IFR Differences between Canada and the US

[photofly]

I've been collecting differences between Instrument procedures in the US and Canada, and thought I'd post a list. Any disagree with these or want to add any more?

1. MSA's are operational in Canada but for emergency use only in the US

2. Airways (sometimes) have Minimum Crossing Altitudes at intersections in the US, but never in Canada

3. "Cleared for the Approach" in Canada means you can navigate vertically as you see fit to any fix on the approach that's operationally possible for your aircraft as long as you coordinate with ATC. In the US you have to stick to charted feeder routes and segments unless receiving vectors for final.

4. (much the same as 3) Course reversals on a SIAP chart are mandatory in the US unless NoPT is marked on the feeder route; in Canada course reversals are optional as long as ATC knows your intentions.

5. In Canada alternate destinations are mandatory in all IFR flight plans; in the US they're only required if you don't have VFR at your destination +/- 1hr of ETA

6. In the US IFR in Class G uncontrolled airspace is 'frowned upon' - in Canada it's relied-upon by many.

7. Minimum visibility on a Canadian approach plate is relevant only to the choice of alternate; in the US you must have at least the charted flight visibility to descend below DA/MDH and to land.

8. On the other hand, Part 91 (private) operations in the US can fly the approach past the FAF whatever the weather, whereas in Canada an RVR1200 approach ban applies to private operations.

Any more?

[daedalusx]

7. Minimum visibility on a Canadian approach plate is relevant only to the choice of alternate;

They also govern approach ban. CAR 700.xx

[Panama Jack]

I don't think there are any "Cruise" altitude clearances in Canada.

[tripleseven]

5. In Canada alternate destinations are mandatory in all IFR flight plans; in the US they're only required if you don't have VFR at your destination +/- 1hr of ETA
Any more?

Not true. You can file no-alternate IFR in Canada.

[Mr Ed]

US: start climb when over fix when next segment MEA is higher (I think assuming 200 ft/mile)

Canada: climb before fix to be at next MEA

---------------------

alternates 1 2 3 rule in use 1 hour 2000 ft 3 miles or more no alternate required (part 91)

---------------------


In the us you can keep your IFR rating currency SO MUCH EASIER than in Canada. In Canada they removed my rating completely when it expired. Never forgave the *%^&*!! colonial buggers in Ottawa for that.

[trey kule]

I actually found this quite interesting as I fly in us airspace fairly often. The cleared for approach reminded me of a time going into Pueto Rico one night and being cleared for the approach while still in solid IMC. We were not aware of the difference in procedure but could tell from the radio traffic that if we went direct we were going to cut off a few cranky pilots...so we asked. Mentioned that we were dumb canucks and wanted clarification. The response was to the effect that we would be in VFC in another couple of thousand feet and could proceed as we saw fit...the question never got answered.

Good stuff to know.

[Mr Ed]

Lots of little differences. A couple more items come to mind...

US: LDF approaches published when rw is more than 30(?) degrees from approach track.

CAN: n/a

---------------

US:
GPS only routes being published on LE maps with lower altitudes, or G MEA's like 6000 5000G 4000 MOCA etc

US TEC routes: tower to tower IFR clearances (for places like LA basin at low altitude)

Pop up clearances for actual IFR approaches accepted (traffic permitting)

[Nark]

6. In the US IFR in Class G uncontrolled airspace is 'frowned upon' - in Canada it's relied-upon by many.

7. Minimum visibility on a Canadian approach plate is relevant only to the choice of alternate; in the US you must have at least the charted flight visibility to descend below DA/MDH and to land.

8. On the other hand, Part 91 (private) operations in the US can fly the approach past the FAF whatever the weather, whereas in Canada an RVR1200 approach ban applies to private operations.

6: Not allowed to do uncontrolled IFR unless approved in Op Specs. Our airspace is different and abundant, generally 99% of approaches are controlled (class E @ uncontrolled fields(it makes sense, though not how I wrote it))

7: close. You need reported via to shoot approach if prior to FAF. Once after FAF bob's your uncle. Once at DH, you can decend to 100agl if you have the red terminating bars in sight. Then go missed if no runway.

8: No, part 91 still has approach mins. (red FAF )




Great post.

[old_man]

I seem to remember another couple of things (I could be wrong).

-In Canada missed approach instructions that are different than published do no guarantee obstacle clearance where as in the US they do.

-Something along the lines that the US expects you to do the entire missed approach procedure but in Canada you just follow it until you are happy with your altitude and then pick up your own navigation.

-They (US) also don't seem to find it funny when you tell them you are 'VFR over the top'. Apparently a no no.

Anyone care to explain the whole Trouble T thing to me again? It's been a while since I last had to use it.

[Panama Jack]

-They (US) also don't seem to find it funny when you tell them you are 'VFR over the top'. Apparently a no no.

Huh?

[Nark]

-They (US) also don't seem to find it funny when you tell them you are 'VFR over the top'. Apparently a no no.

Huh?

It's called VFR-on-top down here.

[swordfish]

Pop up clearances for actual IFR approaches accepted (traffic permitting)

Ed, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you mean you can't get a pop-up clearance in the US, because you CAN in Canada.

[5x5]

5. In Canada alternate destinations are mandatory in all IFR flight plans; in the US they're only required if you don't have VFR at your destination +/- 1hr of ETA
Any more?

Not true. You can file no-alternate IFR in Canada.

