I have not seen any mention of this topic yet, and I did not start this form to complain but get some feedback on the new IFR changes as of December 1st.
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.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/comme ... AC0237.htm
I am not one to oppose safety regulations, I encourage them, however I truly believe this new law will be a pain, especially with winter on our doorstep.
An even better idea would be to scrap the advisory visibility altogether and just have the approach ban value instead, really as a pilot this would be more important information anyway. Then I don’t have to sit there and figure out every ban value to the airports I am going into.
“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”
-so just write 2SM ban on plate, if I really want to know the advisory visibility I will add 25%
-did they just kill the contact approach at the same time?
Well, lets have it. This will be affecting pretty much everyone here flying so what are your thoughts, recommendations? What would you do differently?
RA.
New IFR Rules and your 2 cents
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
ramp_agent
- Rank 1
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:45 pm
my favorite part: "As a result of public comments, CARC decided to amend the regulations so as to not impose an approach ban based on ground visibility north of 60 degrees North Latitude" So if you are North of 60, just ignore it.
this would have screwed us up just the other day. WJ landed and reported the vis as "about 1/8 mile" in snow. Jazz shot the approach a few minutes later and broke out way back and the vis was fine even before the FSS reported the increased vis.An approach ban can be imposed, not only by RVR readings below specified values, but also by a reported runway visibility or a reported ground visibility below specified values.
One of the things I don't understand:
To use a higher vis. example: If the approach published vis. is 2 1/2 miles there will be an approach ban if the reported vis. is 2SM or less.
Depending on the ceiling, one could cancel IFR and proceed to the airport VFR.
And this is supposed to improve safety how??
To use a higher vis. example: If the approach published vis. is 2 1/2 miles there will be an approach ban if the reported vis. is 2SM or less.
Depending on the ceiling, one could cancel IFR and proceed to the airport VFR.
And this is supposed to improve safety how??
-
tripleseven
- Rank 4
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 9:56 am
I believe operators will be able to get an ops spec which will allow them to conduct the approach if the vis is 1/2 of what the advisory vis is on the plate. I think one of the requirements is to have SOP's for a pilot monitored approach in place. For an ils with standard mins, that should be RVR 2600/2=1300 ft, which is about what the current approach ban is.
-
goldeneagle
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
It means outstations with weather observers that are incapable of producing accurate visibility readings now have the power to bankrupt small operators, they have achieved parity with airport security.
I think this is the end of service for Tofino. On days when you actually have to do an approach there, the visibility you find down underneath the white stuff rarely has any resemblance to what terminal passed you from the METAR. I dont want to think about how many times I've had the runway in sight from the beacon, when the METAR was a mile or less over there. So what has historically been 'land with no issues' suddenly turns into 'no approach permitted'.
I've been in the mode of 'we will go down, take a look' for 30 years, never managed to kill anybody by simply flying the approach as published, then carry on with the miss if there isn't visibility to land. Not sure if anybody here is actually aware of the fact (except Doc), you will NOT kill your passengers if you fly the miss, as published. This is why they published it.
But, now, since some jazz boys ran an rj off, and some boys from the north missed the runway in edmonton (both operations running the 2 pilot scenario, will have the op spec to allow approach into the lower vis), now folks like me that have been doing it safely for years, suddenly are not allowed to do it anymore. This just makes so much sense when you think it thru, a knee-jerk regulatory action that affects everybody EXCEPT those involved in the incidents quoted as the reason for the rules change. A fine example of beaurocracy at it's finest.
There is no accountability for the weather observations when they come from an outsourced provider. In the smaller places we all knew this, and, you knew to take the reports with a 'grain of salt', they OFTEN have no relationship with reality, tofino is a prime example. Now, at the stroke of a beurocrat's pen, suddenly that fairy tale weather report can send a flight home without even attempting an approach/landing. Some food for thought, I will now have to change my policies. If it's marginal vfr on the west coast, a tofino run will be done just like in the old days of floatplanes, vfr, underneath, 500' off the water around the island, instead of at 14,000 over top of the rocks, with an approach on the other end. Why you ask, because I can think of at least a few times this summer where the reported vis there was a mile or less, yet, on the approach I had a runway visible already from the beacon (4 miles or so back). I cant even attempt that approach now, so, in order to get my clients to destination, we'll have to go fly with the floatplanes at 500 feet.
And this is safer how ?
But, the regulators are actually achieving thier objective, I think it may well be time to hang up the spurs. This new rule is going to make small operation charter on the west coast unviable financially in the winter, unless some kind of accountability gets built into the weather observations that prevent us from starting approaches into the smaller destinations. I dont see that happening, and, I'd rather throw in the towel while there still is one to throw. If I had to turn back instead of try the approach every time the reported vis went below 2 miles at tofino this summer, a change reported while we were enroute, our balance sheet would look substantially different than it does. On every one of those occaisions, we had the entire length of the runway clearly in view from 3 miles or more back (reported by the gps, not guessed). This summer we arrived, next summer we cant even attempt the approach.
