|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial and Business Aviation Advisory Circulars |
|
Changes to the Approach BanINTRODUCTION Significant changes to the Approach Ban will come-into-force December 1, 2006, which will affect commercial operators. The aim of this Commercial and Business Aviation Advisory Circular (CBAAC) is to describe the changes so that commercial operators will be prepared for the coming-into-force date. This CBAAC makes reference to material on runway visibility, Stabilized Constant Descent Angle (SCDA) approach and Pilot Monitored Approach (PMA) procedures. CBAAC 0238, SCDA Non-Precision Approach and CBAAC 0239, PMA describe these procedures in more detail. OUTLINE
APPLICABILITY The most significant changes to the Approach Ban will affect commercial operators holding operating certificates under the Subparts 702, 703, 704 and 705 of the CARs operating aeroplanes in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Minimal changes to the approach ban will affect IFR commercial helicopter, and IFR aircraft operations by private operators and general aviation. REFERENCES
TERMINOLOGY
BACKGROUND The present Approach Ban, which applies to all Canadian civil aviation, is published in the Sections 602.129 (General) and 602.130 (CAT III) of the CARs. An exemption that amends Subsection 602.129(3) of the CARs was published in AIC 1/97. The present general Approach Ban is only imposed when RVR sensor equipment record values for the approach below CAT II minima (e.g. aeroplane RVR A 1200 / RVR B 600). The regulation provides exceptions for aircraft that are in descent passed the FAF, training flights that will conduct a missed approach, fluctuating RVR values, ground visibility at least ¼ sm, or CAT III operations. Over a six-year period between 1994 and 1999, at least eight low visibility accidents occurred resulting in seven fatalities, 26 people who suffered injuries of varying degrees of severity, the loss of four aircraft, substantial damage to two aircraft, and minor damage to the other two aircraft. The most prominent were the EMB-110 accident at Little Grand Rapids, MB on 9 December 1997; a CRJ accident at Fredricton, NB on 16 December 1997; and two Beech 1900 accidents at St-Augustin and Sept Isles, PQ on 4 January 1999 and 12 August 1999 respectively. Since 1999 several other accidents have occurred. Three recent occurrences involve large transport category aircraft, fortunately with no loss of life: a Boeing 737, veered off runway 12 at Edmonton International Airport after an approach in freezing fog with visibility RVR 1200 feet; a MD-83, veered off runway 34 at Calgary, AB and then conducted a missed approach in freezing fog with a visibility of RVR 1400 feet. A Boeing 737-7CT damaged a left wing on landing in Halifax, NS in fog with visibility of RVR 1200 feet. The Canadian TSB Aviation Occurrence Report concerning the Air Canada CRJ accident recommended that, “The Department of Transport reassess CAT I approach and landing criteria (re-aligning weather minima with operating requirements) to ensure a level of safety consistent with CAT II criteria.” On the 26 May 1999, the Minister of Transport accepted the TSB’s findings, and a press release stated, “Transport Canada has now decided to develop regulatory amendments to strengthen standards for low-weather instrument approaches, based on the TSB recommendations announced today and on the department’s review of similar incidents. The draft amendments will be the basis of consultation with aviation stakeholders through CARAC as part of the regulatory development process.” After the work of a Study Group reporting to the CARAC Part VI and Part VII of the CARs, Technical Committees, the CARC approved NPAs to the CARs on 10 March 2000. CARC decided to exclude general aviation and private operators from the significant changes to the approach ban, subject to a review of accident data two years following the date of coming-into-force. For the past four years, the proposed changes have been under review by the Department of Justice and Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation, Regulatory Affairs Division. They were pre-published in Canada Gazette I on November 20, 2004, for public comment. 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; to simplify the regulations by systematically aligning the visibility, at which the approach ban will take effect, as a factor of the visibility value determined by the approach procedure design, and to recognize an approach ban for APV approaches. (APV approaches include RNAV (GNSS) and RNAV (RNP) approaches with LPV or LNAV/VNAV minima.) The proposed changes to the regulations and standards will come-into-force after they are published in Canada Gazette II. General Aviation and Private Operators –Subpart 602 of the CARs The changes to the Approach Ban that will affect general aviation and private operators will be minor. The text has been amended to:
RVR In Canada, RVR transmissometers have been replaced with RVR sensors. RVR is displayed to ATS as a mean value of a one minute sliding window that is updated every 15 seconds. Although the sensor has a one foot accuracy, the RVR displayed to ATS is as follows:
Runway Visibility The concept of runway visibility has been added to the regulations. The purpose of runway visibility is to determine and report a visibility at the touchdown zone of a runway that is not equipped with or is not reporting an RVR. An instrument rated pilot or a qualified person (under the Subpart 804 of the CARs, Aviation Weather Services) can assess runway visibility when RVR sensor equipment is not available. In effect, a person is permitted to assess runway visibility from approximately the same position as an RVR A sensor installation. Subpart 622 standards (for pilots) and Subpart 824 standards (for qualified persons) of the CARs will describe how to assess and report runway visibility. Ground Visibility Ground visibility is the prevailing visibility determined by an accredited observer or the visibility determined by an AWOS. Ground visibility determined by an accredited observer is as follows:
Ground visibility determined by AWOS is as follows:
Commercial Air Services – Subpart 700 of the CARs – General – Aeroplane Significant changes to the approach ban will affect commercial IFR aeroplane operations as follows:
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. Specifically, Subpart 700 of the CARs imposes an approach ban when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 720 of the CARs. See Table 1 (Annex A). In the absence of a reported RVR or runway visibility, an approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 720 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 1 (Annex A). For example, for an approach with a CAP published visibility of RVR 40, the approach ban would be imposed if the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be less than RVR 30. 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 at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. The regulation provides exceptions for aircraft that are passed the FAF inbound, training flights that will conduct a missed approach, fluctuating RVR or ground visibility values, localized phenomena, or operations authorized in accordance with a 703, 704 or 705 Ops Spec. CAT II and CAT III precision approaches are banned when the visibility falls below the RVR specified in the CAP. 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. 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 PIC to override an approach ban based on what appears to be a localized phenomena, when in fact an extensive and very poor visibility will be encountered at low altitude during the later stages of the approach, landing and roll-out. The PIC should take all possible information into account before over-riding an approach ban, based on what appears to be a localized phenomenon, in order to avoid conducting an approach during these hazardous conditions. Commercial Air Services – Subpart 700 of the CARs – General – Helicopter Only minor changes to the Approach Ban will affect commercial helicopter IFR operations. The general approach ban that will apply to all IFR commercial helicopter operations will be written in the Subpart 700 of the CARs. The approach ban will be similar to the approach ban that is applicable to general aviation and private operators. Foreign Air Operations – Subpart 701 of the CARs Foreign operators will be governed by their own domestic regulations and authorizations, so long as they are not repugnant to the CARs. In no case should they operate to lower minima than those authorized in the CARs. Air Taxi Operations - Subpart 703 of the CARs – Aeroplane Air Taxi operators holding Ops Spec 019 and conducting operations in accordance with the applicable conditions, are authorized to conduct an IFR approach at a visibility value less than those specified in the Subparts 700/720 of the CARs – General. Depending on the approach operation to be conducted, the applicable conditions, specified in Subparts 703/723 of the CARs, may include:
Because some of the conditions above concern aeroplane equipment and which pilot is using that equipment (i.e. PMA), an operator should review the impact of these changes on their MEL and operational control training. Non-Precision and APV Approach Ban – Subpart 703 of the CARs. Subpart 703 of the CARs imposes a non-precision or APV approach ban on IFR aeroplane operations when the RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported to be below the RVR or visibility value corresponding to approximately 50% of the CAP published visibility specified for the procedure flown. Specifically, a non-precision or APV approach ban is imposed on IFR Air Taxi aeroplane operations when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 723 of the CARs. See Table 2 (Annex A). In the absence of an RVR or runway visibility, a non-precision or APV approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 723 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 2 (Annex A). For example, for a non-precision or APV approach with a CAP published visibility of RVR 50, the approach ban would be imposed if the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be less than RVR 26. For a non-precision or APV 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 1‑1/4 sm at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. The regulation provides an exception for fluctuating RVR. The conditions, specified in Subparts 703/723 of the CARs, that need to be met from the list above are:
