Low vis/reduced vis operations

[bezerker]

bobcaygeon, thanks. AC 300-003 http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/IMSdo ... 00-003.htm
gives all the needed information.

To me it again shows a problem with the dissemination of information. Why is this AC, which is valuable to pilots and operators (in my opinion), hidden in the 300 series of Circulars (Aerodromes and Airports)? I guess the answer was already given earlier, in that the reg has always been in place, so it is really nothing new (asides from the enforcement aspect).

Now that I look, I see a few NOTAMs regarding this, eg

090232 CYEG EDMONTON INTL
CYEG AMEND PUB: RWY DATA: ADD
RWY 02 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY
RWY 20 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY
RWY 12 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY
RWY 30 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY

090106 CYYC CALGARY INTL
CYYC AMEND PUB RWY DATA: ADD RWY 16 RVR 1200 (1/4 SM) RWY 34 RVR
1200 (1/4 SM)

Thanks again.

[tailgunner]

It seems that some Transport Canada pilots in their ka 90's got lost on an airport somewhere in Canada, and now taxiing an aircrat is deemed dangerous.
The same happened with the visibilty approach ban. These dim wits were lost on the BC 16 in YXD...It was Transport who could not complete the approach in low vis. and thus a few months later we are all held to their low standard...

[Pratt X 3]

See also: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/IMSdo ... 00-007.htm

CAP GEN also has operating criteria.

[jjj]

My COM says that the impetus for this new rule was in part due to runway incursions.

If this is true then I find the whole thing a bunch of BS.

A major factor in runway incursions seems to be pilot orientation and conflict points.

However, looking around the country I find it hard to find a proper taxi line to follow - Winnipeg in spots comes to mind.

Or how about the odd taxi way that normally has one way traffic so on the odd occasion where traffic flow reverses there isn't proper signage.

I also love all the faded hold lines for runway intersections - those really help.

I also love the non standard taxi line paint jobs as you approach hold lines - some have the dashed lines on either side and some don't.

Our airports could be a lot safer if TC would just mandate that operators get outside this summer with a few cans of paint and give us something to work with.

How about non standard procedures where at some places aircraft are switched formally between multiple ground and tower frequencies which hands off control authority with each change vs. just switching to tower for example when you feel it's appropriate.

I fly coast to coast and several points in between in this country and I could write a book about local unpublished procedures.

I applaud YYZ however for there installation and full time use of stop bars at most entry points to runways - well done.

This low vis stuff blows.

Oh - and it's gonna cost airlines millions - great - enjoy the rest of the recession.

[GFJH]

Can't taxi if the vis is less than 1/2 mile? Another bright idea, brought to us by some Ottawa jerk off trying to justify his employment. Morons.

and most dont even know which part of the plane points forward but they still make big $$$ for there new laws, and paper work for all

[who me ?]

In case anyone was wondering how the tower will respond to RVOP busts, here you go:
I believe that this Cadors came out BEFORE the Notam !



Record # 6 – NEW OCCURRENCES
Cadors Number: 2009C0722 Reporting Region: Prairie & Northern
Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type: Incident Occurrence Date: 14-Mar-2009
Occurrence Time: 1218 Z Day Or Night: Nighttime
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0

Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYEG Aerodrome Name: Edmonton Intl
Occurrence Location: Edmonton Intl (CYEG) Province: Alberta
Country: CANADA World Area: North America

Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 105079-V1
TSB Class Of Investigation: TSB Occurrence No.:

Event Information
Alleged Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) infraction
Weather - visibility

Aircraft Information
CDN Registration: Foreign Registration:
Flight #: JZA 131
Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA
Aircraft Make: Aircraft Model:
Year Built: Amateur Built: No
Engine Make: Engine Model:
Engine Type: Gear Type: Land
Phase Of Flight: Taxi Damage: No Damage
Owner: JAZZ AIR LP - AIR CANADA JAZZ Operator: JAZZ AIR LP, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER, JAZZ AIR HOLDING GP INC. (5002)
Operator Type: Commercial

Detail Information
User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 27-Mar-2009
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.:
Narrative: Edmonton International Tower reported that the following aircraft taxied for departure and took off from Runway 12 (RVR >2600) when the RVR for Runway 02 remained below 2600 feet (the lower of two RVR readings is the prevailing visibility). Edmonton's Reduced Visibility Operations Plan (RVOP) does allow for taxi during RVR conditions below 2600 feet, but during daylight hours only.

