1/2 mile taxi vis... nobody knows what is going on!

[Airbrake]

For Check Pilot,

I do have some issues with the rule that states that Maintenance can taxi an aircraft anywhere at the airport with no intention of taking off or landing. But we as pilots who have done RTO training ~ 140Kts in RVR 600 cannot taxi anywhere. Where is the risk higher, with the mtce person (who is trained to taxi, but I argue not to the level that the pilot is) or with the flight crew?

Or using YWG as an example. RWY 36 is 1/4Mi and RWY 31 is 1/2mi. If the reported RVR is 1200 on 31 and 36 you can taxi to RWY 36 correct? If you are taxing from the terminal you are crossing over the threshold of 31 to get to 36. Now I understand the center line lighting etc on the rwy, but this is about the taxiing. Does that make sense?

[tintin42]

There is a lot of confusion for us canadian pilot but immagine pilots for everywhere else. Immagine if all the countrys did there own special regulation, it would not be helping the pilots. I think it would be more dangerous. I see why TC made this rule, but they could have made it a lot simpler and a little bit less restrictive, like 1200 RVR unless there is a CAT II or III rwy, than 600RVR.

[untucked]

Just reading a route qualification for Phoenix

Airport Operating Minimums
"It is prohibited to commence an approach where the reported visibility is below the minimums for the approach"

I find the FAA's reckless abuse of common sense frightening

[dutchman]

Check Pilot

While I appreciate your candor and the openness in your posts as of late, you cannot tell me that the current confusing rules regarding LVOP/RVOP actually contribute in a positive manner to aviation safety.

As an airline pilot operating in Canada it amazes me that there can be such differences in operating procedures from airport to airport. I cannot understand why it eludes T/C to make approach bans/low visibility operating procedures simpler instead of evermore complex. Why not have a simple approach ban enforced by tower advertising on the atis that the airport is closed when visibilities drop below safe manoeuvring conditions? This way there would be a lot less confusion. For uncontrolled aerodromes publish a single approach ban criteria.

It is easy to read through charts and sliding scales when one is four hours into a duty day, but when at the end of a twelve/thirteen hour day the potential for errors and misinterpretation really increases dramatically.

Am I alone in thinking this way?

[Donald]

Then of course, just to muddy things further, the airport duty manager can shut things down even when you are legal:

Detail InformationUser Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2009/10/23
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: System Safety
Narrative: PLR 507, a BAe 31 operated by Northwestern Air lease, was at the threshold of Runway 33 at Yellowknife ready to depart when Tower received a call from the airport duty manager. He informed Controllers that since the weather was below 1/2 mile visibility, arrivals and departures were to stop. RVR at the time was 2,800 feet for Runway 33. Tower advised the duty manager that RVR takes priority over reported ground visibility, however, the duty manager still wished to stop departures and arrivals. PLR 507 had to taxi back to the main apron and the crew of MPE 438, a Canadian North B737, which was de-icing, was informed that they would not be permitted to depart as per the airport duty manager's wishes.

[Duster]

I fail to understand why this has become so complex...would it not be safer and so much easier to make standard approach, taxi, and airport ground manuevering limits 1/2 mile/2600 RVR with any lower limits or exceptions via Ops Spec only?? Any airline or company with the appropriate training and equipment could use lower limits of 1/4 mile/1200 RVR for approach ban and taxi limits Cat 1.

I do know that it is not safe having two pilots puzzling over several governing documents below 20.000' to determine not whether it is safe to land - but whether it is legal to land. One of the guys in ground school last week had an excellent suggestion - send the weather and runway conditions via ACARS directly to our legal department, who can vet it then send on to dispatch who can vet it, than tell what used to be pilots in command to land or not. And then do it all over again when there is a late runway change.


Why are the safe operators being penalized for the sins of the unsafe ... oh, wait, that's how we operate in Canada. Knee jerk reaction and CYA. Why are the airports allowed to operate as little fiefdoms with no regulatory or financial oversight? Why does TC not enforce their own regulations until someone screws up so badly it requires the whole business being punished? Why didn't I retire 5 years ago before all this bullshit started??

[Pratt]

[quote="Duster"]

I do know that it is not safe having two pilots puzzling over several governing documents below 20.000' to determine not whether it is safe to land - but whether it is legal to land. One of the guys in ground school last week had an excellent suggestion - send the weather and runway conditions via ACARS directly to our legal department, who can vet it then send on to dispatch who can vet it, than tell what used to be pilots in command to land or not. And then do it all over again when there is a late runway change.


quote]

Sounds like a great plan, just hope that none of those people make a mistake in how they interpret the rules, because in the end it is still the PIC that will be written up.

Thanks but I think I'll continue to do my own interpreting of whether to land or not.

[Go Guns]

The idea here is good. I like the fact that some (many) of the airports in Canada have been forced by this to spend some of their AIF income on infrastructure around their airports, rather then building a bigger shopping mall. That being said, the implementation sucks. With each passing year it seems flying in Canada is getting harder. I can't imagine that it's getting any safer.