Approach Ban

[anjouan]

Under PANS-OPS what met conditions cause a ban on commencing an instrument approach or continuing beyond the IAF and/or FAF? I seem to remember something in ICAO Annex 14 saying that after the FAF an aircraft can continue with the approach, but that before arrival at the FAF either the cloud ceiling or the visibility must be above the state minima. Can anyone enlighten me and tell me where the information is to be found? It's been too many years since I had to think about such things, but it looks as if I'm goin to have to do an instrument rating for the first tiime in many years so I'd aprreciate any help.
Thanks.
Anjouan

[keithl]

Cloud ceiling doesn't come into it, only RVR or met Vis. IAF and FAF also don't come into it, as the "Outer Marker or equivalent position" is the point at which you must have the appropriate minimum RVR in order to continue the approach.

I don't believe PANS-OPS has the details; Aerad Flight Information Supplement and Jepp "Terminal" section both quote JAR-OPS1. If you want the full quote, rather than just the reference let me know.

[BOAC]

Keithl - I was under the impression that in France (where else would be different:D ) cloud base could still cause an 'approach ban' - even under JAROPS?

[keithl]

BOAC - You may be right, but that would presumably be found in the "differences" section of the original references. I am quoting the extracts quoted in Aerad/Jepp.

Pause for reading

I've now checked PANS-OPS and JAR-OPS. Being a rotary chap these days I can only give a reference to JAR-OPS 3. It is Sub part D 3.405. I expect its in the same place in JAR-OPS 1. No mention of exceptions for France.

[littlejet]

Under the tab "Air Traffic Control" you will find the chapter
Aerodrome Operating Minima. I think there stays the answer to your question.
Good luck on your exam

[Ojuka]

I tend to use the FAF or a final approach NDB as the "equivalent position" if no outer marker exists. Purely because it is in bold print on the plate with (usually) a prominent DME distance displayed. It is from here you can also start timing for a gross error check on your altitude count down since the times/ranges are tabulated on the plate. In the event of no outer marker or equivalent position, you should remember the 1000' aal approach ban; although it is a poorly equipped airfield that would cause you to use this.

As stated, it is only published RVR (or met visibility converted to an RVR) that would ban your approach. Cloud ceiling is irrelevant; certainly in the UK.

[anjouan]

Thank you all who have replied. I'm still a bit confused because JAR OPS is only a European legislation and I thought there would be something in PANS-OPS, which is ICAO which would refer to it. It seems cloud ceiling is irrelevant in UK and possibly Europe (with a possible exception of France) but I had thought there would be some form of international reference (hence my reference to ICAO) to which the national and pan-national regulations would have to have originally made reference.
Many thanks to all.
The last of the Anjouans

[Empty Cruise]

Anjouan,

PANS-OPS vol 1/2 are only the approach engineers/pilots guide on how apporaches should be constructed.

The legisalture you fly under (FAR-121/135/JAR-OPS1) determine how and if you should fly these approaches.

Thus, JAR-OPS1 will not allow you to continue beyond the OM (or equivalent point) unless you meet operational approach minima (as defined under JAR-OPS, but not lower than state minima).

keithl, IMHO a circling apporach requires ceiling to be taken into consid, but I may be wrong :p

Brgds,
Empty

[keithl]

Empty - An interesting question (Circling App). PANSOPS definition: "An extension of an instrument approach procedure which provides for visual circling of the aerodrome prior to landing.

Therefore, the Approach Ban terms (also IMHO) would not apply - it being, finally, a visual approach. Cloudbase would come into the decision whether to go for a Circling Approach, of course, and there may be different SOPs about it, but I don't think it's covered by the App. Ban itself. At least, I can find no reference.

To put it another way, if you cannot achieve this visual approach according to the met, you would opt for an instrument approach in the normal way.

[bookworm]

Interesting one. I think the Approach Ban a la JAR-OPS 1.405 certainly does in principle apply to a circling approach, it being an instrument approach followed by visual manoeuvring. 1.405 specifically includes reported visibility as well as RVR in its criteria. However, there is no mention of ceiling.

[keithl]

Yes, we need to be a bit more precise.

A Circling Approach starts with an Instrument approach, to which 1(or 3).405 applies. The Circling RVR Min is higher than that for the straight in Instrument Approach therefore a Ban on the Instrument prevents the Visual.

My reply was intended to deal with what seemed a theoretical remark about the Circling phase only. In other words, "If I get to the Circling bit, does Ceiling then come into it?

Edited in pursuit of clarity!

[keithl]

In the absence of further chat on that point, may I ask something that has bothered me for some time:

What is meant by "equivalent position" in this context? Are we free, as Ojuka does, to select an equivalent to an OM ourselves? In which case why does it go on to say "where no ... equivalent position exists...etc" because if we can select it ourselves, there will always be an OM equivalent.

Or is there a technical definition of "equivalent position" that we're missing?

And what would you use, Ojuka, for an OM equivalent at Glasgow ILS23, for example, where the FAF is at 8.9nm (hardly equivalent to where an OM would be) and there's no suitable NDB?

[Ojuka]

I would use the FAF at 8.9nm. It can only be advantageous in pulling all the stops out to get in. It is frustrating to go around before DA knowing you would like to have gone down to DA and had a look anyway. You are correct in that it is not equivalent to WHERE an OM would be SITUATED, however the OM is the last PROMINENT published position on the plate, as is the FAF where no OM exists.

Why let air traffic control spoil your day?! Personally, I don't want to know how we are supposed to calculate equivalent position. It can only hinder a flight if it is closer to the runway than we thought!

Ignorance is bliss!!!!!!