Canadian IFR Flight Test Groundwork

Andrew Gray from the Regina Flying Club goes over IFR Flight Test Groundwork.
All errors are my own.

[@pilotupnorth1307]

I can say this is the best CAP Gen and General IFR Ground School ever. I shared this video with many pilot friends. It clarified many questions I had even after done my Multi IFR training. THANK YOU for so amazing video. I still have a question. On CAP "Altimeter Setting Requirements" It says: "If pressure is reported as falling rapidly a value may be added to the published DH/MDA in order to compensate for falling pressure tendency (0.01 inches mercury = 10 feet correction)". So, the question is: Upon planning my XC and checking the forecasts and I see the pressure on GFA expected to be 0.1 lower may I add 100ft to DH/MDA or it only applies when I`m already in flight and I notice the pressure falling rapidly? I see it states "MAY" and not "MUST". Even though I wanna understand it better. Thank you so much Andrew

[@AtlasStruts]

Wow! First off, you just made my day! Thank you so much for your kind words. To answer your question, in practice you would never use a GFA for any altitudes approach related beyond the planning phase. The GFA is designed to give you an approximate idea of weather to be expected enroute, and because they are only issued every 6 hours they will not be reliable. Instead you should use a local (or nearby if allowed) altimeter setting, provided it is within the validity period (90 minutes if memory serves correctly). Because the CAP says “may”, more altitude compensation is always a good thing, but my interpretation is that it is not strictly required. Good airmanship, however, would dictate higher margins of safety - particularly in remote areas, with PRESFR, remote altimeters and a stale/old altimeter setting. Always plan for the worst, and hope for the best. Does that answer your question?

[@pilotupnorth1307]

@@AtlasStruts OMG so fast answer! Thank you fir each single word. Yes, you answered everything. Thank for that too. About using GFA for pressure, I meant for planning only. Enroute for sure, pick the closest should be the best to do. Now, it’s time to marathon all the other videos. I love learning!

[@Ifly96]

Just so there isn't any confusion at 1:21:00. Regardless of the aircraft certification and pilots qualifications for RVR1200 and RVR600 OPS, the runway still has to be assessed down to those values for the takeoff to be conducted legally. RVR training does not allow a pilot to conduct a takeoff below the published value even if you hold the ops spec for a lower RVR takeoff. Im flying in Alberta and hold the RVR1200 training and our company has the RVR1200 ops spec but there are only 3 airports with certified runways in Alberta that are assessed for RVR1200 departures (CYEG, CYYC, CYQU)

[@imaginemy3268]

Andrew, I've been studying for my 6-6-6 and your video has been of AMAZING help. I was looking for a way to review most of the CAP GEN / IFR procedures in Canada and I feel lucky to have found your channel, as most of the content online is referring to the FAA. Thank you so much for the time and effort you put into this video, your students are very lucky to have you :)

[@AtlasStruts]

@@imaginemy3268 Thank you so much for your kind words! Feel free to share with anyone else you think may find it useful. Cheers!

[@Princeton009]

Thank you so much for this!! Would like more of this kind of training videos

[@AtlasStruts]

Glad you enjoyed! I have other videos on my channel, mostly technique though instead of groundwork. Take a look and hopefully you find it useful.

[@OmarAli-zj1tu]

One word, WOW. This was GREAT!!!! I was looking online for anything that would help me with my IPC coming up soon and this was just amazing as a revision of things I already knew PLUS a lot of new eye opening stuff. Thank you for taking the time

[@AtlasStruts]

Thank you so much for your kind words! It means a lot

[@J.L.-qe7jk]

Andrew, thanks so much for posting this. I used this before my IPC and it was a great refresher, plus I picked up a few nuances as well. Great job!

[@AtlasStruts]

Thank you so much!

[@diazgrajoauin]

awesome video

[@ablayendiongue1491]

Thank you for going through CAP !! I appreciated the whole presentation. Two things to mention : 1) It's something that many people got confused by, but the LPV is supposed to be a Non-Precision Approach. The only reason why this RNAV approach uses DA/DH (like LNAV/VNAV) is because their Vertical Guidance is certified. 2) The temperature range limitation for LNAV/VNAV is due to the fact that this type approach is based on Baro-aided instrument. So obviously, the temperature will dictate the reliability of this RNAV approach.

[@AtlasStruts]

Very insightful! Thanks for the input and feedback

[@adrianbernstein3006]

I enjoyed your video. You mentioned first about Take offs at RVR 1200 “ you go “ after you qualified that you need an Ops spec to do that. But excellent learning video.

[@bpin6021]

Awesome video! Thanks for taking the time to make these! Watched this the day before my Ifr flight test and passed 😄

[@AtlasStruts]

Fantastic! Congratulations! Happy to help

[@benjohnson4606]

Great video, very well explained, just one thing, ( don’t know if it’s just a Canadian thing) I get confused with your use of the word ‘one half’ in relation to take off minima. Should it not be be pronounced as just a ‘half’ , the way you pronounce it, if I was just listening, would be to interpret that as 1 1/2 ( ie 1 and a half miles ). I note later in presentation you say it correctly as ‘half’

[@AtlasStruts]

Appreciate the feedback!

