IFR Landing minima

J31 · Post by **J31** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:55 am

Should Canada increase the visibility required for landing? Will it make IFR approaches safer? Should there be approach bans on runways not served with RVR? http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp ... 2101662670
Air Canada seems to think so but ironically Air Canada Jazz does not!

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:31 am

Will it make IFR approaches safer?

In a word: no. The majority of accidents they use (and not just the ones in the article) to support their reasoning, involve pilots busting minmums. IE they descended below MDA on a non-precision approach "to have a look-see". Adding one more rule or minimum won't stop these people from crashing, it will give TC the ability to violate more people.

If people chose to go to alternate when they didn't see anything or lost contact, rather than try 2 or 3 approaches each one lower than the one previous, then IFR approaches would be safer.

centerstored · Post by **centerstored** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:58 pm

Transport has killed this proposed ammendment. It's dead. The reasoning is that it made no impact on improving safety. People who break rules will still break them no matter what the rules are.

mach_tuck · Post by **mach_tuck** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:59 am

I'm not sure if its quite quashed as of yet. As of only about 2 or three weeks ago it was still under review. Wether or not it gets passed is another thing. But from what I understand is that the approach ban for precision appraoches will be at 1800ft RVR unless you have a op spec and the aircraft is certified for CATII approaches and has a HUD as well, in which case the approach ban will be at 1200ft. Also the is an approach ban for non-precision approaches which is at 3/4sm. It will be interesting to see if it actually gets put into place.