Approach ban

[NoJoke]

HI guys. Done a search on the pprune but can't find an answer to this. If once reaching the approach ban point, are we allowed to proceed with the approach if we become visual with the airport?

[On speed on profile]

The criteria for continuing past the "approach ban point" or more usually the final approach fix is that your visibility must be above that required to commence the approach. If the reported visibility is less, you must go around.. If you are visual at the point you reach the final approach fix then by definition the visibility "should" be above the minima required to land hence you are permitted to continue.

If the reported minima has dropped below that required to commence the approach but you are already past the final approach fix, you are permitted to continue to decision height.

OSOP

[NoJoke]

Being hassled for completing an approach. The Vis was 200 m below that which was required, but before reaching the aaproach ban point I was visual. Do you have a reference I could quote in my defence. I'm not being lazy, just don't have access to the required docs. Thanks. Please PM if you need further details,

regards,

NJ

[YankeeGolf]

correct me if I am wrong. I always thought that one may not continue past the final approach point only if an RVR is used to report visibility of the airfield. and the RVR value is below the minimum RVR required for the approach. For reported visibility from the tower/observed by met office, even if it is below the minimum visibility, one may still continue past the FAF/FAP and if runway environment sighted, a landing can be done legally.

:confused:

[Pilot Pete]

Your profile says UK based, so I assume you are operating under JAR OPS.

JAR OPS 1 Subpart D 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 IEM OPS 1.405(a).)

(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.

(d) 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 on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.

(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.

(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system,the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.

Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the
runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down
to a speed of approximately 60 knots.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]


PP

[YankeeGolf]

just to clearify....

so if RVR/Visibility reported BELOW required minimums approach NOT allowed to past FAP/FAF. if no RVR used, reported visibility counts too?

if inside the FAP/FAF when reported Vis/RVR dropped below Minimums, can continue to DA/MDA.

and when at DA/MDA if landing environment sighted legal to land? or one must go around?:confused:

[NoJoke]

The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. There was no RVR requirements given on the approach plate, only vis. I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach. Would that be considered legal?

[BOAC]

We had this sort of discussion a while back. Most operators in the UK have a min of 800m for a 'VISUAL' aproach. In my book, if you were visual at the FAF with 1000m you were ok. This, however, is a disputed view!

[towser]

If no RVR's are reported we are allowed to factor reported met vis. Would have thought this was a standard ops manual thing?

[BOAC]

towser - NB the approach specifies a minimum VISIBILITY therefore no RVR requirement and therefore no factoring. PRN ILS used to be the same.

[pontifex]

All ILSs have a glide slope check altitude point which may be the outer marker. However these are now increasingly rare and have been replaced by either a locator or a DME range (usually 4 miles). When I was active the approach ban took effect at 1000ft agl. Is it now normal to use the locator or the 4 mile point? This would be practical as, in theory, a call and altitude check should take place at the GS check alt, an incapacitation call should take place around here, and an altimeter cross check is also needed. If this all took place at the same time, it would surely reduce workload.

[Blip]

So let me get this straight. The only thing that matters is "Reported" RVR/Visibility. Actual visibility is irrelevant. How ridiculous!

JAR OPS 1 Subpart D 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 IEM OPS 1.405(a).)


Surely there needs to be some common sense here. If a pilot arrives at a the "Approach ban point" and can see the runway, for goodness sake, what is the problem?! Obviously the conditions were fluctuating over a short period of time, and made it difficult for the reports from the tower to keep up.

I mean what do you expect the people in the tower to do, dedicate someone to constantly broadcast the RVR fluctuations every 10 seconds? How ridiculous!

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I was at EMA many moons ago, and just landed, at night, then the guy behind went missed.
The sky was 100% clear.....but there was a fog blob on the RVR reders...

glf

[Oktas8]

The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. ... I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach.

Perhaps there is some confusion here between seeing the runway and having the required visibility.

"Becoming visual with the ground" or seeing the runway is irrelevant (however nice it may be for practical reasons.)

If the visibility was actually 1200m or more, you did nothing wrong in continuing the approach regardless of the ATIS, as far as I understand the rules. But it might be hard for you to prove to your employer!

So what was the actual visibility at the airfield as you passed the approach ban point?

(Added note: regarding continuing with >800m visibility: excuse my ignorance, but don't you have to be cleared by ATC to perform a visual approach? And this guy wasn't. Unless it was an uncontrolled airfield, the visual approach excuse would seem to be unavailable.)

[Meikleour]

This requirement was introduced to prevent the situation t)hat can exist with shallow fog whereby the runway is visable quite some way out but becomes obscured very close to the ground. (slant visual range ) This situation is quite common in europe.

[rogerg]

I have experienced the above a few times in light aircraft, a bit scary.
When flying in the airlines you stick to the rules for good reason.

[NoJoke]

The AB point was approximately 4.2 NM from the threshold so I continued, using the ILS as guidance. I was out in cowboy country where nobody speaks English. Try getting an actual wind or vis report from the tower!!!

[TenAndie]

The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. There was no RVR requirements given on the approach plate, only vis. I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach. Would that be considered legal?

