Approach ban and circling

[bookworm]

METAR EXXX 052120Z 00000KT 9999 R01/P1500U R19/0400 BCFG BKN012 15/14 Q1018=

EXXX has an instrument approach procedure (Cat 1 ILS) on runway 19 only. Can I legally make an approach to runway 19 to circling MDA followed by circling to land on runway 01?

[Ipaq]

If it's allowed, circling minima will be quoted on the approach plate for 19

[President Bush]

An interesting question. I think that you can,PROVIDED you have the required visual reference(Rwy01) by-and do not continue below- the ILS approach ban point OR your circling minima whichever is the HIGHER. Assuming,the visual references are aquired by the higher of the two,you can continue at(or descend to)circling minima but must keep the runway or its' environment in sight at all times throughout the circling manouvre.You cannot descend from your circling MDA unless you have visual contact with the landing runway itself.

[A4]

Circling is a demanding exercise and should be approached with meticulous planning - there's very little room for error that close to the ground.

1.My first thought was why would you want to make a circling approach to an airfield that MUST be in LVP's (RVR <600m)? The airfield probably wouldn't allow it.

2. What's the circling minima? You cannot go below 1000' ARTE as the RVR is below minima for the instrument runway in use (Approach BAN- automatic go-around?). You cannot leave circling minima until the landing threshold/touchdown area is visually acquired and maintained. With RVR at 1500m (approx 1 nm) it's unlikely your going to see it AND maintain it as you descend. YOU are responsible for obstacle clearance so be extremely careful about descening on base leg.

3. Remember PAN OPS circling for Cat C requires you to remain with 4.2nm of threshold/abeam. Taking into account you turn radius, at 1000' agl you will be at just about the limit of that to establish on a 3 mile final.

Those are my thoughts - I'm going to think about it some more :) Legally, I think you can. If the fog split was threshold 19 foggy, runway 01 9999's then it would probably be ok. Anything else becomes an Airmanship/Command decision.

I'll try to find the legal bits.

A4

[Right Way Up]

Silly question, but how do you have 10km viz IN ALL DIRECTIONS with fog patches 400m RVR at one end?

[Spitoon]

Because prevailing vis is not measured at ground level. And RVR is a specific measurement along the runway. It's not an uncommon report.

[President Bush]

I believe the definition changed a year or so ago to at least 50%,rather than ALL DIRECTIONS. A4-in Bookworm's initial posting,the R01 RVR is given as P1500(1e it could be anything greater than that, the max measurable). I doubt circling minima for ANY a/c category would permit a circle to land at an actual value of 1500m repoted RVR.As an aside,you can fly a VISUAL approach down to 800m,presumably by going visual off an instrument approach.HOWEVER,you can't try to buck the system by converting a circling approach to a "visual approach".Got that??!!

[sarah737]

Why would you circle?? You need to be visual to start your circling, so simply continue your ILS to land if you are visual!

[A4]

Sara,

You are not allowed to continue your approach because the RVR is below CAT 1 minima........ I've been in the hold with a clear view of the runway - but the RVR's were 400m! This would only become apparent as your slant view dimished in short final / flare.

A4

Bush - I think I got it. :}

[mgTF]

very nice question, had to take my ops manual to check, and my answer would be: YES you can, because for ils cat2/3 rvr report is mandatory, for cat1 and non precision approach rvr is still the costraining report (but if not avaiable gen visibility is acceptable, eventually converted in rvr!!), but for circling approach the costraining met report is ONLY GEN VIS+CLOUD CEILING!!!

[BOAC]

I'd vote for a 'yes' as long as you can persuade ATC:) - the only 'crippler' is as A4 says, if you NEED to descend below 1000'ARTE on the ILS for circling you are 'technically' illegal, but who is watching..........?:cool:

[Right Way Up]

This comes from Cap 768 Guidance to operators.
3.2 Prevailing visibility encountered could be significantly less than that reported.
Prevailing visibility alone is forecast or reported unless the minimum visibility (in any
sector of the aerodrome) is less than 50% of that prevailing or below 1500 metres
(whichever is worse). In those circumstances, a minimum visibility value and direction
is given in addition to the prevailing visibility. When two visibilities are given, the lower
figure should be used for operational decisions if it could affect the aircraft's approach
to land.
Spitoon - I have encountered that many times but it is reported as MIFG.