SCDA Non- Precision Approach Ban – Subpart 703 of the CARs. Subpart 703 of the CARs imposes an SCDA non-precision approach ban on IFR aeroplane operations when the RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported to be below the RVR or visibility value corresponding to approximately 50% of the CAP published visibility specified for the procedure flown. Specifically, a SCDA non-precision approach ban is imposed on IFR Air Taxi aeroplane operations when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 723 of the CARs. See Table 2 (Annex A). In the absence of an RVR or runway visibility, an SCDA non-precision approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 723 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 2 (Annex A). The regulation provides an exception for fluctuating RVR. The conditions, specified in Subparts 703/723 of the CARs, that need to be met from the list above are:
Precision Approach Ban – Subpart 703 of the CARs (High Intensity Runway Centre Line Lighting required). Subpart 703 of the CARs imposes a CAT I precision approach ban on IFR aeroplane operations when the RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported to be below the RVR or visibility value corresponding to approximately 50% of the CAP published visibility specified for the procedure flown. Specifically, a CAT I precision approach ban is imposed on IFR Air Taxi aeroplane operations when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 723 of the CARs. See Table 2 (Annex A). In the absence of an RVR or runway visibility, a CAT I precision approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 723 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 2 (Annex A). For example, for a CAT I precision approach with a CAP published visibility of RVR 26, the approach ban would be imposed if the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be less than RVR 12. For a CAT I precision approach with a CAP published visibility of 1/2 sm, the approach ban would be imposed if the ground visibility is reported to be less than 1/4 sm at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. The regulation provides an exception for fluctuating RVR. The conditions, specified in Subparts 703/723 of the CARs, that need to be met from the list above are:
Commuter and Airline Operations – Subparts 704 and 705 of the CARs – Aeroplane Commuter operators and Airline operators holding Ops Spec 303 and 503 respectively conducting operations in accordance with the applicable conditions, are authorized to conduct an IFR approach at a visibility value less than those specified in the Subparts 700/720 of the CARs – General. Depending on the approach operation to be conducted, the applicable conditions, specified in Subparts 704/724 or 705/725 of the CARs, can include:
Because some of the conditions above concern aeroplane equipment and which pilot is using that equipment (i.e. PMA), an operator should review the impact of these changes on their MEL and operational control training. Non-Precision and APV Approach Ban – Subparts 704/705 of the CARs. Subparts 704/705 of the CARs impose a non-precision or APV approach ban on IFR aeroplane operations when the RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported to be below the RVR or visibility value corresponding to approximately 50% of the CAP published visibility specified for the procedure flown. Specifically, a non precision or APV approach ban is imposed on IFR Commuter or Airline aeroplane operations when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subparts 724/725 of the CARs. See Table 2 (Annex A). In the absence of an RVR or runway visibility, a non-precision or APV approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subparts 724/725 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 2 (Annex A). For example, for a non-precision or APV approach with a CAP published visibility of RVR 50, the approach ban would be imposed if the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be less than RVR 26. For a non-precision or APV 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 1‑1/4 sm at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. The regulation provides an exception for fluctuating RVR. The conditions, specified in Subparts 704/724 or 705/725 of the CARs, that need to be met from the list above are:
SCDA Non-Precision Approach Ban – Subparts 704/705 of the CARs. Subparts 704/705 of the CARs impose an SCDA non-precision approach ban on IFR aeroplane operations when the RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported to be below the RVR or visibility value corresponding to approximately 50% of the CAP published visibility specified for the procedure flown. Specifically, a SCDA non precision approach ban is imposed on IFR Commuter or Airline aeroplane operations when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subparts 724/725 of the CARs. See Table 1 (Annex A). In the absence of an RVR or runway visibility, an SCDA non-precision approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subpart 724/725 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 1 (Annex A). The regulation provides an exception for fluctuating RVR. The conditions, specified in Subparts 704/724 or 705/725 of the CARs, that need to be met from the list above are:
Precision Approach Ban – Subparts 704/705 of the CARs (High Intensity Runway Centre Line Lighting or HUD required). Subparts 704/705 of the CARs impose a precision approach ban on IFR aeroplane operations when the RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported to be below the RVR or visibility value corresponding to approximately 50% of the CAP published visibility specified for the procedure flown. Specifically, a precision approach ban is imposed on IFR Commuter and Airline aeroplane operations when the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be below the RVR value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subparts 724/725 of the CARs. See Table 2 (Annex A). In the absence of an RVR or runway visibility, a precision approach ban is imposed when the ground visibility is reported to be less than the visibility value corresponding to the CAP published visibility specified, for the procedure flown, in a table contained in Subparts 724/725 of the CARs at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. See Table 2 (Annex A). For example, for a precision approach with a CAP published visibility of RVR 26, the approach ban would be imposed if the RVR or runway visibility is reported to be less than RVR 12. For a precision approach with a CAP published visibility of 1/2 sm, the approach ban would be imposed if the ground visibility is reported to be less than 1/4 sm at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. The regulation provides an exception for fluctuating RVR. The conditions, specified in Subparts 704/724 or 705/725 of the CARs, that need to be met from the list above are:
SUMMARY Changes to the Approach Ban will soon come‑into‑force. Table 3 (Annex A) provides an overall summary of the present approach ban minima, and the minima that will apply after the new regulations come-into-force. Subparts 700/720 of the CARs will contain the general or “generic” approach ban for all instrument approach procedures that will apply to all Canadian Commercial Operators. The changes are not significant for commercial IFR helicopter operations, general aviation, and private operators. The changes will have a more significant effect on commercial IFR aeroplane operations. Where RVR, runway visibility, or ground visibility is reported, an approach ban can apply. Ground visibility will only impose an approach ban at aerodromes south of 60oN Lat. For aerodromes where no visibility is reported, an approach ban does not apply. The general approach ban will apply when the reported visibility falls below a value of approximately 75% of the CAP published visibility for the instrument approach procedure flown. Subparts 703, 704, and 705 of the CARs operators (who are authorized through Ops Spec 019, 303, or 503 respectively and whose operation meets the specified conditions) may commence an approach in lower visibility conditions than those specified in Subparts 700/720 of the CARs. The specified conditions depend on or may affect flight crew and operational control training, SOPs, aircraft equipment and MEL, and required aerodrome equipment. The approach ban under an Ops Spec will apply when the reported visibility falls below a value of approximately 50% of the CAP published visibility for the instrument approach procedure flown. Finally, PICs are reminded that in accordance with Section 602.128 of the CARs, the required visual reference necessary to continue the approach to land must be established in order to continue the final approach descent below the DA(H); or descend below the MDA. CONCLUSION Commercial operators should review the effect of the proposed changes to the Approach Ban on their operations. Those operators wishing to obtain authorization through Ops Spec 019, 303, or 503; should amend their company operations manual (including training and SOPs, MEL as applicable) to meet the specified conditions and apply to Transport Canada. Original signed by D.B. Sherritt
Annex ATable 1. Approach Ban - General (Subparts 700/720 of the CARs)
Table 2. Approach Ban – Ops Spec (Subparts 703/723, 704/724 or 705/725 of the CARs)
Table 3. Approach Ban Summary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| Transport Canada |
| Pacific Region |
| Prairie & Northern Region |
| Ontario Region |
| Quebec Region |
| Atlantic Region |
| About us |
| Our offices |
| Organization and senior management |
| Departmental publications |
| Programs and services |
| Acts |
| Regulations |
| [More...] |
| Media room |
| Advisories |
| Contacts |
| e-news |
| News releases |
| Photo gallery |
| Reference centre |
| Speeches |
| Video gallery |
| [More...] |
| Emergencies |
| Emergencies and crises |
| Emergency preparedness |
| Security |
| Transport of dangerous goods |
| [More...] |
| Air |
| Our offices |
| Passengers |
| Pilots |
| Flight instructors |
| Maintenance technicians |
| Commercial airlines |
| Security |
| Transport of dangerous goods |
| [More...] |
| Marine |
| Our offices |
| Small commercial vessels |
| Large commercial vessels |
| Pleasure craft |
| Marine security |
| Marine infrastructure |
| Transport of dangerous goods |
| [More...] |
| Rail |
| Our offices |
| Safety at railway crossings |
| Rail infrastructure |
| Rail security |
| Transport of dangerous goods |
| [More...] |