JZA 131, Jazz
ACA 233, Air Canada
SSV 3872, Skyservice
SKW 4560, Skywest Airlines
WJA 696, WestJet
FAB 5050, First Air

OPI - National Operations


Talk about your GOTCH YA's!!!!
It will be interesting to see what sort of enforcement goes agains this unsavory group !!

[stopsquawk]

CADORS Number: 2009C0774 Reporting Region: Prairie & Northern

Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type: Incident Occurrence Date: 2009/04/03
Occurrence Time: 1530 Z Day Or Night: day-time
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0

Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYYC Aerodrome Name: Calgary Intl
Occurrence Location: Calgary Intl (CYYC) Province: Alberta
Country: CANADA World Area: North America

Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 105534-V2
TSB Class Of Investigation: TSB Occurrence No.:
Event Information
Alleged Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) infraction
Weather - visibility
Aircraft Information
Flight #: CNK 327
Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA
Make: Model:
Year Built: Amateur Built: No
Engine Make: Engine Model:
Engine Type: Gear Type: Land
Phase of Flight: Taxi Damage: No Damage
Owner: SUNWEST AVIATION LTD. Operator: SUNWEST AVIATION LTD. (5404)
Operator Type: Commercial

Detail Information
User Name: Ridley, Rod
Date: 2009/04/06
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: Aviation Enforcement
Narrative: Calgary Tower reported that the following aircraft taxied in below minima operations; CNK 327, GLR 777, JZA 136, C-GDSH, BXH 555M, C-GCTY Visibility was 1/8 SM and the lowest RVR was below 2600 feet. Reduced Visibility Operations (RVOP) were not in effect at the time.

I'm totally confused. It looks like these flights "taxied in" after landing, so they must have had min vis for landing, yet were written up because somewhere on the field the vis was lower.
"Reduced Visibility Operations (RVOP) were not in effect at the time". What does that mean?

[Pratt X 3]

Narrative: Calgary Tower reported that the following aircraft taxied in below minima operations; CNK 327, GLR 777, JZA 136, C-GDSH, BXH 555M, C-GCTY Visibility was 1/8 SM and the lowest RVR was below 2600 feet. Reduced Visibility Operations (RVOP) were not in effect at the time.

I'm totally confused. It looks like these flights "taxied in" after landing, so they must have had min vis for landing, yet were written up because somewhere on the field the vis was lower.
"Reduced Visibility Operations (RVOP) were not in effect at the time". What does that mean?

"Taxied in" as in "taxied during", not "taxied after conducting a landing". As for the RVOP not in effect at the time, I believe that since the reported visibility was below 1/4SM, the RVOP no longer applied (RVOP is RVR 1200 (1/4SM) to RVR 2600 (1/2SM); LVOP is 600 RVR to below RVR 1200 (1/4SM)). Since 1/8SM was being reported, technically no-one should have been moving on the airport.

[yycflyguy]

My COM says that the impetus for this new rule was in part due to runway incursions.

I also love the non standard taxi line paint jobs as you approach hold lines - some have the dashed lines on either side and some don't.

Oh - and it's gonna cost airlines millions - great - enjoy the rest of the recession.

JJJ - What airport in particular are you referring to that has dashed lines on either side? Is it at places where you exit a runway onto a taxiway (dashes first then solid line from your perspective) and need to hold short of another runway (solid line first then dashed from your direction) but because they are close parallel runways the hold short lines are in close proximity to each other (LAX 24's or YYZ 06's)?

Yup, it is going to be a gong show when the scenario pops up that you can land but not taxi. Time to shut er down and call for a tow. Much safer to have a bunch of planes just off the runway that can't taxi to their gate.

Glug glug in less than 28 days.

[Carrier]

Quote: “Since 1/8SM was being reported, technically no-one should have been moving on the airport.”

The main problem seems to be at Calgary International Airport. Who was reporting the 1/8SM? I am unable to see any mention of those aircraft landing below minima, so presumably they approached and landed in visibility that was somewhat better than 1/8SM! This is confirmed by one of the pilots. Was the tower giving one distance to landing aircraft and some other entity on the airport using a different distance to base its reports on?

