Low vis procedures-What did these guys do wrong?

[pelmet]

2009-11-24

Further Action Required: Yes

O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation

Narrative: Ottawa Control Tower, Ottawa MacDonald - Cartier International Airport, Ottawa, ON (CYOW) reports that the following aircraft operated in low visibility; While departing with a reported 1/4 mile visibility, Runway Visual Range (RVR) of 1,400 feet were Jazz JZA850, Air Canada ACA477, ACA443, ACA684, and First Air FAB5066. While landing with a reported visibility of between 1/8 to 1/4 mile visibility, RVR from 2,000 - 1,600 feet were Skyservice Cessna 560XL, C-GUPC, Air Canada ACA675 and Porter Airlines POE245 and POE 247. While taxiing with a reported 1/8 mile visibility and a RVR 2,000 feet were First Air FAB860, Porter Airlines POE245 and Shuttle America TCF7576. Ops. impact - unknown

[Frozen Flyer]

RVOP. Implemented by the geniuses at Transport. If no one flies, than no can crash and they have done their job. I'm not sure with Ottawa but unless the airport has implemented their own procedures than you need 1/2 mile to taxi, takeoff and land. Some airports have 1/4 mile daylight. Some have other restrictions. Depends on the airport. What bothers me is that ATC obviously never adviced the crews that were departing and landing, they just choose to violate them.

FF

[Rockie]

Ottawa is 1/4 sm or 1200 RVR for all runways. The rules changed in October to make it a little less restrictive in that you only needed the RVR for the active runway to push off the gate. Prior to that it was any RVR that was limiting.

There is some information missing but to me it looks like the airlines all had either the RVR or the viz in all cases to carry on legally. I don't know about the private aircraft.

[Pratt X 3]

More than likely there is an ATC rule that anytime the visibility is below 1/2 SM, any aircraft taxiing, taking off or landing is recorded and a CADORS is submitted. Just a liability issue. ATC doesn't know who has what Op Specs so they just report everything. Anyone from Nav Canada able to confirm my hypothesis?

[Frozen Flyer]

I could be wrong on this but I believe that RVOP/LVOP is an airport rule. There would be no OPS Spec that a company could get to override that. I have seen airports put out NOTAMS that change the tolerances of RVOP, could that be a possibility? Unfortunately I don't have any JEPS with me, is there a restriction depending on daytime/nighttime ops??

[Sidebar]

NAV CANADA routinely reports flights conducting low visibility operations to TC and TSB. Such a report does not necessarily mean anything was done incorrectly by the crews involved.

[altiplano]

-

[flying4dollars]

If nothing was done wrong, why is it that it says "Further Action Required?: Yes". Does this mean a followup is required?

[xdriver]

Its starting to sound like you need to take your lawyer with you to determine if you can fly or not. Guys from our company in the past have had to write a captains report for the director of flight operations if they get written up, and then never hear about it again.

[ywgflyboy]

If I recall, ATC will still record all flights that conduct a movement with under 1/2 (what I was told anyways). Still does not explain further action req'd part.

My CFS says all runways good for 1200RVR ops

Maybe this question would be better posted in ATC forums.

[RampGurl]

I recently updated my airports RVOP to meet Transports new requirements and this is what I can tell you: Reduced Vis - is determined by an airport's ability to meet TC's requirements. These vary based on lighting availablity, infrastructure, etc and are published in the CAP. If visibility is varying and aircraft initiated taxi while visibility was above 1200 and then it drops - they can continue taxi without fault. Aircraft are not permitted to initiate taxi while below 1200 unless the airport is equipped for low-vis. This being said, ATC will not stop any aircraft from taxiing or initiating taxi when visibility drops - they will advise you of the conditions and ask for your intentions. If you taxi, land, take-off below minimas they will not stop you - but they can report you.

[200Above]

Thanks for the info RampGurl, and while your here, since it appears you know more on this topic, I have a couple questions for you in regards to L and RVOP.

My first question is, where do you find if an airport is qualified for RVOP? I hear in the CAP. But I cant find it anywhere.

Now, lets say I'm flying into Winnipeg and its 1/2 sm. You fly past the FAF (approach ban not in effect now) and the RVR goes to 1000. You continue on the approach and get in. Are you allowed to taxi in? I've heared yes, I've heard no. Does it depend on what runway you approach on? Is there specific taxi routes? Is there anywhere in the AIM or other reference material that I can look up. I've asked many people and no one provides me with the same answer.

