YYT CATIII

[corytrevor]

Canada calls No DH and 600 rvr Cat IIIa, but ICAO would call it CAT IIIb as it is less than 700 rvr. Bottom line is that earlier someone said you need a 50 DH minimum in Canada which you do not.

[complexintentions]

Canada calls No DH and 600 rvr Cat IIIa, but ICAO would call it CAT IIIb as it is less than 700 rvr. Bottom line is that earlier someone said you need a 50 DH minimum in Canada which you do not.

From ICAO "Manual of All-Weather Operations"

Category IIIA (CAT IIIA) operation. A precision instrument approach and landing with:

a) a decision height lower than 30 m (100 ft) or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range not less than 175 m.

Category IIIB (CAT IIIB) operation. A precision instrument approach and landing with:

a) a decision height lower than 15 m (50 ft), or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range less than 175 m but not less than 50 m.

Same as TC. ICAO does not "call it CAT IIIb as it is less than 700 rvr", and I haven't seen any Cat IIIb approaches in Canada. I'm just curious as to how the definition of a Cat IIIa approach is apparently being used to conduct no-DH landings.

Just because the definition of a Cat IIIa approach is DH <100 ft or no DH, doesn't mean that operationally you don't necessarily "need a 50 DH minimum", that's specified by one's Ops Spec. Ours authorizes a minimum RVR 200m, DH of 50ft for a IIIa; RVR 75m, AH 200ft, no DH requirement for IIIb. Same as at previous company, pretty standard. The 50 DH on the IIIa is because Cat IIIa doesn't require a rollout control/guidance system, or to be fail-operational - it can be fail-passive. So looking at that YVR chart I posted, we could only do a Cat IIIa approach, and DO definitely need a 50 DH minimum. The chart specifically forbids Cat IIIb.

So I guess in essence I'm saying I'd be curious to know what other operators have in their Ops Spec - do they allow no-DH landings off a Cat IIIa approach?

[Rockie]

No DH means no DH. As long as you are "fail operational" meaning "CAT 3 DUAL" for the bus the 100 ft alert height applies and both pilots remain heads down. If before the approach some fault degrades the system to fail passive (CAT 3 SINGLE) then a DH 50' applies. Boeing has their own criteria with the 3 autopilots but I can't off the top of my head recall the terminology.

[Eric Janson]

Our company minimums for Cat 3a are 50' DH (Fail Passive or Fail Operational).

So if I was flying one of our aircraft to Canada we would have to use the 50'DH as we always use the highest of State/Chart/Company minimums.

[complexintentions]

Yep Eric, that was what I was getting at - the company minimums are governing. Yours are the same as mine. We cannot legally fly a no-DH Cat 3a approach. I guess some operators just use "fail operational" as the sole determinant for a no-DH landing if the RVR is met...? (Assuming other LVO airport criteria etc etc.)

Rockie, the Boeing concept is identical, the terminology is "Land 3" (triple redundancy) for fail operational and "Land 2" (two systems) for fail passive. It's a bit different in operation because with the three autopilots vs. two the pilot doesn't choose a specific one, the system does when it's engaged. It also automatically configures for autoland (self-test, electrical switching for power isolation etc) at 1,500ft on every approach if the approach is armed. If I'm not mistaken, I believe on Airbus you engage one autopilot at a time, except for autoland? I stand to be corrected.

Anyway, it would appear that your ops don't specify a DH for Cat3a, which I found interesting. Also I didn't know there was an alert height of 100' on the 320. Always learning...

YYZ YYC YYT YVR all have CAT 3 approaches. If you are certified for CAT 3b then you can do it. Canada does not ban 3b. I have no idea where that came from. You need 600 rvr no DH.

Never did get a definitive answer as to if anyone does Cat 3b approaches, either. Some say no, others say, that's crazy talk, of course you can. I do know we cannot legally do them, as per the YVR chart. Some comments about airports not having the taxi lighting, etc lead me to believe there are no Cat 3b yet.

What conclusion does the AvCanada brain trust arrive at?

[Rockie]

The definitive answer is no CAT IIIb in Canada. No airports in Canada have the required low visibility taxi plan or lights to operate below 600 RVR.

[yycflyguy]

Boeing has their own criteria with the 3 autopilots but I can't off the top of my head recall the terminology.

Land 3

[Rockie]

Boeing has their own criteria with the 3 autopilots but I can't off the top of my head recall the terminology.

Land 3

Right now I remember.

Land 3
No land 3
Land 2

and a "No Autoland" flag.

[confusedalot]

Stating the obvious, it's all automatic. Little human intervention required.

The hardest part, (and I have been there), is taxying to the gate. Shit, you can't see anything.

[confusedalot]

Sorry, comments were for 3B at 75 meters.

[av8ts]

Stating the obvious, it's all automatic. Little human intervention required.

The hardest part, (and I have been there), is taxying to the gate. Shit, you can't see anything.

Actually on the Jazz RJ and Q400, Cat11 and Cat111 approaches are hand flown by the Captain using the HUD

[confusedalot]

My mistake, too old and too spoiled, always had autoland, except in the embraer (cat 2 only, even that made my little arse uncomfortable).

Does 3B qualify for HUD manual, or is it limited to 3A.

Just wondering, retired now.

[av8ts]

3A only. 50 foot DH

[averageatbest]

Airports in Canada except for YYZ, YYC, YVR and maybe YUL ARE substandard.
The nation's capital airport doesn't even have a CATII approach for gawds sake.

Hi there, AverageAtBest from six years in the future.

YYZ is substandard in 2022 and I can tell you that with confidence. The airport is missing taxiway lighting on many of it's most used taxiways, instead using reflectors that are difficult to see. Taxiway T crossing E has blue taxiway centerline lighting. There is only one runway with CAT II ILS capability. They got their first RNAV-Y approach in late 2022, not that they have used it since. Any time there is good weather on a weekday, GDP is in effect. Taxiway D west of 33R until the 06L hold short line is in disrepair. Taxiway signs are constantly broken and unlit. Air traffic control (specifically ground) have no idea what a clearance limit is and get sassy when foreign pilots ask "what do you want us to do after hotel?" when only given "taxi alpha, hotel."

I can continue if needed.

[Chaxterium]

There is only one runway with CAT II ILS capability.

Pearson has two CAT II runways; 05 and 06L. They are also both CAT III certified as well.

[averageatbest]

There is only one runway with CAT II ILS capability.

Pearson has two CAT II runways; 05 and 06L. They are also both CAT III certified as well.

CAT II and III 06L has been NOTAM'd out of service for I don't know how long. It's possible it's open now.

[Chaxterium]

It's possible it's open now.

It's been open for a while as far as I know. I'm based out of YYZ and I haven't seen any NOTAMs regarding the CAT II or III for 06L in a little while. Mind you we almost never use 06L so I could have easily missed it.

[averageatbest]

It's possible it's open now.

It's been open for a while as far as I know. I'm based out of YYZ and I haven't seen any NOTAMs regarding the CAT II or III for 06L in a little while. Mind you we almost never use 06L so I could have easily missed it.

Maybe it was 05 that was out of service. I was stuck in YUL one morning a couple weeks ago because YYZ was fogged in and there were no usable approaches as far as I could see. It was terribly early in the morning and I was distracted by angry passengers in the background... I very easily could be wrong.