The regulators honestly believe, the only safe airplane is one chained to the ground. Careful what you wish for, because, when they are successful in regulating the airplanes out of the sky, we wont need regulators anymore either. Those who break the rules will continue to do so, those who fly by the rules will start the process of re-evaluation now. Now that the regulators have deemed it necessary to move the decisions out of the cockpit (a set of eyeballs that can look out the window and make informed choices when it counts) off to weather observers that practise creative writing when publishing thier METAR reports, it's time to re-evaluate wether or not we can afford to play this game anymore.
This is likely the straw that will convince me, it's time to trade down to a pitts, re-locate to a small center on the island, and go fishing with cat once in a while. There is no point to even attempting to make an honest dollar when the regulators hand the financial viability of your company off to faceless individuals with no accountability for thier reports. Thankfully, I built a business outside of aviation over the years, so, I'm not going to be hamstrung by this, and I will be able to buy gas for that pitts after the trade. I feel for the folks trying to scrounge a living off the souths side of yvr with a few 'hos etc, this is going to create yet another huge financial burden for them, and for those betting heavily on tofino service, probably an insurmountable burden. Ah well, they will overcome by reducing pilot wages again, charging more for training, and in the end it will somehow all be 'safer'. But, should I feel the need to go over and spend a day on long beach, think I'll drive. The thought of riding in a ho that's so straddled by regulatory expense it leaves no money left for maintanence and crew wages, well, that's just scary, and, the regulatory expense burden just went up yet again.....
I think this is the end of service for Tofino. On days when you actually have to do an approach there, the visibility you find down underneath the white stuff rarely has any resemblance to what terminal passed you from the METAR. I dont want to think about how many times I've had the runway in sight from the beacon, when the METAR was a mile or less over there. So what has historically been 'land with no issues' suddenly turns into 'no approach permitted'.
I've been in the mode of 'we will go down, take a look' for 30 years, never managed to kill anybody by simply flying the approach as published, then carry on with the miss if there isn't visibility to land. Not sure if anybody here is actually aware of the fact (except Doc), you will NOT kill your passengers if you fly the miss, as published. This is why they published it.
But, now, since some jazz boys ran an rj off, and some boys from the north missed the runway in edmonton (both operations running the 2 pilot scenario, will have the op spec to allow approach into the lower vis), now folks like me that have been doing it safely for years, suddenly are not allowed to do it anymore. This just makes so much sense when you think it thru, a knee-jerk regulatory action that affects everybody EXCEPT those involved in the incidents quoted as the reason for the rules change. A fine example of beaurocracy at it's finest.
There is no accountability for the weather observations when they come from an outsourced provider. In the smaller places we all knew this, and, you knew to take the reports with a 'grain of salt', they OFTEN have no relationship with reality, tofino is a prime example. Now, at the stroke of a beurocrat's pen, suddenly that fairy tale weather report can send a flight home without even attempting an approach/landing. Some food for thought, I will now have to change my policies. If it's marginal vfr on the west coast, a tofino run will be done just like in the old days of floatplanes, vfr, underneath, 500' off the water around the island, instead of at 14,000 over top of the rocks, with an approach on the other end. Why you ask, because I can think of at least a few times this summer where the reported vis there was a mile or less, yet, on the approach I had a runway visible already from the beacon (4 miles or so back). I cant even attempt that approach now, so, in order to get my clients to destination, we'll have to go fly with the floatplanes at 500 feet.
And this is safer how ?
But, the regulators are actually achieving thier objective, I think it may well be time to hang up the spurs. This new rule is going to make small operation charter on the west coast unviable financially in the winter, unless some kind of accountability gets built into the weather observations that prevent us from starting approaches into the smaller destinations. I dont see that happening, and, I'd rather throw in the towel while there still is one to throw. If I had to turn back instead of try the approach every time the reported vis went below 2 miles at tofino this summer, a change reported while we were enroute, our balance sheet would look substantially different than it does. On every one of those occaisions, we had the entire length of the runway clearly in view from 3 miles or more back (reported by the gps, not guessed). This summer we arrived, next summer we cant even attempt the approach.
The regulators honestly believe, the only safe airplane is one chained to the ground. Careful what you wish for, because, when they are successful in regulating the airplanes out of the sky, we wont need regulators anymore either. Those who break the rules will continue to do so, those who fly by the rules will start the process of re-evaluation now. Now that the regulators have deemed it necessary to move the decisions out of the cockpit (a set of eyeballs that can look out the window and make informed choices when it counts) off to weather observers that practise creative writing when publishing thier METAR reports, it's time to re-evaluate wether or not we can afford to play this game anymore.