This is a controlled airport. I am unable to see any indication of these aircraft taxiing without instructions or disobeying instructions. This indicates that they were taxiing in accordance with instructions given by the tower or ground control. Does this indicate that there is a policy of deliberate entrapment by controllers at Calgary International Airport? Are certain individuals at Calgary International Airport receiving some sort of benefit if they induce others to make mistakes or break rules and regulations, perhaps to fulfil some quota? If the visibility was genuinely below RVR2600 and RVOP was not in effect then honest and competent controllers would have instructed each aircraft to hold at its present position. Yes, that might have meant one aircraft stuck on the runway at the end of its landing run and others stopped at various points on the taxiways, but that is what seems to be legally required. Doh!

There seems to be a serious problem at Calgary International Airport that is likely to lead to a breakdown of confidence and trust between pilots and controllers. Controllers need to recognise that the very basis for ATC is to facilitate the safe and efficient operation of air traffic. They should not regard part of their duties as being to sandbag others or go on a bullying power trip. Pilots should be able to depend on ATC instructions to be both safe and legal. They should certainly not have to put up with behaviour that might be intended to deliberately entrap them.

Until the situation at Calgary International Airport is clarified pilots landing there in low visibility would be well advised not to taxi from where their landing run finishes until they receive confirmation from tower that the RVR is above 2600 or RVOP is in effect. Without either of these pilots put their licences and jobs at risk. This will slow down the airport operation and cause some extra go-arounds or diversions. It will also cause critically ill arriving medevac patients to be delayed from receiving urgent medical attention in Calgary. In such circumstances there might be a considerable delay while an ambulance is brought out to a medevac plane that is stranded on the runway. Perhaps those who cause such situations should be charged with interference with air traffic and criminal negligence or homicide if a patient should die due to such a delay.

[Cat Driver]

Reading about these goings on it would seem that Canadian aviation is spiraling down into utter insanity.

[Pratt X 3]

Try not to blame the controllers too much as they are bound by regulation and by company policy.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publi ... 0.htm#1-13 and http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#807_01
It would be nice to get a little professional courtesy and have ATS drop a hint that you might be about to do something that they have to report but their hands are pretty much tied. They are probably just as confused as the pilots and operators are on this topic.

Transport Canada need to accept responsibility and admit they dropped the ball on this one. There has got to be a better way of notifying everyone involved in something like this. This is embarrassing to have the so-called regulator create such confusion.

Airport operators should get some of the blame pinned on them as well. They have had since 1993 or so to come up with proper plans to address this. Good job.

In the meantime, read over the Advisory Circular again and find a copy of the latest CAP GEN (effective 12 March 2009) as well as the current CFS and NOTAMS. As confusing as those sources are, they are the only ones that clumsily explain the new procedures.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/IMSdo ... 00-007.htm

[Carrier]

Quote: “It would be nice to get a little professional courtesy and have ATS drop a hint that you might be about to do something that they have to report but their hands are pretty much tied.”

The above might legally but NOT ETHICALLY apply at an uncontrolled airport where there is advisory service but how can somebody presumably familiar with aviation make such an asinine statement regarding a controlled airport (CYYC) when the very reason a pilot might be about to do something there that has to be reported is because that pilot has just been or is about to be TOLD/INSTRUCTED to do so by a controller? For a controller who knows that an action is incorrect and has to be reported to then go ahead and INSTRUCT a pilot to do it can only be described as an act of outright treachery! Is that really the level of controller integrity and trustworthiness that pilots should have to work with?

How can anyone say that controllers are probably just as confused? They should have learnt about such qualities as personal integrity and trustworthiness long before reaching their teens. Much is made about pilots who should refuse to engage in illegal, unsafe or unethical acts or practices. The same standards should apply to controllers. They should know right from wrong behaviour and should have the personal integrity and moral fibre to refuse to knowingly issue illegal and deliberately entrapping instructions. Surely they have a citizen's duty to not instruct another to do something that they know is illegal? Don’t forget, if they knowingly instruct a pilot to do something that is illegal then they are accomplices or accessories to that act! What sort of low life with a snitch mentality is Canada now recruiting as controllers?

How can pilots and air operators be expected to operate legally (as well as safely and efficiently) when they are the subjects of such duplicity from the very service that is supposed to exist to assist them?

What a mess! I agree with Cat Driver’s comment.

[Cat Driver]

How can pilots and air operators be expected to operate legally (as well as safely and efficiently) when they are the subjects of such duplicity from the very service that is supposed to exist to assist them?