Thanks for you help,

[Aeros]

My first question is, where do you find if an airport is qualified for RVOP? I hear in the CAP. But I cant find it anywhere.

It's in the CFS. After each runway there is a visibility value specified. That value identifies the lowest taxi visibility for that runway. If none is specified for the runway then it's 1/2SM.

[Hedley]

Aeros: your knowledge of the regulations - displayed here over
quite some time on many different topics - is very impressive!

My CARs hat is off to you

[flyinhigh]

In the example given the aircraft did nothing wrong.

YOW has RVOP/LVOP to 1/4sm or 1200 rvr, provided one of these are met. Than nothing is wrong here, hence why they wrote up ALL the aircraft and not just one.

If only one got the write up that yeah they may have broke something, but not in this case.

As for the taxiing in part after landing, NO you cannot. Alot of companies, are running based on now if you don't meet the RVOP than don't land at your destination.

As for continuing past the FAF, yes. These limits play no factor into your approach what so ever. It is for when you are on the gnd only.

[200Above]

thanks flyinhigh,

So if the airport is certified for 1/4 or RVR 1200 ops, anything below 1200 is restrictive, unless you've already started the taxi when the RVR was above 1200 and it goes below 1200, then your still allowed to taxi. Does that sound correct?

It seems to me that there should be a stipulation that if you've past the FAF and if the vis drops below 1200 RVR, like with the taxi situation, because you've already 'started the taxi' or are past the FAF for the approach, you should be allowed to taxi in.

So is the a/c that lands with the vis now below the mins to taxi expected to sit on the runway? Do you taxi to the end of the runway and sit there? Or do u Taxi off the active runway and sit on the taxiway and wait for the vis to increase?

thanks,

[RVgrin]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/manag ... 02-006.htm

[blewhead]

This being said, ATC will not stop any aircraft from taxiing or initiating taxi when visibility drops - they will advise you of the conditions and ask for your intentions. If you taxi, land, take-off below minimas they will not stop you - but they can report you.

This is when you ask ATC, "If I taxi and take off, what are YOUR intentions?!"

[Jerricho]

What bothers me is that ATC obviously never adviced the crews that were departing and landing, they just choose to violate them

Hang on a second mate......ATC don't write the rules, and certainly don't sit there quivering with anticipation of writing up an AOR. When this new LVOP/RVOP thing came out, our direction was provide the RVR/Vis, advise RVOP/LVOP in effect and ask pilot's intentions.

[BTD]

thanks flyinhigh,


It seems to me that there should be a stipulation that if you've past the FAF and if the vis drops below 1200 RVR, like with the taxi situation, because you've already 'started the taxi' or are past the FAF for the approach, you should be allowed to taxi in.

There is a stipulation to this effect.

If you receive the RVR value inside the FAF you are permitted to continue the approach and land and then taxi in, even if 0/0. However, if you know that you are not able to taxi before the FAF, then you cannot continue the approach. If the airport is certified with an LVOP/RVOP to RVR 1200 then the taxi will not be your approach limit, but the approach ban will come into effect first.

I don't have a cap gen in front of me, and I haven't been able to quickly find the reference in the CARS, but it is in the CAP gen. If I find it I'll post it. Gotta read the rules with a fine tooth comb.

[linecrew]

What bothers me is that ATC obviously never adviced the crews that were departing and landing, they just choose to violate them

Hang on a second mate......ATC don't write the rules, and certainly don't sit there quivering with anticipation of writing up an AOR. When this new LVOP/RVOP thing came out, our direction from the powers that be was provide the RVR/Vis, advise RVOP/LVOP in effect and ask pilot's intentions.

Jerricho, you're right. It seems a lot of people don't understand that NavCanada is not a regulating body and cannot take punitive action against anyone (ie: violate anyone). They are obligated to pass on Transport Canada what they note as being an "occurrence" and in turn they decide whether any regs were broken and if any sort of punitive action may be required.

[flyinhigh]

thanks flyinhigh,

So if the airport is certified for 1/4 or RVR 1200 ops, anything below 1200 is restrictive, unless you've already started the taxi when the RVR was above 1200 and it goes below 1200, then your still allowed to taxi. Does that sound correct?

Haha, I actually wish it were that easy, unfortunately it is not. At the good airports, YOW, YYZ, YUL it is. Now if you go somewhere like YWG, YYC it is not. The restriction is really rwy dependent.

