NAC AIR CYQT WEATHER
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
AEROMONKEY
- Rank 5
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:19 pm
- Location: Thunder Bay
NAC AIR CYQT WEATHER
NacAir cancelled their whole sched into yqt today....weather?
-
Adventuregg
- Rank 1
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:25 pm
- Location: NwO
-
Raven20000
- Rank 2
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:01 pm
-
sprucemonkey
- Rank 8
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:31 pm
-
Eagle Laker
- Rank 1
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:35 pm
- Location: By dat lake over there, eh.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
AND proving again why the regs MUST change to stop "sneaking down"!!! Sheesh!El Comat wrote:The only place that I heard Nakina got into was YFH, not sure what the wx was like there. Of course, 09 YFH is a probabaly one of the best runways to sneak a couple feet down, with the lake right there.
EC
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Dec 1. New vis regs. Can't happen soon enough. This is way past due. It is still not enough, but a step in the right direction.Cat Driver wrote:You don't have enough regs. now???????????????????????????
The onus should not be on the pilot to be pressed to do an approach when the weather is know to be below minimums. Canada is the exception here, and overall an exceptionally bush set of regulations in many areas. Truly, quite an embarrassment to TC and how Canada stacks up internationally I believe.
The tightening of the the minimums application is merely reducing a loophole, and, still not even bringing it to an ICAO standard.
CARs still caters to the bush operation, with considerable ATAC lobbying to keep the regulations slack. Safety is a joke, and a warm 'n fuzzy feelgood platitude for Canadian consumers.
Safety for TC is a sliding scale, where politics, lobbying and the flavor of the month are applied unevenly, in my opinion. There are certainly examples that I have witnessed where AC and pilots have been called to task for items relatively minor in comparison to some of the flagrant disregard demonstrated by other pilots and operators - particularly with regard to de-icing, as one example.
Unfortunately that "bush" frame of mind carries over to current operators outside of their own northern operations, then on into the mindset of pilots transitioning to Jetsgo's or other current operators, also.
The new limits are far past their time in coming. It should be obvious, and pilots should be entirely clear that 1200 RVR is not acceptable as the point to be doing NPA, which are essentially meant to be cloud breaking procedures in the best case! It's time for TC to step up and apply the new limit as a "limit" and start handing out some serious fines - evenhandedly across the board. (The TC fines START at $2500! - and I don't believe their is an operator around that will pay that for the pilot, because they will wash their hands of you so fast...)
The onus now will shift from pilots having to make the decisions, to the airports by requiring improvment to airport facilities. This is also way past due in this country.
Airports will have to shift their emphasis from demanding glass palace terminals, to demanding improvement of approach facilities, including Nav, RVR, lighting, markings, to CAT I or better as required by the prevailing weather conditions of those airports. Canada is one of the few "First World" countries with a large number of NPA, (NDB, VOR, BCLOC) type approaches to poorly light and marked runways.
Operators will be required to meet the CAT II training and equipment requirement to be allowed to do CAT II or higher approaches, rather doing defacto CAT II's as are presently being done under the loophole in CARs. In fact, you can do a Non Precision Approach to CAT II minimums currently!!
As is the case with most countries, any approach below 3/4 and RVR 4000 should be considered a low visibilty approach, with increasingly stringent requirements as the visbility drops. This should not be "informational", but a hard limit, as one would assume the definition of "limit" would indicate.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Balls, I have no problem with your post as it only makes common sense to bring Canada to at least the level of Africa for regulatory oversite and workable rules. At least in Africa there is a reason for political corruption.
But can you address my question as to what all this has to do with Nakina and the exceptionally gifted pilots someone posted about that are trained there?
But can you address my question as to what all this has to do with Nakina and the exceptionally gifted pilots someone posted about that are trained there?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
The thread went something like this, bad weather, no such thing as bad weather for Nakina, trained really well, really good guys at this operation (with your own sig that says know when to say "no"), and comments about nice place to sneak down, etc, leads me to comments that it is about time to stop the sneaking down, and really know when to say "no", that it is about time for the airports to step up and the pilots not have to push.Cat Driver wrote:Balls, I have no problem with your post as it only makes common sense to bring Canada to at least the level of Africa for regulatory oversite and workable rules. At least in Africa there is a reason for political corruption.
But can you address my question as to what all this has to do with Nakina and the exceptionally gifted pilots someone posted about that are trained there?
The thread to me implied that Nakina air guys are trained to fly when other people don't, and should be trained to say "no" per your signature, and a limit is a limit, not a suggestion by the new regs, yippee, not soon enough, obviously.
I don't think my post was off the topic. Really?
