Approach Bans ?

[Nauclerus]

Listening to LiveATC this morning with the fog in YOW. Dash Port Q400s were landing off the RNAV-Z to runway 07 when the reported RVR was 1200. There was also a Porter E295 that said they needed 1600 RVR for the ILS, which I thought was the standard OP SPEC RVR minimum in Canada on a CAT-I ILS. So I guess the Q400 can use the lower 1200 minimums or is that an RNAV vs ILS thing ? Both the CAT I ILS and RNAV-Z specify a 2600 RVR limit on the approach plates.

There was also an Air Canada A220 that said they needed 1800 for the CAT-I ILS. Is that an A220 thing or maybe a temporary restriction due to an operational issue ? Is there anyway the general public can access a companies OPS SPECs from Transport ?

[cdnavater]

Listening to LiveATC this morning with the fog in YOW. Dash Port Q400s were landing off the RNAV-Z to runway 07 when the reported RVR was 1200. There was also a Porter E295 that said they needed 1600 RVR for the ILS, which I thought was the standard OP SPEC RVR minimum in Canada on a CAT-I ILS. So I guess the Q400 can use the lower 1200 minimums ? Both the CAT I ILS and RNAV-Z specify a 2600 RVR limit on the approach plates.

There was also an Air Canada A220 that said they needed 1800 for the CAT-I ILS. Is that an A220 thing or maybe a temporary restriction due to an operational issue ? Is there anyway the general public to access a companies OPS SPECs from Transport ?

Does the Porter Dash have the HGS(HUD) system like Jazz, I’m pretty sure the Jazz Dash, if the Captain was flying using the HUD the mins would be 1200 RVR.
I know for sure on the Jazz RJ, for the LPV and ILS would be 1200 with the HUD, not sure about the E2 or 220. Typically need a HUD or auto land to get down to 1200 for approach ban purposes, as far as I know.

[goingnowherefast]

CAR 705.48 has all the details.

Different airlines will have different internal limits as well. They all CAN be authorized as per the above regulation. If they choose to do so is up to them.

[Grey_Wolf]

All depends if you have the 75% or 50% OPS Spec (Now Specific Approvals) and how the airplane and airport are equipped.

Porter's Fleet does not have HUDs

The Dash is Ops Spec'd for RNAV-AR "RNAV Y's", as well as LPVs

The E2 is only spec's for LNAV/VNAV, with the RNAV-AR in the works for the current training cycle.


NOW looking at the Jepp plates for Ottawa

- The ILS 07, "minimums' get you down to RVR 2600 or 1/2 SM, with No Ops Spec
- RNAV Z 07, "minimums" are the same

With the Dash's Ops spec, if the runway has CL lights, 50%, otherwise it's 75%. As for RNAV's it's 50%.

So ... The Dash could do:

50% of RVR 2600 or 1/2 SM would be 1/4 SM or RVR 1200
75% would be 3/8 SM or RVR 1600

The Jet would take the LNAV/VNAV mins of RVR 5000 or 1 SM, and go 50% to 1/2 SM or RVR 2600

[Grey_Wolf]

CAR 705.48 has all the details.

Different airlines will have different internal limits as well. They all CAN be authorized as per the above regulation. If they choose to do so is up to them.

RVSM - CAR 705.08 (G)(vi)
RNP AR - CAR 705.08 (G)(vi)
CAT II - CAR 704.47 (1)(a)

Take Off Minima - CAR 705.34 (3)(a)

Approach Bans - CAR 705.48 (2)(a), (3)(a), and (4)(a)

[Reinhard]

The E2 can't do LPV? Wow

[goingnowherefast]

I'm sure the plane can. Just TC is still certifying the dinosaurs to fly. Pick the priorities when approvals take that long. When 99% of the airports have an ILS, LPV approval is lower down the priority list. Grey_Wolf above stated they're recently RNP approach certified and doing the training now. Apparently management prioritized RNP over LPV.

[khedrei]

I'm sure the plane can. Just TC is still certifying the dinosaurs to fly. Pick the priorities when approvals take that long. When 99% of the airports have an ILS, LPV approval is lower down the priority list. Grey_Wolf above stated they're recently RNP approach certified and doing the training now. Apparently management prioritized RNP over LPV.

The way I read his comment on the OPS spec for the E2 for LPVs is that they don't have one to fly to lower mins when there is an approach ban for LPV approaches. But I would think the plane and pilots can still fly LPV approaches as long as an approach ban is not an issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[co-joe]

LPV would make sense as it's a non precision approach and therefore has lower approach bans than a precision approach. And by makes sense, I means it makes sense to Transport Canada, not to any of the rest of us.