For instance YWG rwy 38/18 is 1/4 sm for taxi, however 31/13 is 1/2 mile. Calgary for 34/16 and 28/10 is the same thing.

Others have lower limits for Day and Night like YEG, at day it is 1/4 sm provided only 1 aircraft is taxiing for departure and only 1 for taxi in. At night its 1/2 mile.

So is the a/c that lands with the vis now below the mins to taxi expected to sit on the runway? Do you taxi to the end of the runway and sit there? Or do u Taxi off the active runway and sit on the taxiway and wait for the vis to increase?

thanks,

The way I understand it is that, This is not an approach limit. No matter what you can still continue with the approach, however you must clear the rwy and sit there until the vis comes up to the taxi limits.

Hence, with our company (Jazz) unless we have the taxi limits we don't even conduct the approach now.

What bothers me is that ATC obviously never adviced the crews that were departing and landing, they just choose to violate them

Hang on a second mate......ATC don't write the rules, and certainly don't sit there quivering with anticipation of writing up an AOR. When this new LVOP/RVOP thing came out, our direction from the powers that be was provide the RVR/Vis, advise RVOP/LVOP in effect and ask pilot's intentions.

Why do you always ask pilot intentions, if you interpert something as being wrong the way you write the regs. Dont' issue the clearance, Sorry don't say heres what it is, whats your intentions, with your pen ready.

Its simple, here is the wx sir/madam. I must say that if you go I will have to report this, state intentions. All problems solved.

Why not do something like that, I for one as a pilot would be estatic that you did this.

[Janszoon]

Why do you always ask pilot intentions, if you interpert something as being wrong the way you write the regs. Dont' issue the clearance, Sorry don't say heres what it is, whats your intentions, with your pen ready.

Its simple, here is the wx sir/madam. I must say that if you go I will have to report this, state intentions. All problems solved.

Why not do something like that, I for one as a pilot would be estatic that you did this.

I agree. I see ATC and pilots acting together to provide for safe operations.
If one party is aware of a possible unsafe act (justification for the regulations
are for improved safety) I would say it is the responsibility of that party to
inform the other party.

I understand NavCanada's mandate to give weather/clearances and report
infractions, but are they not party to the infraction if they cleared someone to
land with full knowledge that regulations would be broken? Why issue a
clearance if regulations will be broken and safety possibly jeopardized?

We're all working towards the same goal of safe air travel.

If, as a pilot, I were given an instruction by ATC that could contravene the
regulations (takeoff into approaching traffic that could break lateral/vertical
separation rules) I would not accept the clearance, takeoff, and then later
report ATC to TC. That seems counterproductive to safety.

The goal is to prevent unsafe acts. At least advising that the airport is below
LVOP/RVOP minimums and that regulations would be broken if a landing is
continued seems something that could be easily incorporated and would be
proactive in preventing an unsafe condition from developing.

[Jerricho]

Why do you always ask pilot intentions, if you interpert something as being wrong the way you write the regs. Dont' issue the clearance, Sorry don't say heres what it is, whats your intentions, with your pen ready.

At the risk of sounding like an brainless automaton.......Do you have a dispensation ATC doesn't know about (the military sure do). Do you want to shoot an approach with fingers/toes/testicles crossed that the RVR may come up/not go down (remember, I'm a Terminal Controller here)? Do you really need to get on the ground to take a piss? You're the driver. We're just the dummies sitting in front of a radar screen or looking out a tower window (now, we could start an ASDE discussion here but won't). How about I throw it back at you? When asked your intentions, if you're told the vis is crap, why not reply "Uhh, holding clearance please?". Once again, we didn't make the rules. Go talk to TC or your local Airport Authority.

It's come up before in this topic regarding confusion about the whole thing. Do you honestly think ATC have nothing better to do (especially in low vis!!!) to sit there when we get the reply "Uhhhhhhh, we want to shoot the approach/taxi" and think "Hey HEY! Watch this clown.......where's my lucky AOR pen?"

LVOP/RVOP FAQs from TC link

[Jerricho]

Just to throw a little more wood on the pile (hey, I'm bored), I've just done a scour of CARs and AIM.......doesn't really say anything about ATC withholding a clearance. There's a little blurb in RAC 1.7 about a pilot receiving a clearance and if not acceptable, inform ATC.

Just playing Devil's avocado....