Approach Ban

[Dog]

So, now we've been dealing with it for a while what does everyone think?

I feel like it has taken a lot of heat off pilots for givin' 'er a look. Took my low stress job and made it even more so.

Dog

[2milefinal]

Not sure what to think. I have seen pilots bust the appr. ban AND as far as I can tell, nobody cared.
I have had the pleasure of having to divert a long ways to NOT BUST THE BAN (rules).

I think all it has done is added pages to the CAP GEN.
I guess all and all, I wish that we did not have to deal with it.

[Dog]

No one will say anything if you bust the ban on the radio. There may not be any action at all depending on who's watching.

I came out of the bush so making decisions about grey areas was a part of going to work. When I came over to IFR it was refreshing to have everything so black and white. But there is always pressure and people all deal with it differently.

I've had to hold and divert a few times now due to the ban. In December after slowing down and hoping for improvement I finally headed off to an alternate. My FO complained about the approach ban. I asked him if he really thought it was such a bad idea and he cocked his head ,paused and said no. I have to say it feels like there is a little less invisible pressure on me now.

Lots of people bitched about this when it came in (me included). Just wanted to know if anyone else changed their minds after living with it for a while.

[2milefinal]

I realize that nothing will be said on the radio if someone brakes the rules. But I have done some digging and fond nothing was reported and or done. Dont get me wrong either. I dont care if anything is done about it. Just thought I would see if anyone was watching.

[motionsickness69]

I like it. I agree with Dog it's good for pilots and has also reduced my stress level.

[Rudy]

I noticed some pireps from pilots going into places where the new approach ban would have been in effect. ie. They're reporting 1/2 mile in the metar and the pilot reports 3 miles flight visibility in a pirep. Is this a valid loophole?

[Dog]

It's not a loophole but I've noticed that unless there are RVRs, They usually err on the low side with ground reported visibilities. Some places it's really bad. I've been in YBL calling 3/4 mile vis and had the airport at three miles.

[railroad]

So, last week in Yellowknife, when the temperature dropped to minus a kazillion, the visibility went down as well. Once the new approach ban rules were applied, the ILS (the only ILS at yzf) to runway 33 was banned. Approaches to all other runways were available.
Makes not much sense to close the arguably best approach to the longest runway when the weather gets bad.

[The Other Kind]

I have mixed feelings on it. When it first came in I thought it would make my life easier, take some stress out of the job. In reality, not really...

I was reaching my destination a while back and was number 2 for the approach. The field was getting slammed by a streamer and had been under those conditions for some time with no signs of improvement. The vis brought the approach ban into play. The controller cleared the guy in front of me for the approach and I expected him to say 'no can do' (yes, I know he was on a charter). Instead, he accepted the clearance, flew the approach and got in. The controller gave us a vector to final and cleared us for the approach. Having discussed this with my FO while we were on delaying vectors, he declined the clearance, citing the approach ban. Without missing a beat, the controller advised that the vis was 2sm and asked our intentions. We flew the approach and picked up the field right around the point the ATIS said we would...

I was grateful that the controller offered the 2sm vis report, whether it was passed by the crew in front of me or not, who knows. It saved me from having to divert with pax, something I am more than happy to do if I don't have the field at mins, or if I can't legally fly the approach. It would have been difficult to explain to our pax why their co-workers got in with the 'other company', while we had to divert.

All that said, I've since changed jobs and it doesn't affect me now.

[altiplano]

/

[tired of the ground]

When you're north of 60 the approach ban only applies to an approach when there is an RVR available.

For Example. RWY35 ILS has an RVR of 2600. According to the new approach ban it's NFG. RWY 17 has a Backcourse to the exact same runway but without RVR's (they only work in one direction ). It's blowing 35kts from 350. You have to fly the backcourse and circle for 35 because it is significantly safer than flying the straight in ILS for 35.

[Liquid Charlie]

north of 60 -- that's what makes this legislation so ridiculous -- only in Canada eh!!! -- I've said it before but why not adopt ICAO standards and be done with it -- ops specs -- give me a f'n break

[Cat Driver]

ops specs -- give me a f'n break

Liquid Chas.......its all about paper work....

They are beavering away as we write coming up with even more bizarre stuff to make us even safer.

[Starsky]

I'm not a big fan of the approach ban.

One airport that I operate from regularly has weather reported by an AUTO station. This weather station is horribly out to lunch on reporting of visibilities. There have been many occasions this winter where it is reporting 1/2 mile vis and we have the field in sight 3 or 4 miles out. Those are the good days because we can PIREP the vis before even starting the approach and we are good to go. On the days when the ceiling is below where we can descend to for the FAF, we can't truthfully PIREP the visibility even though it is in many many instances higher than the 3/4 mile that we need.

This means that we are forced to take our passengers to some other destination which rarely makes them happy. All because some computer can't measure properly and some jackass decided that as a pilot I can't be trusted to descend to minimums and then overshoot if I don't have the runway in sight.