What a mess! I agree with Cat Driver’s comment.

I saw this coming about ten years ago when I was back here in Canada on time off, it was the introduction of the AOR...( I think that is the correct acronym? ) anyhow at the time I had a friend in FSS who told me about it and as soon as I heard about it I knew there was going to be big problems with Nav Can people having to choose between ratting out every little incident that could be possibly considered out of the ordinary as well as contrevention of the regulations.

It is obviously getting worse and quite frankly I can not understand the mentality of todays pilots putting up with this kind of crap.

The sooner a real open rift gets underway between flight crews and the Nav Can employees the sooner this mess will be cleaned up.

Seems TC has found a way to sit on their asses and force one segment of aviation to rat out another segment of aviation...what a fuckin deplorable situation......

If I have this all wrong then I will of course change my opinion.

[bobcaygeon]

The reality is all parties (TC, FAA, ALPA, ATAC, etc ) realize that runway incursions are a signifiant risk. Is there a reason YYC, YWG, YYJ, YOW shouldn't have the ICAO standard markings ie Wigwags, etc???

Over all both TC and the industry have performed poorly. ATAC knew about this for years and just assumed TC would look after it or cx/delay it. TC made the rules but they gave plenty of notice. Most airlines issued last minute bulletins regarding this issue even though they knew about last summer for sure and probably air.

At hillybilly air where I work we knew about it in early August.

In reality if the airport has a plan in place then things will still move but at a lower pace (they probably should).

My first trip to YHZ we missed on the CAT 1 (33???) and then landed on the Cat 2 (24?)Neither of us had been there before. After landing we pulled out the taxi chart to try and figure out where to clear. We taxied to the apron and then got towed to the gate because we couldn't find it safely. It was no where near 1200 rvr by the terminal. If it would have been BOS or YYZ it would have been very interesting.

I'm glad I have never felt that disoriented in the air. I could have used a garmin car GPS that day.

[bobcaygeon]

How can pilots and air operators be expected to operate legally (as well as safely and efficiently) when they are the subjects of such duplicity from the very service that is supposed to exist to assist them?

What a mess! I agree with Cat Driver’s comment.

I saw this coming about ten years ago when I was back here in Canada on time off, it was the introduction of the AOR...( I think that is the correct acronym? ) anyhow at the time I had a friend in FSS who told me about it and as soon as I heard about it I knew there was going to be big problems with Nav Can people having to choose between ratting out every little incident that could be possibly considered out of the ordinary as well as contrevention of the regulations.

It is obviously getting worse and quite frankly I can not understand the mentality of todays pilots putting up with this kind of crap.

The sooner a real open rift gets underway between flight crews and the Nav Can employees the sooner this mess will be cleaned up.

Seems TC has found a way to sit on their asses and force one segment of aviation to rat out another segment of aviation...what a fuckin deplorable situation......

If I have this all wrong then I will of course change my opinion.

Your right CAT it should be like the good old days at church. Were you the drunk perverted priest who was relocated every couple of years or the altar boy he preyed on?? Everyone knew but nobody said or did anything. This syetm is far from perfect but there are enuf positives to try and work with it.

95% of Cador's are dealt with very easily thru SMS and the local POI.

[planett]

Don't worry,

The sooner we kill the right person due to delayed or cancelled medevac, the sooner this problem will be fixed.

[jjj]

YYCFLYGUY

YVR - Dashed lines on either side of the taxiline as you approach a hold line for a runway.

[jjj]

Also YYCFLYGUY

Exemptions to prohibited taxi operations include ".... aircraft is taxiing after a landing.


BTW

22 sleeps until GLUG GLUG mexican style!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BTD]

The only way you can land with lower than the required taxi vis, is if the weather was above the min requirement prior to the FAF (like the approach ban). If it drops after that point, you are permitted to land, and then taxi in, despite the lower vis.

This whole new thing is a sh*t show.

BTD

[Cat Driver]

Your right CAT it should be like the good old days at church. Were you the drunk perverted priest who was relocated every couple of years or the altar boy he preyed on?? Everyone knew but nobody said or did anything. This syetm is far from perfect but there are enuf positives to try and work with it.

Whatever turns your crank bobcaygeon, the only concern I have now is if I have no choice but to fly on an airline to get someplace I can't drive to or take a train. You can rationalize it any way you want because it is not me that has to get my nuts felt by some moron working as a so called security person just to work in a environment where every move I make is subject to someone writing me up for the most insignificant of errors or a violation of some ruel no one really understands.......at least there seems to be a lot of pilots posting here who don't understand the rules...great system you have to work in .

