Mins go up

[Kip Powick]

A tougher approach on landings

Visibility of 1,600 feet required, up from 1,200 feet Changes apply

to commercial operations

Transport Canada is imposing tougher rules on aircraft landing in bad weather.

The new regulations take effect Dec. 1 and will bring Canada closer to international and U.S. standards for safe landings in poor visibility.

The changes come four months after a joint investigation by the Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator and The Record of Waterloo Region. The investigation exposed glaring deficiencies in the landing-approach rules, and a decade of delays by Transport Canada on introducing changes.

Existing rules require pilots to abandon their approach if visibility measured by instruments on the runway falls below 1,200 feet. At airports without the runway sensors, a loophole means there is no approach ban at all.

The new rules will introduce a sliding scale of visibility required to complete an approach, depending on the sophistication of equipment on planes and on the ground, and on levels of crew training.

For typical commercial flights operating between significant population centres, the visibility required will be 1,600 feet.

For certain specially-equipped aircraft, or on runways with high-intensity runway centre line lighting, approaches down to 1,200 feet visibility will still be allowed for specially trained crews.

Since the series, Transport Canada has also moved to require sophisticated collision-avoidance systems on most commercial passenger aircraft, another long-delayed initiative. The series revealed that from 2001 to 2005, 80,000 passengers boarded planes that came too close in the sky.

The new landing rules, which apply only to commercial operations, include a broad exemption for airports north of the 60th parallel, which borders Canada's northern territories. But for southern locations, the minimum visibility required to complete an instrument-guided approach is being increased in most cases.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has been calling for tougher rules ever since an Air Canada regional jet crashed in Fredericton in 1997. A 2002 TSB report said 34 people had been killed and 28 seriously injured between 1994 and 2001 in mishaps "where low visibilities and/or ceilings contributed to the accident."

The TSB has said pilots sometimes fly approaches when they have little chance of completing a safe landing.

The lobby group representing Canadian airlines fought to retain the existing rules.

"Passengers are going to have to get used to having to be diverted to an airport they had no intention of flying to, more often," said Fred Gaspar, vice-president, policy and strategic planning for the Air Transport Association of Canada.

"It attempts to put in place a very black-and-white approach to preventing any sort of cowboy (landing) behaviour, but the fact of the matter is that doesn't really occur anyway."

Canada's new rules won't be as strict as those suggested by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Transport Canada says adopting the ICAO standard would cripple the Canadian industry by diverting too many flights.

"Part of our job here is to certainly maintain a level of safety, but we also have to consider a sustainable transportation industry," said Wayne Chapin, chief of certification and operational standards.

The new rules represent a compromise, he said.

Diversions cost money and the new rules will affect some areas and airlines more than it affects others.

Chapin said conditions at Halifax airport fall below the minimum visibility required by the rules 5 per cent of the time — equivalent to 18 days a year.

At Toronto, it is four days or less.

The union representing pilots at several airlines, including Air Canada Jazz and Air Transat, is pleased with the new rules, but says they should also apply to private planes.

"Some fellow in his Cessna 172, with a 30-year-old (automatic direction finder) can come in and shoot an approach in weather I cannot fly in," said Bob Perkins, air safety co-ordinator for the Air Line Pilots Association.

[Moon The Loon]

For one who had no problem with the old rule, I am glad to see the changes. One of the reasons Canada has so few Cat II runways is this old rule. Now many, especially eastern Canadian airports will be forced to upgrade their facilities. Even the mighty Albertan airports at YYC and Leduc will be forced to invest.

This is a good thing. My hat is off to the regulators for their persistence against massive lobbying by industry in favour of the status quo.

[Dork]

Hopefull the new waterfalls in the terminals will help to soothe passengers for the announcement of their cancelled flights.

The cash cow authorities and govt's have left the runway approach aids sorely lacking at some of the notorious wx airports.

[Rookie]

I wonder if AC will change their low viz procedures. They are already more restrictive than the current TC rules, will they make them more so?

[Don Hudson]

Rookie;

Re, "I wonder if AC will change their low viz procedures. They are already more restrictive than the current TC rules, will they make them more so? "

AC changed their low-vis rules years ago in anticipation of this ruling. I doubt if they will be changing again, for, as you say, they are already more restrictive than the CARS.

Kip, was that story from the Toronto Star? I see whoever it is, is taking full credit for "the change", (The changes come four months after a joint investigation by the Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator and The Record of Waterloo Region. The investigation exposed glaring deficiencies in the landing-approach rules, and a decade of delays by Transport Canada on introducing changes.) which is complete nonsense and actually a false and misleading statement...these changes have been in the NPRM process for years. Nothing at TC changes in 4 months...

[Leading Edge]

Funny how visibility standards can be changed so quickly, after a media report, but duty times - hey we are still in the third world.

LE

[Kip Powick]

Kip, was that story from the Toronto Star?

Yes, It was....

[Guest rattler]

Kip: here is the thread on this subject started when the official news release was issued.

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtopic=382611

[Vsplat]

Leading Edge, as Don points out, the media had nothing to do with it.

This effort begain in 1998 and the hold up was a gridlock between regulatory processes. Not even a newspaper could have moved that along.

But, for what it's worth, the Gazette I publication of these rules preceded the Toronto Star story.

I hope someone at TC sets the record straight. It's an insult to the Ops Standards staff who got it going and kept it going.

Vs

[Don Hudson]

Kip..

Re,

"QUOTE (Don Hudson @ Oct 6 2006, 12:22 PM)

Kip, was that story from the Toronto Star? 

Yes, It was.... "

Thanks so much...gee whiz...how did I ever figure that out eh? Just a lucky guess I suppose.

It sure helps destroy the Star's credibility over their flight safety series when they print false claims like that. I truly thought their series on flight safety in Canada had something to say, even for a newspaper, because believe me, there are serious issues to be dealt with. With this dumb claim however, they just blew themselves off with their own hubris and they owe Transport and the people who did so much work on this legislation a public apology. I wonder if expecting that the editors of the Toronto Star would ever be that honorable is off the mark? Shame on the Star.

Leading Edge:

Re "Funny how visibility standards can be changed so quickly, after a media report, but duty times - hey we are still in the third world."

Let's not perpetrate a myth any longer than it has already has been. The Star, article or background work, DID NOT have anything to do with this legislation. That doesn't mean their stories on fatigue weren't helpful and the entire airline pilot community is more than pleased to have seen much of that series bring to public light some flight safety issues including aircrew fatigue. Even bus and truck drivers have stronger legislation as we all grow tired of hearing.

Fact is, the Star printed claims about themselves that aren't the truth and they need to be up front with that fact with their readership and quickly.

[CD]

At least The Star printed the whole story... The Hamilton Spectator didn't even do that...

Investigation Brings Changes in the Air

By Fred Vallance-Jones

The Hamilton Spectator

(Oct 6, 2006)

Transport Canada is imposing tougher rules on aircraft landing in bad weather.

The new regulations will take effect Dec. 1 and will bring Canada closer to international and U.S. standards for making safe landings in poor visibility.

The changes come four months after a joint investigation by The Hamilton Spectator, Toronto Star and the Record of Waterloo Region.

It exposed glaring deficiencies in the landing-approach rules, and a decade of delays by Transport Canada in introducing changes.

Since the series, Transport Canada has also moved to require sophisticated collision-avoidance systems to be placed on most commercial passenger aircraft, another long-delayed initiative.

The Spectator series revealed that from 2001 to 2005, 80,000 passengers were on board planes that came too close in the sky.

Article available here...