IFR differences between Canada and the US

[charrois]

Hi everyone. I've had my instrument rating for awhile, but hadn't flown IFR for a long time so I'd lost currency. I just finished studying up and getting my IPC done, so I'm eager to start getting some practical experience by filing IFR on most of my cross countries going forward. However, a fair bit of my distance flying is in the US, and I've stumbled across some differences in procedures. I found an old thread here talking about this, but it is more than 10 years old, and a lot of things have changed in the meantime (RNAV, etc.) so I'm wondering if there is a list compiled somewhere of current differences in instrument flying expectations between the two countries. Or if not, if people could contribute things they know to be different.

Differences I've stumbled across (at least, I believe these are differences):

1. I don't believe the US has the concept of an approach ban.
2. Minimum requirements for alternates are determined differently.
3. FAA and NavCanada approach charts are formatted a bit differently
4. Whereas in Canada, most RNAV approaches seem to be roughly of the T-shape allowing entry from any direction, many/most of the US RNAV approaches I've seen have the concept of a "hold in lieu of a procedure turn" or procedure turn to reverse direction if approaching from the "wrong" direction. This kind of threw me when I first started looking.

I'm sure there are lots of other "gotchas" in differences between procedures in the US and Canada. Does anyone have any other observations they would like to share - particularly differences that a relatively inexperienced instrument rated pilot like myself would be likely to encounter? As they say, you don't know what you don't know. Thanks!

[PostmasterGeneral]

There are differences??

[TeePeeCreeper]

There are differences??

Yep!

Here’s a couple…

In Canada 1/2 SM VIS is acceptable for departure.
In the US one needs 1 SM VIS to depart.

I’ve also noticed that while in Canada one gets their take-off clearance and usually switches to Center airborne.
In the US tower usually “holds your hand” and then switches you over to Center.

Other than those two examples (I’m sure there are a few more) it’s pretty straightforward. Don’t sweat it!

Regards,

TPC

[Cessna 180]

Hi everyone. I've had my instrument rating for awhile, but hadn't flown IFR for a long time so I'd lost currency. I just finished studying up and getting my IPC done, so I'm eager to start getting some practical experience by filing IFR on most of my cross countries going forward. However, a fair bit of my distance flying is in the US, and I've stumbled across some differences in procedures. I found an old thread here talking about this, but it is more than 10 years old, and a lot of things have changed in the meantime (RNAV, etc.) so I'm wondering if there is a list compiled somewhere of current differences in instrument flying expectations between the two countries. Or if not, if people could contribute things they know to be different.

Differences I've stumbled across (at least, I believe these are differences):

1. I don't believe the US has the concept of an approach ban.
2. Minimum requirements for alternates are determined differently.
3. FAA and NavCanada approach charts are formatted a bit differently
4. Whereas in Canada, most RNAV approaches seem to be roughly of the T-shape allowing entry from any direction, many/most of the US RNAV approaches I've seen have the concept of a "hold in lieu of a procedure turn" or procedure turn to reverse direction if approaching from the "wrong" direction. This kind of threw me when I first started looking.

I'm sure there are lots of other "gotchas" in differences between procedures in the US and Canada. Does anyone have any other observations they would like to share - particularly differences that a relatively inexperienced instrument rated pilot like myself would be likely to encounter? As they say, you don't know what you don't know. Thanks!

1. I don't believe the US has the concept of an approach ban.
Not for most Part 91 operations, yes for commercial ops.
2. Minimum requirements for alternates are determined differently.
There are a few differences, but they are mostly the same (600-2, 800-2). You also don't need to file an alternate if the weather is VFR at your desination (no ops spec required, unlike Canada).
3. FAA and NavCanada approach charts are formatted a bit differently
They both suck, but the Jepps look the same haha.
4. Whereas in Canada, most RNAV approaches seem to be roughly of the T-shape allowing entry from any direction, many/most of the US RNAV approaches I've seen have the concept of a "hold in lieu of a procedure turn" or procedure turn to reverse direction if approaching from the "wrong" direction. This kind of threw me when I first started looking.
Most smaller airports will have a T entry. You won't find t entries at larger airports where you can expect vectors to final (this is the same in Canada). You will find more airports that have transitions from an airway to the approach in the US. This goes for all types of approaches. There are less approaches with the course reversal entry from the wrong side and more with a holding pattern (though this can be found in Canada as well).