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
No problem balls, I must have read it wrong, I thought they meant they could get in when the weather was crappy and below limits... When others were sitting on the ground waiting for legal limits.
..Sorry you guys in Nakina I missread what was said.
Cat
..Sorry you guys in Nakina I missread what was said.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
balls,
I think you're overreacting here about the "sneaking down" thing. First of all, I have no clue how hard Nakina had to try to get into YFH the other day. There may have been 600' ceilings for a time, who knows? Either way, the boys from Nakina, like most of us that go to YFH twice a day, know that there is room to cheat a little when approaching from the west. How do we know this? Probably because we've landed there 5 million times in SKC wx, and can tell you the number of boulders on that little island on short final. My point is, with the right equipment (rad. alt., appch GPS, two-crew, etc.) and a THOUROUGH knowledge of your surroundings, there is room to fudge a little here and there when needed. 03 ZRJ is another good example....you won't hit anything on approach except for maybe Zeb Kenequanash in his boat, or that little spit of land about 0.2 back from the runway.
Basically it comes down to common sense, which some IFR robots seem to lack. If I'm going into an unfamiliar airport, then you bet I'm gonna stick to what's written on the plate. If I'm going into 03 ZRJ and I've got a radar altimeter and my co-joe say he's got ground below us and it looks good, I may consider going down another 50 or 100 feet. If you think that is unsafe, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You can call me and all the other sked runners "cowboys" if you like, but we never do things that purposely jeopardize safety. I flew with one captain who followed all SOPs and minimums, but was a terrible pilot and made me nervous everytime I was in the plane with him/her. That pilot, unstablized at minimums, would be less safe than a competent pilot stabilized 100' below minimums in my opinion.
Cat is 100% correct. We don't need more rules to govern the idiots that ruin it for the rest of us, we need less idiots in the left seat. PIC common sense would go much farther than any rule would.
Flame away,
EC
I think you're overreacting here about the "sneaking down" thing. First of all, I have no clue how hard Nakina had to try to get into YFH the other day. There may have been 600' ceilings for a time, who knows? Either way, the boys from Nakina, like most of us that go to YFH twice a day, know that there is room to cheat a little when approaching from the west. How do we know this? Probably because we've landed there 5 million times in SKC wx, and can tell you the number of boulders on that little island on short final. My point is, with the right equipment (rad. alt., appch GPS, two-crew, etc.) and a THOUROUGH knowledge of your surroundings, there is room to fudge a little here and there when needed. 03 ZRJ is another good example....you won't hit anything on approach except for maybe Zeb Kenequanash in his boat, or that little spit of land about 0.2 back from the runway.
Basically it comes down to common sense, which some IFR robots seem to lack. If I'm going into an unfamiliar airport, then you bet I'm gonna stick to what's written on the plate. If I'm going into 03 ZRJ and I've got a radar altimeter and my co-joe say he's got ground below us and it looks good, I may consider going down another 50 or 100 feet. If you think that is unsafe, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You can call me and all the other sked runners "cowboys" if you like, but we never do things that purposely jeopardize safety. I flew with one captain who followed all SOPs and minimums, but was a terrible pilot and made me nervous everytime I was in the plane with him/her. That pilot, unstablized at minimums, would be less safe than a competent pilot stabilized 100' below minimums in my opinion.
Cat is 100% correct. We don't need more rules to govern the idiots that ruin it for the rest of us, we need less idiots in the left seat. PIC common sense would go much farther than any rule would.
Flame away,
EC
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" We don't need more rules to govern the idiots that ruin it for the rest of us, we need less idiots in the left seat. PIC common sense would go much farther than any rule would. "
And that children is the answer.
I often wonder why we flew so many thousands of hours in the Arctic without big brother baby sitting us?
Two crew...PMA...good equipment....well briefed....wth a get out plan that is safe will get you home every time...
And of course. " Knowing when to say no. "
A man ( or woman. ) has to know their limitations.
And that children is the answer.
I often wonder why we flew so many thousands of hours in the Arctic without big brother baby sitting us?
Two crew...PMA...good equipment....well briefed....wth a get out plan that is safe will get you home every time...
And of course. " Knowing when to say no. "
A man ( or woman. ) has to know their limitations.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Cat Driver wrote: " We don't need more rules to govern the idiots that ruin it for the rest of us, we need less idiots in the left seat. PIC common sense would go much farther than any rule would. "
And that children is the answer.
I often wonder why we flew so many thousands of hours in the Arctic without big brother baby sitting us?
Two crew...PMA...good equipment....well briefed....with a get out plan that is safe will get you home every time...
And of course. " Knowing when to say no. "
A man ( or woman. ) has to know their limitations.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
