TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

[Gilles Hudicourt]

https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... q0030.html



This investigation states that approach minimum regulations, and the approach ban itself, are far too complicated in Canada. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[Plausibledeniability]

https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- ... q0030.html



This investigation states that approach minimums, and the approach ban itself, is far too complicated in Canada. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Not too mention required Airport Operating visibilities as well!!

Completely agree that this needs to change.

[bring me the horizon]

"...go have a look and see where the runway is." Ahh yes, the ol' lookie loo

[digits_]

Just get rid of the approach ban. It's silly.

[matt foley]

I work, and fly all, for a 703/704/705 operator. Some aircraft will operate as several categories in a single day depending on configuration and crewing etc. My last PPC ground briefing was just under an hour most of which was answering the question "Can you conduct an approach under conditions ABC at airport XYZ?" I was more confused afterwards than I was going in. Guess I will continue doing what I think is right and face the music when the time comes...brutal!

[Kosiw]

About 'effing time that TC got called out to get off their collective asses and make positive changes in the interest of safety.

[Donald]

The captain mistakenly believed the approach was legal.

The captain was also the company chief pilot.

[Panama Jack]

Thanks for sharing this- it is very interesting.

The approach ban always had me scratching my head. I when I converted my FAA Instrument Rating to the Canadian one (pre-IPL era) a lot of mental energy was spent trying to get to grips with this. While I get that it was probably intended to provide a minimum level of safety to keep pilots from doing ”look see” approaches when there really was no realistic chance of getting in, the Canadian Approach Ban minima were an inadequate fix and perhaps introduced its own set of hazards, and this accident illustrates the point.

The FAA policy, if I am not mistaken, is that Part 121 or 135 (for hire) operations require the plated or Ops Spec minimum visibility/RVR to shoot the approach. For Part 91 (private operations) there is no approach ban but you need the required flight visibility and required visual references to continue to land. While I personally find the Part 91 standards a little loose, it makes sense to me that for-hire operations carrying the unsuspecting public prescribe a higher standard to guarantee a minimum level of safety and relieve commercial pressures from air crews.

I now fly for an overseas carrier. Don't have to deal with the CAP plates or the confusing Canadian approach ban methodology. We use Jepps and have a separate Jepp plate which shows the Company minimums for all the approaches at the said aerodrome.

There are so many ’gotchas’ in aviation, we could use a few less.

[co-joe]

Without the flow chart I'm not completely lost, but possibly slightly unsure of whether any particular IAP is legal.

[valleyboy]

To have an area where there is approach ban and another area where there isn't just shows how screwed up the thought process and the law makers implement the rules. Just like FDT there is far too much lobbying and industry influence to make the rules as they should be. Typical Canadian mentality, trying to make people happy and turn out pure crap and you end up with requiring legal advice and interpretation before commencing a manoeuvre.

I have ignored approach bans because of local conditions and did a pirep just to have something on the tapes but in reality I could have been charged because I initiated the approach below the ban. I never hear a thing so I have no idea how far up the ladder the filed report would have gone.

Back in the day with the old "below minimums" approach one would get some indication from ATC, like anyone who has tried the approach has landed, and he is saying fill your boots if you want or go to your alternate.

We have had corner turning incidents, Fredericton for one, that has motivated TC and the law makers to "dumb down" and create a rule to basically remove missed approaches and pretty much assure a landing. We all know you can't just make rule that are so complicated with exceptions and variables that confuse everyone.

A one hour pilot briefing before a ride is ridiculous and the check airman needs to bone up on his job, I have been a check airman and I know this type of thing indicates that even the check pilot is a little apprehensive as well. Doing the new course to become a TC check pilot is information overload and rule driven but common sense must prevail.

What's the solution, I think a stream lining of the rules, the international rules are pretty straight forward and in Europe an approach ban is an approach ban and you work with what your company has operationally but ATC will not issue approach clearance once it goes below approach ban limits and will actually ask what your company limits are. Canada needs to go this way and bring the rules in line with the rest of the world and ignore the urge to be influenced by the USA. This means the CAPs would be for general aviation and for companies without reduced limits authority. To go below the public minimums companies would need to have a cat 2 and/or cat 3 authority. TC will also visit LVP limits as well for reduced minimums. This mean mom and pop operations would likely be stuck with the CAP minimums as they should be and for companies who have been large enough to initiate cat 2 at least will be required to set up training and equipment to qualify.

