Approach Ban Questions (yes, here we go again....)

[chephy]

I'm studying for my ATPL exams, and the approach ban be the bane of my existence! I've re-read the relevant CARs at least a dozen times now, made several flowcharts and diagrams, and still it's all clear as mud.... :-/ I think I get the gist of the idea, and reading some AvCanada posts has helped clarify a few things, but a few points still remain very confusing:

1) Ops Spec

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't even know what this is. It seems to be some kind of an authorization that a company can receive to conduct approaches in conditions worse than stated in 700.10 Do all air taxi operatorss/commuter operators/airlines have the corresponding Ops Specs, or do some have it and some don't?

2) 700.10 vs. 704.37

Let's say you are flying for a commuter operation with an Ops Spec and you're planning to do a non-precision approach at your destination. And let's say that you have no HUD, no autopilot capable of conducting the approach to 400' AGL, and you don't use PMAs. 704.37 seems to imply that you can't shoot a non-precision approach at all under these circumstances. Is that the case, or is that equipment/procedure only required if you intend to take advantage of the lower Ops Spec visibilities, but not required if the visibility exceeds the minimum required in the "generic" commercial operator table in 700.10?

3) Fluctuating/varying RVR and ground visibility

What does "varying" mean, exactly? Let's say you receive an RVR report well before the FAF and it's higher than the required minimum. Yippee, continue with the approach. Then, still before the FAF, you get an updated report, and now the RVR has dropped below the required minimum value. Do you immediately have to discontinue the approach and go missed, or can you continue to see if it's just "varying"?... How long can you continue the approach for? Till the FAF (or, in case of no FAF, inbound course intercept)?

Thanks for helping

[Pratt X 3]

1) Ops Spec
Issued by Transport Canada (or the FAA) after a company applies for them detailing how they will meet the requirements found in the CARs Regulation and Standards. When you see the air operator is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; in a reg, this usually means there is an Ops Spec available.

2) 700.10 vs. 704.37

You wouldn't have the Ops Spec if you didn't detail in the Company Operations Manual which of those 3 methods would be used to shoot the approach when you applied for the Ops Spec. Since you don't have the Ops Spec, you would have use the "generic" table in 700.10.

3) Fluctuating/varying RVR and ground visibility

Varying = R24L/3500V5000FT/N

So if you determine the minimum RVR required was 4000FT, and it was the above example, you could continue past the FAF. However, if it was reported as 5000 feet then a minute late it was reported as 3500 feet, if outside the FAF, you could not continue the approach.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re point # 3

See page 25 of the CAP GEN

If the RVR is varing above and below the required minimum you can continue the approach

[wheelsup104]

Only thing you need to know for ATPL exams in regards to approach bans would be the following:

1. Approach bans only on approaches where there is serviceable RVR for that runway.
2. Know the minimas (RVR "a" 1200, "b" 1200, Both 1200/600)
3. Know the exceptions where you continue the approach.
a) Past FAF (or if no FAF. final app course)
b) Training flight conducting a missed approach
c) Fluctuating above and below minima (1000V1300)
d) Below minima but groundvis is at or above 1/4SM (known as localized phenomena)

Might have missed something but I think that is it.
I don't recall any RVR questions when I wrote the ATPL exams, I do remember a few alternate minima questions.

Cheers

[chephy]

1) Ops Spec
Issued by Transport Canada (or the FAA) after a company applies for them detailing how they will meet the requirements found in the CARs Regulation and Standards. When you see the air operator is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate; in a reg, this usually means there is an Ops Spec available.

Ok, clear enough.

2) 700.10 vs. 704.37

You wouldn't have the Ops Spec if you didn't detail in the Company Operations Manual which of those 3 methods would be used to shoot the approach when you applied for the Ops Spec. Since you don't have the Ops Spec, you would have use the "generic" table in 700.10.

Then I am really confused by the wording. It says right in 704.37:

(2) No person shall continue a non-precision approach or an APV unless
(a) the air operator is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate;
(b) the aeroplane is equipped with
(i) if the flight crew does not use pilot-monitored-approach procedures, an autopilot capable of conducting a non-precision approach or an APV to 400 feet AGL or lower, or
(ii) a HUD capable of conducting a non-precision approach or an APV to 400 feet AGL or lower;
(c) the instrument approach procedure is conducted to straight-in minima; and
(d) a visibility report indicates that
(i) the visibility is equal to or greater than that set out in subsection (1),
(ii) the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR set out in subsection (1), or
(iii) the visibility is less than the minimum visibility set out in subsection (1) and, at the time the visibility report is received, the aeroplane has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted.

