PDA

View Full Version : Approach ban - single pilot IFR ops.


FlyingGoat
5th Nov 2010, 12:06
I'd assumed this was decided by the FAF/FAP or, at the latest, 1,000 ARTE, but I've been directed to the Journal of the European Union, where it's (apparently) re-defined as 1,000 ARTE.

I'd appreciate the answer to three questions:

1) What is the Journal of the European Union, and is it 'our' new bible?

2) Is there an online source (searching only produces a 10-page intro to the Single European Sky)?

3) Does it over-ride the AIP for UK ops?

Many thanks.

IO540
5th Nov 2010, 16:16
I would be interested in knowing the answer to this, and also the min vis, for a private flight, SE, with autopilot, UK or Europe, G-reg or N-reg.

I don't think the answer is clear. This topic has been done to death on these forums for as long as I can remember.

The Jepp plates give min vis (e.g. 550m on a particular ILS approach).

FlyingGoat
5th Nov 2010, 17:00
I thought for SE it was RVR min. 800m cut and dried by 1,000' ARTE (or previously the FAF). Apologies if it's been flogged to death already, but I couldn't see any reference to this EU document and the 1,000' ARTE being discussed on the Forum.

madlandrover
5th Nov 2010, 19:44
Potentially down to 550m single crew in an appropriately equipped aircraft - ie one with an approach coupled autopilot and certified as such. The autopilot will have its own certification limits for minimum height agl for disconnecting, eg in a DA42 (KAP140) it's 250'. So potentially a way of flying a legal approach with 600m vis, even if the cloudbase is too low to successfully land off the approach in practice.

IO540
5th Nov 2010, 21:45
I have just read an article written by a CAA IR examiner (in the current pplir.org magazine; the current edition is members only) which, if I read it correctly, says that the min vis can be 800m / 1.5 = 533m, with the right kind of runway lights, etc.

The minimum flight manual-authorised usable height for the autopilot also needs to be increased a bit...

According to the article, the approach ban exists only at 1000ft. Before 1000ft, you can continue, and after 1000ft you can continue.

But how all this maps onto different aircraft regs (i.e. is a State of Registry dependent factor) and airspaces (i.e. is an airspace factor like e.g. the UK requirement for an ADF for all IFR in CAS) I have no idea.

FlyingGoat
5th Nov 2010, 23:01
That's a seriously useful article, IO540 - thanks for pointing it out. (The author has an interesting website: gCAP (http://www.gcap.co.uk/) and publishes CAT A approach plates for single-pilot IFR).

Two very short extracts from the PPL/IR article:

Minimum RVR single pilot: The minimum RVR for single-pilot ops is 800m unless the aircraft is coupled to an ILS.

Approach ban: In fact, you can start an approach with the RVR as low as zero, but you can’t continue beyond the outer marker (or equivalent position) if it’s below limits at that time. There are hardly any IAPs in the UK now which use markers, so you need to know that the ‘equivalent position’ is 1000ft above the aerodrome. If the RVR/visibility is good enough as you pass this equivalent position then you can continue, and even if it subsequently falls you can continue all the way to the missed approach point. The bottom line is that the RVR/visibility must be at least equal to the minimum for the approach as you pass the equivalent position; before this point it doesn’t matter, and after this point it doesn’t matter.

beerdrinker
6th Nov 2010, 09:00
As I see it from the AIP AD 1.1.13

4.4 Single Pilot Operations
4.4.1 For single pilot operations in an aeroplane, the minimum RVR for all approaches shall be in accordance with the above, (4.3) except
that an RVR of less than 800 m is not permitted unless using a suitable autopilot coupled to an ILS or MLS, in which case normal minima
apply. The Decision Height applied must not be less than 1.25 x the minimum use height for the autopilot.

So with an approved autopilot one's single pilot limits are 250' (200 x 1.25) and 600m RVR (not 550 because a DH of 250 requires the extra 50'. (4.3.1)
BUT
If flying without an A/P, single crew the minima is 200' (without PEC) but the RVR is 800m.

So you have a lower DH minimum without an A/P !!!!

BD

ATP_Al
6th Nov 2010, 13:50
I have just read an article written by a CAA IR examiner (in the current pplir.org magazine; the current edition is members only) which, if I read it correctly, says that the min vis can be 800m / 1.5 = 533m, with the right kind of runway lights, etc.

