I really don't understand what's the deal with the seperate rules for approach ban.
What is the purpose of the CAP advisory visibility if there is a seperate set of rules? Why is it even there, or what exactly is the definition of the CAP advisory visibility.
- Is it just so we know what values to use for alternate minima? Is there any other reasons?
When it comes to understanding the chart for commercial operators. IE
(Cap Advisory Visibility):
1/2 RVR 26
(Visibility Report - Gnd Vis sm, RVR "A" or Rwy Vis ft):
1/4 RVR or Rwy Vis 1200
What does 1/4 RVR mean? Because RVR normally always expressed in feet, why now in fractions? Is there a special scale to convert? Where is it, as it is not in the CAP GEN.
Again it says Gnd Vis SM = 1/4 RVR .... I don't understand.
Then it says RVR "A" or Rwy Vis ft = 1200
-How is Rwy Vis calculated? And WHY is RVR here again.
As you can see i'm REALLY confused with this whole system, any help would really really be appreciated.
Thanks!!
Approach Ban - I don't get it.
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
I'm wondering the same.
Cap Advisory vis is just the vis that you should reasonably expect a successful approach.
With the "new" rules you can now be banned on any approach where there is a weather reporting station on the ground.
RVR or reported ground vis can ban the approach.
Banning is more or less as follows:
If do not have the ops spec it is 75% of the Advisory value in the Cap
If you do have the ops spec it is 50% of the Advisory value in the Cap
Never lower than 1200 feet (unless you have CAT III or II capabilities).
And all that good stuff gets thrown out the window if someone reports the vis as being higher than what is being reported.
This is only for commercial operators. If you are private, have ater and the old school approach ban is what is used.
Thats good, have buddy who does his 6 approaches every 6 months good to go to 1200 feet, but the people who do 6 a day might be restricted to 2 miles or so. Guess thats what SVFR is for?
Do a search on the site, all this garbage is out there.
Hope I didn't miss anything.
BTD
- Is it just so we know what values to use for alternate minima? Is there any other reasons?
Cap Advisory vis is just the vis that you should reasonably expect a successful approach.
With the "new" rules you can now be banned on any approach where there is a weather reporting station on the ground.
RVR or reported ground vis can ban the approach.
Banning is more or less as follows:
If do not have the ops spec it is 75% of the Advisory value in the Cap
If you do have the ops spec it is 50% of the Advisory value in the Cap
Never lower than 1200 feet (unless you have CAT III or II capabilities).
And all that good stuff gets thrown out the window if someone reports the vis as being higher than what is being reported.
This is only for commercial operators. If you are private, have ater and the old school approach ban is what is used.
Thats good, have buddy who does his 6 approaches every 6 months good to go to 1200 feet, but the people who do 6 a day might be restricted to 2 miles or so. Guess thats what SVFR is for?
Do a search on the site, all this garbage is out there.
Hope I didn't miss anything.
BTD
I know it seems complicated at first, but get a CAP GEN. It helps a lot....
RVR values come from a transmissometer which measures RVR (runway visual range in feet). You can see them in the airport diagrams in your CAP cards.
RVR A is a transmissometer located adjacent to the runway threshold & RVR B is a transmissometer located to the runway mid-point.
The absolute RVR value to continue an approach is 1200. (CAR 602.19)
Exception, RVR value is fluctuating below & above 1200.
If you have a value for A & B, you need 1200 for A & 600 for B. If you only have B, then 1200 is accepted.
The advisory visibility is primarily used for flight planning (alternate aerodrome). Ask an instructor for the full details.
RVR is extremely important when the airport's reported visibility is low.
The transmissometers determine if you can continue an approach & land.
The reported visibility can be 1/4 mile, but if you have RVR A 1200 (1/4) then your good to land!
Try to get a full explanation from an instructor.
RVR values come from a transmissometer which measures RVR (runway visual range in feet). You can see them in the airport diagrams in your CAP cards.
RVR A is a transmissometer located adjacent to the runway threshold & RVR B is a transmissometer located to the runway mid-point.
The absolute RVR value to continue an approach is 1200. (CAR 602.19)
Exception, RVR value is fluctuating below & above 1200.