I would say it isnt legal. Visual doesnt come into it where approach ban is concerned. Its whatever the reported visibility is at the time. Quite often you can actually see the runway and the whole airport when vis is as low as 200m but you cant make an approach unless the vis comes upto or above your required minima. Very frustrating when your circling overhead !!

[yetanotherdawn]

NJ

If you were in cowboy country it may be too long after the event - do you have a timing for the RVR that you were given? I am not going to get involved in the rights or wrongs of the situation as there is insufficient information available other than to speculate that if you can see the runway from the point at which you have to make the decision do you not, by definition, have the appropriate visual reference? Those of us that have had to operate in some of the more forgotten or ignored corners of the world probably appreciate your dilemma.

Operating into Khartoum many years back and the "actual" gave the weather as well below limits but the "actual" was four hours old, if I remember correctly. Fortunately we managed, after a delay of about 20 minutes, to get something a bit more relevant and, as anticipated, it was fine. Being where I was at that time of day and at that time of year I was planning to continue anyway to have a look for myself.

Good luck.

[NoJoke]

The weather report was around 30 mins old. The point being is that before I was in a situation where I could see the airport before the approach ban point, I called visual and was told 'continue' by ATC. Calling visual surely put me into the visual approch category - 2500 m, 600' or circling minima whichever is the highest. There was no cloud to speak of, just haze.

[Oktas8]

It seems that assuming there was no fog, visibility actually was quite suitable and legal according to what you say. If I understand correctly, you were operating in a country where ATC and meteorological reports were not up to Western European standards and where the reported visibility was vastly worse than actual visibility.

Well I know what I would have done... But then I operate where more emphasis is placed on actual weather and less on reported weather. Not like the UK at all. :}

As an aside, calling "visual" and being told "continue" does not constitute a visual approach. I'd be looking for a phrase from ATC including the words "cleared" and "visual approach" before I made that assumption. But again I realise the ATC in that part of the world might not be so precise.

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

The whole point of the approach ban is that you should not continue the approach if you have no chance of getting in. Be it the O/M, FAF or the
1000' AAL in the UK. In this case, where Vis was reported at 1000m, there IS a possibility of having the required visual references at 1000' (3 degree slope, 3000' slant range). Regardless, a pilot-in-command may only continue beyond the "approach-ban-point" (without required visual references) IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. So, what I'm saying is, I completely understand the situation, but the regs are quite rigid in this matter. Good luck.

[NoJoke]

Thanks. The point I am trying to make, or perhaps clarify is that prior to reaching the approach ban point I called visual to ATC. They then cleared me for the approach, however they did not actually specify the VIS. I took the clearance as an implicit indication that the conditions for approach had been met or else why clear me for the approach when I had called visual? I know its a buggers muddle, but thanks to you all for you opinions. :) It looks like I will just have to suffer my spanking .......

[Pontius's Copilot]

The 2500m vis to which you refer is the required in-flight visibility (can only be assesed by the crew) - its not an RVR; the 'minimum' minimum RVR for a visual approach in JAR-OPS is 800m (reported/observed). In the UK you would have to call 'Visual' to ATC and recieve permission to continue with a visual approach - prior to passing the AB pt.

[keithl]

I had to answer a very similar question recently. I (and those I consulted) concluded that, going back to basics, an instrument approach is complete on acquisition of the required visual references. The landing is then completed visually. All Cat1 Instrument approaches become visual approaches at some point without further approval from ATC.

Therefore, all that stuff about whether or not you need permission, or 800m, or anything else, is obscuration. You were on an instrument approach - you acquired the visual references - you used them to land. End of story.

[DB6]

I was in a very similar situation last month, where the RVR equipment was between the runway and a river, and reporting considerably less than the actual vis on the runway (which was visible along its full length from 10+ miles), the difference was that my R/T was 'visual, request visual approach' and the reply was 'cleared visual approach, cleared to land'.
While it may often be interpreted as such, calling 'visual' does not constitute requesting a visual approach. Doesn't help much here, but worth bearing in mind for the future.

[moggiee]

Surely there needs to be some common sense here. If a pilot arrives at a the "Approach ban point" and can see the runway, for goodness sake, what is the problem?!
That's where section (e) of the quoted reference comers in. Visual references acquired = clear to continue.

I had to answer a very similar question recently. I (and those I consulted) concluded that, going back to basics, an instrument approach is complete on acquisition of the required visual references. The landing is then completed visually. All Cat1 Instrument approaches become visual approaches at some point without further approval from ATC.

Therefore, all that stuff about whether or not you need permission, or 800m, or anything else, is obscuration. You were on an instrument approach - you acquired the visual references - you used them to land. End of story.
Agreed 100%. The rules state that as long as you have the required visual references (clearly defined in JAR Ops) then the approach may be continued visually.

It's all quite straightforward, really.

[NoJoke]

I actually had around 8 km Vis, but the tower (the ATIS) was still giving 1000 m. In hindsight I should have called for an update but having observed the actual Vis I continued, thinking I was legal.

[Legalapproach]

Without knowing all the facts it's hard to give a definitive answer but the following might be of interest.

