New approach ban in Canada Dec 1

J31 · Post by **J31** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:42 pm

The new approach ban is set to come into effect on December 1. How is it affecting your operations?

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:08 pm

With the OPS SPEC it seems like for most airports it's gonna chop off an 1/8th of a mile.

What I'm still wondering is for the airport without the official observer. I suppose it's just the same as before?

El Comat · Post by **El Comat** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:12 pm

I talked to our CP about it yesterday, and he said there was some sort of training requirement as part of that OPS SPEC. Anyone know what exactly that is?

EC

McPhoo · Post by **McPhoo** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:40 pm

The Ops Spec requires a Pilot Monitored Approach. The ammendments to the SOP's and training in the PMA. Also an addition to the company Ops Manual. there is/may also be some equipment requirements but I'm not sure of all the details so I won't guess.

My biggest problem with this whole thing (for the most part it will be a negligible impact) is if I need to shoot an approach into someplace that has a AWOS but no tower or FSS or anything. In winter AWOS's are famous for having a fit with snow and reported vis. I can see getting refused an approach because some junk AWOS thinks the vis is 1/8 of a mile when it is not really that bad. I am not clear what will happen then but I am pessimistic.

185_guy · Post by **185_guy** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:26 pm

I wonder if transport is going to have the INRAT exam updated as soon as the new rules come into effect? I'm going to write first week of December!

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:50 am

Hey anyone know where i can take a look at this new reg online. All i've heard is talk from pilots.

If what i have hear is true, this reg could kill more people than it would save. Up north Winter, AWOS or not, Medivacs are gonna have a hard time getting in. We all know that the vis you see on the ground is different than the vis you see in the air. I can just see it, people doing the approach, "With no intention of landing", to give a pirep so they will change the weather so you can do the approach a second time and get in.

magellan · Post by **magellan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:58 am

The new CAP GEN has all the details in it. Happy Reading!!

LastSamurai · Post by **LastSamurai** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:03 am

The new CAP GEN has all the details in it. Happy Reading!!

So if the new CAP GEN has it, doesnt that mean that the new Approach Ban is in effect

Can anyone clarify this?

LS

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:11 am

I agree with McPhoo, whenever it snows, nobody is going to be able to get into Slave Lake IFR unless they bring 6 hours of gas, and orbit until the awos spits out a favorable SA. The funny thing is that they'll probably be doing it in VMC but won't be able to land.

LastSamurai · Post by **LastSamurai** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:21 am

Localized Phenomenon
The new regulations recognize that certain localized meteorological conditions can reduce the reported ground visibility, thus imposing an approach ban when the flight visibility appears to be much greater. An example would be a localized fog bank that is covering the ground observer’s observation point resulting in a reported ground visibility of ¼ sm at aerodrome south of 60oN Lat, while the flight visibility along the approach to the runway and the runway (as observed by the PIC) is greater than 15 sm. To legally continue the approach past the FAF inbound, the flight visibility on the approach path and along the runway must be equal to or greater than the visibility published in the CAP, for the procedure flown, and the PIC must immediately report the conditions he/she observes to ATS.

This section comes right out of the AIC.

Here is an out. If you are in "VMC" holding over a place waiting for an AWOS to spit out a new SA, do the approach, land, and report conditions to ATS. As long as the flight visibility is equal or greater than the visibility published in the CAP...then you are good to go.

LS

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:24 am

LastSamurai wrote:
The new CAP GEN has all the details in it. Happy Reading!!
So if the new CAP GEN has it, doesnt that mean that the new Approach Ban is in effect

Can anyone clarify this?

LS

the new cap gen isn't effective for another few days, even though it's out.

RB211 · Post by **RB211** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:47 pm

Here is a link to the applicable avisory circular:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/comme ... AC0237.htm

A gripping read!!!

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:17 pm

Looking at the tables it appears that the approach ban for the standard ILS is still 1200 RVR.

Is that right?

J31 · Post by **J31** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:16 pm

Disco Stu wrote:Looking at the tables it appears that the approach ban for the standard ILS is still 1200 RVR.

Is that right?

CAR's 604 there is very little change. RVR 1200 RVR on a ILS.

CAR's 703, 704, 705 a standard ILS is now 1600 RVR.

jackrabbit · Post by **jackrabbit** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:28 pm

Apparently, transport is wayyyyyyy behind on this and I have heard that there is no this will be implemented by Dec. 1.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:55 pm

Oh... I think it will be in force on Dec 1. They will just let things slide (only a LiL-bit)

until they (and all of us) can get things figured out.

TC GUY,whats the scoop?

sanjet · Post by **sanjet** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:03 pm

Disco Stu wrote:Looking at the tables it appears that the approach ban for the standard ILS is still 1200 RVR.

Is that right?