[A4]

Could you please elaborate bral?

A4

[A4]

Yes bral, but you are allowed to make an approach irrespective of RVR's provided you do not go below 1,000' ARTE/4d/OM or equivelent if they are still below your minima. Of course, it's a valid question as to why you would want to commence an approach with 300m RVR when you need 550m....unless you plan to circle.

So if Circ minima is 1,100 agl (highish for circling) you could theoretically commence an approach, level off before the approach ban altitude and circle.
Legal? - theoretically yes. Sensible? Open to debate depending upon numerous other factors.

A4

[BOAC]

I'm sure that in the conditions quoted the whole airfield would be visible. I also have sat in the MAY hold with 08 in use at LGW, Cat I a/c and 300m RVR, and the whole of the east end of LGW visible and RVRs in excess of 1500 on 26, but it could not be changed. Finished up at Manston:)

[DFC]

The answer is yes - you can make the approach provided it is a circling to the other end.

Why?

The "Approach Ban" prevents one from continuing an approach beyond the OM or equivalent position if the reported vis/rvr is less than the applicable minimums

In the case described, the applicable minimums are the Circling minima which are in terms of visibility.

The ILS minima is not of interest once it has been decided to circle.

Breaking visual and landing straight-in could bring up an interesting question in that the weather is below the straight - in minima and thus the approach ban would have been broken.

Very intresting situation.

From a practical point of view, I would want 2 alternates and if we went missed from the circling at any stage, would not be hopefull of an improvement in the weather which could justify hanging round to have another go.

Regards,

DFC

[Port Strobe]

A4
provided you do not go below 1,000' ARTE/4d/OM or equivelent position

If ATC are expected to inform the CAA of anyone continuing with RVR below minima, quite what do they use as the cutoff given JAR OPS says pretty much what's above & ANO says 1000' aal? In the context of a commercial operator with G reg aircraft of course :E

[A4]

Well if the Operator is JAR approved in a JAR state and the Ops Man has been derived from JAR-OPS 1 then I'd do what the JAR's say.

Our Ops Manual (JAR(UK)) has the OM or equivalent quote but it also says

....The 'Equivalent Position' can be established by means of:

i) DME distance,
ii) a suitably located NDB or VOR, SRE or PAR fix,
iii) or any other suitable fix that independently establishes the position of
the aircraft.

Additionally:

......Where no outer marker or 'Equivalent Position' exists, the Pilot-in command shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before
descending below 1,000ft above the airport on the final approach segment.

which I suppose ties up the ANO bit.

As most runways have a check alt or marker at 4D (about 1300'agl) trying to get down to Circling altitude might be a bit difficult.

I think we are going round in circles now no-pun intended :) so I think it's probably legal but I'm not sure ATC would be happy with it. I think you'd struggle to get down to Circ minima due 4D/OM issues. That then places you right on the edge of the 4.2 nm obstacle protection limit when turning base/final. Finally, it's probably not the smartest thing to do in an airliner full of people due to the additional visibility factors.

A4

[bookworm]

Interesting answers, thank you.

I think the question lacks important factors such as just what is the circling minimums, vis/mda. At 4 miles and 'only' 400 m rvr and BKN012, just what would be seen ...don't know, enough to circle?

The ceiling was originally chosen to attempt to exclude the possibility of a visual approach to 01. And thanks for the safety tips -- strikes me that the biggest real-world challenge is avoiding the stream of VFR arrivals for 01. ;) But this is solely about legality.

Let me modify the question slightly then:

METAR EXXX 052120Z 00000KT 9999 R01/P1500U R19/0400 BCFG BKN009 15/14 Q1018=

Circling MDH is 600 ft for my category of aircraft. At 1000 ft aal (or the OM, depending on your particular flavour of approach ban) I'm in solid cloud with no visual reference. Can I continue the approach?

[Fredairstair]

uh.... no.

[A4]

"Can I continue the Approach?"

You can do what you like. Whether or not you will continue in employment with your Company or the CAA will allow you to exercise the priveledges of your licence any more is another matter. At the very least it's tea (probably without biccies) and a "chat" with the CP.


However ............

From JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and continuation of the 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 IEM OPS 1.405(a).)

So what's the applicable minima? You are not flying an ILS to land, you are using the ILS to position yourself to circle so does the approach ban apply? I cannot find any reference in the JAR's to say it does or does not.