My user name derives from the first CAA prosecution I defended. Night mail flight commenced an approach with the reported RVR below minimum. Another flight landed a few minutes before also having commenced his approach with RVR below minimum. First aircraft called visual and on touch down announced that the vis was greater than the RVR being broadcast. My client flew the approach and landed short of the runway by a couple of hundred yards. This was in the grass undershoot and there was no damage to man, beast or machine. However, the tyre marks were clearly visible. The CAA got to hear about it and the pilot was charged with recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft. He was convicted of negligent endangerment (having admitted negligence during cross-examination) and was heavily fined.

The aircraft had flown a PAPI approach and there was evidence that suggested that these could become unreliable in the drifting low lying fog conditions that prevailed because of moisture refraction. This is particularly so if the PAPI's have not been switched on long enough to heat up and disperse any moisture inside the equipment.

As another contributor to the thread has already remarked part of the purpose of the legislation is that an apparently visual approach can be lost at a low and critical stage because of low lying fog/haze and the slant effect. This would appear to be what happened in our case.

[bookworm]

I (and those I consulted) concluded that, going back to basics, an instrument approach is complete on acquisition of the required visual references. The landing is then completed visually. All Cat1 Instrument approaches become visual approaches at some point without further approval from ATC.

There's an interesting difference in some JAR-OPS1 and ANO requirements. My bold:

JAR OPS 1 Subpart D 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.

Non-public transport aircraft – aerodrome operating minima
49(4) Without prejudice to paragraph (2) an aircraft to which this article applies when making a descent at an aerodrome to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.

Public transport aircraft registered in the United Kingdom – aerodrome operating
minima
47(9) An aircraft [required to have an Ops Manual], when making a descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.


JAR-OPS talks about an instrument approach, and keithl's assertion that the instrument approach is complete when visual reference is acquired (or at least when the aircraft is cleared for a visual approach) may offer a loophole for the continuance of an approach where there's visual reference but a sub-minimum RVR.

The ANO is quite clear for non-PT flights. No mention of an IAP. What matters is whether or not there exists an IAP for the runway to which an approach is made (that in itself is interestingly ambiguous but not relevant). If there is, and the RVR is below the minimum for it, you can't continue the approach belw 1000 ft.

But what to make of Art 47(9)? "Relevant RVR at the aerodrome"? "Relevant" is not defined. Is it to be interpreted as Art 49(4), or differently? If you choose to interpret it differently, I think you're on pretty thin ice. The law doesn't normally allow the commanders of PT-flights more discretion than non-PT flights.

[keithl]

This is very interesting. I quite see your point, bookworm, the whole thing hinges on the rules being written around "Reported RVR" or "Relevant RVR", when there should be provision for "Observed (by crew) visibility". I don't have much to add at this point, and I'm still happy (for now) with my earlier answer. However, I'd like to see the discussion continue, so I'm posting this to keep the thread alive.

Some will act on their observed vis. and required visual references, others will say the regulations specify reported RVR. In UK there is the extra barrier of the "Absolute Minima Procedure".

Lets have some more opinions.

[BOAC]

Thanks for the 're-kindle' Keith - back in to point out that the 'min vis' of 1200m would almost certainly be tied to the appropriate approach angle/MDH/MDA, and as food for thought, would it not be a moot point if the actual vis was 1000m but the runway was in sight? What are the chances of a 'fog bank' obscuring the runway below 1000' in those conditions? Also, in which direction was the met vis 'observed'? I recall sitting drinking coffee at RAF Cranwell 'in the fog' waiting for the airfield to become flyable, when the met man rubbed the condensation off the met office window....:)

I still believe we are placed in the cockpit to make SENSIBLE AND SAFE decisions and my view would be that the debrief should revolve around 'discussion' rather than 'bollock'. Of course, this POV does not logically extend to lower DH/DA's for, say, an ILS, but for a NPA..?

[bookworm]

Some will act on their observed vis. and required visual references, others will say the regulations specify reported RVR. In UK there is the extra barrier of the "Absolute Minima Procedure".

My impression was that the approach ban was introduced specifically to take the decision-making out of the cockpit -- and assessing visibility with any sort of precision from the cockpit is almost impossible. It's unfortunately easy to see what you want to see if you want it enough.

[NoJoke]

Not the case in this one. We had plenty of fuel and had a 'decent' alternate planned. We were visual before the approach ban point. The tower had not changed the weather and shortly after we landed the weather was actually changed on the ATIS. It may be said that we should have clarified the weather, but again with a very busy ATC environment and the appalling level of English precluded this.
A previous poster said that we should have been listening out for 'cleared for the approach' or such like but now with the passage of time I can truthfully not remember the exact terminology. At the end of the day the temperature was around 20'C with a little haze. There was no chance of fog. There had been none forecast and none in the area.

[keithl]

BOAC remembers fogged-up windows at Cranwell, I remember smoke from a bonfire drifting across the runway at Deci - "The airfield, she is Clo-zed". Wouldn't happen with RVR kit - or would it? At least it makes the point that ground measurements of visibility can be fallible. There are still places reporting vis. rather than RVR, too.

Also, the Approach Ban doesn't protect you against vis deterioration after you've passed the AB point - although I recognise this wasn't the situation that NJ was in.

Bookworm reckons the AB was introduced to take this particular decision out of the cockpit. In doing so, I'm sure it has been successful in preventing many accidents. But is it too blunt an instrument and should the crew be able to "over-ride" the Ban if they can demonstrate that it is based on a false, or erroneous measurement of visibility?