[photofly]

Two things come to mind: the minimum sector altitude is operational in Canada, when cleared for an approach you can make your own way to the IAF, I think in FAA land you must use a charted transition and the MSA is for “emergency” information only.

Secondly Minimum Crossing Altitudes at intersections are different: in Canada you must climb to cross by that altitude, in FAA land you are required only to commence the climb at the crossing.

Someone will correct me if I have those details wrong…

[digits_]

Secondly Minimum Crossing Altitudes at intersections are different: in Canada you must climb to cross by that altitude, in FAA land you are required only to commence the climb at the crossing.

When/where did you encounter that? I assume you are talking about a SID, but do you have an example? I don't recall ever waiting to climb based on a minimum crossing altitude.

[rookiepilot]

Two things come to mind: the minimum sector altitude is operational in Canada, when cleared for an approach you can make your own way to the IAF, I think in FAA land you must use a charted transition and the MSA is for “emergency” information only.

Flying to Westchester county, north of NYC, I was required to follow the published transition (even though VMC), other airports, it’s been radar vectors to the IAF when IMC, “cleared for the visual” in VMC, until I cancelled when sighting the field.

[digits_]

Two things come to mind: the minimum sector altitude is operational in Canada, when cleared for an approach you can make your own way to the IAF,

I don't think that's entirely correct: https://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtop ... 6&t=135938
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... D2019P3452

If on a STAR, you have to follow the STAR, even when cleared for an approach.

[photofly]

Right. If there’s a STAR. But numerically speaking most approaches don’t have a STAR.

Looking at the Canadian instrument procedures manual…

On occasion a clearance for an approach may not include altitude instructions. The pilot may receive this clearance while the aircraft is still a considerable distance from the facility, in either a radar or non-radar environment, and within or outside controlled airspace. In these cases the pilot can descend to an appropriate minimum IFR altitude (refer to Article 3.3.2A).
Having determined the minimum altitude that provides the required obstacle clearance, the pilot may descend to this altitude when desired. Pilots are cautioned that descending early to a 100 NM safe or minimum sector altitude may take the aircraft out of controlled airspace.

Pilot picks altitude, which can include the 100nm safe altitude etc. And when you’re cleared for an approach, you can proceed direct to the initial.

I don’t think that’s permitted in the US. You have to use a published transition (unless cleared “direct”) to a fix. Also, per the FAA instrument procedure handbook:

Minimum Safe Altitudes are published for emergency use on IAP charts.

I can’t find anything about descending at pilot’s discretion at any time.

[Choppermech1986]

In Canada 1/2 SM VIS is acceptable for departure.
In the US one needs 1 SM VIS to depart.

Not entirely true, under Part 91 (which it sounds like you'll be operating), you can take off in zero-zero conditions.

[photofly]

Here’s another one: the format of a departure clearance is slightly different. Also In the US it include the departure controller frequency which isn’t repeated by the tower when it’s time to switch. In Canada the tower will tell you “contact departures now on xxxx decimal xxx.”

[BTD]

Here’s another one: the format of a departure clearance is slightly different. Also In the US it include the departure controller frequency which isn’t repeated by the tower when it’s time to switch. In Canada the tower will tell you “contact departures now on xxxx decimal xxx.”

Sometimes. It depends on the airport and controller. Example out of YUL, when you call in the PDC they will tell you departure frequency and after takeoff tower will just tell you to switch to departure. There is no standard nationwide with that stuff.