If you have a value for A & B, you need 1200 for A & 600 for B. If you only have B, then 1200 is accepted.
The advisory visibility is primarily used for flight planning (alternate aerodrome). Ask an instructor for the full details.
RVR is extremely important when the airport's reported visibility is low.
The transmissometers determine if you can continue an approach & land.
The reported visibility can be 1/4 mile, but if you have RVR A 1200 (1/4) then your good to land!
Try to get a full explanation from an instructor.
Asking a pilot about what he thinks of Transport Canada, is like asking a fire hydrant what does he think about dogs.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
How did we do approaches in the high Arctic in DC3's and DC6's and stuff like that without all those rules?
Or was weather different back then?
Or was weather different back then?
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.
-
Siddley Hawker
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: 50.13N 66.17W
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Yeh, Siddley and there were no fences around airports and you could get your instrument check rides done on weekends because the TC guys were your friends and they would meet you on weekends if that was the only time you were in civilization to get a ride.That was back before Global Warming was invented Cat.
Aaahhh but that was a long time ago....by the way hows things on the north shore these days?
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.
Hey!
Cheers
Termerair
If I remember well the approach ban rules apply only to aerodromes located south of the 60° parallel... The Cap Gen says "Ground visibility will only impose approach ban at aerodromes south of 60°N latitude"... So I guess the rules still don't apply to the high Arctic unless you get a RVR!!! Which I doubt is very common up North...How did we do approaches in the high Arctic in DC3's and DC6's and stuff like that without all those rules?
Cheers
Termerair
It's at typo in the cap gen. supposed to say 1/4sm 1200rvrWhat does 1/4 RVR mean? Because RVR normally always expressed in feet, why now in fractions? Is there a special scale to convert? Where is it, as it is not in the CAP GEN.
Again it says Gnd Vis SM = 1/4 RVR .... I don't understand
-Rockin In The Free World
Well Cat you know as well as I do there is a lot of wrecked Douglas aluminum spread around the Artic from days gone byCat Driver wrote:How did we do approaches in the high Arctic in DC3's and DC6's and stuff like that without all those rules?
Or was weather different back then?
. Are the new regs reducing the carnage…..I don’t know. I think you would agree though, there is less bent metal and fatalities today than in yesteryear.I think you would also agree improvements to aviation did not come from the few self serving idiots in TC
. It has come from the industry and the majority of good people at TC.
Yup... north of 60 there is no approach ban based on ground visibility.
If there is RVR(Runway Visual Range), Yellowknife for example, the approach ban is in effect. 1600 RVR is the limit on the ILS.
If there is a Runway Visual Report, reported by another pilot for example, along with a ground visibility report the RVR takes precedent and now the approach ban is in effect but only for 20 minutes.
So... SKC with 1/4 mile in blowing snow reported at Rankin Inlet has no approach ban on a VOR/DME but SKC with 1/4 mile(RVR1200) in blowing snow at Iqaluit on the ILS has an approach ban... makes perfect sense!?!
If there is RVR(Runway Visual Range), Yellowknife for example, the approach ban is in effect. 1600 RVR is the limit on the ILS.
If there is a Runway Visual Report, reported by another pilot for example, along with a ground visibility report the RVR takes precedent and now the approach ban is in effect but only for 20 minutes.
So... SKC with 1/4 mile in blowing snow reported at Rankin Inlet has no approach ban on a VOR/DME but SKC with 1/4 mile(RVR1200) in blowing snow at Iqaluit on the ILS has an approach ban... makes perfect sense!?!
-
Ref Plus 10
- Rank 5
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:00 pm
- Location: Wherever the winds may take me...and the paycheque
-
V1RotateV2
- Rank 3
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: Toronto
We used to say that two things keep airplanes from flying: fog and TC.
The approach ban may be an example of the latter.
This approach ban is a one of those cover my ass regulations because there were a few incidents where low vis, going below minimums and poor airmanship combined as factors.
I see no reason to keep a good crew flying from going down to minimums to take a look. Specially since weather fluctuates within minutes.
