Low vis procedures-What did these guys do wrong?

[BTD]

[

The way I understand it is that, This is not an approach limit. No matter what you can still continue with the approach, however you must clear the rwy and sit there until the vis comes up to the taxi limits.

Hence, with our company (Jazz) unless we have the taxi limits we don't even conduct the approach now.

If you read the Cap gen, it states that you cannot complete the approach beyond the FAF if the vis on the ground doesn't permit you to taxi in after landing. This is probably the main reason you don't conduct the approach. There are two parts in the GEN relating to this, one regarding taxi (where it says you cannot taxi for take-off unless blah blah) and one regarding Landings (as they relate to the new taxi rule). You cannot do the approach beyond the FAF unless you have the required vis for taxi once landing is complete. If you have passed the FAF, this is where the "you may taxi after landing" rule comes in.

The rule is not very well thought out, and was extremely poorly implemented, but it is now a rule. I am surprised how many people don't know it. Take 30 min or so go through this new part of the CAP GEN with a fine tooth comb, and all these various threads about how it works disappear. So simple

BTD

[BTD]

Its the only online documentation that I can find on the taxi rule, since you can't get the Gen Section:

FAQ

27. Will aircraft be permitted to commence the approach and land where visibility is above approach ban limits but below the runway published level of service?

In accordance with the CAP GEN, the aircraft may commence the approach. However, if a visibility report below the runway published level of service is received prior to the aircraft reaching the Final Approach Fix (FAF), the landing would be deemed to occur below the published aerodrome operating visibility.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/manag ... 06.htm#q27

[OhKiE DoHkIe]

How about I throw it back at you? When asked your intentions, if you're told the vis is crap, why not reply "Uhh, holding clearance please?".

Do you honestly think ATC have nothing better to do (especially in low vis!!!) to sit there when we get the reply "Uhhhhhhh, we want to shoot the approach/taxi"

I think one of the reasons why most pilots say "Uhhhhhh" everytime we click the mic is because we are so overwhelmed with being regulated at and not wanting to be violated when limitations are transmitted to us at the worst possible time.

Seriously;

I'm not sure it's understood how dangerous and distracting it is to be shuffling around looking for the regs in the CAP GEN and cross reference them to the CAP mins to extrapolate and decipher from the 'level of service' and approach bans etc etc at a critical phase of flight and when we are the most busy. ie: just prior to hitting the IF/ LOC/ Beacon.

Either or. The issue isn't with you Navcanada peeps on these brutal rules, it's how we can work together to make it more operational friendly (until these rules get chucked out in the future).

PS: Annnd Uhhhh...how can we inhibit AC pilots from saying "Air Canadas" on the mic?

This is from Opie and Anthony Sat radio show that I listen to in the am enroute to YYZ and it is brilliant as the ATC caller goofs on the pilot caller and visaversa...it's hilarious to hear!

@ 5+25 the reference to the "Uhhhh"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMLDqzHpHeU

[200Above]

good info, now what about the different RVR sensors?

What if RVR A is 1200 and RVR B is 400?? Which RVR is limiting? RVR A 900 and RVR B 1300... now what?

[RampGurl]

From what I can gather from the circular - The RVR taken at the active runway governs the airport. I've heard YYC has run into these issues with aircraft taxiing around the south side where its above 1200 while the RVR for 34 says below. I'm not sure what happens in the case of parrallel runways but I have heard of situations at YVR where the South runway is above minimas but the north is below and they have to adhere to the lower.

Anyone else shed some light on this??

Jerricho - in response to your question on where to find the minimas, they are published in the CFS. That being said, if an airport receives approval between publication deadlines they will post a NOTAM until it can be published.

Hope that helps!

[200Above]

METAR CYWG 120300Z 36009KT 1/4SM R31/2200FT/N R36/2600FT/N FG VV001
01/01 A2986 RMK FG8 SLP122=

SPECI CYWG 120225Z 36007KT 1/4SM R31/2400FT/N R36/2400FT/N FG VV001
01/ RMK FG8=

METAR CYWG 120200Z 01006KT 1/2SM R31/2800FT/N R36/2600FT/N FG VV001
01/01 A2986 RMK FG8 SLP122=

METAR CYWG 120100Z 01008KT 1/2SM R31/4500FT/D R36/4000FT/D FG VV001
01/01 A2986 RMK FG8 SLP122=


Ok, so this is whats going on YWG right now, looks like they use most likely using 36 for CAT 2 and 1 landings, as well as using 31 for CAT 1. So maybe they will only issue the lowest of the RVR sensors for that particular runway in use, all be it RVR A or B.