This is likely the straw that will convince me, it's time to trade down to a pitts, re-locate to a small center on the island, and go fishing with cat once in a while. There is no point to even attempting to make an honest dollar when the regulators hand the financial viability of your company off to faceless individuals with no accountability for thier reports. Thankfully, I built a business outside of aviation over the years, so, I'm not going to be hamstrung by this, and I will be able to buy gas for that pitts after the trade. I feel for the folks trying to scrounge a living off the souths side of yvr with a few 'hos etc, this is going to create yet another huge financial burden for them, and for those betting heavily on tofino service, probably an insurmountable burden. Ah well, they will overcome by reducing pilot wages again, charging more for training, and in the end it will somehow all be 'safer'. But, should I feel the need to go over and spend a day on long beach, think I'll drive. The thought of riding in a ho that's so straddled by regulatory expense it leaves no money left for maintanence and crew wages, well, that's just scary, and, the regulatory expense burden just went up yet again.....
-
marktheone
- Rank 7
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:07 am
- Location: An airplane.
Fingers crossed. I think that we will see an exemption put into place sometime around the 20th of this month. The whole change has not been properly reviewed with the operators that it affects. The whole pilot monitored approach will not be an option in 95% of the aircraft that are affected by this due to equipment or lack there of.
We will get an 11th hour temporary reprieve. (I hope)
Cheers,
Mark
We will get an 11th hour temporary reprieve. (I hope)
Cheers,
Mark
As these proposed changes have been discussed during at least the last 6 years with at least three opportunities to formally provide input and comment on the changes, I wonder how much more discussion is required? It's no wonder it takes so long for rule changes to happen...marktheone wrote:The whole change has not been properly reviewed with the operators that it affects.
These changes have been discussed once or twice on this site previously, with some interesting views and opinions on both sides:
New Approach Ban in the Works
Less than RVR 1200? See ya...
Approach Ban Changes
Toronto Star article on RVR
New Approach Ban Limits?
Lax air rules blamed for risky landings
Non-precision approach ban coming soon to an airport near u
-
goldeneagle
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Why would you look foolish doc, you are the one that preaches 'fly the miss as published, and you wont hit anything'. I agree, but, it seems many seem to disagree, and constantly feel the need to create a stronger regulatory environment, just to prevent us from even getting to the point of deciding to fly the miss, as published.Doc wrote:I was never that strong in the English language! Methinks I look foolish. Been there before!
Maybe I'm the one that's foolish, I just feel that preventing me from even going to take a look is going to cause a lot of trips to abandon, trips that have historically arrived with no problem. We will now have to abandon them because a ground based weather observer has determined they dont want airplanes to arrive, one that has a long history of being incapable of accurately observing things such as visibility.
Ah well, the pitts is looking better every day....
Hey Golden....I go as far as PLAN and BRIEF for the missed if the ceilings are less than 200 feet above minimums! That way, if we see something, great, we land...but we PLAN the missed. I don't think pilots plan for a missed enough. It always comes as a surprise when they have to miss. And, as with any surprise, they screw it up!
-
Fline@9
- Rank 2
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:37 pm
- Location: Center of the Universe (aka. YYZ)
(Sigh).... What's next? (more) confusing alternate minimums?
Why does TC have to take everything the FAA invented and and put their little dash of idiocracy to it? Can anyone please explain?
Why does TC have to take everything the FAA invented and and put their little dash of idiocracy to it? Can anyone please explain?
Please, no more witty sayings, smug advice, or bitter posts from low timers. Pay your dues. Be patient...
-
Big Bird Anonymous
- Rank 4
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 6:36 am
These new reg's will bring Canada on par with the rest of the ICAO world. The U.S. has never had anything like an approach ban, you either have the vis or you don't get in.
Part of this movement is to require commercial operators to have certified safe nav and auto-pilot equipment and suitable SOP's to operate safely at reduced visibilities (hence the ops spec's).
The findings were that ground based vis reporting and airborne observations by the crew were more often than not contradictory. Therefore the new limitations are to create a more defined line betwen certainty and uncertainty. Also, it gets rid of the "let's go have a look" attitude which will save lives.
Part of this movement is to require commercial operators to have certified safe nav and auto-pilot equipment and suitable SOP's to operate safely at reduced visibilities (hence the ops spec's).
The findings were that ground based vis reporting and airborne observations by the crew were more often than not contradictory. Therefore the new limitations are to create a more defined line betwen certainty and uncertainty. Also, it gets rid of the "let's go have a look" attitude which will save lives.
