TSB Investigation - Canadian Approach Minimums

[Inverted2]

It would be easier if we just used charted visibility.

That's how most of the world does it.

Yes it would. Transport just likes to make things way more convoluted than they have to be.

[“Bob”]

Same with Nav Canada.

Just take the Canada Air Pilot out back and put it out of its misery already.

There is absolutely nothing I love more than reading a run on sentence written by a 9 year old for a missed approach procedure or how they just relish placing the important killer items on a different page in tiny print over some topographical feature.

[valleyboy]

Instead they spend money on art installations and vanity projects

-- BINGO

The Nation's capital doesn't even support CAT11

Almost every "commercial" airport in Europe and the UK has cat 11 and the rules are simple, below your approved limits you don't get an approach. You will even be asked, if you are a stranger, what you are approved to. Canada is such a banshee cluster @#$!. Make companies get approved for cat 11 and cat 111 and spend the money on upgrading runways. All of the ops spec (the old name) game should be removed. Get the commercial carrier influence and lobby out of the equation and bring our rules in line with the civilized part of the world. That also goes for FDT.

Government to improve runways and carriers to train crews and equip aircraft to the proper standard, what a concept to improve safety.

Most don't realise or choose to acknowledge how backward and archaic canadian aviation really is.

[GRK2]

Quick question. In your whole career exactly how many CAT II (right down to minimums and/or CAT III A and B for that matter) approaches have you had to do in real time? (not in the sim for qualification etc) I'll bet you find it's a pretty low number. It's why the costs to upgrade all those runways won't be done soon. It's too expensive. And easier. Cost over Ops...guess what wins almost every time?

[Flyby13]

What are the chances they change the regs though?

[GRK2]

Change the regs? What with Nav Canada and TC busy shutting down ground based navaids, closing or reducing service from existing control towers and increasing availability and approvals for GNSS RNAV type usages, not much hope of a reg change in my mind. Money talks.

[photofly]

Start a petition. If you can get a significant proportion of pilot licence holders to agree, the minister might take note. Especially if you have the TSB of Canada backing up the request.

[thenoflyzone]

Instead they spend money on art installations and vanity projects

-- BINGO

The Nation's capital doesn't even support CAT11

Almost every "commercial" airport in Europe and the UK has cat 11

That's because airports in Europe and the UK in general are more fog prone than most of the airports in Canada. Let's not forget one fog prone airport here, YYT, got CATIII in 2016. YYC also recently got CATIII capability with their new parallel runway.

CATII at YOW/YEG/YQB wont happen, for the financial reasons stated above. The costs outweigh the benefits.

SA CATII might, though.

https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/file ... 00_053.pdf

(1) NAV CANADA has installed Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) for CAT I ILS approaches that
have the performance capabilities of CAT II and CAT III ILS.

(2) CAT I ILS approaches however may not have the ground equipment and/or lighting systems
necessary to qualify them to CAT II or CAT III capabilities.

(3) SA CAT II approaches are CAT I ILS approaches that under certain conditions can safely permit
a Decision Height (DH) of 100ft and Runway Visual Range (RVR) values of 1200 feet, similar to a
conventional CAT II instrument approach. Operators may be authorized to fly SA CAT II
approaches if they meet the conditions of Appendix A of this AC.

(4) A major difference between an SA CAT II and a conventional Category II instrument approach is
that the SA CAT II approach may only have approach and/or runway lighting systems intended
for CAT I approaches.

So you will eventually see a few SA CATII approaches pop up across the country. It will get the job done.

[Canoehead]

So you will eventually see a few SA CATII approaches pop up across the country. It will get the job done.

Until some airplane ends up off the edge because they lost the centerline (no lighting).

It's 2021. WTF do we do everything so mickey mouse in Canada? It's embarrassing.
Back to reading about over budget (used) ice breakers I go.

[Liftdump]

What about a GO FUND ME PAGE for new lights. Seems that’s what all the cool kids are doing. Or a fucking lemonade stand.

[fish4life]

I’ve always thought it’s weird how YWG has a cat 2 and YEG doesn’t.

North of 60 exemptions make sense because it can be 1/4sm in blowing snow and sky clear because it’s all just ground blow, here’s a hint use the octa’s of blowing snow to tell if you’re going to make it in or not before you leave.

No point adding Cat 2’s to airports now anyway we just need to bring in the 100’ min LPV’s into Canada.

[thenoflyzone]

I’ve always thought it’s weird how YWG has a cat 2 and YEG doesn’t.

North of 60 exemptions make sense because it can be 1/4sm in blowing snow and sky clear because it’s all just ground blow, here’s a hint use the octa’s of blowing snow to tell if you’re going to make it in or not before you leave.

No point adding Cat 2’s to airports now anyway we just need to bring in the 100’ min LPV’s into Canada.

Which country has 100' LPV minimums? To my knowledge, the lowest minima on LPV approaches is 200'.

As for why YWG has CATII and YEG doesn't, most likely YWG is more prone to fog/low vis conditions than YEG is.

YWG is also more isolated and diversion airports are further away, so having CATII means less diversions.

[rigpiggy]

Not just north of 60. I swear there must be a few fss guys that hedge there bets. 3/8 at the tower, and 2+ at the approach end. Many times I would be over windsor on the 14 appr to yhz, and have the lights but the rvr on 23 below1200/1600 and an approach ban in effect. Its pretty simple, shoot the approach to minimums, look at gps, if less than a 1/2 to the field look up, nothing seen, go around, lights in sight continue.use vertical guidance if available. Oh and if it looks like crap, go around

[Rockie]

I’ve always thought it’s weird how YWG has a cat 2 and YEG doesn’t.

