)
The bolding is obviously mine, I read it as the PIC CAN overide reported ground vis.
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; or
Below is the reference for the localized Phenomenon from CARS 700.10(3)
The bolding is obviously mine, I read it as the PIC CAN overide reported ground vis.
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; or
On the bright side of things ...
Transport has great difficulty making a charge related to flight visibility stick. There are two CAT precedents that I know of, and my smiling face is on the second one. I won at the Tribunal Appeal - the Transport lawyer grumbled to the Members that the flight visibility regulations were virtually unenforceable, and the lead member tartly replied that the regulations were not put in place for the convenience of Enforcement.
Only the pilot can say for sure what the forward visibility out of the cockpit was, at any given place and moment in time.
This was the same transport lawyer that also argued that I had broken the 3 miles flight visibility reg (reqd for acro) because when I was in a vertical downline at less than 18,000 feet, I couldn't see forward more than 3 miles.
Transport has great difficulty making a charge related to flight visibility stick. There are two CAT precedents that I know of, and my smiling face is on the second one. I won at the Tribunal Appeal - the Transport lawyer grumbled to the Members that the flight visibility regulations were virtually unenforceable, and the lead member tartly replied that the regulations were not put in place for the convenience of Enforcement.
Only the pilot can say for sure what the forward visibility out of the cockpit was, at any given place and moment in time.
This was the same transport lawyer that also argued that I had broken the 3 miles flight visibility reg (reqd for acro) because when I was in a vertical downline at less than 18,000 feet, I couldn't see forward more than 3 miles.
-
tumbleweed
- Rank 1
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:08 pm
- Location: Hell - if it froze
NoHedley wrote:You're going to descend through an overcast layer on a contact approach?
But visibility is the limiter. not the celling. Doc did not specify what the mins for the approach are. What I was getting at, is if you are below the ceiling but limited for approach by vis use the contact approach. i.e. cap limits for an airport is 1000 and 3 miles. the weather is 11/2 BR no ceiling. Without the ops spec you would be banned from the approach past the final fix. So you request the contact approach and manoeuver visually and protect your airspace above you if you should fail to see the runway.
Even with Doc's senario as long as the approach gets you to 900 feet before crossing the FAF once through the layer you could request a contact from where ever you are to the field.
Were these the cases you mentioned?Hedley wrote:This was the same transport lawyer that also argued that I had broken the 3 miles flight visibility reg (reqd for acro) because when I was in a vertical downline at less than 18,000 feet, I couldn't see forward more than 3 miles.
CAT File No. O-2418-71
CAT File No. O-2468-02
I love this little tidbit:
This application for judicial review involves the interpretation and application of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/196-433 ("CARS"), a regulation that at times makes the Income Tax Regulations, C.R.C., c. 945 appear to be elegant prose.
Wizard,
You are correct except that Reported Runway Visibility trumps Ground Visibility. If there is am accredited weather observer at the aerodrome the pilot cannot override the observer. Without the ground observer the pilot can determine ground visibility.
Or.....cancel and request special VFR.
You are correct except that Reported Runway Visibility trumps Ground Visibility. If there is am accredited weather observer at the aerodrome the pilot cannot override the observer. Without the ground observer the pilot can determine ground visibility.
Or.....cancel and request special VFR.
-
Axial Flow
- Rank 7
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:00 pm
Holy crazy reading thanks CD for the links.
To see how much confusion in the second report about flight/ground visibility that with the new approach ban you should easily be able to wiggle around it. After 4 years of appeals and thousands of dollars later.
CAT File No. O-2418-71
CAT File No. O-2468-02
To see how much confusion in the second report about flight/ground visibility that with the new approach ban you should easily be able to wiggle around it. After 4 years of appeals and thousands of dollars later.
CAT File No. O-2418-71
CAT File No. O-2468-02
You're missing some stuff ... I went to the Tribunal, Tribunal Review, Federal Court, and Federal Court of appeals. Transport made it very complicated - they kept laying charges, then dropping them, then laying new charges, and oh yeah they revoked my SFOC the day after I asked the Tribunal to initially review the charges (that they subsequently dropped and replaced with new ones).