Interesting - care to elaborate? As in what situations or conditions this is allowed?

[OceansEdge]

CARs 724.27

724.27 No Alternate Aerodrome - IFR Flight

For an air operator of aeroplanes to qualify to conduct a flight under IFR without naming an alternate aerodrome on the flight plan the following standard shall be met:

(1) Area of Operations

(a) take-off aerodrome shall be:

(i) situated within the North American continent, the Caribbean islands and Bermuda; and

(ii) not more than the hours of flight time (Scheduled) from the aerodrome of intended landing;

(b) aerodrome of intended landing authorized for no alternate IFR shall meet the requirements of subsection (3) below; and

(c) provided the requirements of subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) are met, the pilot-in-command may refile "No Alternate IFR" on flights to a destination aerodrome in Canada, regardless of the location of the departure aerodrome, when within six hours of the scheduled destination aerodrome.

(2) Weather Requirements

For at least one (1) hour before and until one (1) hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing, there shall be, in respect to that aerodrome:

(a) no fog or other restrictions to visibility, including precipitation, whether forecast or reported, below 3 miles;
(amended 1998/06/01; previous version)

(b) no thunderstorms, whether isolated or otherwise forecast or reported;
(amended 1998/06/01; previous version)

(c) a forecast ceiling of at least 1,000 feet above FAF altitude and a visibility of at least 3 miles or a ceiling of at least 1,500 feet above the MDA and a visibility of at least 6 miles; and

(d) no freezing precipitation whether forecast or reported;
(amended 1998/06/01; previous version)

(3) Aerodrome of Intended Landing - Requirements

(a) the aerodrome of intended landing shall be:

(i) equipped with at least two (2) separate runways each of which shall be operational and suitable for a safe landing for the aeroplane type, taking into consideration the approved operational limitations; and

NOTE:

The reciprocal of one runway is not acceptable as the second runway.

(ii) equipped with emergency or standby electrical power supply in support of the main electrical power supply used to operate all equipment and facilities that are essential to the safe landing of the aeroplane, whether such landing be by day or by night;

(4) Flight Dispatch Requirements

The Operation Control System shall be Type A or Type B as applicable;

(5) Fuel Requirements

The minimum fuel required for a no alternate IFR flight plan must meet the requirements of section 704.20 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and shall include the following:

(a) taxi fuel;

(b) fuel to destination;

(c) contingency fuel;

(d) holding reserve fuel; and

(e) fuel for flights in International and Northern Airspace shall be additional contingency fuel or enroute reserve fuel, whichever is the greater; and

(6) Aerodrome Familiarization

Pilots shall be thoroughly familiar with all suitable diversionary aerodromes which are available (within the fuel and oil reserve carried) in respect of any flight operated on a "no alternate IFR" basis.

These parameters also apply to Foreign Operations (721.19) and 705 (725.35)
Used to be that each runway had to have an independent IFR approach - but that requirement was dropped

Edit: corrected for clarity

[it'sme]

We have a "no alternate" allowance but it requires an Op Spec. The number of times we would use it in the run of a year could be counted on one hand and a finger or two left over. On those occasions however it's handy.

[5x5]

Thanks OceansEdge, but that doesn't really apply to Canadian flights. It just seems to extend the same/similar US rules to US originating flights.

Question to

We have a "no alternate" allowance but it requires an Op Spec. The number of times we would use it in the run of a year could be counted on one hand and a finger or two left over. On those occasions however it's handy.

So this allowance is specific to your companies' OC? And also only for specific conditions? It's not something that is generally available to anyone at any time?

I'm not trying to be difficult, just want to be sure I understand what is being said. Thanks.

[fish4life]

I can almost guarantee the big 3 (WJ, AC, and Jazz) have the no ALT IFR ops spec and probably use it regularly, why not extra fuel carried is weight that you don't need to be carrying. My friend flies for Calm Air and he tells me they use the no alt ifr ops spec fairly regularly

[photofly]

9. There are no cold weather corrections charted for approach altitudes in the US. There's nothing stopping you from applying them, but they're not a documented procedure.

[Hedley]

I can't believe they don't correct for cold temps in Alaska, IFR.

Nark?

[photofly]

If flying a (private) C- registered aircraft in the US on an IFR flight plan filed with FSS in the US, to a destination predicting VFR etc. does one need an alternate or not? Whose rules apply, the FAA's or TC's?

[Hedley]

Who's airspace are you in? What are the rules for that airspace?

[photofly]

I can't believe they don't correct for cold temps in Alaska, IFR.

Nark?

Maybe I should be clearer; Even TC doesn't make it compulsory - they use the word "should" in the CAP GEN. And I suspect the FAA suggests that pilots should apply corrections, somewhere. But they don't seem to make as big a fuss about it as TC does.

[it'sme]

So this allowance is specific to your companies' OC? And also only for specific conditions? It's not something that is generally available to anyone at any time?

All correct

Another difference between Canada and US of course is to do with flight plans. In Canada it's assumed you depart at the time on your IFR flight plan and ATS will start looking for you after a prescribed interval.

[photofly]

Who's airspace are you in? What are the rules for that airspace?

US airspace. The rules follow the airspace in this case, not the aircraft? That makes more sense than the alternative, certainly, but when it comes to aviation regulations that isn't always the case!

[Hedley]

Certainly for a privately-registered aircraft, when in the USA, do what the FAA says to do.