The truth is going to an airport today to fly somewhere has become one of the most unpleasant experiences in society......so it is all yours friend enjoy it.

95% of Cador's are dealt with very easily thru SMS and the local POI.

Hey if you enjoy the experience and it's your thing to work in that mindset like I said above enjoy, as for me I don't enjoy that lifestyle that's why I quit.

By the way is it O.K. with you if your local POI is a real asshole, what do you do then, bend over and pretend he is your priest?

[stopsquawk]

Since 1/8SM was being reported, technically no-one should have been moving on the airport.

If the visibility is less than the published vis for the runway or aerodrome an aircraft can taxi "for other purposes and is taxiing in accordance with the aerodrome's published RVOP/LVOP". (from the CAP Gen). The way I read it is that you CAN taxi with visibility zero provided you are just moving from place to place on the aerodrome and provided that the aerodrome has a "published RVOP/LVOP". I suppose the lack of published procedures is the issue here. I'm not aware of any "published" low visibility procedures in the CFS or CAP. YVR used to have a Low Vis Taxi Chart in the CAP, but it has been removed.

Does anyone know where these procedures are or will be published?

[glorifiedtaxidriver]

I haven't read into this yet. Mostly because I'm too lazy and think its ridiculous. What about uncontrolled airports with an auto station? What about localized phenomenon? Prince Rupert comes to mind where often in the fall the fog will sit just on the ocean side of the runway - where the auto station is- and be reporting 1/4 or1/8 all day while the runway itself is blue sky from one end to the other? Can the prevailing vis then be overruled by pirep?

[Pratt X 3]

Aerodrome Operating Visibility is the newest term to be introduced. Of course, there hasn't been an official definition published. According to the information published in the Advisory Circular 300-003 (which is paraphrased in the CAP GEN):

4.2 Aerodrome Operating Restrictions – Visibility

1. Paragraph 602.96(2)(b) of the CARs requires that before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) of the aircraft shall be satisfied that the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.


2. One factor that needs to be considered to ensure compliance with paragraph 602.96(2)(b) of the CARs is the Aerodrome Operating Visibility.


3. The visibility with respect to an aircraft is less than the minimum visibility required for taxi, take-off or landing if:

a. where the aerodrome does not have published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR located on the aerodrome, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than any of that aerodrome's operating visibility restrictions published in the CFS; or

b. where the aerodrome has published procedures for taxi, take-off and landing operations pertaining to the runway of the intended operation in conditions of reduced or low visibility, any RVR or the runway visibility serving that runway, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the PIC is less than the aerodrome's operating visibility restriction published in the CFS for that runway.


4. Where the observed visibility as set out in paragraphs 4.2 (3)(a) and (b) of this AC, is less than the minimum visibility published in the CFS, taxi operations shall be deemed to be occurring below the published aerodrome operating visibility, except when:

a. visibility deteriorates below the published aerodrome operating visibility after the aircraft has commenced taxi for take-off;

b. visibility deteriorates below the published aerodrome operating visibility after the aircraft has landed and is taxiing to the destination on the aerodrome; or

c. the aircraft is taxiing on the manoeuvring area for purposes other than take-off or landing as authorized by the aerodrome operator in accordance with the aerodrome's RVOP/LVOP.


5. Where the observed visibility as set out in paragraphs 4.2 (3)(a) and (b) of this AC, is less than the minimum visibility published in the CFS, an aircraft landing shall be deemed to occur below the published aerodrome operating visibility, except where:

a. at the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the Final Approach Fix (FAF) inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted;

b. the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR and the ground visibility is equal to or greater than the minimum visibility;

c. the ground visibility is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum ground visibility and the RVR is equal to or greater than the minimum visibility;

d. both the RVR and the ground visibility are varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum visibility; or

e. prior to 1,000 feet above aerodrome elevation the PIC determines that a localized meteorological phenomenon is affecting the ground visibility by observing that the runway of intended landing and the taxi route to the destination on the aerodrome are seen and recognized.

As you can see in paragraph 5(e), they have provided for a localized phenomenon.

[Kosiw]

I still will need a lawyer in the jumpseat to translate all that, and do it while on short final