I think I also unintentionally created a very bad precedent for Double Jeopardy at the Federal Court of Appeals. With respect to the Double Jeopardy issue, Transport argued that it should only apply in the context of criminal law, not administrative law (ie the CARs). I responded with the argument that a policeman could pull a speeding car over, and if the driver was black, and the policemen didn't like black men, well, was it fair if the policeman wrote 100 speeding tickets for the one event?
I lost that one. You win some, you lose some. As they say, judges are like free range chickens - you just never know what direction they're going to take off in, next.
With all the witnesses they called in, paying transportation costs and hotel bills and food and sevearl years of different lawyer's time and their assistants, I don't see how Transport could have spent less than a quarter of a million dollars on this case.
At the end of it all, they sent my airshow team a letter - we are banned for life from ever performing at another airshow in Canada. I know a guy who works at 4900 Yonge St - he tells me that there is "considerable anger" there towards me. Oh well.
I think I also unintentionally created a very bad precedent for Double Jeopardy at the Federal Court of Appeals. With respect to the Double Jeopardy issue, Transport argued that it should only apply in the context of criminal law, not administrative law (ie the CARs). I responded with the argument that a policeman could pull a speeding car over, and if the driver was black, and the policemen didn't like black men, well, was it fair if the policeman wrote 100 speeding tickets for the one event?
I lost that one. You win some, you lose some. As they say, judges are like free range chickens - you just never know what direction they're going to take off in, next.
With all the witnesses they called in, paying transportation costs and hotel bills and food and sevearl years of different lawyer's time and their assistants, I don't see how Transport could have spent less than a quarter of a million dollars on this case.
At the end of it all, they sent my airshow team a letter - we are banned for life from ever performing at another airshow in Canada. I know a guy who works at 4900 Yonge St - he tells me that there is "considerable anger" there towards me. Oh well.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" With all the witnesses they called in, paying transportation costs and hotel bills and food and years of lawyer's time, I don't see how Transport could have spent less than a quarter of a million dollars on this case. "
So that is what those co.ksuckers did with the money they owe me.?
So that is what those co.ksuckers did with the money they owe me.?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
What is the point of having Landing Minimums on an Approach plate if you cannot fly the approach to those minmums ???
It would appear that someone wriiting these new rules does not understand what an approach is.And has forgotten or never known the priciples of instrument flight.
Or could it be that it was messed up in translation .
I remember a similar argument when they took away the markers on the ILS approaches .I wonder if it was the same idiot .Maybe they should give him/her early retirement before they do more stupid stuff.
They will still be flying gasoline VFR up north in 200 /and a half
It would appear that someone wriiting these new rules does not understand what an approach is.And has forgotten or never known the priciples of instrument flight.
Or could it be that it was messed up in translation .
I remember a similar argument when they took away the markers on the ILS approaches .I wonder if it was the same idiot .Maybe they should give him/her early retirement before they do more stupid stuff.
They will still be flying gasoline VFR up north in 200 /and a half
At least some of it, anyways. I understand the rest went towards extinguishing the "Beer Level Low" warning lights!!So that is what those co.ksuckers did with the money they owe me.?
Last edited by Airtids on Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aviation- the hardest way possible to make an easy living!
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
-
The Wizard of OZ
- Rank 1
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:48 pm
- Location: Not CYXD
Pushyboss,
A pilot can override the accredited observer if the observer reports Ground Vis and not Runway Vis. You would just have to ask how they determined the vis. If they do it in anyway other than CARS 824.25(4) you may trump them.
(4) A qualified person stands at the point of observation and, without using any optical devices to enhance their normal distance vision:
(a) assesses in the runway direction the farthest:
(i) visible runway edge lights; or
(ii) visibility markers that can be seen and identified;
(b) from the assessment in paragraph (a), determines the distance, in feet to the nearest 100 foot increment, using the conversion table or the visibility markers chart; and
(c) immediately reports the distance assessed, to the ATS facility that serves the aerodrome, if available, or to the person who requested the report, as the runway visibility along the specified runway in the following format:
“RUNWAY VISIBILITY, RUNWAY [runway number] ASSESSED AS [distance assessed] FEET AT [time] UTC”, to the nearest 100 foot increment.