Anti-antivaxxer
I went and " had alook " twice yesterday and got in both times in spite of what the guys on the ground thought. "Things look mighty different from the air", is what one of them had to say.
bronson - you can be in a hurry or you can be in an airplane, but don't ever get into both at once
-
Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
There is nothing wrong with this attitude provided it is done within the IFR procedures. What is dangerous about shooting the approach down to minimums and doing the missed approach procedure? Nothing...that's why both procedures exist.Also, it gets rid of the "let's go have a look" attitude which will save lives.
As usual...pilots are their own worst enemies. Training bonds exist due to pilots jumping companies and the over supply of pilots. This new rule will exist because some pilots will continue the "let's go have a look" attitude all the way to the ground.
The other problem is with pilots that see the runway but not enough to provide a safe reference. Let's say you are at minimums and you see a couple of runway edge lights and nothing else. According to the rules you can continue lower but to actually touch down with no other reference is probably not advisable especially on shorter runways. Remember...you didn't see the threshold lights/markings. You have no idea how far down the runway you are. This is where the pilot decision making comes in. Do you have enough visual for accurate depth perception? How proficient are your airplane type skills. Do you have local knowledge of the field that would help once you do get a visual? These factors all affect your (you as a pilot) personal minimums for conducting a landing once you have the required visual reference.
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
-
Scuba_Steve
- Rank 7
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:10 pm
Whats wrong with going to 'take a look' if you think 1 - you'll likely get in (ie at an autostation) and 2 - its completely safe to do so, IE no freezing rain, CB's engine fires etc? What the hell is wrong with shooting an approach with a chance of a missed? some people seem to think that every time you strap on an aircraft you are risking life and limb to the extreme? I know I've flown with that type. If there is a chance that we have to do a missed we won't go despite the fact that there is also a good chance we'll get int and the customer is cool with taking the 'chance'. Why is this deemed as being too risky? are poeple afraid of a missed? hell if you are in the flat country the missed is about 1000x easier than the damn approach!
I find it amusing that the operators whos actions brought about these new rules, would infact be exempt from them since they can just operate with a PMA.
I find it amusing that the operators whos actions brought about these new rules, would infact be exempt from them since they can just operate with a PMA.
-
Scuba_Steve
- Rank 7
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:10 pm
DOC I've sat through one or two of your 'missed approach' briefings...the sentence ' THERE WILL BE NO MISSED APPROACH" does not count as a briefing..sorryDoc wrote:Hey Golden....I go as far as PLAN and BRIEF for the missed if the ceilings are less than 200 feet above minimums! That way, if we see something, great, we land...but we PLAN the missed. I don't think pilots plan for a missed enough. It always comes as a surprise when they have to miss. And, as with any surprise, they screw it up!
Also I brief the missed in VMC usually, why? why not!
-
LastSamurai
- Rank 3
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:41 am
- Location: Where my car is...
I agree with bushguy. Get down early, if they are still calling for below approach-ban vis, then cancel IFR and request the special VFR. You could also request a contact as well. Right now its hard to figure out how this is going to improve safety on approaches in general?!?HAHA
just request special VFR 1sm clear of cloud
back to the ol' .. runnin days
LS
goldeneagle wrote: Maybe I'm the one that's foolish, I just feel that preventing me from even going to take a look is going to cause a lot of trips to abandon, trips that have historically arrived with no problem. We will now have to abandon them because a ground based weather observer has determined they dont want airplanes to arrive, one that has a long history of being incapable of accurately observing things such as visibility.
Ah well, the pitts is looking better every day....
Lucky for you, you have an out. There are a lot of days of the year, where the base I fly out of, which is non-precision, will be unattemptable because of this assinine rule. This will cause major headaches for our customers, and reduce the viability of the airport we base from - this situation will be multiplied many times over throughout Canada (below 60). Maybe this is what xport is up to; shut down airports without ILS - because ergo the idiotic rule changes, there will be too few movements to justify their operation. Nav Canada will be able to continue the screwing over of the small operators, and layoffs of FSS people will swell their profit margin as various Nav Canada facilities are phased out. Communities that are affected by this should be screaming blue murder to xport, but as usual, they will be the last ones to know about it
You will never live long enough to know it all, so quit being anal about it..
Actually if you look at the "examples" they trot out to justify the rules, there are very few that would have been prevented. Besides the fact that most operators would be exempt anyway, the ones that had crashes were usually on non-precision approaches that resulted in CFIT by descending below mins without visual reference. Anyone who deliberately descends below mins without visual reference will not let any "rule" stand in the way of a crash.I find it amusing that the operators whos actions brought about these new rules, would infact be exempt from them since they can just operate with a PMA.
It seems that the new Approach Ban limits will indirectly affect Departure Minima throught the new use of the Advisory Visibility Limits on the approach plates. Or am I comparing the new and old rules too much (there does seem to be a lot of brain circling procedures going on in my head right now)?