Some of the things mentioned so far are common practice, some others are rules.

[co-joe]

I got in trouble from tower in SFO when he cleared me to contact departure, I asked what the frequency was and he was annoyed because he said it was on the SID. The departure was one of those old paper jepp charts that you unfold 6 x and it covers your whole lap by the time you're done. lol ok whatever thanks In Canada I find YVR is the only place that give you the departure freq with the clearance.

I've read some weird hold speeds in the US especially with New York, that they're specific speeds to the airspace and different in some areas. We moved to the 200, 235, 265 hold speeds for jets a few years ago which i think was a US rule.

I've heard "descend on the star" is common in some areas. You descend following the crossing restrictions on the star without needing to be cleared lower, but I've never experienced it.

[airway]

Two things come to mind: the minimum sector altitude is operational in Canada, when cleared for an approach you can make your own way to the IAF,

I don't think that's entirely correct: https://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtop ... 6&t=135938
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... D2019P3452

If on a STAR, you have to follow the STAR, even when cleared for an approach.

I don't think so depending what wording they use.

If you are on a STAR and ATC says "Cleared for the RNAV RW 25 via the Hope 3 STAR" then you do have to stay on the STAR.

If you are on a STAR and ATC says "Cleared for the RNAV RW 25 approach" you could go straight to the IAF if you can do a straight in approach, or to the "T" waypoint if you can't. The STAR is cancelled. For min altitude you can use 100NM safe, sector, transition alt, ETC.





.

[smooth]

Not entirely for IFR but In FAA land, beneath class B airspace speed limit is 200 kts.

"91.117(c), no person may operate an aircraft beneath Class B airspace, or in a VFR corridor through Class B, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots"

[parrot_head]

Two things come to mind: the minimum sector altitude is operational in Canada, when cleared for an approach you can make your own way to the IAF,

I don't think that's entirely correct: https://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtop ... 6&t=135938
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... D2019P3452

If on a STAR, you have to follow the STAR, even when cleared for an approach.

I don't think so depending what wording they use.

If you are on a STAR and ATC says "Cleared for the RNAV RW 25 via the Hope 3 STAR" then you do have to stay on the STAR.

If you are on a STAR and ATC says "Cleared for the RNAV RW 25 approach" you could go straight to the IAF if you can do a straight in approach, or to the "T" waypoint if you can't. The STAR is cancelled. For min altitude you can use 100NM safe, sector, transition alt, ETC.





.

If you are on a STAR and your are cleared for the approach, ATC will clear you for the approach and specify the appropriate transition; you are expected to continue to fly the STAR, while meeting all speed and altitude constraints, and then begin the approach at the specified IWP. RAC 9.2.3 and the NAV Canada RNAV Phraseology guide are pretty clear about this. ATC, in Canada, does not need to specify "via the STAR".

[airway]

I don't think that's entirely correct: https://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtop ... 6&t=135938
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... D2019P3452

If on a STAR, you have to follow the STAR, even when cleared for an approach.

I don't think so depending what wording they use.

If you are on a STAR and ATC says "Cleared for the RNAV RW 25 via the Hope 3 STAR" then you do have to stay on the STAR.

If you are on a STAR and ATC says "Cleared for the RNAV RW 25 approach" you could go straight to the IAF if you can do a straight in approach, or to the "T" waypoint if you can't. The STAR is cancelled. For min altitude you can use 100NM safe, sector, transition alt, ETC.

If you are on a STAR and your are cleared for the approach, ATC will clear you for the approach and specify the appropriate transition; you are expected to continue to fly the STAR, while meeting all speed and altitude constraints, and then begin the approach at the specified IWP. RAC 9.2.3 and the NAV Canada RNAV Phraseology guide are pretty clear about this. ATC, in Canada, does not need to specify "via the STAR".

Not if they don’t specify a transition.