Cat II Operations CYYZ

[goingmach_1]

Looking for knowledge about Cat II operations at CYYZ in particular when the weather is forecasted or in fact at those limits.

I was talking with a colleague of my the other day who flies a Biz-jet and was sharing with me that on more than one occasion when attempting to land at CYYZ, his intended destination, CAT II operations were in effect. ATC inquired if they were CAT II qualified. They were not, and then subsequently given a hold, or on another occasion perceeded to their alternate.

The weather was forecasted to be low visibilty, but on more than one occasion it was above CAT II limits. In fact, according to him, it was 300-1 at the time of arrival, but ATC would not let them attempt an approach. As we know, landing limits for a CARs 604 flight is RVR 1200, so the vis was there. Am I wrong to think that ATC can not deny a pilot an approach clearance? I'm thinking its the PIC to decide if there is adequate vis according to RVR, or METAR, or reported observation. And of course the approach ban.

So the question is, can ATC withhold an approach clearance at their discretion?

Most interested in your opinions.

[valleyboy]

This happens all the time in Europe. They are in cat 11 ops and as long as weather is dictating that cat 11 to be used they will not grand cat 1 approach. The crew declared they were not "legal" so therefore they denied themselves. If they had answered "yes" on the go even if not trained.

Now for the grey area. The biz jet operations, what CARS were they operating under. Commercial operations has ops spec for lower vis and right down to 1200 RVR which is cat 11 so I would has answered yes and carried on. I'm surprised this was an issue are you not sure they were not talking about cat 111. I would like to know the RVR. What you have described sound more like cat 111 not cat 11 -- cheers

[goingmach_1]

This particular instance it was CAT II.

Private aircraft operate under CAR's 604. Which allows them to conduct a IFR approach, if the approach plate limits are met, to 1200 RVR. Which is of course CAT II limits.

Not CAT III, which is even lower limits.

So again, the question is, can ATC deny a PIC an approach clearence if he/she determines the weather meets their criteria?

[Jet Jockey]

In Europe when the airport you are scheduled to fly to is under CAT II Ops, they won't even allow you to takeoff from your departure airport if you are not CAT II certified. This happened to me twice while in Paris... one flight was to EBBR which took a four hour delay the other to LSZH took a two hour delay before we were allowed to takeoff. The weather/visibility at destination had to be above the regular CAT I visibility minimum of 550 metres to allow us to takeoff.

Of course Euro Control knows which minimums you are certified to because you have to put those minimums in your ICAO flight plan... CAT I = 550 metres and CAT II = 300 metres.

A similar situation as the statement above also happened to one of our aircrafts and crew operating a Challenger on a 604 flight from CYUL to CYYZ several of years ago.

They were asked by CYUL ATC prior to taxiing if they were CAT II capable to which they answered no and were then told they could not takeoff.

Although technically a private aircraft flying under 604 rules can start and continue an approach with a 1200' RVR visibility down to a DH of 200' above ground, I believe that once an airport goes to CAT II Ops, only those with CAT II Ops or better can start the approach.

BTW, we are now CAT II certified.

[tired of the ground]

Re-checking sources

[pelmet]

One evening it was localized fog. They wouldn't even let us change from CAT II on 05 to one of the 06's without expecting a major delay. I think it was CAT II on only one side of the airport at the time.

[fish4life]

My guess would be because they don't want to risk losing that arrival slot by putting someone not CAT 2 certified and having them miss since it seems like when the weather goes down cancellations start piling up.

[goingmach_1]

Thanks, makes sence to me that the airspace becomes "qualified"

IE: RVSM

[goleafsgo]

I've done a cat I multiple times in YWG while cat II ops were in effect. No problem with ATC and no cadors

[confusedalot]

I may be out of the mainstream now, but it seems to me that when Cat 2 is in effect, all it means from an ATS perspective is that the backup generators are turned on and that all the lights are turned on. And so on.

It does not mean that you cannot attempt an approach. The decision is up to you.

That is how is was in my day. Suspect that is has not changed.

[True North]

^ ^ That.

It would be interesting to hear from a controller.

In Canada, if you come buzzing into the terminal area on an IFR flight plan the arrival controller will confirm you have the ATIS. If the ATIS is advertising CAT II ops and you acknowledge that you have the ATIS and don't advise that you need better weather, then you just get vectored into the lineup. Controllers don't have the authority to deny you the approach unless there are some very extenuating circumstances. Even if the airport is closed because the weather is below the airport's Level of Service IE: the current RVR is 1800 but the airport LoS is 2600, ATC can not deny you an approach/landing. If you insist on landing the tower controller will still give you the wind, altimeter and will make sure the runway is clear, then tell you the airport is closed and landing would be "at your discretion" or "your responsibility". I can't remember the verbiage but I'm pretty sure it's in the MANOPS. Then they will file a CADORS.

In all my career I was never challenged by a controller on what my capabilities were - in Canada or the US.

[wordstwice]

CYYZ RVOP/LVOP procedures are put in place by the GTAA, TC, and with consultation with Nav Canada. Controllers themselves has zero leeway with how these procedures are applied.

With the people posting that they can do an approach anyways keep in mind that you will be specifically cleared for a CATII ILS and not just an ILS. If you accept that clearance and are not qualified or authorized to do that approach you put yourself and your company at huge risk.

Once RVOP/LVOP is in place CAT I only aircraft will be restricted. This is not any controllers wish....they really just want you on the ground as much as you want to be, the Controllers are just following the rules as they should. I can tell you that an arrival controller's workload is lower if they can just put you on final as apposed to having to deal with you diverting.

You are correct on denial of clearance. There are a few situations that a controllers can deny a clearance but generally speaking they cannot. They can however, deny a CAT I aircraft when CAT II/III ops are in effect.

Remember guys and gals, Controllers are just following their SOP's put in place by the company just like you do in the cockpit.

One last thing....MANOPS does not exist anymore....call it MATS from now on. savvy?

Hope this info helps

[GRK2]

Does Canada still have an "Approach Ban" point? Anyone could fly an approach up to a certain point, like a marker or DME distance, but if the required vis was not stated or RVR was not what the operator had approved in their Ops Spec, the approach had to be abandoned. Is this not still restricting? (Unable to do a search at the moment) Thanks.

[wordstwice]

Yes, there still is an approach ban for CAT I and non precision approaches.

[GRK2]

Almost correct, found the time to look it up...A TC advisory circular states that for CAT II/III an approach ban is also in effect for reported RVR...if those fall below minimum distances an approach ban will apply. CAP limits I think.

[wordstwice]

Yeah, your right, I didn’t bother mentioning CAT II/III because there’s no conversion chart for those like the other approaches. It’s simply 1200 for CAT II and 600 for CAT III ( in Canada).

[sepia]

There is a lot of incorrect information on this thread. I would strongly caution anyone taking something they read on avcanada and using it to make real world decisions.

[telex]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca ... P1490E.pdf