Answers to Stakeholder Questions About Aerodrome Operations and the Approach Ban Safety Initiative

by Angus Gauld, Program Manager, Aerodrome Standards, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada;
by Jerome Iltis, Inspector, Aerodrome Standards, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada; and
by Robert Kostecka, Inspector, Flight Standards, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada

During the ongoing consultation for the approach ban safety initiative, there have been several excellent questions asked about the potential impact on aerodrome operations. These questions have come from both airport operators and air operators.

This article will provide answers to some of the questions that we’ve already received. We hope that it will also encourage stakeholders to provide their questions and comments through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council process described in the article Canadian Stakeholders Have a Voice: Understanding the Consultation Process.

• 1. Will the new approach ban regulations have an impact on reduced visibility operations or low visibility operations? Will RVOP and LVOP be changing?

  The upcoming changes to the approach ban regulations will not result in any changes to the existing requirements for reduced and low visibility operations; the infrastructure and procedural requirements in TP 312 that are based on RVR 2600 ($\frac{1}{2}$ SM) and RVR 1200 ($\frac{1}{4}$ SM) will not change:

  • All of the infrastructure requirements that TP 312 specifies for operations below RVR 2600 ($\frac{1}{2}$ SM) will still be required, and all of the infrastructure requirements that TP 312 specifies for operations below RVR 1200 ($\frac{1}{4}$ SM) will still be required.
  • As per TP 312, 8.6.1.2, a reduced-visibility operations plan (RVOP) will still be required at an aerodrome operating in visibility conditions below RVR 2600 ($\frac{1}{2}$ SM), down to RVR 1200 ($\frac{1}{4}$ SM); and, as per TP 312, 8.6.1.1, a low-visibility operations plan (LVOP) will still be required at an aerodrome operating in visibility conditions below RVR 1200 ($\frac{1}{4}$ SM), down to RVR 600.
  • As per TP 312, Introduction, at locations where aircraft operations occur below a visibility value of RVR 2600 ($\frac{1}{2}$ SM), the implementation of a Surface Movement and Guidance Control System (SMGCS) or Advanced Surface Movement and Guidance Control System (A-SMGCS) will still need to be considered as part of the Reduced/Low Visibility Operations Plan.

    

• 2. With the latest amendment to TP 308, will the charted visibility increase, decrease or remain the same?

  The determination of charted visibility for an individual instrument approach procedure is based on the criteria contained in TP 308. These criteria are detailed in the article Supporting the New Approach Ban Regulations: TP 308 Changes and NAV CANADA Collaboration, which also appears in this issue of the Aviation Safety Letter (ASL).

  Transport Canada has reviewed a selection of sites using the new TP 308 criteria to determine how charted visibilities will be affected. In many cases, the new charted visibility value was found to remain the same as the value currently published. In other cases, the new charted visibility value was found to decrease compared to the current visibility value. Only one case was found where the new charted visibility value was greater than the current visibility value.

• 3. The minimum charted visibility for CAT I instrument approach procedures (for runways equipped with centreline lights and touchdown zone lighting) will now be as low as “$\frac{1}{2}$ SM or RVR 1800.” Does this mean that $\frac{1}{2}$ SM will now be considered to be equivalent to RVR 1800?

  No; there will be no change to the existing statute mile/RVR equivalency; i.e., $\frac{1}{2}$ SM will still be considered equivalent to RVR 2600.

  As explained in the answer to Question 1, because the visibility/RVR equivalence is not changing, the infrastructure and procedural requirements that are based on RVR 2600 ($\frac{1}{2}$ SM) and RVR 1200 ($\frac{1}{4}$ SM) will not change.

  Additional information about CAT I instrument approach procedures with RVR 1800 can be found in the article Supporting the New Approach Ban Regulations: TP 308 Changes and NAV CANADA Collaboration, which also appears in this issue of the ASL.

• 4. Will the introduction of CAT I instrument approach procedures with charted visibility as low as “$\frac{1}{2}$ SM or RVR 1800” (for runways with touchdown zone and centreline lighting) impose any new infrastructure requirements on airport or aerodrome operators?

  No; the introduction of CAT I approaches with charted visibility minima of RVR 1800 will not create any new requirements for aerodrome infrastructure and will not impose any new costs for aerodrome operators:

  • The latest changes to instrument approach design criteria in TP 308 will enable runways that already have centreline lighting (CL) and touchdown zone lighting (TDZL) to support CAT I instrument approach procedures with a minimum visibility of RVR 1800.
  • There will be no change required for those runways that do not have TDZL and CL. These runways will continue to support Cat I instrument approach procedures with a minimum charted visibility of “$\frac{1}{2}$ SM (RVR 2600).”
  • Aerodrome operators will continue to have the option of choosing to install CL and TDZL, should they wish to do so.

• 5. What additional information will be available for aerodrome operators?

  While there will be no change to RVOP or LVOP requirements, Aerodrome Standards is undertaking a review of the associated guidance that is available in Advisory Circular (AC) 302-001–Publication of the Level of Service with Respect to Departure Below RVR 2600 ($\frac{1}{2}$ Statute Mile) and AC 302-006–Publication of Special Reduced/Low Visibility Procedures in the Appropriate Aeronautical Information Publication(s). The goal of this review is to:

  • determine if there are opportunities to improve the readability of the information;
  • provide additional background information; and
  • combine both documents into a single comprehensive AC.

Additional questions and comments

Additional questions and comments on how this important safety initiative will affect aerodrome operations are most welcome.

To learn more about how you can provide feedback, please see Canadian Stakeholders Have a Voice: Understanding the Consultation Processand Summing Up and Moving Forward, which also appear in this issue of the ASL.

Angus Gauld joined Transport Canada after an extensive flying career, including various single-engine operational roles and 20 years as an IFR Helicopter EMS Captain, flying Sikorsky 76 and Leonardo 139 aircraft. He holds a Certificate in Air Transport Management.

Jerome Iltis is an inspector in Aerodrome Standards and represents Canada at several ICAO working groups. He holds an Airline Transport Pilot licence for fixed-wing aircraft. He served as a PIC for subpart 703 air operators conducting IFR operations in multi-engine aircraft and was a flight instructor. Jerome has a diploma as a paralegal as well as 10 years experience researching and analyzing the application of Canadian provincial legislation.