No idea about the E2, but not many transport category jets have LPV certification in Canada that I know of. Canadian North and Air North both have the avionics for it, AC, WS, F8, TS all don't as far as I know.

[cdnavater]

LPV would make sense as it's a non precision approach and therefore has lower approach bans than a precision approach. And by makes sense, I means it makes sense to Transport Canada, not to any of the rest of us.

No idea about the E2, but not many transport category jets have LPV certification in Canada that I know of. Canadian North and Air North both have the avionics for it, AC, WS, F8, TS all don't as far as I know.

The RJ(NG) at Jazz is certified for the LPV minimums and if it is 200’ and a 1/2 plated, it is treated exactly the same as an ILS. The ban is the same but it must be flown by the Captain, FOs are restricted to better than plate.
I don’t know off hand the Q400 which was the original question, why was Porter Dash using RNAV-Z 07 with reported 1200 RVR but Jazz Qs have the HGS system which is almost identical to the RJ and I assume they have the same minimums

[Nauclerus]

With the Dash's Ops spec, if the runway has CL lights, 50%, otherwise it's 75%. As for RNAV's it's 50%.

Runway 07 at YOW does not have high-intensity runway centreline lighting, so you need 1600 RVR to shoot the CAT-I ILS but only 1200 RVR for the RNAV (GNSS) Z LPV. I'm not sure I see the logic in that when both approaches have the same 2600 RVR limit on the plates and the same DA(H) of 200 feet ? I guess Transport considers the LPV approach to be more accurate than an ILS ? Then there is the Air Canada A220 saying they need 1800 RVR for the CAT-I ILS ?

[goingnowherefast]

Didn't AC create their own internal approach ban following their A320 accident in Halifax several years ago? Maybe that's why. I don't work there, so can't say for sure.

[Grey_Wolf]

I'm not sure I see the logic in that when both approaches have the same 2600 RVR limit on the plates and the same DA(H) of 200 feet ? I guess Transport considers the LPV approach to be more accurate than an ILS ?

Transport Canada Publication TP308 - Criteria for the Development of Instrument Procedures – TP308/GPH209 might be able to help shed some light on it. Be warned! it's 1000+ pages of pure mathematical delight for those so inclined.

[co-joe]

With the Dash's Ops spec, if the runway has CL lights, 50%, otherwise it's 75%. As for RNAV's it's 50%.

Runway 07 at YOW does not have high-intensity runway centreline lighting, so you need 1600 RVR to shoot the CAT-I ILS but only 1200 RVR for the RNAV (GNSS) Z LPV. I'm not sure I see the logic in that when both approaches have the same 2600 RVR limit on the plates and the same DA(H) of 200 feet ? I guess Transport considers the LPV approach to be more accurate than an ILS ? Then there is the Air Canada A220 saying they need 1800 RVR for the CAT-I ILS ?

I've never understood why the approach ban is lower, for a non precision approach. Makes zero sense to me.

[goingnowherefast]

With the Dash's Ops spec, if the runway has CL lights, 50%, otherwise it's 75%. As for RNAV's it's 50%.

Runway 07 at YOW does not have high-intensity runway centreline lighting, so you need 1600 RVR to shoot the CAT-I ILS but only 1200 RVR for the RNAV (GNSS) Z LPV. I'm not sure I see the logic in that when both approaches have the same 2600 RVR limit on the plates and the same DA(H) of 200 feet ? I guess Transport considers the LPV approach to be more accurate than an ILS ? Then there is the Air Canada A220 saying they need 1800 RVR for the CAT-I ILS ?

I've never understood why the approach ban is lower, for a non precision approach. Makes zero sense to me.

I've never understood why Canada's approach ban rules are so f-ing complicated. This whole thread is about trying to figure out why 3 planes from 2 companies all had different approach ban numbers for the same runway and nearly identical approaches.

ILS vs LPV, the practical difference is how it's set up in the avionics and a bunch of regulatory semantics. They both bring the plane to the same point in space above a runway. Yet somehow, the eyes of a crew flying the LPV are magically better.

Shouldn't approach ban be about minimums, runway lightning and approach lightning? Nope, it's got more to do with regulatory semantic BS.

[Rooster69]

New Captains, at some airlines, have higher limits too.