The minimum RVR required for single pilot ops is 800m unless a coupled autopilot is available. If met vis is reported you can factor it to get an RVR (if high intensity approach and runway lights are installed, x1.5 by day and x2.0 by night), but if an RVR below minima is reported you cannot factor this.

Spitoon
6th Nov 2010, 15:34
I'm no great expert on aircraft ops but in answer to your first two questions - the Official Journal of the European Union is the central and definitive repository of European legislation. Until any text is published in the OJ (as it is commonly known) it is not law.

The OJ is available on-line (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) although it's not always easy to find what you want. It's a sad fact - particularly in the minds of some CAA people - but it really doesn't matter what a magazine article says, it's the legislation that counts! Sadly though, my experience of EU legislation (mainly in relation to ATM and SES) is that it leaves much open to interpretation.

IO540
6th Nov 2010, 18:15
So with an approved autopilot one's single pilot limits are 250' (200 x 1.25) and 600m RVR (not 550 because a DH of 250 requires the extra 50'. (4.3.1)

The above applies only in UK airspace and possibly (that bit is often hard to unravel in the ANO) applies to G-reg only.

What about an N-reg landing in Germany (JAR-FCL plus probably local gold plating)?

What about an N-reg landing in Spain (JAR-FCL but probably without gold plating because nobody in the Spanish CAA can understand these regs)?

What about an N-reg landing in Croatia (non-EU but JAR-FCL)?

What about an N-reg landing in Ethiopia? That one, surely, must be simply the more stringent of a) the flight manual limits and b) wot it sez on the Jepp plate :)

421C
6th Nov 2010, 19:21
The above applies only in UK airspace and possibly (that bit is often hard to unravel in the ANO) applies to G-reg only.


It applies to all a/c. You don't need to read it in the ANO, it's in the Jepp "State Rules and Procedures" pages. The approach ban systematically across Europe is only an EU-OPS (new name for JAR-OPS) thing that applies to commercial aircraft only until the new EASA OPS comes into force. Otherwise for each of the cases you mention, you go to Jepp or whatever your alternative is (I guess the national AIPs).

brgds
421C

what next
6th Nov 2010, 21:35
What about an N-reg landing in Germany (JAR-FCL plus probably local gold plating)? ...

In all these cases, the more stringent rules of either the state of the operator/license holder or the state of the aerodrome apply. As with every other rule in (international) aviation.

For EU-OPS compliant states, all the relevant numbers (including the single-pilot RVR of 800m or less with a "suitable coupled autopilot") can be found in Appendix 1 to EU-OPS 1.430.

DFC
6th Nov 2010, 23:03
The approach ban is not a "European" or "UK" issue.

The approach ban is an ICAO standard and applicable to General Aviation Operations. ICAO Annex 6 Volume 2 refers.

In simple terms,

An approach can be started regardless of the weather.

The approach can not continue beyond the Outer Marker or equivalent position (precision approach) or descend below 1000ft AAL (non-precision approach) if the weather is below the applicable minima.

If the aircraft has passed the Outer Marker or is below 1000ft AAL and the weather deteoriates below the applicable minima the approach can be continued to the DA / MDA.

Regardless of weather conditions the aircraft can not continue the approach below the applicable DA / MDA unless the required visual references are visible and continue to be so.

The UK has decided that private operations shall use the minima etc published in the AIP which are aligned with EU-OPS (the standards for commercial ops). Therefore G reg operators and all other operators when in the UK must comply with the requirments.

A quick look at the GEN section of an AIP will tell you if there any differences from the ICAO standard.

Commercial flight guides may also have this information.

RE 800m single pilot limitation.

It is an RVR of 800m.

If RVR is not reported then it is permitted to obtain an equivalent figure by converting the met visibility based on certain criteria. As others have said, in certain cases the visibility can be multiplied by 1.5 to give a CMV of 800m.

There is nothing to gain from this because if RVR is reported then that figure has to be used. If RVR is not reported then the CMV will usually be a figure very similar to that which would be reported as RVR.

Again, no matter how far above minima the RVR is (or the CMV is) if you don't have the required visual reference at DA you are not going to land (legally).

-----------


So you have a lower DH minimum without an A/P !!!!



Not necessarily. Imagine the same calculation with a certified autopilot where the minimum use height was 100ft.

or

Imagine using your autopilot with minimum use height of 200ft when the DH is 250ft.