The bottom line is approach bans should be enforced by ATC, by not issuing an approach clearance and not by the pilot, just like the rest of the ICAO would. Unfortunately, uncontrolled airspace is another animal, how do you enforce a place where an IFR flight plan isn't necessary. It should never be reduced to a point where pilots rat out pilots and of course if there is now official wx how can one even prove it as well.

It's a mess which likely could have been the post rather than all these ramblings

[valleyboy]

dbl post

[GoinVertical]

Glad to see the TSB focusing on this as a result of this report...

I do find it funny though some of the things they mentioned in the report that they didn't put much focus on - especially the lack of de-icing available with 1/4-1sm in snow, calm winds, and temperature of -2... also the fact that the captain clams he had visual reference and the FO had nothing.

I'm pretty sure we all know that the skipper of this flight knew exactly what he was doing when it came to trying this approach at 1/4sm and having "visual reference" when the FO didn't... just didn't work out for him this time.

Again, despite all of these (common amongst northern 703 operators) issues, good report, and glad to see them focusing on the approach ban.

[iflyforpie]

The revamp is mainly needed for a logistical/legal standpoint. Tell me if I can legally do the approach in an easy to follow manner—without having to remember what a percentage of advisory vis actually is and whether it’s inclusive or exclusive and whether TC considers an LPV precision or non precision (the definition in the CARS and TCs literature conflict) and ops specs and exceptions and exceptions to exceptions, etc.

Canada is not like the US or Europe and in lots of places, a simple and controlled approach ban won’t work due to the lack of weather information, the lack of ATC control or monitoring, or many other situations where approach ban simply does not apply.

But the root cause of the problem is continuing the approach beyond minimums without the required visual references. I’ve done 50% advisory vis and made it in no problem more times than I can remember—particularly off an ILS or LPV into an aerodrome with HIALS at night. See the lead in lights.. in Canada you can continue. Not waiting a second or two after DH. Not dipping below an MDA. Not “forgetting” to put in cold weather corrections. Not because I desperately needed to get in or management or customer told me to go try or get in or else.

I’ve also gone missed with airport reporting 3 miles vis because of ragged bottoms or a low cumulus cloud or a rain squall right at the MAP.

Approach ban is like the 12 hour rule. Pilots who showed up to work drunk when it was 8 hours will still show up to work drunk. It just ruins it for the rest of us who might want a single beer after work.

[TurkeyFarmYQX]

I really hope they can make some changes, would've made my INRAT so much easier.

[golden hawk]

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/tsb-compl ... 5295356J8X

[thenoflyzone]

. See the lead in lights.. in Canada you can continue.

Technically, you can in the States as well, but only down to 100 ft. To go below that, the red terminating bars or the red side row bars on an ALSF type approach lighting system need to be distinctly visible and identifiable. Or other approved visual references must be seen.

[iflyforpie]

Yes, in Europe too.

What I meant was there’s no other qualifiers in Canada.. though it’s probably a good idea that you know where the runway actually is so you don’t undershoot it.

[FICU]

That flow chart at 2:07 says it all.

[SRV]

All you weak IFR wanna-be's, make a flow chart to figure out your approach ban options. And more importantly, learn to study.

It's grease easy to figure out without being a constant complainer...

[mijbil]

Glad I found this thread since this approach ban is one that I too have found very confusing. I recall heading back to CYFB one day and having an intra cockpit re-re-re read of the rules and then a Satcom conversation with dispatch and ending up with 4 opinions (kidding) but it took three of us about 30 minutes to figure out the answer. We did the LPV since that is "non precision" even though it has both GP and azimuth guidance.
Now that things are slow perhaps TC will have the time to finally come out with a clear and easy to know set of rules.
Here is my 2 cents. Get rid of approach bans altogether. Shoot the approach and if you see the runway, land, and if not go around. The plate visibility is for planning purposes (legal alternates). This is how we did it in the RCAF. We could file to a 0/0 (WOXOF) destination as long as we had a viable alternate. It was legal (mil rules) to do so. Would it be smart? - no, but it was legal. If we didn't have the required visual refs, then we went around. I realize that this is likely a bit idealistic in the commercial world since there are economic pressures that do not exist in the mil world but it really made life simple. The plated vis was for planning purposes. There was no approach ban. Oddly, in the civ world, you CAN shoot an approach below ban limits for training. Think about that. You can do it for training but not for real because you are expected to go around. There is also the north or south of 60 rule and the localized meteorological phenomenon clause allowing you to shoot it anyways.
As mentioned earlier, there is also less than ideal reporting in some more remote areas (AWOS etc).