[bookworm]

It's a tricky one, isn't it? In general, I'm a strong supporter of the idea that the flight crew are almost certainly in the best position to make any judgment in respect of the safety of their flight: hence the for a perfect crew, it will always be safer to allow the commander to overrule any arbitrary regulation (even in non-emergency situations).

In practice though, the airline whose crews make sound safety judgments may lose out to the airlines whose crews push the boundaries just that little bit further. Hence explicit regulation that the flight crew cannot overrule is an essential tool in ensuring a level playing field. It was with that attitude in mind ("Well they're giving RVR 400 m but I reckon it must be at least 700m, eh? :wink:") that the approach ban was introduced. You can't police whether the crew can actually see the visual reference at DH, but you can stop them from putting themselves in the position of needing a little creative vision at DH by mandating a minimum reported RVR. However, that means that you occasionally get some daft situations where something that's perfectly safe is contrary to the regulation.

(BTW I don't doubt for a moment that NoJoke's crew risk-managed this perfectly -- I just think this may be one of those daft situations.)

[TenAndie]

Hasn't anyone ever attempted to land in fog but can see the runway all the way down the approach ?? It happened to us in Guernsey, RVR was 550m / 200m / 125m. We could see the runway and airport from about 10 miles out and stayed visual until about 100ft, the runway then disappeared. I know a few people this has happened to and is the reason that a 'visual' approach should not be carried out if the RVR is less than your required minima.

[NoJoke]

I have operated in the UK for years but I am now overseas. I am aware of RVR, fog, slant visibility etc. The weather conditions preclude any form of fog. I could see for miles - literally! Completed approach and the Vis was as I had assessed, more than 8 km.

[TenAndie]

Well on that approach we would have put the vis quite high but as i say, the runway which was clearly visible all the way down just disappeared when we got very close....

[NoJoke]

I'm just saying that the difference between Jersey (I did my PPL there in 1979 and now 12,500 hrs later ..) and the other side of the Middle East are vastly different. As I tried to say there was no fog. There was no low RVR. There was a Vis given of 1000 m that miraculously became 10 km after our approach. Different strokes.

Good luck with your flying.

NJ

[TenAndie]

never flown in middle east so couldnt say. do they not have their own rules in the middle east for approach bans ???

[NoJoke]

Some do, some don't because they don't operate to under the same regulatory authority. For example a mate of mine is an Australian, apparently over there the approach ban does not exist in the same way.

What actually happened was that the Vis was good, and indeed the 'reported' Vis 'improved' after landing. I would rather discuss than argue.

Now a general question to all. I am trying to find out if there is a definition of 'reported visibility' in context of a visual approach. For example when talking about Wind the book states 'Tower reported wind'. So could 'reported visibility' be defined as vis reported by anyone? For example, if a 'remote' Met office give a vis and yet the tower ask a departing aircraft to give a Vis report, does that count?

[Checkboard]

There have been several comments about the reason for the imposition of an approach ban:

This requirement was introduced to prevent the situation t)hat can exist with shallow fog whereby the runway is visable quite some way out but becomes obscured very close to the ground. (slant visual range ) This situation is quite common in europe. and,

My impression was that the approach ban was introduced specifically to take the decision-making out of the cockpit -- and assessing visibility with any sort of precision from the cockpit is almost impossible.

The terrain clearance allowance for the missed approach is just 100'. if aricraft were to commonly fly the missed approach from the minima this simply wouldn't be a safe separation, and minimas would have to be significantly raised as a consequence. The reason the allowance is allowed to be so slim is that a missed approach from the minima is considered to be a statistically rare event, and the approach ban is there to ensure this - that is, you may not fly to such a low minima if there is an expectation that you will need to conduct a missed approach from that minima.

Once you meet the visual criteria specified iat JAR-OPS 1.430 then the approach ban criteria becomes irrelevant. Although it isn't specified for landing, JAR-OPS 1.430 allows the commander to determine the RVR/Visibility for take-off, even if the reported visibility is below the take-off minima [ para (a) (1) (iii) ] and of course it is implied that the Commander must verify the visual refernce (including visibility) from the cockpit on all approaches.

I would say that, given this, a commander's assesment of the visibilty for the approach certainly supercedes that of an ATIS, a tower assesment of visibility or even an RVR. Consider the case where an ATIS reports a visibility below the minima, however you commence the approach. The tower then reports a visibilityis above the minima so you continue past the approach ban point (you still don't have the required visual reference at this point, so you use the best information available - and you consider in this case the Tower report supercedes the ATIS). Past the approach ban point the Tower then reports an RVR below the limit, however you legally and safely continue, and at the minima make the required reference (including visibility) and land. All completely legal and safe as your assesment of the visibility at the minima is the only one that matters, not the reported RVR.

In the same sense, your assesment of the visibility when you became visual supercedes the ATIS, and you may contiue using the best information available.

[NoJoke]

Thanks for joining the confab. I don't have JAR-OPS docs available, so while we are JAR-OPS compliant we are not JAR OPS approved, hence certain convenient differences I think. You couldn't cut and paste 1.430 for me could you, or is there a web location I could look up. I would appreciate your help.

