MUC CATIvsCATII?

[chasing767]

hi everybody,
couldn't find a thing on that.
while approaching EDDM ,ovc002 RVR 600 all parts and CAT II operations imposed one may be asked "what his/her minimum RVR is?" or " is he/she CAT II approved? " depending on the ATCO on the given day. if you are CAT I at a time ( plane or crew out of CATII capability)answering the former question with "550m" you will be able to make it, while the latter force you to answer "CAT I only" and you may be rejected ( happened to me few times).can see no reason to fly to an alternate while landing conditions are good enough to perform safe CAT I approach and I am refused to commence approach the one day and accepted the other day.any regulation on this or is it only up to an ATCO in charge?any idea what's it about?
ch767

[TopBunk]

I don't think that ATC can refuse anyone the option to make an approach. They very well may then check the AOC of the operator to determine if the approach was legally made and take it up through the national body with the operator if there is any suspicion of an illegal approach.

The conditions you give of 600m RVR are Cat 1, so I cannot think of any right of an ATCO to deny you an approach. They may be operating with LVP's in force, but that is about system protection for the runway environment, the weather may well still be Cat 1. In asking you your capability, they are clarifiying just that.

All imho

[chasing767]

that's exactly what I thought but happened to me more than once and I ended up in EDDF (being my alternate at a time.)
also heard from other crews.
regards
ch767

[Willard W. Willard]

Atc cannot deny you an app.
Simply insist that your minimum is 550m and that it is irrelevant if cat 1or2or3
are in progress.Sometimes when the weather gets better we will have 800m+
and still have catIII.
If it happens again just write a report(or report back here and I will give you an email add or phone nmbr).

WWW

[chasing767]

thanks WWW.
I'll do it if it happens again.
ch767

[Sky_Masterson]

Also, an important factor to point out here is that an Atco shall not
deny an approach to any A/c, even if it is well below the minima RVR published for the specified approach chart.
He should stress on RTF that the rnw is below the minima and if he/she commences the app and goes below 1000 feet QNH, the atco will report the
issue to the authorities. Once reported the fact the ATCO is obligued to pass the traffic information and meteo and cleared the landing
In the first case, to avoid any diversion, specifically when you as Pic have checked the RVR complies with the published minima is to report as soon as possible and continue the approach. The rtf would be recorded to clarify later on the misunderstanding with atco, altogether with the operator.
fair winds

[TATC]

Also, an important factor to point out here is that an Atco shall not
deny an approach to any A/c, even if it is well below the minima RVR published for the specified approach chart.
He should stress on RTF that the rnw is below the minima and if he/she commences the app and goes below 1000 feet QNH, the atco will report the
issue to the authorities. Once reported the fact the ATCO is obligued to pass the traffic information and meteo and cleared the landing
In the first case, to avoid any diversion, specifically when you as Pic have checked the RVR complies with the published minima is to report as soon as possible and continue the approach. The rtf would be recorded to clarify later on the misunderstanding with atco, altogether with the operator.
fair winds

In the Uk you dont clear the aircraft to land, the phrase used is "No known traffic to effect you landing runway.... surface wind...."

[Sky_Masterson]

I haven't the mats prt I handy while posting...:oh:

[Bearcat]

i had an atco report me on a cat 11 approach. rvrs were 300m when we passed the om rvrs sank...my call as per Jars to continue and we landed. Happened at the early stages of its introduction.

[caba]

I´m ATC in Germany, and we will not ask a pilot what his minimums are. We just state over RT that CAT II or III is in progress and clear you for the approach together with the latest RVRs.
Tower has to give you the RVRs again BEFORE crossing the OM, and after that it´s up to you!

[crjlover]

In MUC the controller think that they are better and more smart that the other.
A good solution are to answer with the RVR instead of with the CAT.
But I know that in MUC sometimes are difficult the most simple things.

[safetypee]

Accepting that the MUC reason for the request in the originating question is reputable, my experiences of this in Europe were due to ‘knowledgeable’ ATCOs attempting to be helpful by broadcasting a RVR that would be legal on the RT tape. The only thing that they managed to do was to tempt aircraft to make an approach way below the approved weather minima; silly and dangerous.

[chevvron]

The controller has no business asking if you're CAT 1 or 11. It's up to the captain to decide if the approach is within his parameters; he'll be warned that he will be reported if he's below certain minima though.