This seems to imply that any 704 operator MUST have an Ops Spec and all the required equipment etc. to shoot a non-precision approach (and other approaches listed in 704.37) in any weather, including CAVU. Am I reading this wrong??

3) Fluctuating/varying RVR and ground visibility

Varying = R24L/3500V5000FT/N

Oh, so it'll be reported as "varying". Understood.

[chephy]

Thanks for the reply!

1. Approach bans only on approaches where there is serviceable RVR for that runway.
2. Know the minimas (RVR "a" 1200, "b" 1200, Both 1200/600)

This looks like something that would show up on the INRAT rather than SARON, since that's the approach ban for non-commercial operators. Are there no commercial operator approach ban questions on SARON? The TC study guides lists the applicable CARs...

Might have missed something but I think that is it.
I don't recall any RVR questions when I wrote the ATPL exams, I do remember a few alternate minima questions.

SARON or INRAT? Just wondering, since I only care about SARON for now.

[Pratt X 3]

2) 700.10 vs. 704.37

You wouldn't have the Ops Spec if you didn't detail in the Company Operations Manual which of those 3 methods would be used to shoot the approach when you applied for the Ops Spec. Since you don't have the Ops Spec, you would have use the "generic" table in 700.10.

Then I am really confused by the wording. It says right in 704.37:

(2) No person shall continue a non-precision approach or an APV unless
(a) the air operator is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate;
(b) the aeroplane is equipped with
(i) if the flight crew does not use pilot-monitored-approach procedures, an autopilot capable of conducting a non-precision approach or an APV to 400 feet AGL or lower, or
(ii) a HUD capable of conducting a non-precision approach or an APV to 400 feet AGL or lower;
(c) the instrument approach procedure is conducted to straight-in minima; and
(d) a visibility report indicates that
(i) the visibility is equal to or greater than that set out in subsection (1),
(ii) the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR set out in subsection (1), or
(iii) the visibility is less than the minimum visibility set out in subsection (1) and, at the time the visibility report is received, the aeroplane has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted.

This seems to imply that any 704 operator MUST have an Ops Spec and all the required equipment etc. to shoot a non-precision approach (and other approaches listed in 704.37) in any weather, including CAVU. Am I reading this wrong??

Technically, yes, you are reading it wrong. Think of it this way. Any commercial operator (702, 703, 704, 705) that is approved for IFR operations can use 700.10 to determine the approach ban using 75% of the advisory visibility found in the CAP. If they want to be able to use the 50% approach ban values, they need the Ops Spec and satisfy the conditions found in the associated regulation and standard for the category they operate (in your example, 704.37). And its not in any weather; just when it is below the advisory visibility for the approach as published in the CAP.

[chephy]

Technically, yes, you are reading it wrong. Think of it this way. Any commercial operator (702, 703, 704, 705) that is approved for IFR operations can use 700.10 to determine the approach ban using 75% of the advisory visibility found in the CAP. If they want to be able to use the 50% approach ban values, they need the Ops Spec and satisfy the conditions found in the associated regulation and standard for the category they operate (in your example, 704.37). And its not in any weather; just when it is below the advisory visibility for the approach as published in the CAP.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think the reg is written very poorly then. Nowhere does it state that it only applies when the weather is below the 700.10 minima (or at least I cannot see where it says that). It's kind of like the VFR weather requirements: "No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally". It should obviously read "500 feet vertically OR one mile horizontally" because the existing wording implies you cannot go flying VFR when it's overcast at 12,000' because even if you're well below the clouds, the "one mile horizontally" condition is not met. In fact, you can basically never go flying VFR at all, because no matter your altitude, somewhere in the world (say, 1,000 miles away) there is a cloud at exactly the same altitude, so even if you're more than 1 mile away from it, you fail the vertical separation condition... The only way to legally fly VFR in Canada, if we follow what the CARs actually say rather than what the regulators meant to say, is to stay in uncontrolled airspace below 1,000' AGL.

[photofly]

It's kind of like the VFR weather requirements: "No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally". It should obviously read "500 feet vertically OR one mile horizontally" because the existing wording implies you cannot go flying VFR when it's overcast at 12,000' because even if you're well below the clouds, the "one mile horizontally" condition is not met.

The regulation as written is correct - if it's overcast at 12,000 and you're at 3,000, then you are both more than ("not less than") 500 feet vertically from cloud, and you are also more than ("not less than") one mile horizontally from cloud. That is, moving from your present position horizontally you would have to travel more than a mile to reach the nearest cloud.