NJ

[Checkboard]

JAR-OPS are online at http://www.jaat.eu/publications/section1.html

You are right that in Australia there is no approach ban. There is also a comment in the Australian AIP to the effect that a pilot in command is an approved meteorological observer for the pupose of their own flight.

I fly in the UK now, and spent yesterday on the plane having a look for an equivalent statement here, but no joy I'm afraid.

As a defense for you, I would say that you did have a report of visibility before passing the outer marker - that report being your own observation.

[bookworm]

The terrain clearance allowance for the missed approach is just 100'. if aricraft were to commonly fly the missed approach from the minima this simply wouldn't be a safe separation, and minimas would have to be significantly raised as a consequence. The reason the allowance is allowed to be so slim is that a missed approach from the minima is considered to be a statistically rare event, and the approach ban is there to ensure this - that is, you may not fly to such a low minima if there is an expectation that you will need to conduct a missed approach from that minima.

It's an interesting argument, Checkboard, but I'm not convinced. I'm entitled to fly (repeatedly if I choose) an approach with a low ceiling and therefore a high expectation of a missed approach from it. And missed approaches are carried out routinely in training. I believe IAPs are designed to provide adequate separation from terrain or obstacles, where "adequate" does not include such a mitigation factor for the probability that a missed approach will actually be flown.

I would say that, given this, a commander's assesment of the visibilty for the approach certainly supercedes that of an ATIS, a tower assesment of visibility or even an RVR.

The word visibility comes up frequently in regulations. In almost all other cases, flight visibility is the phrase used. This is clearly defined as being the forward visibility as assessed from the flight deck. The approach ban refers to reported RVR/Visibility. If the commander's assessment of visibility were to supersede the reported value, why do you think the regulations are so explicit in using the word reported?

[rak64]

(e) The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the required visual reference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.

I think the term "at the DA/H or MDA/H" make it unclearly, every approach may be continued if a element of the approach light .... are in sight. Isn't it fully legale to count on that, to continue in that case just before the "approach ban point"?
Next, the word visual is relly pluryvalent, so the sheeps on the green can use the meaning that makes your guilty. Say on radio what you see, it sounds silly but it is clearly.
Talk with the controller before, the weather might not be equal at all directions, perhaps against the sun, or due to smoking hills, use the best suitable RWY. If you are sure to met a safe approach, make a statment after the landing.

[bookworm]

I think you have to read (e) in the context of (a) and (c) as well.

JAR-OPS1 seems to consider the approach as three parts:

Part 1 before outer marker
Part 2 between the OM and the DH
Part 3 after the DH

It seems pretty clear to me that (e) is intended to govern the decision to continue the approach from 2 to 3, while (a) is intended to govern the decision to continue the approach from 1 to 2. However, because, unlike the UK legislation, (e) is drafted in the positive ("may be continued if"), you might have enough of a drafting loophole to get off the hook. I wouldn't want to be the one putting your case though.

If you're a UK operator, or operating in the UK, the ANO offers no such loophole.

[keithl]

I'm still following this with interest. Can we please get rid of the "shallow fog" red herring (sorry- that's "irrelevance" for those who don't have colloquial English). You are just as likely to encounter shallow fog if the visibility deteriorates after the AB point - in which case you are legal to continue to minima. So the AB doesn't seem to have been established to avoid that one.

I think it will be much more profitable to pursue NJ's question "What is 'reported visibility' ?"

[goinggrey]

JAR-OPS 1 Rules are there to protect you
let me say that again !
JAR-OPS 1 Rules are there to protect you
to keep you safe in a long career so you can grow up with your grand children
not to lick your employers ass when the weather is ****
Read the Rules and obey and you will live to grow up with your grand children
Next time - Simple !

[Checkboard]

bookworm (and interested others), my comments are not my own musings!

The information originally came from an article written for the Australian CAA's safety magazine by their chief airways surveyor, the (late) Captain John Edwards. (Aviation Safety Digest, issue 139, "ILS - Some whats and whys", if anyone wants to look it up) Here is the relevant quote:

... CAR 257 prohibits a pilot continuing an approach 'when any element constituting the meteorological minima for landing is less that that determined for that aerodrome except in the case of an emergency'. This CAR prevents a pilot preceeding to the minima to 'look and see' if he can land. This seemingly conservative restriction recognises that the missed approach is not designed with protection that permits its use as a normal event (as distinct from the comparatively infrequent use it should get from operations conducted in accordance with the CAR). In the case of the precision segment of an ILS the segment is designed with the following safety objectives:

(a) Overall risk of collision with obstacles
1 X 10exp(-7) (18)
(b) Missed approach rate
1 X 10exp(-2) (19)

The CAR recognises the above and is intended to ensure that pilots of aircraft which are permitted to proceed to the minima enjoy a high probability of being able to land off the approach. (NATO: International assessment has been that the criteria necessary to protect the missed approach risk equal to the normal event, most likely would incur significant operational penalty.).

18. ICAO Doc 8168-OPS/611, Vol 2 para 21.1.4
19. ICAO Coc 8168-OPS/611, Vol 2, para 21.4.8.8.3.2
ICAO Doc 9274-AN/904, Part 2, para 7.3.1


I didn't include the references before as I was quoting from memory. The Australian context shouldn't matter, as approaches are designed to ICAO criteria.