I can see the arguement that continuing below 1,000 agl/OM/4D is "OK" because I'm going to level at 600' to Circle - NOT to continue the ILS with the restrictive RVR. However it's almost one for the lawyers now and interpretation of words.

Perhaps the best description of the interpretation (I'm NOT doing an ILS, I'm going to Circle) is "not in the spirit intended" by the writer of the regulations.

Still looking for the definative.

A4 :ok:

[DFC]

Once again you have the applicable minima therefore there is no reason why you can not continue the approach to minima and if you have the required visual references complete the circling procedure.
The decend to 1000ft and decide there is a total red herring. If you set your decision height or minimum descent height to 1000ft then;
a) You need higher Visibility / RVR for an approach; and
b) JAR OPS says that if the minima are at or above 1000ft then the company must set a higher height at which the Ban becomes applicable....which is common sense really.
Thus with a new self imposed MDH of 1000ft the ban height would be 1500ft or 2000ft or whatever the company has set.

Overall, we must all remember that we are talking about a rule that deals with comencing and Continuation of an approach which are two separate issues.

Once can not commence an approach when the weather is below applicable minima. That simply means do not start, do not pass go, stay in the hold or however you wish to think of it.

If one has commenced the approach because when one did have the applicable weather at that time, if the weather subsequently deteriorates then there are two cases -

a) Outside the OM or equivalent position or height - Go Arround.

b) Inside the OM or equivalent position or height - continue to minima and decide there.

Thus if the above situation exists before you start the approach then if you believe that you can not complete the approach to applicable minima you will not be starting it a all and you will be diverting or using some holding fuel to hold awaiting an improvement.

Regards,

DFC

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

Just my tuppence worth...I believe the key word here is not applicable minima, but REPORTED RVR/visibility. We all seem to agree that for a circling we need both ceiling and vis not below what the plate says, but once again reported RVR would in my case be applied, hence "...reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.." and I would go somewhere else.

[A4]

DFC:

"....Once can not commence an approach when the weather is below applicable minima. That simply means do not start, do not pass go, stay in the hold or however you wish to think of it......"

But that's in direct contradiction of the JAR-OPS 1.405 as I quoted a couple of post earlier.

"....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."

The crux of the question is this; Are you allowed to disregard the approach ban because you are NOT INTENDING to fly the ILS all the way to land in below minima RVR? You will be leveling off well above CAT 1 minima to circle to the other end which may be "all the 9's" and is clearly visible from the point you level off to commence the circling (new approach - new applicable minima?)

Good topic this.

A4

[bookworm]

but once again reported RVR would in my case be applied, hence "...reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.."

Not sure I follow that. There are two (possibly three) relevant reported data:

Prevailing Meteorological Visibility is 10 km or more
RVR runway 19 is 400 m
RVR runway 01 is more than 1500 m

You talk about "RVR/visibility" but the whole point is that they're very different.

[NW1]

FWIW, had reason to research this recently and confirmed the following IAW my own Co.'s ops manual (JAR compliant, they tell me):

1) You fly the primary IAP to not lower than Circ. Min. Alt. for the RW of intended landing (no point going lower because you wouldn't be permitted to commence the circle).

2) You break for the circle with relevant Vis Ref (you don't need the RW in sight yet - that's for the final descent below Circ. Min. Alt.), but no later than the IAP Missed Approach Point (obviously) [the MAP for an ILS is the point where the Glideslope intersects the ILS DA]

3) Circ. Min. Visibility is quoted for planning purposes and doesn't play a role in consideration of an approach ban: you may proceed with the circle as long as you have Vis Ref and 800m RVR or more (if reported) [Again, no point flying the IAP with less than 800m RVR because you may not fly a circling approach in these conditions, but you may still fly to the approach ban point (1000') hoping the reported weather would comply by then, but you would have to go around from that point if it didn't]

4) To answer a point made above - generally if minima drop below the IAP minima we may still continue to the approach ban point (1000'ARTE) - an immediate GA is not required, but you need mins. at the ban point. And you may fly the approach to the approach ban point if RVRs<mins.: that is the point - RVRs might be varying above and below minimum, but you make your decision based on the last received on reaching the ban point.

That's what the ops manual I fly to has to say, anyhow - as with any PT operation, the details may vary from operator to operator, so it all has to be taken with a health warning......

