Sign in to follow this  
AIP

RVO

Recommended Posts

agree wholeheartedly, the airports are going to be crying poor very soon.

The airlines and operators in the meantime better batten down the hatches for the public reaction the first little while these things come into play.

People are only interested in safety issues when it does not adversely affect them !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what YSJ has planned, still awaiting TC approval but I'm sure most other aerodromes will try and implement same procedures. Here's hoping that this isn't going to be as big a deal as some think!?

Reduced Visibility

Operations Plan

Saint John Airport

INTRODUCTION

Saint John Airport Inc. management and staff are committed to providing a safe and efficient airside operation whether pertaining to vehicles or aircraft. A high priority has been placed on ensuring that all activity pertaining to airport airside vehicle operations are performed safely and minimizing any conflicts between aircraft and vehicles.

The Reduced Visibility Operations Plan is part of management’s commitment to providing a safe airside operating environment. The objective of the plan is to develop and implement a set of procedures that will minimize conflicts between vehicles and aircraft during those periods of time when reduced visibility occurs. The procedures identified will limit or restrict vehicle operations on the movement and manoeuvring area during periods of reduced visibility.

This plan is intended to provide interim measures to mitigate the absence of Runway Guard Lights. Saint John Airport Inc. intends to have these lights installed by December 1, 2010.

DEFINITIONS

Reduced Visibility Operations – Means operations below RVR2600 down to and including RVR 1200.

Reduced Visibility Operations Plan (RVOP) – is a plan that calls for specific vehicle procedures to be followed by the Airport Operator when notified by FSS that the RVR is below 2600 down to and including 1200RVR. The RVOP will be activated or terminated when the RVR is at the targeted RVR.

Critical Vehicles – will be those vehicles allowed onto the movement and manoeuvering areas when the airport is in Reduced Visibility Operations. Those vehicles are listed as follows:

• Emergency Response vehicles when responding to an emergency, during vehicle run-ups, runway inspections and wildlife patrols;

• All snow removal vehicles when clearing snow from the manoeuvering areas;

• Foreman’s vehicle when performing runway surface condition inspections and reports or when monitoring runway conditions and snow removal equipment;

• Electrician’s vehicle when inspecting, repairing or removing snow from around various airside lighting systems required for the safe operation of aircraft;

• NavCanada vehicles when responding to Instrument Landing System or RVR equipment failures or warnings;

• Airline equipment essential to aircraft ground servicing on the apron, only when required at flight times;

• Atlantic Flight Center’s tractor (via the groundside road, east-end gate) only when required for aircraft servicing at flight times;

• Esso fuel truck (via the groundside road, east-end gate) only when required for aircraft servicing at flight times;

• PLH fuel truck (via the groundside road, east-end gate) only when required for aircraft servicing at flight times.

PROCEDURES

With the cooperation of the F.S.S., the following procedures will be implemented by the Airport Authority:

• The F.S.S. will notify Saint John Airport Inc. (SJAI) Commissionaire (638-5557) when the RVR has dropped below RVR2600 down to and including RVR1200. When conditions vary between the two RVR’s, the lower reading will prevail;

• The Commissionaires will, on behalf of SJAI, advise FSS to implement the Reduced Visibility Operations Plan, and will notify SJAI Management by making a notation in the daily log book.

• FSS will then broadcast the following on the Vehicle frequency (121.9):

“Attention all vehicles. Reduced Visibility Operations are now in effect. All non-essential vehicles must exit the manoeuvering area and report off.”

Anyone, other than critical vehicles, subsequently requesting access will be made aware of the RVOP. When the RVOP is put into effect only critical vehicles previously identified will be allowed access onto the movement and maneuvering areas and only for critical response purposes.

• Maintenance activity not required for critical Reduced Visibility Operations will not be allowed.

• Construction activity on the movement and manoeuvering areas will not be allowed during Reduced Visibility Operations, except when a NOTAM is issued closing part of the manoeuvering area. This would allow work to be safely performed on a taxiway or runway if there is a specified taxi route and barricades are properly placed.

• Termination of Reduced Visibility Operations will occur when FSS advises the Commissionaires that the RVR is at or above 2600.

• The Commissionaire will, on behalf of SJAI, request FSS to broadcast this on the vehicle radio frequency (121.9). “Attention All Vehicles. Reduced Visibility Vehicle Operations is now terminated”

• It will be the responsibility of the Manager, Maintenance and Technical Operations to review this plan annually and make any necessary changes.