Only if you have OPS Spec, if not, it is 1600 ft now.

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:55 pm

Disco Stu wrote:
Looking at the tables it appears that the approach ban for the standard ILS is still 1200 RVR.

Is that right?

Only if you have OPS Spec, if not, it is 1600 ft now.

Ok sorry I am probably misunderstanding the new rules but if what Sanjet says is correct...IE ILS min for approach ban is 1200 RVR with an ops spec then its the same as before ?

So First Air running off the runway before on an approach to mins will now be safe because of the extra SOP additions and PMA procedures ? It has to be more restrictive otherwise Transport would have just wasted their time again and added more pages to the cap gen for nothing.

I must be missing it. Gonna have to settle in tommorow for a good read I guess.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:13 pm

......bingo

J31 · Post by **J31** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:16 pm

Axial Flow wrote:
Disco Stu wrote:
Looking at the tables it appears that the approach ban for the standard ILS is still 1200 RVR.

Is that right?

Only if you have OPS Spec, if not, it is 1600 ft now.
Ok sorry I am probably misunderstanding the new rules but if what Sanjet says is correct...IE ILS min for approach ban is 1200 RVR with an ops spec then its the same as before ?

So First Air running off the runway before on an approach to mins will now be safe because of the extra SOP additions and PMA procedures ? It has to be more restrictive otherwise Transport would have just wasted their time again and added more pages to the cap gen for nothing.

I must be missing it. Gonna have to settle in tommorow for a good read I guess.

No more 1200 RVR to Cat I runways without centre line lighting. You now need 1600 RVR in YEG along with every one else. Now with the ops spec, PMA or auto pilot, two crew, flight director, centre line lighting, etc. will get you down to 1200 RVR on a CAT I like runway 29/11 in St Johns which has centre line lighting.

This approach ban now includes reported visibilities and will have ban’s to all types of approaches.

It looks to me like the single pilot Navajo now has limits on 1600 RVR with no relief below that.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:37 pm

jackrabbit wrote:Apparently, transport is wayyyyyyy behind on this and I have heard that there is no this will be implemented by Dec. 1.

Nope, it's been published in Canada Gazette and will become effective whether TC is ready or not.

Everyone got their ops specs? Who's going to be doing approaches and who's not?

Starsky · Post by **Starsky** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:29 pm

I've just finished reading the details of the new approach ban. So, let me see if I've got this right....

I'm flying into Muskoka IFR, the NDB A plate says minimums are 1460, HAT of 535 and recommended vis of 1 3/4.

That means if I don't have the ops spec for my Air Taxi Caravan then there is an approach ban if the vis is below 1 1/2 miles.

If the AWOS is saying something like 1 1/4 SM with 010 OVC then I can't fly the approach past the FAF and I go to my alternate.

So, instead of filing IFR, I decide to go marginal VFR. When I get to the Muskoka MF I call up Timmins Radio and request permission for Special VFR into the zone. I can now legally land.

Can someone please explain to me how this makes aviation safer??

The Vault · Post by **The Vault** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:37 pm

El Comat wrote:

I talked to our CP about it yesterday, and he said there was some sort of training requirement as part of that OPS SPEC. Anyone know what exactly that is?

EC

What the hell does this matter to you? You'll have busted minimums already! I can't believe your CP is still talking to you after all the talk of "sneakin it down" from previous postings. Do us all in YXL a favour and stay the hell away from our airport...we don't want to hear that going to see "the stripper" is no longer an option because you hit The Fifth. Really, you should do all the good people at NAC a favour and shut your naive mouth. You don't know nearly enough in this industry yet to be showing everyone how dumb you are as a new Captain.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:01 am

J31 wrote: It looks to me like the single pilot Navajo now has limits on 1600 RVR with no relief below that.

Well I'm confused then because what does this say:

703.41 (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 has a minimum flight crew composed of a
pilot-in-command and a second-in-command...

So maybe not at all?
Ref:
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2006/ ... -14019.pdf

El Comat · Post by **El Comat** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:35 am

The Vault wrote:El Comat wrote:
I talked to our CP about it yesterday, and he said there was some sort of training requirement as part of that OPS SPEC. Anyone know what exactly that is?

EC
What the hell does this matter to you? You'll have busted minimums already! I can't believe your CP is still talking to you after all the talk of "sneakin it down" from previous postings. Do us all in YXL a favour and stay the hell away from our airport...we don't want to hear that going to see "the stripper" is no longer an option because you hit The Fifth. Really, you should do all the good people at NAC a favour and shut your naive mouth. You don't know nearly enough in this industry yet to be showing everyone how dumb you are as a new Captain.

Holy Cow there Bitchy McBitcherson.....go take a blue pill or something that helps you relax and/or grow up. That topic is over, get on with life already!

EC