[bookworm]

3) Circ. Min. Visibility is quoted for planning purposes and doesn't play a role in consideration of an approach ban: you may proceed with the circle as long as you have Vis Ref and 800m RVR or more (if reported)

The fog^H^H^H plot thickens. ;) That's a very interesting interpretation of Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430 paras (f) and (g). So if I turn a circling approach into a visual approach, I can just ignore the (much higher) Table 8 met vis minima?!

[A Very Civil Pilot]

Don't know if this helps, from AIC 100/2006 (Pink 103):

4 If pilots state that it is their intention to commence an instrument approach and the reported RVR is below the Absolute Minimum,
ATC will issue a warning message as follows:

‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name)
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’

4.1 If pilots indicate that it is their intention to continue the approach below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, ATC will pass the
following message:

‘(Callsign) if you continue the approach and descend below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, it is believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge’.

This will be followed, at the appropriate moment, with:

‘(Callsign) there is no known traffic to affect you making a (name) approach to runway (number)’.

Subsequently, ATC controllers will not issue a landing clearance but will use the following phraseology at the appropriate time:

‘(Callsign) runway visual range (number) metres, there is no known traffic to affect you landing, surface wind (number) degrees
(number (knots))’.

[Centaurus]

You cannot descend from your circling MDA unless you have visual contact with the landing runway itself.

And of course you are entirely responsible for ensuring terrain or obstacle clearance if below the MDA (day or night) throughout the circling approach notwithstanding you have the runway in sight at all times

[A4]

Quote:

"Again, no point flying the IAP with less than 800m RVR because you may not fly a circling approach in these conditions..."

But if you had RVR 800m......you'd just fly a CAT 1 ILS and land - no need to circle. As the original question stated RVR 01 is P1500U so you DO HAVE the minimum RVR for the runway you are circling to land on. If RVR 19 is 200m that doesn't matter because you are not flying an approach TO LAND on that runway - merely using its facilities to put you in a position where you may be landing from a circling approach.

I would like a legal answer to this: Are you allowed to disregard the approach ban because you are NOT INTENDING to fly the ILS all the way to land in below minima RVR?

A4

[NW1]

A4: <<But if you had RVR 800m......you'd just fly a CAT 1 ILS and land >> On a practical note, circling to land off a perfectly adequate IAP is normally done because some other factor precludes landing on the IAP RW - usually wind being outside FM tailwind limits - rather than playing semantics with minima. On my fleet we have a destination in India which regularly offers an ILS with a tailwind - if more than 15kts (my 'plane's TWC limit) we must fly the ILS and circle to land on the reciprocal which has no IAP.

I know your question is trying to squeeze a fine point of regulation - but often the situation is actually simpler in practice because if there's that much porridge you're probably off to your #1 div anyhow. But to bravely attempt to address what I think you're after - no: I don't think you may progress beyond or below the approach ban point or altitude without the IAP minima for the IAP RW. And you cannot circle without visual reference (or 800m RVR on the landing RW).

You may, though, fly to the ban point without the IAP RW minima being met, and I suppose if you had the visual references required and 800m RVR for the landing runway you might argue that it would legal at that point to break for the circle. But how likely is it that? I don't know, but I would opine that you're really starting to dig holes in very limiting conditions that you may reasonably decide are not worth digging....

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

Bookworm: Yes, they are indeed different, and the more accurate one, RVR, is below. And that is what I will emphasize in my judgement. I understand there are different opinions in that regard, but I will for sure not be invited for tea, no biscuits, based on that.

[NW1]

Bookworm: As I said "That's what the ops manual I fly to has to say, anyhow - as with any PT operation, the details may vary from operator to operator, so it all has to be taken with a health warning......"; various companies' FMs will all have their own (CAA inspected and approved) interpretations of JAR-OPS, and whilst JAR-OPS is a useful reference in its own right, when flying to a company FM - that is your ultimate reference. Ours quotes the 3.6k of table 8 as a planning reference as it refers to an in-flight visibility and so if you have the required detailed visual references you are considered to be compliant for the circle provided you have 800m RVR if reported (to cover you for the dangers associated with MIFG). Also, FM's (like JAR-OPS-1) are subject to edits, changes and volte-faces!!!!