CARS 824.22:
“point of observation” means a fixed location near the threshold of the runway, such as the taxiway holding position for the taxiway adjoining the runway threshold, or at a point adjacent to the runway threshold, from which the distance to visibility markers is known.
I doubt they will do it that way but you never know, Maybe the FSS folks on this board will enlighten us to how they will do it.
A pilot can override the accredited observer if the observer reports Ground Vis and not Runway Vis. You would just have to ask how they determined the vis. If they do it in anyway other than CARS 824.25(4) you may trump them.
(4) A qualified person stands at the point of observation and, without using any optical devices to enhance their normal distance vision:
(a) assesses in the runway direction the farthest:
(i) visible runway edge lights; or
(ii) visibility markers that can be seen and identified;
(b) from the assessment in paragraph (a), determines the distance, in feet to the nearest 100 foot increment, using the conversion table or the visibility markers chart; and
(c) immediately reports the distance assessed, to the ATS facility that serves the aerodrome, if available, or to the person who requested the report, as the runway visibility along the specified runway in the following format:
“RUNWAY VISIBILITY, RUNWAY [runway number] ASSESSED AS [distance assessed] FEET AT [time] UTC”, to the nearest 100 foot increment.
CARS 824.22:
“point of observation” means a fixed location near the threshold of the runway, such as the taxiway holding position for the taxiway adjoining the runway threshold, or at a point adjacent to the runway threshold, from which the distance to visibility markers is known.
I doubt they will do it that way but you never know, Maybe the FSS folks on this board will enlighten us to how they will do it.
Or if you're north of 60, ground visibility does not apply. What I don't get is when in position you can see the opposite end of the runway, RVR is reported at 6,000 feet, yet the ground vis is reported at 1/4, so you can't leave cause you need a 1/2 mile. Had this the other day and the tower would not budge on the ground vis.
If she floats, give er!
Incorrect.What I don't get is when in position you can see the opposite end of the runway, RVR is reported at 6,000 feet, yet the ground vis is reported at 1/4, so you can't leave cause you need a 1/2 mile.
If RVR is not fluctuating above and below the minimum required, then RVR takes precedence over reported ground vis. So if RVR is steady at 6000, you are good to go if 2600 is the min. However if the RVR were fluctuating from 2200 to 6000, then the ground vis would be required to be 1/2 mile or greater.
Did you guys miss this highlight from the CAT file?
The universal expression of reluctance to testify against a fellow pilot came forth from all of the pilot eyewitnesses, coupled with their observations about his arrogance. They were present here today to protect their sport, and hopefully to make Mr. Boyd realise that his actions were dangerous and prejudicial to the aerobatic fraternity.
-
lilfssister
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:51 pm
- Location: Mysteryville Castle
I think for the most part we're as confused as the rest of you!The Wizard of OZ wrote:I doubt they will do it that way but you never know, Maybe the FSS folks on this board will enlighten us to how they will do it.
The only thing I know for SURE is that if there is a functioning RVR, NOBODY can override the RVR reading (unless as stated above in someone's post, it is a localized phenomenon-which according to our MANOPS we have to tell you anyway).
The “runway visibility” report thing is full of holes. Are airports going to assume the liability by having their vehicle operators give RV reports? If RV reports have to be given to the nearest hundred feet, using known visibility markers, does this mean these markers will have to be erected and distances published (add in liability for airport operators to maintain these, and what if someone goes off the side of the runway and hits one-so they must be frangible)? If you have to “stand” at the runway threshold or near to it, what are you as pilots going to do? Get out of your plane and stroll around if there’s no taxiway adjoining the threshold? Without radio contact? Not too sure many ATS facilities will encourage that.
Anyway, there’s more questions than answers on our side of things too.