[chasing767]

crjlover
But I know that in MUC sometimes are difficult the most simple things.
could't agree more.

chevvronThe controller has no business asking if you're CAT 1 or 11. It's up to the captain to decide

I agree with that but the truth is they do ask and you may be rejected one day. bizzare


regards ch767

[BizJetJock]

One of the companies I fly for had a run in with the German CAA over this. Apparently the rules in Germany are that if LVP's are in force you must be Cat 11 approved even if the RVR's are above Cat 1 minima. Pointing out to them that this is not in accordance with JAR's got a response along the lines of "do it again and you can argue that in front of a german court"
Isn't European Harmonisation wonderful?

[safetypee]

chasing767 If you receive such a request, just state your aircraft and operational capability and if you do/do not meet the reported weather minima.
If there are subsequent unreliable weather ‘adjustments’ then file a safety report.
If your approach is rejected then request the reason, and if not available also file a safety report.
Perhaps this also might help BizJetJock in the new EASA era.

[Whaledog]

Just had this happen in MUC last month, 2000 bkn 2500m. But just at sun rise ( of course) I'm on vector almost on final when the rvr starts to drop fast.1 mile outside the faf rvr is reported as 375. controll ask if i'm cat 2 and what rvr i need. I know He was trying to be helpful. BUT rvr below min before crossing the faf is a no go. ( would have been nice to have gotten assigned a holding fix that was on ANY chart I had handy, still don't know where it was, asked for a different fix)Bad part was knowing the rvr was coming back up. ( roll out and mid were increaseing fast) basicaly a left race track right back around onto the ils and hit the faf with 700meters. after that it was a lets have a look see.
I found the controls in MUC to be very professional.And pro active.. Hey, we fly long hours at night a little back up _are you sure you want to do ths knock to the head is a good thing. after all you can still do what ever you think is best. And fill out the paper work on the ground.

[chasing767]

BIZJetJock Apparently the rules in Germany are that if LVP's are in force you must be Cat 11 approved even if the RVR's are above Cat 1 minima.

had a discusion on that a few days ago again with a company mate and heard another explanation. You are not cleared to make this(MUC) approach and subsequent ( often successfull) landing while given RVR is below CAT II/III triggering value (say 800m ,ex.) unless you are CAT II /LVP approved because you are presumed not to be familiar with particular low visibility aerodrome procedures and this may lead to some violation of certain rules which might affect safety( colour-coded lines etc).

the same , however , applies to departing traffic while CATII is still imposed for , say RWY26L, but reported RVR is already well above any T/OFF minimums and I was never banned nor even asked whether I had been familiar with LVP for given APT.
hence i am not convinced . what do you think?

[yonash]

It sounds a bit bitter.

We had a major discussion in Poland, whether it is allowed to let the aircraft approach and land in CAT1 during CAT2 procedures.

As I went throughout major regulations, if not otherwise stated in local MUC regulations -> therefore must it be written in AIP/JEP, there aren't anything against approach/land with CAT1 minima, during CAT2.

The minima for aerodrome, are, according to what i found, the lowest accepted RVR together with decision height. When the lowest acceptable rvr is not stated, it is agreed to use the lowest published minimum in regulation, eg. CAT2 RVR350/DH100ft. Of course, there might be some differences for different categories of aircrafts, but the major conclusion is, that ATC is not permitted (of course, if not stated) to disallowing your approach/landing if your minima are not matching criteria. The only thing, which has already been told here, is that both tower and approach controllers are obliged to pass the present rvr together with approach, and later, landing clearance.

What we allow in Warsaw, is CAT1 approach during CAT2, if the pilot decides. We ask, if the crew knows the procedures (especially in the area of reporting runway vacated and allowed RET to vacate rwy. Rest of this depends of crew, whether pilots will get the contact on the minima, or not.

The other issue is the flow management system. What is being practiced by Brussels, is setting the regulations according to the minimums. What I currently observe, is allowing flight, if the minimum stated in the flight plan matches the one accepted in the airport.If not, it allocates the slot after the regulation finishes. But i've written it here only as the supplement

[Scott Voigt]

Interesting thread...

In the US at some of the major airports we will ask if folks are CAT 1 or 2 or t3. The reason will be that approach won't even take you if you can't make the approach. (In the US you can't even start the approach if you don't have minimums.) If the mins are cat 2 only, everyone else who isn't capable gets to stay in center airspace and hold up in high altitude waiting for either the weather to get better or to go to an alternate. It's not so much taking authority away from the crews as it is allowing for the holding to take place at a much higher altitude where they aren't expending nearly as much fuel.

regards

Scott