[bookworm]

I know your question is trying to squeeze a fine point of regulation - but often the situation is actually simpler in practice because if there's that much porridge you're probably off to your #1 div anyhow.

Admittedly the situation is slightly contrived but not impossible. In fact I corrupted the following real METAR:

METAR ESGP 052120Z 00000KT 9999 R01/P2000 R19/0400V0650 BCFG NSC 15/14 Q1018=

Goeteborg does have an NP IAP (NDB/DME) to 01 and I thought with NSC the obvious answer was a visual approach to 01, so applied a ceiling. But the scenario is not all that far fetched.

[bookworm]

That's what the ops manual I fly to has to say...

Duly noted, NW1, I was just surprised at that interpretation (circling met vis minima for planning only) by your ops.

[bookworm]

Yes, they are indeed different, and the more accurate one, RVR, is below.

More accurate for what? A landing on 19, yes. But for a circle to land on 01, what's a little fog patch at the 19 threshold transmissometers?

[DFC]

A4,

Sorry,you are correct. Getting mixed up with what we do as opposed to the rules!

------

‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name)
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’

‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current visibility is 10K+ metres which is not below the absolute minimum for a Circling
approach to runway 01. What are your intentions?’

Make an approach please (Callsign) ;)

Would those that operate into Innsbruck be worried about some shallow fog at the place where the LDA guides you when the field is reporting met above minima for the circle to land.

I think that you will agree that in such a case, you will not even know the RVR at the point where the LDA guides you to.

If there was a VOR/DME X procedure published from a nearby facility say east of the field with (of course) only circle to land minima which were the same as those above, would you not make the approach and circle with the same RVRs and Visibility reported?

Regards,

DFC

[gimmesumvalium]

Genlemen/Ladies,
Look at this as a Risk Management exercise.

Technically or academically (I am not familiar with UK CARs or whataever) you may be allowed to carry out this approach. However, the accident stats indicate that you have a very high risk of a prang and hull loss.

My company has gone so far as banning Circling Approaches in their Ops Specs (as a result of the Risk Management of this manoeuvre).

I, personally thank my company for reducing my Blood pressure/Heart rate.

[A4]

NW1;

I appreciate that circling is usually due to xs TWC - my reference to landing off the CAT 1 ILS with 800 RVR was with respect to the initial question i.e. wind 000/00. You are correct in saying that it is a fine point of regulation - but nonetheless it would be nice to have a definate answer from a higher authority.

Think about the situation; 3000m runway the first 1000m in fog RVR 300m, the other 2000m is "CAVOK". Outer Marker at 4d (1300' agl on G/S), overcast 1100'.

From a legal standpoint, what is wrong with flying the ILS to the "foggy end" (even though RVR is below CAT 1 minima), levelling at 800' and circling to the "CAVOK" end? I fully agree that when conditions become more marginal then very serious consideration has to be given about even contemplating an approach.

I'm really interested in the legal (i.e. what would the Authority say about it) - we live in a world dominated by rules, regs, health and safety etc. It's all very well for someone behind a desk weeks after the event to say "yes, but under sub section blah blah........ " I cannot find anywhere where it says the approach BAN applies if you intend to circle. Logically speaking it should not apply because you are NOT going to land in the restricted touchdown zone but manouver safely above it.

Gimmesumvalium;

Bold move by your Co.


A4

[SR71]

2) You break for the circle with relevant Vis Ref (you don't need the RW in sight yet - that's for the final descent below Circ. Min. Alt.), but no later than the IAP Missed Approach Point (obviously) [the MAP for an ILS is the point where the Glideslope intersects the ILS DA]


ICAO Doc 8168, Section 4, Chapter 7.2.2 says

7.2.2 After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment should be kept in sight
while at minimum descent altitudeheight (MDA/H) for circling. The runway environment includes features such as the
runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway.

Personally, in reality, if I can't see the runway itself at this point, I'm going somewhere else.

Mucking around <1000' in a commercial jet without being able to see exactly where you want to go is asking for trouble IMHO whatever the legalities.