If it was written as "or" then you could satisfy the condition by being either 500 feet under cloud (but still be right next to it) - or only 100 feet under it as long as it was more than a mile horizontally from your position. Neither of which is intended to be legal VMC.

[Big Pistons Forever]

From TC advisory circular # 0237

Approach Ban – General – Aeroplane – Non-Precision, APV and CAT I Precision approaches. Subpart 700 of the CARs imposes a “generic” approach ban on commercial IFR aeroplane operations when the RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported to be below the RVR or visibility value corresponding to approximately 75% of the CAP published visibility specified for the procedure flown. Specifically, Subpart 700 of the CARs imposes an approach ban when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 720 of the CARs. See Table 1 (Annex A). In the absence of a reported RVR or runway visibility, an approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 720 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 1 (Annex A). For example, for an approach with a CAP published visibility of RVR 40, the approach ban would be imposed if the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be less than RVR 30. For an approach with a CAP published visibility of 2-1/2 sm, the approach ban would be imposed if the ground visibility is reported to be less than 2 sm at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat.

The regulation provides exceptions for aircraft that are passed the FAF inbound, training flights that will conduct a missed approach, fluctuating RVR or ground visibility values, localized phenomena, or operations authorized in accordance with a 703, 704 or 705 Ops Spec.

[FenderManDan]

It's kind of like the VFR weather requirements: "No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally". It should obviously read "500 feet vertically OR one mile horizontally" because the existing wording implies you cannot go flying VFR when it's overcast at 12,000' because even if you're well below the clouds, the "one mile horizontally" condition is not met.

The regulation as written is correct - if it's overcast at 12,000 and you're at 3,000, then you are both more than ("not less than") 500 feet vertically from cloud, and you are also more than ("not less than") one mile horizontally from cloud. That is, moving from your present position horizontally you would have to travel more than a mile to reach the nearest cloud.

If it was written as "or" then you could satisfy the condition by being either 500 feet under cloud (but still be right next to it) - or only 100 feet under it as long as it was more than a mile horizontally from your position. Neither of which is intended to be legal VMC.

These folks that wrote the regs enjoyed the VFR cloud surfing a lot.

[Cessna driver]

I never had any approach ban questions on the saron

[chephy]

If it was written as "or" then you could satisfy the condition by being either 500 feet under cloud (but still be right next to it)

Huh? How is that not legal? Are you telling me that if it's 1500' AGL overcast, you can't fly circuits??

or only 100 feet under it as long as it was more than a mile horizontally from your position. Neither of which is intended to be legal VMC.

Again, that's obviously legal. Are you saying that if there is a cloud one and a half miles away from my position, I can't be 100 feet below that cloud (or right at the same altitude for that matter)? How about ten miles? How about a thousand miles?

if it's overcast at 12,000 and you're at 3,000, then you are both more than ("not less than") 500 feet vertically from cloud, and you are also more than ("not less than") one mile horizontally from cloud. That is, moving from your present position horizontally you would have to travel more than a mile to reach the nearest cloud.

Not at all. If it's overcast at 12,000 and I am at 3,000, then I am more than 500' away vertically from cloud, but zero miles/feet horizontally away from cloud (the sky is overcast, so the cloud it's right above me).

----------------------

What the CARs should really say here is that you should have 500' vertical separation from any cloud within 1 mile radius of your position.

[photofly]

If it was written as "or" then you could satisfy the condition by being either 500 feet under cloud (but still be right next to it)

Huh? How is that not legal? Are you telling me that if it's 1500' AGL overcast, you can't fly circuits??

Easy, tiger. What the CARs say is that to be legal, you have to be at least 500' below any cloud that's directly above you AND you have to be more than 1 mile from any cloud that's at your altitude. I acknowledge that it's not written explicitly it should be interpreted in that manner - but there is no doubt that is what is meant. So rather than presume the author of that section of the regulations said AND when he meant OR (which would be an almighty cock-up as these things go) let's interpret the existing wording in a way that makes the best sense.

If it's overcast at 12,000 and I am at 3,000, then I am more than 500' away vertically from cloud, but zero miles/feet horizontally away from cloud (the sky is overcast, so the cloud it's right above me).

Once again, you're making the same misinterpretation. The VFR requirement is to be more than a mile away from cloud at your altitude. That is - your horizontal spacing - how far you'd have to travel in a horizontal line from your present position - to reach a cloud - has to be more than 1 mile.

What the CARs should really say here is that you should have 500' vertical separation from any cloud within 1 mile radius of your position.