[Cat Driver]

and some jackass decided that as a pilot I can't be trusted to descend to minimums and then overshoot if I don't have the runway in sight.

The stupidity of that is beyond belief absolutely beyond belief....

Unless of course the minimums are so low you will hit the ground....before you get visual..

[Flybaby]

Still my biggest beef with the ban is where you need more than 1SM visibility to fly an IFR approach, especially in the flat lands.

[Tibor]

what approach ban??

[pelmet]

.

[pelmet]

"So, last week in Yellowknife, when the temperature dropped to minus a kazillion, the visibility went down as well. Once the new approach ban rules were applied, the ILS (the only ILS at yzf) to runway 33 was banned. Approaches to all other runways were available.
Makes not much sense to close the arguably best approach to the longest runway when the weather gets bad."

Remember, it is the RVR that bans the approach and landing to runway 33. Therefore no ILS, Localizer or NDB approach allowed onto 33 if below the appropriate limits for your operation. Also no approach on 33 with a circle to another runway. And no approach on another runway circling to land on 33. If the RVR breaks down...now a zero-zero approach is legal.
Remember, it is the RVR that bans the approach and landing to runway 33. Therefore no ILS, Localizer or NDB approach allowed onto 33 if below the appropriate limits for your operation. Also no approach on 33 with a circle to another runway. And no approach on another runway circling to land on 33. If the RVR breaks down...now a zero-zero approach is legal.

[tired of the ground]

Pelmet,

You may most definitely do any approach to circle for 33 when the RVR precludes the use of the ILS33. The only thing you cant do is the ILS for 33.

The approach ban prevents you from passing the FAF if the RVR is below the required number for that approach. It says nothing about using that runway.

[dangerous]

If the RVR breaks down...now a zero-zero approach is legal.

Perhaps a bunch of us pilots should go sabotage the RVR transmissometer in the middle of the night.

[Commonwealth]

I was reading the AIM regarding this subject last night and was surprised by what I found in the section describing localized phenomenon.
From RAC 9.19.2.7 Localized Phenomenon

"CAUTION: Pilots are reminded of the insidious hazard that thin ground-based layers, such as shallow fog, ice fog, or blowing snow can present. Such conditions may allow a pilot-in-command to override an approach ban based on what appears to be a localized phenomenon, when in fact extensive and very poor visibility will be encountered at low altitude during the later stages of the approach, landing and roll-out. The pilot-in-command should take all possible information into account before overriding an approach ban, based on what appears to be a localized phenomenon, in order to avoid conducting an approach during these hazardous conditions. "

There you have it. The law is the law, but we don’t believe it is completely safe.

Oh well, that is why we get payed the big bucks right.

[pelmet]

[quote="tired of the ground"]Pelmet,

You may most definitely do any approach to circle for 33 when the RVR precludes the use of the ILS33. The only thing you cant do is the ILS for 33.

The approach ban prevents you from passing the FAF if the RVR is below the required number for that approach. It says nothing about using that runway.[/quote]


Our company posted a memo after consulting with TC that says what I posted previously about the approach ban in this case concerning YZF. I can find no official publication that has been published. Perhaps it is an interpretation by an inspector but it is our guidance. As I said earlier...

"Remember, it is the RVR that bans the approach and landing to runway 33. Therefore no ILS, Localizer or NDB approach allowed onto 33 if below the appropriate limits for your operation. Also no approach on 33 with a circle to another runway. And no approach on another runway circling to land on 33. If the RVR breaks down...now a zero-zero approach is legal.
Remember, it is the RVR that bans the approach and landing to runway 33. Therefore no ILS, Localizer or NDB approach allowed onto 33 if below the appropriate limits for your operation. Also no approach on 33 with a circle to another runway. And no approach on another runway circling to land on 33. If the RVR breaks down...now a zero-zero approach is legal."

As well, south of 60°, a pilot in another aircraft(at the threshhold) can really help you or screw you. If it is clear and a million and he says the weather is below your limits(non RVR runway)...no approach allowed. If it is zero/zero(non RVR runway) and he says it is above your limits...approach allowed. This is called runway visibility. A report is valid for 20 minutes. It can't be issued by the likes of maintenance staff such as snowplows. Also, you can override an observed visibility below approach limits if outside the FAF(or intercepting final if no FAF exists) you observe along the approach and runway that the visibility is greater than the CAP advisory(or total length of runway where if it is less than the length of the advisory visibility) visibility and report the localized phenomenon before passing the FAF. This is quite possible in blowing snow conditions.

Lastly, RVR on 33 in YZF will ban more than just the ILS approach as stated in the previos post. It will ban any approach(loc, NDB) as well.

[lilfssister]

It can't be issued by the likes of maintenance staff such as snowplows.

IIRC there is a provision that this can be done by authorised airport staff. However the liklihood that Airport Authorities will train their staff and authorise them to do so, therefore opening themselves to liability is pretty slim.

[Doc]

To be really honest, after the initial song and dance, I really don't give it much thought.