[airman13]

having this metar,I will try to land on rwy 19 (not infriging the minimums), because rvr 400 is modifying let say in a few minutes ,or it could occur a SPECI with a rvr19/ 550 in right time...btw I had a succesfull landing CAT II with rvr 225m (actually it was 180m...) ATR-42 !(I had passed the OM, so I just tried )

[taperlok]

they way I see it, the answer is maybe. depends on the approach category of the a/c
JAR-OPS1 says for (catA)
400' and 1500m looking at those numbers in theory it could be done. With my last sim ride setting the wx on the limits you can't see jack sh$#.
for anything other than catA a/c this would be illegal

[BOAC]

Were I a naughty chap I might be tempted to say 'visual' at 1100' and get on with it...............:)

[A4]

Thought I'd revive this one as I've come across some additional information whilst studying.

Under the "Acceptable Means of Compliance and Interprative Explanatory Material (AMC/IEM)" associated with JAR-OPS, it states as follows:

IEM to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430, paragraph (f) Visual Manoeuvring (circling)

1 The purpose of this IEM is to provide operators with supplemental information regarding the application of aerodrome operating minima in relation to circling approaches.

2 Conduct of flight - General
2.1 For these procedures, the applicable visibility is the meteorological visibility (VIS). So Approach ban is not applicable?
2.2 The MDA/H and OCA/H minimums included in the procedure are related to aerodrome elevation.

3 Missed approach
3.1 If the decision to carry out a missed approach is taken when the aircraft is positioned on the approach axis (track) defined by radio-navigation aids, the published missed approach procedure must be followed. If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular instrument approach must be followed. It is expected that the pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome where he will establish the
aeroplane in a climb on the missed approach track. Inasmuch as the circling manoeuvre may be accomplished in more than one direction, different patterns will be required to establish the aeroplane on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost unless otherwise prescribed.
3.2 If the instrument approach procedure is carried out with the aid of an ILS, the Missed Approach Point (MAPt) associated with an ILS procedure without glide path (GP out procedure) should be taken in account.

4 Instrument approach followed by visual manoeuvring (circling) without prescribed tracks
4.1 Before visual reference is established, but not below MDA/H - The flight should follow the corresponding instrument approach procedure. Again -carry on down the ILS to Circling minima?
4.2 At the beginning of the level flight phase at or above the MDA/H - From the beginning of the level flight phase, the instrument approach track determined by radio navigation aids should be maintained until:
a. The pilot estimates that, in all probability, visual contact with the runway or runway environment will be maintained during the entire procedure;
b. The pilot estimates that his aircraft is within the circling area before commencing circling; and
c. The pilot is able to determine his aircraft’s position in relation to the runway with the aid of the external references.
4.3 If the conditions in paragraph 4.2 above are not met by the MAPt, a missed approach must be carried out in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.
4.4 After the aeroplane has left the track of the corresponding instrument approach procedure, the flight phase outbound from the runway should be limited to the distance which is required to align the aeroplane for the final approach. Flight manoeuvres should be conducted within the circling area and in such way that visual contact with the runway or runway environment is maintained at all times.
4.5 Flight manoeuvres should be carried out at an altitude/height which is not less than the circling minimum descent/altitude height (MDA/H).
4.6 Descent below MDA/H should not be initiated until the threshold of the runway to be used has been identified and the aeroplane is in a position to continue with a normal rate of descent and land within the touchdown zone.

So I think it would be acceptable to ignore the approach ban - because the applicable minima is the met viz not the touchdown RVR.

Regards

A4

[bookworm]

Well done A4, I think you've cracked it. Is the AMC/IEM online somewhere?

[A4]

Well done A4, I think you've cracked it. Is the AMC/IEM online somewhere?

Yes. :}

It took a lot of searching..... and I can't remember where I found it. In essence you need to look for JAR-OPS 1 Section 2 not JAR-OPS 2 which is Helicopters. Same applies for JAR-FCL, except it is not available as a single document.

I need to get out more......... :uhoh:

A4

[cunningstunt]

How do you interpret Approach ban in your neck of the woods? In Japan it is a company imposed criteria but, it seems to me that in other parts of the world it is instigated by ATC.

[A4]

No CS, it is instigated by regulation. If you intend to perform an approach and the touchdown RVR is below the required minima, you are prohibited from making an approach beyond the OM/4d/1000' agl point. If you do then ATC have a duty to report you to the required authority so that "corrective adjustment" can be "applied" :}

A4

[A4]

Bookworm..... check your PM's

A4

[Permafrost_ATPL]

I caught this thread late, nice research indeed A4.