Anyway, the way this ban is in place, it will prevent a jet to fly an ILS if the vis is low, while the smaller guy going to the airport 5 miles away can do it just because the wx reporting has closed for the day.
On those hazy days last year, flying into smaller airports, we would plan to arrive after the last wx was out and shoot the approach. That way we were legal. Funny, eh?
The approach ban may be an example of the latter.
This approach ban is a one of those cover my ass regulations because there were a few incidents where low vis, going below minimums and poor airmanship combined as factors.
I see no reason to keep a good crew flying from going down to minimums to take a look. Specially since weather fluctuates within minutes.
Anyway, the way this ban is in place, it will prevent a jet to fly an ILS if the vis is low, while the smaller guy going to the airport 5 miles away can do it just because the wx reporting has closed for the day.
On those hazy days last year, flying into smaller airports, we would plan to arrive after the last wx was out and shoot the approach. That way we were legal. Funny, eh?
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
The approach ban is just one more reason I'm happy, I'm not doing skeds any more! Our mandate is NOT to stress out our passengers, so, I'm pretty happy to abide by that.
Note to Cat...there are an awful lot of DC3s etc spread all over the north. We may not have "left one out there", but stacks of drivers did.
V1,V2, it's in affect because regardless of training, rules, etc. we still manage to roll them up in little balls way too often. Plus, it gives you an "out" when some bottom feeding company is "pushing" pilots?
Bob S, that's always an option, but not one I'd use.
Note to Cat...there are an awful lot of DC3s etc spread all over the north. We may not have "left one out there", but stacks of drivers did.
V1,V2, it's in affect because regardless of training, rules, etc. we still manage to roll them up in little balls way too often. Plus, it gives you an "out" when some bottom feeding company is "pushing" pilots?
Bob S, that's always an option, but not one I'd use.
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
O.K. gang I withdraw my comment about flying DC3's and 6's in the Arctic.
Judging by the comments regarding all the wrecks up there during that period I may have used a bad example.
But how many of those wrecks were caused by low viz approaches?
I'm sure one of you guys can come up with some stats to show that with an approach ban back in those days there would have been less wrecked airplanes in the Arctic.
Now if there were some way to put in place an idiot ban the accident rate might really drop.
Judging by the comments regarding all the wrecks up there during that period I may have used a bad example.
But how many of those wrecks were caused by low viz approaches?
I'm sure one of you guys can come up with some stats to show that with an approach ban back in those days there would have been less wrecked airplanes in the Arctic.
Now if there were some way to put in place an idiot ban the accident rate might really drop.
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
You have hit it right on the head.I'm guessing when one of you died no one made too much of a fuss and sued peoples' asses off.
Lawyers are writing the new rules....the more rules the more work for lawyers.
Maybe rules like 400 and 1 mile for an ADF approach and 200 and a half for an ILS were just to simplistic.
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.
-
Liquid Charlie
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
- Location: YXL
- Contact:
flying in a another country you follow the most restrictive rule -- meaning you abide by the rules and regulations of the country you are flying in or if the Candian rules are more restrictive you apply them.
Good example -- in the U S of A a takeoff alternate is based on all engines running -- in Canada one engine inop -- flying in the states you would apply the more restrictive rule.
Good example -- in the U S of A a takeoff alternate is based on all engines running -- in Canada one engine inop -- flying in the states you would apply the more restrictive rule.
Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight
ACTPA
ACTPA
Re: Approach Ban - I don't get it.
Metro,metro_man wrote:I really don't understand what's the deal with the seperate rules for approach ban.
The new approach ban is the biggest farce since the chia-pet. Not only is it complicated to understand; when it comes time to using it it's only good for airports which you would have no problem getting into anyways (ILS's, etc).
The funny and ridiculous part about the whole thing is that you can actualyl cancel IFR and go in Special VFR and do the approach!!! It's so stupid!!!! And where the ban really should count (ie: NDB approaches in the arctic) there are no provisions for anyways!
I think Canada should just go to the US system (and the way Canada used to be) and publish the approach ban right on the plate for each individual airport.
That's my rant. Take it or leave it.