The approach ban refers to reported RVR/Visibility. If the commander's assessment of visibility were to supersede the reported value, why do you think the regulations are so explicit in using the word reported?

Simply because the assumption was that an aircraft using this rule is conducting an instrument approach, and as such (i.e. not being visual) would have to rely on a report. As to a commanders observation superceeding an RVR report, JAR-OPS 1.405 specifically says:
(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."

This paragraph would have no meaning unless the commanders observations at the minima entitled them to land.

[NoJoke]

So my point is. I called Visual before the approach ban point. Tower then cleared me for the approach (then a visual approach) although tacit, it was still a clearance. Y/N. My assessment of the Vis was higher than the ATIS Vis.

[bookworm]

Checkboard

I'm grateful for the references. I don't have access to Doc 9274 as cited. In case it's helpful, here's the bit in PANS-OPS Vol II:

To allow for the fact that only a proportion of the approaches results in a missed approach, the computed risk of each obstacle in the missed approach region was factored by a missed approach rate. Taking account of the variability in missed approach rate experienced over different periods of time and at different locations, one per cent was deemed to be representative of the general order of missed approach rates likely to be experienced and was used in the CRM.

So I've learned something new. But I'm still not convinced on this being the motivation for the approach ban.

I'm puzzled by what Edwards writes (in your quote).

CAR 257 prohibits a pilot continuing an approach 'when any element constituting the meteorological minima for landing is less that that determined for that aerodrome except in the case of an emergency'. This CAR prevents a pilot preceeding to the minima to 'look and see' if he can land.

Here's what CAR (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/act_regs/1988.pdf) 257 actually says (my bold):

(4) If an element of the meteorological minima for the landing of an aircraft at an aerodrome is less than that determined for the aircraft operation at the aerodrome, the aircraft must not land at that aerodrome.

(6) This regulation does not prevent a pilot from:
(a) making an approach for the purpose of landing at an aerodrome;
or
(b) continuing to fly towards an aerodrome of intended landing specified in the flight plan;
if the pilot believes, on reasonable grounds, that the meteorological minima determined for that aerodrome will be at, or above, the meteorological minima determined for the aerodrome at the time of arrival at that aerodrome.

and from CAR 2

aerodrome meteorological minima means the minimum heights of cloud base and minimum values of visibility which are determined in pursuance of regulation 257 for the purpose of determining whether an aerodrome may be used for take-off or landing.

So first of all, this regulation is different from the JAR-OPS1 and ANO approach ban in at least three ways:

* contrary to what Edwards says, there's apparently no ban on the approach as such, but rather on landing

* the minima include the cloud-base criterion

* there's no differentiation between reported conditions and the conditions the pilot finds

Even if we accept that missed approaches are not protected to the same level of safety as the rest of the approach, a regulation aimed at addressing this would surely

a) ban approaches with the ceiling below minima (as CAR 257 bans landings)

b) ban repeated (e.g. training) approaches in which the missed approach is to be flown in IMC, even if the vis/RVR is above minimum

wouldn't it?

[JAR-OPS 1.405(c)] would have no meaning unless the commanders observations at the minima entitled them to land.

But the crew's acquisition of visual reference at DH does entitle them to land. That's the whole point of the paragraph. The crew does not have to make a judgment as to the RVR/vis in relation to minima. Once the OM (or 1000 ft point) is passed, the only criterion that remains is the crew's acquisition of visual reference. But the crew's acquisition of visual reference does not exempt them from 1.405(a) requiring them to break off the approach at the OM if the reported RVR/vis is below the minimum.

[bookworm]

I also add the following, which I think indicates even more strongly that the reported RVR/vis of JAR 1.405(a) is not replaceable by a pilot assessment.

Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430 (a) Take-off Minima

(1) General
(iii) When the reported meteorological visibility is below that required for take-off and RVR is not reported, a take-off may only be commenced if the commander can determine that the RVR/visibility along the take-off runway is equal to or better than the required minimum.

(iv) When no reported meteorological visibility or RVR is available, a take-off may only be commenced if the commander can determine that the RVR/visibility along the take-off runway is equal to or better than the required minimum.

Table 1 Note 3: The reported RVR/Visibility value representative of the initial part of the take-off run can be replaced by pilot assessment.

Table 2 Note 2: The reported RVR/Visibility value representative of the initial part of the take-off run can be replaced by pilot assessment.

(3) Required RVR/Visibility (iii) When reported RVR, or aids meteorological visibility is not available, the commander shall not commence take-off unless he can determine that the actual conditions satisfy the applicable take-off minima.

These are 5 paragraphs in which JAR-OPS1 makes it explicit that a pilot assessment of RVR can replace the reported value. All relate to take-off only. There is no corresponding note or exemption for approaches (subparas b,c,d,e,f). Surely you would expect such a note or exemption if it were permitted for approaches.

(Edited to add that I see Checkboard noted the same difference between a and b,c,d,e,f in a previous post and drew the opposite conclusion!)

[rak64]

From JAR-OPS 1 1.430: A pilot may not continue an approach below MDA/MDH unless at least one ....... visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot.