I need one thing clarified though... A few posters referred to 800m RVR for circling mininma. But my company ops say visual approach min is 800m RVR and visual MANOEUVRING i.e. circling min is 2400m VIS for a Class C aircraft. I would assume those minima are straight out of JAR minima. Am I missing something?

thx

P

[BOAC]

I understand the 2400m is the minimum in flight vis and the 800 is the controlling RVR. This is why the question is such a 'corker' as the vis is (probably) fine for the intended circle and landing - if you can get to it legally:).

[Permafrost_ATPL]

Do you have a reference for the 800m RVR being applicable to a circling approach? Looking at Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430, I can only find the reference for 2400m as being the minimum VIS for a circling approach. 800m RVR is only quoted in reference to a visual approach (not circling).

Just to clear any confusion, I am referring to statements in this thread such as the following, from NW1:

Circ. Min. Visibility is quoted for planning purposes and doesn't play a role in consideration of an approach ban: you may proceed with the circle as long as you have Vis Ref and 800m RVR or more (if reported)

800m RVR just does not seem to be relevant to being allowed to carry on with a circling approach (only straight in visual would be relevant).

Not that I don't believe you :E But you know more than most that the name of the game is being able to quote exact references...

P

[BOAC]

Perma - its a good question! Working from JAR-OPS 1.430,App 1 Table 8 we have:

Lowest met vis for circling (Cat C) 2400m which I have always understood to be 'in-flight vis'

Minimum RVR (my bold) for a 'visual approach' 800m.

My reading is that I can circle with 2400m MET VIS (should I be so bold:)) but could not do so if the RVR was <800m. It is a matter of interpretation I guess and not an area in which I would willingly be 'grobbling about'. I take your point about JAR-OPS's wording regarding 'straight-in' approaches.

EG shallow fog bank on the runway, 10k+ vis above in the 'circuit', runway in sight all the way round the 'circuit' but 700m RVR, no circling or 'visual approach'.

That's the way I see it but I'm sure someone knows real answer.:)

[SIDSTAR]

Gimmesumvalium,

How lucky you are and what enlightened Ops Management! In my opinion, circling approaches were designed in the days of smaller and slower aircraft when the approach aids were not too plentiful either.

I believe circling approaches are entirely inappropriate for medium to large aircraft, even modern ones with Map etc which does help SA. In particular, I believe circling approaches at night belong to the lunatic fringe of aviation and should not be allowed by ICAO. That's not what the fare-paying public expects in terms of safe transportation.

By the way, the Approach Ban as now constituted, only prevents the cowboy from commencing the approach (OM/Equiv position etc). If he gets an RVR way below the minimum for the approach after he's passed the marker, the cowboy can continue to land in zero zero if he likes. In the UK he will be reported but when the CAA asks the inevitable questions later, all the two pilots have to do is swear on a stack of bibles/korans that they had adequate visual reference and there's nothing the feds can do about it (except watch this outfit for future reference of course). Unfortunately when the original UK App Ban was changed, the result was that it merely prevented the cowboys from commencing the approach.

[Wingswinger]

This has been a very interesting thread to read through and well done to A4 for digging the answer out of AMC and IEM. Circling is currently a hot topic in the company I work for and it is often included in sim checks.

I believe circling approaches are entirely inappropriate for medium to large aircraft, even modern ones with Map etc which does help SA. In particular, I believe circling approaches at night belong to the lunatic fringe of aviation and should not be allowed by ICAO. That's not what the fare-paying public expects in terms of safe transportation.


I can't agree with you, SIDSTAR, and I think your language is a tad emotive. What would you do if the destination had published instrument approaches to one end only of a single runway and a 20-25 kt wind favouring the other end? Divert? Cancel the service? Besides, I doubt very much if many of the fare-paying public have the slightest clue what a circling approach is.

[Nightstop]

I believe circling approaches are entirely inappropriate for medium to large aircraft, even modern ones with Map etc which does help SA. In particular, I believe circling approaches at night belong to the lunatic fringe of aviation and should not be allowed by ICAO. That's not what the fare-paying public expects in terms of safe transportation.
Well, I must be one of those lunatics! Certain Airports only have Circling approaches due to terrain eg Funchal, Madeira. The excellent training that I've received to carry out these approaches by both day & NIGHT in limiting weather conditions into Funchal leaves me in no doubt whatsover as to the safety of this type of approach. Also it's the best flying I've done in years :D