[Grey_Wolf]

I've never understood why Canada's approach ban rules are so f-ing complicated. This whole thread is about trying to figure out why 3 planes from 2 companies all had different approach ban numbers for the same runway and nearly identical approaches

Simply, as mentioned by others, It's what TC allows for each operator! (In other words, how much the company is willing "to pay to play")

New Captains, at some airlines, have higher limits too.

Yup! Once again, what is allowed in the Company's Ops Manual (COM/FOM)

For example:
- New Captains cannot conduct CAT II approaches unless they have 300 PIC turbofan, and 100 PIC on type
- New Captains cannot conduct Low Vis Takeoff RVR 600 unless they have 100 PIC on type
- Crews cannot conduct RNP-AR approaches unless both have received training
- Crews can conduct visual/contact approaches under specific conditions listed in their COM/FOM (weather minima's)

[cdnavater]

Runway 07 at YOW does not have high-intensity runway centreline lighting, so you need 1600 RVR to shoot the CAT-I ILS but only 1200 RVR for the RNAV (GNSS) Z LPV. I'm not sure I see the logic in that when both approaches have the same 2600 RVR limit on the plates and the same DA(H) of 200 feet ? I guess Transport considers the LPV approach to be more accurate than an ILS ? Then there is the Air Canada A220 saying they need 1800 RVR for the CAT-I ILS ?

I've never understood why the approach ban is lower, for a non precision approach. Makes zero sense to me.

I've never understood why Canada's approach ban rules are so f-ing complicated. This whole thread is about trying to figure out why 3 planes from 2 companies all had different approach ban numbers for the same runway and nearly identical approaches.

ILS vs LPV, the practical difference is how it's set up in the avionics and a bunch of regulatory semantics. They both bring the plane to the same point in space above a runway. Yet somehow, the eyes of a crew flying the LPV are magically better.

Shouldn't approach ban be about minimums, runway lightning and approach lightning? Nope, it's got more to do with regulatory semantic BS.

For what it’s worth, we(trainers) have been told that changes are coming to this, going to be the same or similar to the US where the vis published on the plate is the ban. However, there will be multiple published visibilities for different lighting or equipment so there will still be scenarios where someone asks the question of why such and such company landed with this RVR….

[goingnowherefast]

That's been part of the NPA for years. I'm hoping TC can make progress this year. The NPA had some ridiculous proposals for the north, where there is no weather reporting.

If there is different approach bans for different lighting (as there should), it would be reflected on the plate. For example: RVR1800 (2600 lights out).

[tik1]

The proposed regulations are expected to be published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, in mid-2025 with a 30-day public comment period.

[bobcaygeon]

That's been part of the NPA for years. I'm hoping TC can make progress this year. The NPA had some ridiculous proposals for the north, where there is no weather reporting.

If there is different approach bans for different lighting (as there should), it would be reflected on the plate. For example: RVR1800 (2600 lights out).

What?? Why is having to use the GFA for the approach ban where there is no reported weather unreasonable?

I'd personally prefer if they reverted back to the text version of GFA vs the pretty pictures they have now...... a line 65 NE of Atikokan to 30 miles W of Attawapiskat. I wouldn't know where Atikokan and Attiwaspikat were or even existed without this.

[Dry Guy]

Why is having to use the GFA for the approach ban where there is no reported weather unreasonable?

Because they are incredibly inaccurate. Have you ever operated in an area served only by GFA? You're better calling Mathias and asking him to look outside.

[goingnowherefast]

Why is having to use the GFA for the approach ban where there is no reported weather unreasonable?

Because they are incredibly inaccurate. Have you ever operated in an area served only by GFA? You're better calling Mathias and asking him to look outside.

It's also a forecast, not a report of actual conditions. Once forecasts are 100% accurate, then let's talk about it again.

GFAs are generally pretty inaccurate in the sparsely settled areas where this is considered.

[CaptDukeNukem]

I'm sure the plane can. Just TC is still certifying the dinosaurs to fly. Pick the priorities when approvals take that long. When 99% of the airports have an ILS, LPV approval is lower down the priority list. Grey_Wolf above stated they're recently RNP approach certified and doing the training now. Apparently management prioritized RNP over LPV.

Yup. We downgrade all RNAV approaches to LNAV/Vnav at the moment. The plane is more than capable of flying LPVs.

RNP AR 0.1 is being trained in this current cycle. But that’s more for fuel savings and less track miles than lower minimums. Also allowing access to certain airports that would previously be restrictive without such OPS SPECS

Unfortunately this scenario can manifest itself using the 50% of 75% rule depending on approach type and lighting.