That would be unambiguous, but mean something different (and probably better, too). However, they had an opportunity to say that, and didn't. So that's not the law.

[chephy]

Easy, tiger. What the CARs say is that to be legal, you have to be at least 500' below any cloud that's directly above you AND you have to be more than 1 mile from any cloud that's at your altitude.

Nope, they are saying more than that. They are saying you have to be 500' below any cloud that's within a mile of you. Consider the following situation: you are 1000'(or 500' or 100' or 10') away from a cloud that's 100' (or 50' or 10'... keep going) above your altitude. It's not directly above you and it's not at your altitude, so according to your interpretation (which, btw, is now completely different from the interpretation in your post above), you are legal. But we know that is not the case.

Once again, you're making the same misinterpretation. The VFR requirement is to be more than a mile away from cloud at your altitude. That is - your horizontal spacing - how far you'd have to travel in a horizontal line from your present position - to reach a cloud - has to be more than 1 mile.

I doubt that very much. I think the CARs is far more restrictive than that. Otherwise, a cloud 1 foot above you and 1 foot away from you would be a "legal" cloud. Ok, you'll say, one foot is basically "your altitude". Well, so is 10', right? So is 100'? Where do you draw the line? Well, at 500', obviously. That's the only guideline we're given.

What the CARs should really say here is that you should have 500' vertical separation from any cloud within 1 mile radius of your position.

That would be unambiguous, but mean something different (and probably better, too). However, they had an opportunity to say that, and didn't. So that's not the law.

That's the only reasonable interpretation I can think of.

I know none of this is likely to matter from the practical standpoint, but I really am curious now about how you interpret this reg. 'Cause when it first you say it's not legal to be "100 feet under [a cloud] as long as it was more than a mile horizontally from your position" and then say what you say in this post... well, this just doesn't compute.

[photofly]

Nope, they are saying more than that. They are saying you have to be 500' below any cloud that's within a mile of you.

That's not my interpretation of the plain English meaning of what's in the relevant regulation. However, the only person whose interpretation counts for anything is the CASI or tribunal member or members at the hearing. I have no better idea what that person would say than you do, except I feel fairly confident they wouldnt agree that a regulation which says "and" should say "or" instead.

Remember TC is the government department that with a straight face argued in front of a tribunal that 3 miles flight visibility was to be determined in the direction the aircraft was pointing at the instant in question, so any kind of aerobatics involving pointing straight up would be unlawful unless you had a ceiling no lower than 18,000 feet overhead. So anything is possible.

Happy flying!

[chephy]

That's not my interpretation of the plain English meaning of what's in the relevant regulation.

I understand that. But I am genuinely curious now how your interpretation differs. You don't owe me an explanation, of course, but I am just truly interested in how you interpret this CAR. You say that you read it to mean that vertical separation is only required from cloud directly above/below you, and that horizontal separation is only for clouds at your altitude. But that means being 10 feet to the north of the edge of the cloud and 10 feet below its base perfectly legal, and surely you agree that it is not what the regulation intends. Just curious to hear your thoughts. It seems like you're wrapping up the conversation though, which is fine, but that's too bad, since it will remain a mystery to me forever.

However, the only person whose interpretation counts for anything is the CASI or tribunal member or members at the hearing. I have no better idea what that person would say than you do, except I feel fairly confident they wouldnt agree that a regulation which says "and" should say "or" instead.

That's because most people don't understand the meaning of "or" and "and". They have no exposure to formal logic or programming or anything of the sort. You do agree, I hope, that if we wrote an algorithm that took a particular VFR airplane and every cloud in the world, and for each cloud determined whether the airplane is no less than 500' above/below said cloud OR no less than 1 mile away from that cloud, then the regulation would be met if each cloud in the world passed that test. If not, please give give me an example in which the algorithm breaks down (e.g., for every cloud, the plane is either 500' above/below or 1 mile away, and yet the CAR is violated).

Remember TC is the government department that with a straight face argued in front of a tribunal that 3 miles flight visibility was to be determined in the direction the aircraft was pointing at the instant in question, so any kind of aerobatics involving pointing straight up would be unlawful unless you had a ceiling no lower than 18,000 feet overhead. So anything is possible.

I know. You are absolutely right. Thus we're not having an aviation discussion anymore. We're having a discussion about logic. I see why you want to wrap up the aviation discussion, since there is no practical merit to further debating the point. If you're into talking about reasoning and logical operators, we could continue and the nerd in me would be delighted.

[emepa]

Does the App ban and op specs applies for an approach going to a circular to an other RWY different than the one on App? Thx