That means: it is allowed to continue an approach with the visual reference below, at, even above the MDA/MDH.
If the pilot maintaining visual references for the intended runway, before the OM/EP (Equivalent Position), than the approach ban is not valid.
I'm right with this?? (Hopefully nobody reminds me my former position with MC Donald :ok: )

[Checkboard]

The Edwards article is about 19 years old now - hence the difference in the CARs quoted :) I copied it for reference at the time, but haven't flown in Australia for years now. I included it here to illustrate the thinking of an airways surveyor (the extrapolation to the UK/JAR OPS approach ban was my own) in the same way that I included the JAR take-off references to illustrate the principle that a Commander's observation is just as valid as an RVR (and more current, as it happens in real time).

As it applies to an ILS, the cloud base is of little importance, as the visibility is what will determine whether or not you will see far enough along the approach path to make the required visual reference.

[DFC]

rak64,

Don't have the docs to hand but if I remember correctly, if you place the DA/MDA above the height at which the approach ban would apply then you also have to increase the approach ban height.

In other words, you can never have a situation where the DA / MDA is at a higher level than the approach ban Altitude. Thus you will never get to see the DA/MDA altitude unless you can meet the requirements for the approach ban.

Regards,

DFC

[NoJoke]

DFC. I understand your point of view, and due to the extensive discussion we all have had; I think I understand the Regs. However I still ask that if cleared for the approach by ATC AFTER declaring visual, does that not indicate that the visual approach is approved? In reality ATC knew the situation and it was an understanding that both parties had. I was visual ....... over 9 km

[keithl]

So, what is a "Visual Approach"?

This from the UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Glossary:

Visual Approach An approach by an IFR flight when part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to terrain.

In your case, NJ, (although not in UK, I know) you were IFR and part of the instrument approach was not completed (due to the Approach Ban plus being visual). You executed the approach with visual reference to terrain.

If ATC were happy with that, and it seems they were, then only some more limiting company rules could put you in the wrong, it seems to me. As to a specific "cleared visual approach" statement from ATC, I'd say that was implied from what you have told us.

An Approach Ban, of course, can only prevent an Instrument Approach.

[rak64]

Still some mix of visual with visual reference.
visual means visual approach, what was here described correctly.
But noyoke reported visual by meaning visually identified the elements and/or the active RWY.

The intention of the approach ban, to improve the level of safety by implementing a rule, not allowing a senseless approach, is fully okay. Ask yourself, if the active RWY could visually identified before the OM/EP, what is the visibility?! The aim was to find some clinical criteria, but it end by general threat pilots as not reliable. Normally civil aviation is based of thrust, the approach ban is introducing a new view.

[DFC]

If you were visual and had the appropriate in flight conditions for making a visual approach and the reported Visibility / RVR at the runway was suficient for a visual approach and ATC cleared you for a visual approach...........then I can't see a problem.

Of course had the RVR reduced below the minima for a visual approach at any time you would have went missed.........and being visual, many of the risks associated with an instrument approach to minimums in poor weather including the temptation to duck under are simply not there.

The absolute minimum RVR for a visual approach is 800m. The ops manual may require more at some aerodromes.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

An Approach Ban, of course, can only prevent an Instrument Approach.

The JAR-OPS1 Approach Ban that is. I think the passages from the ANO that I quoted earlier in the thread demonstrate that it is not so permissive.

[rak64]

I put all post of noyoke together, hope it makes it clear, it is his actual case. He did a safe approach now he a letter for calling 2000 €, $ or pound (my tought). He is looking now for arguments to clarify wasn't braking neither stretching any rules.

"The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. There was no RVR requirements given on the approach plate, only vis. I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach.
Thanks. The point I am trying to make, or perhaps clarify is that prior to reaching the approach ban point I called visual to ATC. They then cleared me for the approach, however they did not actually specify the VIS. I took the clearance as an implicit indication that the conditions for approach had been met or else why clear me for the approach when I had called visual? I know its a buggers muddle, but thanks to you all for you opinions. It looks like I will just have to suffer my spanking .......
I actually had around 8 km Vis, but the tower (the ATIS) was still giving 1000 m. In hindsight I should have called for an update but having observed the actual Vis I continued, thinking I was legal.
Not the case in this one. We had plenty of fuel and had a 'decent' alternate planned. We were visual before the approach ban point. The tower had not changed the weather and shortly after we landed the weather was actually changed on the ATIS. It may be said that we should have clarified the weather, but again with a very busy ATC environment and the appalling level of English precluded this.
A previous poster said that we should have been listening out for 'cleared for the approach' or such like but now with the passage of time I can truthfully not remember the exact terminology. At the end of the day the temperature was around 20'C with a little haze. There was no chance of fog. There had been none forecast and none in the area.

I have operated in the UK for years but I am now overseas. I am aware of RVR, fog, slant visibility etc. The weather conditions preclude any form of fog. I could see for miles - literally! Completed approach and the Vis was as I had assessed, more than 8 km.
I'm just saying that the difference between Jersey (I did my PPL there in 1979 and now 12,500 hrs later ..) and the other side of the Middle East are vastly different. As I tried to say there was no fog. There was no low RVR. There was a Vis given of 1000 m that miraculously became 10 km after our approach. Different strokes.

Good luck with your flying.

