Approach ban inside the OM on LVO

[78deg]

Dear All,
-
I have searched the achieves and cannot find an old thread on the subject.
-
I have two opinions on this subject both from TREs, I would be grateful for the forum's help.
-
On a CAT 3 approach inside the OM or equivalent position, A/C Indicating LAND 3 (fail operational) TD RVR 100m (LAND 3 requires 75m). An on board failure occurs which downgrades the A/C to LAND 2 (fail passive) (LAND 2 requires 200m).
-
Question. Should the commander Go-around as the required RVR is not now available, or can the commander continue down to the LAND 2 minima of 50ft and assess if the required visual reference is available?
-
I have added some JAR-OPS 1 below.
-
JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and
continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated may
commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima. (See [JAR-OPS 1.192].)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.

[gatbusdriver]

If you have an A/C downgrade inside the OM and don't have your required RVR (as you quite rightly state 50'/200m for Land 2) you must go around (unless you have an emergency, then you can argue all bets are off).

If you were land 2 when you started the approach (with 200m), then inside the OM the weather reduces to 75m you can continue to your decision height and see if you have the required visual reference (3 lights).

[737incognito]

If some technical problem happens after OM it is not safe to trooble shoot when in LVP. Solution to problem may not be as clear as in your example and mistake would be costly. You should Go-arround first and troobleshoot later. A new briefing should be made and a/c prepared accordingly.

There may be exception that should be in company LVP policies and briefed before app, like "For any failure bellow OM, GA shall be performed except for A/T failure for cat II"

Some companies have single callout for any failure bellow OM in LVP like "Alarm" which calls for immediate GA

Hope this helps

[Henry VIII]

From your example (land 3/land2) it seems you refer to Boeing ship.
On the Bus between 1000 ft anf 200 ft RA any change of landing capability requires a GA, for the reasons explained by 737incognito.
If the downgrading occurs between OM and 1000 ft you can convert your approach minima to 50ft/200mt (or whatelse catIIIa) and "go and see".

HVIII

[737incognito]

Just to be precise, it is OM, DME fix (when there is no OM - usually D4.0 ) or 1000'.
From my experience 1000' is UK thing for UK a/p (and some ex UK colonies) and maybe UK operators elsewhere but for ICAO it's first two.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[78deg]

Thanks so far for the replies,

I am away for a couple of weeks, but please do keep replying.

[converge]

Not so fast with the go-around. It depends on how well the approach was planned. If you're not rushed and had time to brief the contingency and you're inside the OM then you can continue...assuming everything esle is o.k. The regs are specific:

(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.

So, if after passing the OM the RVR falls outside of your current category you can continue. Good airmanship assumes the contingency has been briefed. If it hasn't then go-around.

To illustrate the point, consider a normal ILS where the contingency of a failure of the Glideslope has been included in the briefing. If, once inside the outermarker, the glide slope fails, you can continue to LOC only minimums for two reasons:
1) the contingency has been briefed,
2) the regulations say you can continue because you started the approach outside the OM with sufficient RVR/vis. Once inside the OM if the weather deteriorates the regs say you can continue to minimums. The only thing that changes inside the OM with a G/S failure is that the descent is limited to the LOC only MDA. If the failure occurs outside the OM then you must go around because the requirments are different.

The final caveat is that if the contingency hasn't been briefed and all crew members aren't in the picture then you best option is always to go-around. The same thing applies to LAND 3 versus LAND 2 inside the OM. Of course, individual company ops. may give directions to follow in these cases. But strictly speaking, the regs do not disqualify the approach inside the OM simply because of a downgrading of the approach capability of the aircraft.

[Pub User]

You have to go-around.

The regulations cover a deterioration in weather, not an aircraft system failure as in the example given. The RVR is not in a state of flux, it remains at 100m: well below the required minimum of 200m.

[teamilk&sugar]

As a 757 driver, I would continue to my DH.

I am able to reset my RA DH up to alert height (200ft). If I've passed the OM (or equivalent position) I continue to the applicable minima (however it is derived) and have a look-see.

Simple as that.

Rgds

[dv8]

With no OM on the approach, the ' or equivalent position' is used to define the app ban point

Is it up to you to define that point for example, the FAP on that particular ILS or must it be 4 dme. In which case why does it not say in JAR OPS OM or 4 nm ?

[Megaton]

With no OM, ISTR it's continue descent to 1000'. Don't have the reference to hand I'm afraid.

[Legalapproach]

JAR-OPS makes reference to a deterioration in RVR not in aircraft equipment or capability. To continue the approach with reduced operational capability could lead you wide open to criticism in the event of an incident.

My user name derives from one of my first aviation cases where a commercial pilot continued an approach below minimum RVR and landed short of the runway by about 150 meters. He was prosecuted for reckless endangerment by the CAA and was convicted of negligent endangerment.

[dv8]

HamP

JAR-OPS 1.405
Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome

In any case I found the answer I was looking for

JAR-OPS 1.192 Terminology
Equivalent Position: a position that
can be established by means of a DME distance, a
suitably located NDB or VOR, SRE or PAR fix or
any other suitable fix between 3 and 5 miles from
threshold that independently establishes the
position of the aeroplane.

[Wingswinger]

Just make sure your company's AOC states that it has exemption from ANO article 47(9) otherwise it's simply 1000ft.

[Scallywag]

Pub User, gatbusdriver, legalapproach are spot on, some of you aren't reading the question correctly. teamilk&sugar, you'll have an interview with no tea, milk or sugar.
There are 2 separate issues here.
1. If RVR goes below minima once inside OM (or equivalent position) you may continue approach.
2. If there is a downgrade in aircraft capability inside OM (or equivalent position) you must perform GA.
KISS

[LAHSO 06/03]

Right on Scallywag, Pub User, Gatbusdriver and Legalapproach.

In addition to the fact that you no longer have the required equipment to make the approach legally, it is good to realise that going around is the SAFE option. It surely makes more sense to me to throw away the approach, see what has happened and make an educated descision then to just continue and see what happens.. :}

You didn't get hired to risk it, you got hired not to risk it.
..right?:confused:

[teamilk&sugar]

Pub User, gatbusdriver, legalapproach are spot on, some of you aren't reading the question correctly. teamilk&sugar, you'll have an interview with no tea, milk or sugar.
There are 2 separate issues here.
1. If RVR goes below minima once inside OM (or equivalent position) you may continue approach.
2. If there is a downgrade in aircraft capability inside OM (or equivalent position) you must perform GA.
KISS

Just revisited this thread after a period of time.

Scallywag, I don't know what SOP's your company uses, but I'm afraid in my case, I am right with this!

If the aircraft has a downgrade in equipment to LAND 2, it is still perfectly capable to autoland from CAT II minima.
If I am inside the OM, I am able to reset my RAD ALT to CAT II minima and proceed to that point.

I quote directly from my OPS manual:

From the Outer Marker (or equivalent position to the runway):
If the ASA degrades from LAND 3 to LAND 2, revert to Cat 2 minima. DH setting on the ADI may be changed, if practicable, at any time above alert height.
If the ASA degrade to NO AUTOLAND, the autopilots must be disengaged above 200ftAAL and a manual go-around or ifweather conditions permit (CAT 1), a manual landing performed.


So, I would be interested to know, Scallywag, why you think I would be invited for an interview with no tea & biscuits after reading that...!!


Not all aircraft and companies have the same operating restrictions you know!
Rgds