• Initial training and refresher training will be provided on an annual basis. The most appropriate time to provide the refresher training would be at the start of each winter operations season when the seasonal employees are receiving their refresher orientation training.

• Saint John Airport ARFF (Aircraft Rescue Firefighters) Category 5 response is available during RVOP conditions during operating hours (05:30-23:30).

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread folks.... good reading even if the subject may cause some major operational issues next week.

In an effort to save money, a six sigma project resulted in the removal of the Flight Sup from our fleet wide aircraft library... I suspect this will return until Jepp catches up with all the changes... argh not looking forward to the next amendment cycle sad.gif

Slim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great thread folks.... good reading even if the subject may cause some major operational issues next week.

In an effort to save money, a six sigma project resulted in the removal of the Flight Sup from our fleet wide aircraft library... I suspect this will return until Jepp catches up with all the changes... argh not looking forward to the next amendment cycle sad.gif

Slim

Hey Slim: You're carrying Jepps? The information will probably be in the Airports section, if you carry that extra volume. Jeppesen is usually pretty good at capturing stuff like this, no matter how "off the wall" the change. There should even be a Briefing Bulletin detailing same. I'll know a little more about that next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what YSJ has planned, still awaiting TC approval but I'm sure most other aerodromes will try and implement same procedures. Here's hoping that this isn't going to be as big a deal as some think!? ....

Hope so, too, snobrd6 - This might be about filling in the gap for some mitigation procedure between RVR2600-1200 (RVOP - there's the problem, not enough acronyms!), as contemplated in CBAAC 0256. LVOP's don't generally apply until <RVR1200. The CYSJ procedures seem fairly common-sense, and don't look like they'd create much disruption for flight ops. Maybe that's the sort of thing that has to be in place? Fingers crossed.

I sure would like to see what's in the internal bulletins and amendments that are stirring things up, tho'. Next couple of days will probably shed light rolleyes.gif

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National NOTAM just issued:

090016 CYHQ OPS

CYHQ AMEND CFS GENERAL SECTION, SPECIAL NOTICES AND AERODROMES AND

FACILITY LEGEND - ANNOTATIONS AND CODES, RWY DATA, PARAGRAPH C,

ADD: THIS INFO AND CORRESPONDING INFO FOUND IN AERODROME/FACILITY

DIRECTORY, RWY DATA, EFFECTIVE 0901Z 12 MAR 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rozar s'macco

We can land safely at 140 kts but can't taxi safely at 10 kts. I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, runway incursions are SA related, not so much visibility. The one I nearly created happened in Boston on a clear blue day. Fortunately I realized my error just as I was crossing a stop line, wondering "What's that doing in the middle of a taxiway?" blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is brilliant. What a way to kickstart the economy. This alone should provide enough spending to run the TSX up 5000 points or better. We're all gonna be rich. This may be a good stock to invest our overtime we earn while we sit waiting to taxi to the gate.

http://www.degdaco.com/ biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the section out of the March 12th CFS pertaining to RWY Data...

post-5-1236621197_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Slim: You're carrying Jepps?

Yes all 20 lbs of the friggin things!

Ok I am lazy laugh.gif ... I don't want to have to access different manuals/publications on a constant basis just to figure out if I can taxi! I know it's probably too late but maybe we should have a nice clear simple Taxi/Takeoff minima page that encompasses these restrictions for each airport??

While we are at it maybe list taxi minima on the approach plate for the runway in use. ?? Highest RVR governs approach minima?

Does anyone know what the required taxi RVR minima will be when we leave the centerline taxiway lighting and transition to the painted yellow line to get to the unseen terminal/gate?

Warning! Huge amendment coming! biggrin.gif

Slim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heads up for the WJ guys. I did some comparing the LIDO visibility charts vs the CFS, and the LIDOS agree with the CFS, but for some airports, the CFS shows 1/2 mile, yet the LIDO's still show a lower vis. I think the CFS has precedence, but not positive yet. Gonna make a phone call today or tommorow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the CFS has precedence

Yes, it does. As it is referred to in the CAR's, whatever is incorporated can be considered legally limiting.

It's a technique called "incorporation by reference."

This enables legislators to use (for instance) the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations even though this is a document published outside the control of Canadian government. It has been deemed suitable for use within the Canadian transportation system. Prosecutions however will still take place under the Canadian regulations which "incorporate by reference, as amended from time to time" the IATA regs.