There are plenty of ILS's where coupled approaches are not allowed or are not allowed below a height that is higher than the DH.

However, it is not simply about how low you can go. With a suitable autopilot the workload is a lot lower and one can (while fully monitoring the approach) spend a lot more time peering into the mist for the approach lights than if one hand-flies.

IO540
7th Nov 2010, 21:23
No wonder few people understand this.

Most people who fly seriously fly with Jepp plates, which give the visibility figure directly.

With an autopilot whose flight manual supplement says "200ft min", it looks like 533m is going to be the absolute minimum for a private flight.

DFC
7th Nov 2010, 22:35
With an autopilot whose flight manual supplement says "200ft min", it looks like 533m is going to be the absolute minimum for a private flight.


Is it?

200ft minimum use height * 1.25 = 250ft

So the absolute minimum RVR is 600m

If using CMV then the minimum visibility that will give you a CMV of 600m is at best:

400m ( *1.5) by day and 300m (*2.0) by night.

However, once the new bits of EU-OPS (which are already being used by most commercial operators) are put into the AIP fro private operators then you will be able to have DH = minimum use height but the CMV can not be used for minima less than 800m

So if you want to get used to the new parts then unless RVR is reported, you are going to be stuck with 800m CMV!!

-----
Most people who fly seriously fly with Jepp plates, which give the visibility figure directly.

No.

Jeppesen does not cover all situations and in some cases (CDFA minimums published as DA(H) being one) there are significant issues to be resolved.

It is very much the amateur pilot who blindly follows what a company with a disclaimer as long as your arm publishes.

IO540
9th Nov 2010, 20:28
It is very much the amateur pilot who blindly follows what a company with a disclaimer as long as your arm publishes.

"Blindly follows" is quite an assumption...

Otherwise, when you go on your next holiday Mr DFC, you better not fly anybody but British Airways, since BA is one of the very few airlines not flying with Jepp plates :ugh:

DFC
9th Nov 2010, 22:36
I'll let someone else give you a history of AERAD lesson.

Some people will even remember Pre-Aerad!! :)

Many airlines use their own charts. It's not so difficult in this digital age.

Many more will pay Jeppesen to produce company specific charts.

All airlines will audit the information provided by Jeppesen when it is included in their Ops Manual Part C.

'I' in the sky
25th Nov 2010, 07:29
"Disclaimer as long as your arm" - The one which in short says "Thank you for your 600 quid, now we accept no responisbility for the contents which should not be used without first being checked against the appropriate national publication"

So how many people actually do check all their Jepps against the AIP before usung them ? I think that counts as blindly following.

IO540
29th Nov 2010, 19:56
So how many people actually do check all their Jepps against the AIP before usung them ? I think that counts as blindly following.

Every 747 pilot landing at LHR does that. Yeah............ they carry the AIP for every airspace they overfly.

What a bunch of pompous stuck-up people... one could not get a #1 Pozi screwdriver up half the sphincters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphincter) here.

DFC
30th Nov 2010, 08:12
Every 747 pilot landing at LHR does that. Yeah............ they carry the AIP for every airspace they overfly.




They don't have to carry lots of books. In most cases they will not carry full Jepp coverage either.

Airlines have an ops department that in some cases produces their own charts and in other cases uses a 3rd party eg Jepp to produce the charts that they use.

Either way what we are talking about in an Airline / AOC operator's case is Part C of the Operations Manual. That document is inspected approved and audited. An airline / AOC operator will invest more money and time in establishing a proper relationship with their chart supplier than the average private pilot.

You seem to forget that an airline does not wake up in the morning and say "let's grab the Jepps and fly to somewhere new". A new route or a new area of operation involves a lot of research, consultation, training and approvals.

Airlines are not only interested in the accuracy of the data they also get quite involved in the AIRAC change-over times for the various databases. You may not have realised it but while AIRAC changes happen at midnight (ish) most databases change over at 0900z on the AIRAC date. This means that if you are in Europe, departing at 0500 and arriving at 0800 the database will not be updated.

In this case, Airlines and AOC operators will have measures in place to ensure that the pilots are aware of any changes and the flight complies with any changes that may be in the system.

Overnight flights from far away also have to be aware of this and have measures in place.

So while Airline pilots may not have the AIP under their arm, they are accutely aware of many more relevant AIM aspects than you seem to be.