Some do, some don't because they don't operate to under the same regulatory authority. For example a mate of mine is an Australian, apparently over there the approach ban does not exist in the same way.

What actually happened was that the Vis was good, and indeed the 'reported' Vis 'improved' after landing. I would rather discuss than argue.

Now a general question to all. I am trying to find out if there is a definition of 'reported visibility' in context of a visual approach. For example when talking about Wind the book states 'Tower reported wind'. So could 'reported visibility' be defined as vis reported by anyone? For example, if a 'remote' Met office give a vis and yet the tower ask a departing aircraft to give a Vis report, does that count?
Thanks for joining the confab. I don't have JAR-OPS docs available, so while we are JAR-OPS compliant we are not JAR OPS approved, hence certain convenient differences I think. You couldn't cut and paste 1.430 for me could you, or is there a web location I could look up. I would appreciate your help.
So my point is. I called Visual before the approach ban point. Tower then cleared me for the approach (then a visual approach) although tacit, it was still a clearance. Y/N. My assessment of the Vis was higher than the ATIS Vis."

[keithl]

Yes, bookworm, you are right. Hmm...

[NoJoke]

DFC. I am sure you are not doubting me with your 'If' but I assure you the Vis was at between 8 - 10 km. The trouble is that one important part of the and/or gate was missing.

If you were visual and had the appropriate in flight conditions for making a visual approach and the reported Visibility / RVR at the runway was suficient for a visual approach and ATC cleared you for a visual approach...........then I can't see a problem. (PS like the joke 'can't see a problem')

I am interested in your quote of 800 m for a visual approach - where did you find that please?

Our Pt A states:
A visual approach takes place when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and approach is executed by visual reference to the terrain.
Visual approaches are not permitted unless Air Traffic Control (ATC) authorisation is received, and the reported weather conditions at the aerodrome is as follows:
– If circling minima is published, then the cloud ceiling must be at least the MDH specified under "CIRCLE-TO-LAND" or 1500 ft whichever is greater and reported visibility of at least 5 km.

So apart from the 'reported' aspect all was well.

[roljoe]

Hi,

here, you'll find more infos...

Jar-ops 1 Subpart E, appendix 1 to jar-ops 1.430

para "g"

Visual Approach, An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800m for a visual approach.


If you 're interested to get all that stuff..here's the link>>

http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/jar-ops-1.pdf

You can go straight to page 118..




rgds

[NoJoke]

Sure enough I looked up the link you kindly supplied. Again we come down to the same old problem. It is allowed to factor the Vis to RVR but the place I was at does not have RVR specified on the approach plate.

Nothing to do with any of the posts on this thread, and I thank you all - but where the hell is that brick wall ......

[NoJoke]

:ugh: Blessed relief I found it. ;)

[Look For The Rainbow]

Hi people, I am a new upgraded captain, recently I performed an approach into a certain airfield, atis was giving 4000m, controler was giving 4000m, then during the approach, it went was reported 600m. (required 1200m), we requested to continue to the approach ban, and during the whole approach I knew I had at least 2000-3000m, so I requested to continue and Tower cleared me. At MDA, a small patch of fog emerged over the threshold and we did a missed approach. To make a long story short, 2 missed approaches that day were done and on the third attempt we landed uneventful. I am now grounded and my employers said they will give me their decision soon. My argument was that I had at least 2000-3000 meters, theirs was that I was still not leagal to pass the approach ban, after our discussion I agree. But my question is, is there a chance of me being demoted or fired? If anyone has info on previous experiances of this sort please advise. For info: Fuel was not an issue, we landed with extra, and CRM was not an issue, no disagreements between F/O and I. I am aware of the approach ban defenitions, just that I am anxious in getting opinions on this case. Thank you people!

[keithl]

Oh dear! My sympathies LFTR.
I've no direct experience, such as you are seeking, but your situation is a little beyond what this thread has been discussing. The first approach may have been the sort of thing we were talking about, but having found fog on that one, the approach ban was shown to be well founded, I think, so the next two approaches were, shall I just say, "Questionable"?

[roljoe]

Hi,

I agree with Keithl,

one app.should have enough...

Now, about your question ..that's depend only upon your flying dept..

No general rules...only company rules...so difficult to say anything else..

Hope You'll just get a gentle "Attention...next time...."..:=

[NoJoke]

Sorry to hear about the unsympathetic prats you 'work' with. I agree with loljoe, a gentle tap can work much more effectively than a total work over. I am afraid to say that a lot of 'so called' management have no idea of what management involves, especially NEW management. You were trying your best I am sure. In life, and in aviation sometimes having absolutes can be dangerous.

It is normally the plonkers behind thier ivory towering desks that cause the problem.

[Look For The Rainbow]

Thank you for your replies, I hope and pray that you will all have safe take offs and safe landings. I know this is out the thread, just that okay, when we did the go around the first time, we noted that the whole rwy and rwy environment was super visible, just that patch on the threshhold, we decided to shoot another one imediately, judging that that patch will move, but it was worse on the second attempt. We went into the hold for roughly 35 minutes, and it cleared up and we landed. I was not land minded on the first 2 attempts, and it just cleared up on the third. I was promised just culture, and now I am waiting. I will be sure to update you. Thanks again