North of 60 exemptions make sense because it can be 1/4sm in blowing snow and sky clear because it’s all just ground blow, here’s a hint use the octa’s of blowing snow to tell if you’re going to make it in or not before you leave.

No point adding Cat 2’s to airports now anyway we just need to bring in the 100’ min LPV’s into Canada.

Which country has 100' LPV minimums?

None. There are no approved IFR approaches anywhere with DA below 200 feet except low visibility ILS's. GLS will eventually be approved below 200 feel but LPV's never will be.

[BTD]

So you will eventually see a few SA CATII approaches pop up across the country. It will get the job done.

Until some airplane ends up off the edge because they lost the centerline (no lighting).

It's 2021. WTF do we do everything so mickey mouse in Canada? It's embarrassing.
Back to reading about over budget (used) ice breakers I go.

They already did, and it is noted specifically in the report.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-rep ... o0025.html

If the distance between runway edge lights is greater than 50 m and runways are not equipped with centreline lighting, there is a risk that visual cues will be insufficient for flight crews to detect lateral drift soon enough to prevent an excursion, while operating aircraft at night during periods of reduced visibility.

[dhc#]

What about a GO FUND ME PAGE for new lights. Seems that’s what all the cool kids are doing. Or a fucking lemonade stand.

All those associated outlet malls on airport land have better lighting than the runways

[fish4life]

Why do people think LPV won’t go lower than 200’. If I was low on gas with nowhere to go I’d do an LPV over an ILS if I needed to get in.

[Rockie]

Why do people think LPV won’t go lower than 200’. If I was low on gas with nowhere to go I’d do an LPV over an ILS if I needed to get in.

LPV's don't have the accuracy to allow minimums below 200 feet and that's never been envisioned for them. GLS's use LAAS which provides dramatically better position resolution than WAAS/LPV's and are specifically designed for low visibility approaches eventually with CAT III landing and rollout, but even approval for that is taking a very long time. If I were low on gas with nowhere to go I would definitely do an ILS which in Canada provides flight checked guidance right through the rollout even on a CAT I system over a LPV to get in. I recommend you do the same but ultimately it's your decision.

[co-joe]

Two things that need changing in the interest of safety. The ridiculous approach ban, and the convoluted Notam dissemination system.

[Canoehead]

Thanks BTD. I had forgotten about that one.

[digits_]

Two things that need changing in the interest of safety. The ridiculous approach ban, and the convoluted Notam dissemination system.

Time to go fly in Langley, trigger some CADORs and blame them on the NOTAM system

[co-joe]

It's just a matter of time before somebody misses something serious like a closed runway because they don't have an hour per leg to spend reading and deciphering 100 Notams for every aerodrome within 1000 nm. Never flow into Langley but you guys following all those weird VFR procedures around YVR are nuts in my view. Direct the coal pile that may or may not be there depending on what ships have been to port...? IFR please...

[thenoflyzone]

So you will eventually see a few SA CATII approaches pop up across the country. It will get the job done.

-- BINGO

The Nation's capital doesn't even support CAT11

Well, it took 4 years, but here we are. The first of many, I hope.

YOW will be the first airport in Canada getting a SA CAT II approach. The procedure will become active on October 2, 2025, on runway 07.

This will enable approved airlines equipped with autoland or a HGS to land at YOW in reduced visibility conditions (below CAT I minimums).

https://www.navcanada.ca/en/019aic-2025en.pdf

It will probably be restricted to an RVR of 1600, due to only 1 RVR sensor on 07, unless a second one was installed.

More info on these SA CAT II approaches can be found here.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... no-700-053

Hopefully the approach ban concept will start getting cleaned up as well with the upcoming round of publications.

[hithere]

What is the difference between a SA(Special authorization) CAT 2 and a regular Cat 2? Other than the fact that you need special authorization from TC?
And you don’t need auto land or HGS for a Cat 2. You can do a Cat 2 via an airline specific PMA(pilot monitored approach) procedure.
Autoland or HGS are required for a Cat3

[thenoflyzone]

What is the difference between a SA(Special authorization) CAT 2 and a regular Cat 2? Other than the fact that you need special authorization from TC?
And you don’t need auto land or HGS for a Cat 2. You can do a Cat 2 via an airline specific PMA(pilot monitored approach) procedure.
Autoland or HGS are required for a Cat3

Tell me you didn't read the links I posted without telling me you didn't read the links I posted.

It's all in there, especially your first question. It's literally in the second sentence of the first link I posted.

A major difference between an SA CAT II and a conventional CAT II instrument
approach is that the SA CAT II approach may only have approach and/or runway lighting systems intended
for CAT I approaches.

Second, you need special authorization - or approval - from TC for both an SA CAT II and a conventional CAT II. They put SA in the title of this new procedure because there are more requirements that need to be met compared to a conventional CAT II. It's also done on purpose to differentiate the two. SA CAT I and CAT II's will be deployed across the country in the coming months/years, and as it's a new concept here in Canada, you need to differentiate the two in a clear way.

This is why TC mandates that SA CAT II approaches have their own approach charts, and not be coupled with another ILS procedure.

From the second link.....

3.7.6 This procedure must be published as a distinct SA CAT II instrument approach procedure.

Third, in order to conduct an SA CAT II due to reduced lighting on the runway, you will need an autoland or a HGS. That bit of info is found in the second link as well.

(7) Because of the reduced lighting systems, SA CAT II approaches must be flown automatically with an autoland system for aircraft that are so equipped. For aircraft not equipped with autoland systems SA CAT II approaches must be flown manually using a Category III certified head-up guidance system (HGS) system providing guidance to touchdown in accordance with the applicable AFM or AFM supplement.