All:. .. .Sorry I was out of the loop for a while...thanks to all of you for the responses...excellent info.. .. .Not sure exactly how far apart 33's are at CYYZ but just a quick glance at the aerodrome chart puts the value easily in excess of 3000'. Can anybody tell me if NavCan/TC are even looking at reduced separation requirements for visual ops? When 33's are required, it's always VMC so the issue is not simultaneous instrument procedures but visual ones.. .. .Currently, when we move from E/W to N/S ops at YYZ, we suffer about a 40% reduction in capacity due to these restrictions - all because of wind, not cigs/vis. We are, in fact, better off in RVR 2400 on 06/24 than in CAVOK on 33's. This makes no sense. Further, we are in the process of a huge expansion at YYZ that will see a massive new terminal and new E/W runway twinning which will bring the hourly capacity to some 200 movements/hour (so I am told). So, in the near future, instead of a 40% reduction in capacity, a switch to 33's for wind will now entail a whopping 65% reduction. This will paralyze the airport for 18-24 hrs min in any prolonged circumstance even with the new terminal facilities.. .. .Questions:. .. .1. Do we need special equipment to operate the reduced visual separation minima as do our American friends?. .. .2. If so, do we have it or can we get it?. .. .3. Is there a manpower problem associated here?. .. .4. Why can't I exit DV for departure runway when the ramp is congested beyond all recognition and taxiways C and D are empty? Everywhere else in the WORLD inner is for inbounds, outer is for outbounds.........(oops...was that out loud?). .. .Thanks again for the dialogue, folks. Appreciate the effort!. .. .Per Ardua ad Astra,. .. .ski