LVTO without LVP?

[poldek77]

Fall will come in several weeks - foggy mornings and so on... According to JAR-OPS/EU-OPS we need Low Visibility Procedures to be in force if we want to depart with RVR less than 400m. Most regional airports do not have LVPs established.

BUT

look at Jeppesen RM - Introduction p.127:

"A Low Visibility Take-off with RVR/VIS below 400m requires the verification that Low Visibility Procedures (LVPs) have been established and are in force (all CAT II/III approved aerodromes).
The following guidance has been established for aerodromes not approved for CAT II/III operations. Until such time that the concept for LVPs is also established for such aerodromes, the commander must satisfy himself with Air Traffic Services, or the Aerodrome Operator, that for a Low Visibility Take-off only one aircraft at a time is on the maneuvering area, and the vehicle traffic on the maneuvering is controlled and restricted to the absolute minimum."

Do you think this procedure makes sense? I wonder if there are airlines that use the procedure mentioned above. If yes - how does it look in details?
By the way - I have found one airport with LVPs not serving CATII ILS: EVRA/RIX. Are there more?

[NigelOnDraft]

Sounds like good sense to me :ok:

NoD

[SamBellamy]

Hi,

As far as I know all airports where t/o with less than 400 m are allowed have LVP procedures (at least in europe)

These procedures are available in control towers SOP.

They may consist in (for example) :
- all gates closed and locked (to avoid farmer's tractor lost on twy/rwy ...)
- Rwy/twy/panels lights on
- Auxiliary electricity generating unit in service. And not only serviceable. That's mean that generating unit reallly powered all electric loads needed for oprational purpose.
- Airport emergency services available
- ...

Pilots are advised that all conditions are met by “LOW VISIBILITY PROCEDURES IN FORCE RUNWAY (RR)’’.

Bests Regards.

[poldek77]

I understand the concept of LVP. But there may be operators that do not use JAR-OPS (private flights maybe?) so I don't think that TWR will not allow such a plane to depart with RVR <400m.
Jeppesen published the mentioned guidance - maybe any of you followed it?

[SamBellamy]

LVP is a set of rules for AIRPORTS and ATC MANAGEMENT and not for aircrafts operators.

An airport can't be certified for t/o with less than 400m if LVP can't be applied.

All aircrafts operators (even privates) have to do is to make sure that LVP are in force when needed (CAT II/III and T/O with RVR < 400m).

Rgds.

[FlightDetent]

poldek77: What a dillemma! Fortuantely for us it had been identified before and the solution is copied into the Jepps introduction. Here's the material:

JAA Administrative & Guidance Material
Section Four: Operations, Part Three: Temporary Guidance Leaflets (JAR-OPS) Section4/Part 3 (JAR-OPS) 7-1 01.02.98

LEAFLET NO. 7: AERODROME LOW VISIBILITY PROCEDURES FOR TAKE-OFF

1. Note: The material contained in this Leaflet has been issued in accordance with Chapter 10 of Administrative & Guidance Material Section Four: Operations, Part Two: Procedures (JAR-OPS).
The Operations Committee has agreed that some guidance is necessary with respect to take-offs in low visibility at aerodromes that are not approved for Category II or III operations. The following Temporary Guidance Leaflet has been developed accordingly.

2. General
2.1 This Temporary Guidance Leaflet concerns operations at aerodromes which are not authorised for Category II/III operations. For operations when the Runway Visual Range (RVR) is less than 400 metres, JAR-OPS 1.445 and JAR-OPS 1.455 respectively require operators to verify that Low Visibility Procedures are established and Commanders to satisfy themselves ‘on the day’ that Low Visibility Procedures are in force.

3. Current situation on several aerodromes
3.1 There are a number of aerodromes which are not approved for Category II or III operations and, correspondingly, no Low Visibility Procedures have been established but there may be instances when operators need to perform a low visibility take-off (LVTO) at such an aerodrome. This poses a problem since, strictly speaking, operators would not be able to comply with JAR-OPS. The Low Visibility Procedures requirement in its current form is new to many states and therefore also poses a problem to several aerodrome operators. The lack of Low Visibility Procedures has been identified and is currently being addressed by a working group within ICAO Europe (All Weather Operations Group - Project Team/LVP).

4 Interim application on aerodromes which are not approved for Category II or III operations
4.1 Until such time as the concept of Low Visibility Procedures is also established for aerodromes which are not approved for Category II or III operations, the following is considered to be sufficient to fulfil the requirements of JAR-OPS 1.445 and JAR-OPS 1.455, relating to Low Visibility Procedures for T/O. An operator should make every reasonable effort to verify that Low Visibility Procedures for takeoff are established at the aerodromes where Low Visibility Operations (operations in RVR less than 400 metres) may take place. Until further notice it may be accepted that these procedures ensure that only one aircraft at a time is allowed on the manoeuvring area and that vehicle traffic on the manoeuvring area is controlled and restricted to the absolute minimum.

[poldek77]

Thanks a lot.
As I can see - this is a formal base for further action. But it looks that no operator follows this leaflet... :sad:

[che ci dò che ci dò!]

Hi everybody,

do you know if the above mentioned lealfet is still valid? I couldn't find it in the JAA website, so I'm wondering if the relevant procedure is still applicable

Thanks

[FlightDetent]

Try JAA TGL 7 into google. Or go here http://www.jaa.nl/publications/4-3%20Lflt-7.pdf

FD (the un-real)

[Spitoon]

I don't know what is done in other States but I can give a view on the UK process as applied 7 or 8 years ago, the last time I got involved with LVOs.

In the UK the CAA requires LVPs that are appropriate for the operations that may take place. Therefore, if there is a CAT III approach to any runway, holding points which protect ILS sensitive areas will be used etc.

Any LVPs - for example, where LVTOs are taking place and there are no precision approaches - will limit access to the manoeuvring area and movement area and, perhaps, physically prevent the use of some routes. At aerodromes without SMR/ASMGCS, it is usual for surface movements to be limited to one aircraft at a time in order to reduce the risk of collision or runway incursion.

There are many other activities that must be in place for an aerodrome to declare 'LVPs in force' but, essentially, if pilots are told that LVPs are in place, any operation that is available will be appropriately protected.

I have heard discussions more recently of declaring LVPs in force for a particular runway or having different levels of procedures in place for different parts of the aerodrome. I don't know whether these ideas have been implemented anywhere in the UK but I tend to feel that simple is better - this minimises the risk of errors and misunderstandings!

[che ci dò che ci dò!]

..just a further confirmation concerning JAA TGL n.7:
Let's say I've to take off in a foggy day from an Airport with no pubblished LVP (CAT I airport where departures are normally not allowed when the RVR is below 400mts). Can I still undertake a LVTO provided I make sure with the tower controller that I'll be the only a/C on the manoeuvring area and that vehicles movement is restricted to the absolute minimum?
is it so simple?!?

[FlightDetent]

Just a small extra is required: all common prequsites for LVTO must be met. The TGL only addresses the disparity when everything is set out OK except that no LV Procedures are published - which is normally a requirement too. Dunno about EU-OPS, though.

[sbguskje]

The leaflet presented is 10 years old. Is that the most recent information about the matter?
My company has this statement in the OM A and I was very suspicious against it but it seems I was wrong. Didnt know that could happen...