You can see this phrase in several spots in not only the CAR's but the Aeronautics Act and other Canadian legislation. It is not a phrase well liked by such committees as the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, a committee comprised of members from both Houses to oversee the Regulators.

But, I digress...

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/Do...17&Seq=3&Lang=E

******

If we had any kind of a "grace period", it is over at 0901Z 12 March 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC 300-003 published on TC's website today <-< Sorry, with PDA, I'm not able to paste contents or attach the file.

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one.

BTW, I made an edit to the last post I made on page one of this thread. It was about who can make Regulations in this country pursuant to an Act of Parliament. My initial post was not quite correct.

This new Advisory Circular format seems to follow the various CAR Parts. Maybe one day, they'll come up with an index rather than having to know the AC number prior to searching for it....see below

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/IMSdoc/ACs/700/700-007.htm

Sorry, can't attach this one - the file's too big sad.gif

EDIT: http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/IMSdoc/menu.htm

Click on the Big Left Pyramid, Advisory Circulars to access all New Format AC's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you liked our Snowfall Intensity vs Visibility chart and Approach ban table.... You'll love our new LO VIZ SFC Movement rules biggrin.gif

Hi We're from the government and we're here to help! laugh.gif

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is was it is.

Maybe CYWG has a bit of a chance on runway 36. Still can't taxi though.

We'll see what happens when the WX goes for the spring "foggies" goes on around the country.

Away we go with bigger AIF's for a bunch of the airports (and a very nice excuse - especially for pilots like us) to increase the the fees.

Finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to folks I must say I am a bit surprised by some of the responses here.

These are not new regulations as pointed out by others and were hilighted in a CBAAC back in 2006. I was at one of the regular Atlantic Regional Civil Aviation Safety Committee meetings in November of 2006 where this was discussed. In attendance as well were flight safety representatives of Jazz, ACA along with most 604, 702, 703 and 704 operators in the Atlantic region, most airport authorities in the region, TC, NC and others. This should not be new information to any of those folks.

The airport where we have our main base has been keeping us updated on their RVOP planning. TC had required a plan to be in place as of last fall. At a meeting with airport authorities in November '08 we were advised that TC had delayed this until March 2009. Nobody should have been caught off guard here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are not new regulations as pointed out by others and were hilighted in a CBAAC back in 2006.

The problem that is being discussed is in part along the lines that these new procedures are not regulations at all, but a very significant change to the way pilots do their business.

And this has not been policy only since 2006 with the advisory circular you mention - it has been in TP312 since 1993. That's the manual that describes how to build an airport. TP312 is in the middle of a re-write, I've been told.

The bigger issue is as you've pointed out - meetings have been taking place with airport operators and industry. Why have such major airports as Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa and so many others not come up with an RVO plan? If airports like Saint John can (and has done), what are so many other airports' excuses?

I suggest many of these other airports have been wasting their AIF's on glitz.

Getting back to TP312, when it was written, all the major airports across the country were owned and operated by the Feds. So now who's fault is it that this required minimum lighting standard that's been in effect (not by regulation, but by policy) since at least 1993 was not in place prior to the transfer to municipalites?

Most of the comment in this thread is from (I expect) users of Canadian airports who were not privy to the internal discussions. Hence the surpise. A great many people had no idea this policy was coming into effect. While others did but just didn't tell anybody until the last minute. That's what this is all about (as posted earlier):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/IMSdoc/ACs/300/300-003.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

090126 CYOW OTTAWA/MACDONALD-CARTIER INTL

CYOW WEF 0903120901 AMEND PUB: RWY DATA ADD:

RWY 14 RVR 1200(1/4SM)/32 RVR 1200(1/4SM)

RWY 07 RVR 1200(1/4SM)/25 RVR 1200(1/4SM

090104 CYWG WINNIPEG/JAMES ARMSTRONG RICHARDSON INTL

CYWG WEF 0903120901 AMEND PUB: RWY DATA ADD:

RWY 18 RVR 1200 (1/4 SM) RWY 36 RVR 600

090232 CYEG EDMONTON INTL

CYEG AMEND PUB: RWY DATA: ADD

RWY 02 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY

RWY 20 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY

RWY 12 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY

RWY 30 RVR 1200(1/4SM) DAY ONLY

090106 CYYC CALGARY INTL

CYYC AMEND PUB RWY DATA: ADD RWY 16 RVR 1200 (1/4 SM) RWY 34

RVR 1200 (1/4 SM)

They probably missed the publication cutoff time for the CFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this