[@sunnylerouge5483]

Good job thanks for your time , enjoyed it

[@pilotgirl5953]

Absolutely awesome! Thank you for doing this.

[@ivandrivinskyi2646]

Such a great video. So helpful! Thank you for knowledge sharing. Your video helps me with my flight test which I have soon as a final step of my Ukrainian ATPL to TC ATPL.

[@AtlasStruts]

Thank you so much for your kind words! Glad you enjoyed. Welcome to Canada and best of luck in your training!

[@ivandrivinskyi2646]

@@AtlasStruts Canada is a great country with a kind people! 🇨🇦💛💙

[@mattthepilot6283]

Great video! Thank you

[@simfun2122]

This video was amazing thank you so much!

[@sidgoldschmidt7413]

This is great! thanks for taking the time and effort!

[@AtlasStruts]

Thank you for watching!

[@naimeavdylifeta]

Thank you so much for this video so much appreciated!!! Great Instructor!!

[@AtlasStruts]

Thank you for your kind words! Always appreciated

[@alexandrerousseaudug]

Great stuff, really clear, super helpful!!

[@Mohamed-qp7nb]

Love it!

[@Cristian-gv3ps]

In the min 56 you start talking about taxiing to take off. How about if I need to taxi from the main apron to a cargo apron? what should be my minimum visibility to do the taxi?

[@AtlasStruts]

Good question! My interpretation is that you would still be governed by the Level of Service of the active runway, even if you’re not taxiing in that direction. The reason I say this is because the Level of Service does not show preference to your origin on the field, so it would follow that the entire field is certified to that visibility under those conditions. But. When in doubt, it’s easiest to just confirm with the controlling agency to ensure that’s the case (Tower, or FSS). I’ve done this a few times up north to confirm my interpretation was correct, and they don’t mind helping me out. That said, I’m no authority here, so you can consider double checking with NavCanada as well. This is certainly an edge case. Another thing to consider is that under certain RVOP/LVOP conditions, there will be specific taxiways that will need to be followed during taxi-out/in that each airport specifies on their own, and publish charts for. That is beyond the scope of this lesson, however.

[@AidanCharles1]

In your example around the 01:59:00 mark for the RNAV Z RWY 26. Would the alternate minima not still be the standard 800-2? From my interpretation the 300-1 rule would only give you 688 ft HAT which would round up to the nearest 100ft increment, per the CAP GEN. This leaves you with 700ft. The 800 is still greater, therefore the 800-2 minima would take precedence no?

[@AtlasStruts]

You are correct with regards to the altitude, but the visibility would still need to be increased (1 1/4 + 1 = 2 1/4). Visibility and ceiling are treated as independent variables, so you need to take the greater of both. So the alternate minimums in this situation would be 800’ - 2 1/4 SM. Because this is no longer a “standard alternate” of either 600-2 or 800-2, you can no longer use the sliding scales. Does that make sense?

[@AidanCharles1]

@@AtlasStruts Makes perfect sense! Thanks for your reply and the effort you put into this video.

[@desmondchantiam8892]

Great video. Can you explain what you mean about landing and level of service when there is no approach ban. You said you could not land if it was 1/4 sm on 26 even if you saw the Rwy, but then highlighted the RVO level service on iPad. Can you clarify? It was my understanding that you can land if you have visual reference when at minimums (technically visibility is not stopping you on landings here). Obviously level of service will come into play because if you land and it’s below rvo, you are somewhat stuck there.

[@AidanCharles1]

@@desmondchantiam8892 From my understanding you need to refer to the CFS to determine the acceptable aerodrome operating visibility. If no visibility is published in the CFS for a specific runway it is 1/2sm. So assuming an aerodrome has no transmissometer or no RVR available. You can continue the approach beyond the FAF but even if you have the runway in sight at DH/MDA you cannot land as that aerodrome is now below the published minimum aerodrome operating vis. Practically speaking I don’t see a situation when this would ever happen as the runway certification refers to lighting, etc.

[@AtlasStruts]

@@desmondchantiam8892 The approach ban may not be limiting (due to no RVR transmissometer for the particular runway) but even if you get the field in sight at minimums, below 1/2 sm for this runway would be below the level of service, and thus it is not considered a valid runway. So you would need both: (1) > 1/2sm visibility, and (2) be able to see the runway environment prior to reaching minimums I’ll see if I can pull up a resource for you for confirmation

[@Jet2Guy]

this is great. Any plans for a cpl one?

[@AtlasStruts]

Thanks! But no, I no longer instruct.

[@joewedge1480]

Great info…. What was the name of the cold temp conversion app?

[@AtlasStruts]

Fly By E6B

[@AtlasStruts]

And thanks! Always appreciate the feedback!