Finally as an example, it takes less than a minute to check what changes are happening in the UK on 16 December (Next AIRAC date). Having done that one can sit back and wait for the new Jepp charts to arrive. If they don't arrive then one is still aware of what is changing and can cope. Same thing can be done for every other European country. Not very hard now is it?

Sir Niall Dementia
30th Nov 2010, 08:21
Oh dear, someones upset the mighty IO540.

An AOC requirement (in EASA land) is that approach plates for any country that AOC may fly to are checked against the relevant Air Pilot. Most line pilots will not even know that such an action is carried out as they have no requirement to know, in a major carrier the Air Pilots are held in OPs Admin and the checking takes place there. Surely IO540 would have known that as he so often spouts off at others quoting his great knowlwdge and expertise.

JEPP/AERAD become the defining documents for AOC pilots by the virtue of the fact that the Ops Manual will state which type of plate is to be used, and therefore JEPP/AERAD actually become part of the Ops Manual, and the limits defined there become company limits, unless there is an AFM limit, or performance limit which calls for a higher limit to be imposed.

SND

IO540
1st Dec 2010, 05:52
Having done that one can sit back and wait for the new Jepp charts to arrive.

Need to get up to date, Mr DFC.

The Jepp stuff has been delivered electronically for some years.

SND - where did I bring AOCs into this? I don't know everything, but I can soon spot posts from somebody who hasn't flown for years ;)

G-SPOTs Lost
1st Dec 2010, 06:57
The Jepp stuff has been delivered electronically for some years.


Errrrr so why do I get two envelopes of varying thickness per week?

I don't know everything

Evidently. But dont come out fighting calling everybody sphincters because of your own admitted lack of knowledge thats just daft and a bit rude

Sir Niall Dementia
1st Dec 2010, 08:11
IO540;

Sorry I missed your post I was away on a trip, DUB-LTN. I fly most days at work and often on my days off. As for JEPPs arriving electronically, I wish. The paperless cockpit is further away than most people realise, thanks to the utter dither at EASA.

SND

DFC
1st Dec 2010, 08:13
Need to get up to date, Mr DFC.

The Jepp stuff has been delivered electronically for some years.

SND - where did I bring AOCs into this? I don't know everything, but I can soon spot posts from somebody who hasn't flown for years


Correct me if I am wrong but while one can subscribe to Jeppview etc, one still has to download the updates. Therefore while the delivery may be electronic, the principle is still the same.

Also, just to let you know that when one subscribes to Jeppview or similar, the electronic updates are available every 14 days but one receives the "Chart Change Notices" via the regular post every week.

As for the AOC, well actually you did introduce that because I only know of 3 possibly 4 B747s that land at Heathrow without being an AOC operation and in the case of one of those they definitely produce their own charts!! :ok:

IO540
1st Dec 2010, 11:04
Errrrr so why do I get two envelopes of varying thickness per week?

Probably because you opted for the paper version.

The electronic (Jeppview 3) version does have some paper content (the airway charts are still paper) but that turns up only every few months.

You can also choose the CD or download delivery. The CD version costs extra and there is the delay of the CDs being in the mail.

I used to have the Jepp paper sub, just for the UK, and that was bad enough in terms of time wasting, inserting the stuff in. For say Europe, it would take quite a few hours to do all the updates.

Most airlines fly with Jepp plates, and virtually all light jets do.

G-SPOTs Lost
1st Dec 2010, 11:37
You really dont know when to stop digging do you :ok:

Im epic equipped and have been using electronic charting for 4 years, I subscribe to INDS not jeppesen I get sent the jepp packet that you get with the two discs and I also get INDS data downloaded onto a CD that goes to the FMS's

I also receive paper because as yet having the built in charting function does not simply satisfy your legal requirements, as alluded to above and ignored theres a lot of work to do before coming up with a workable efb solution and that doesnt mean firing up your laptop on the passenger seat when your primary system doesnt work.

I fly a mid size bizjet and doing jepp updates is just part of life, I quite like being in the loop when changes appear on plates that you visit regularly. I can do a big jeppy in about 3 hours my FO 2/3rds that....its no biggy every fortnight.

You may scoff at paper but you can read them in any light, dont need charging, dont take up panel space and (again) dont need charging. I'm guessing you're one of these chaps that fly along with the coaming looking like the gadget show (which privately I find very entertaining), thats fine but space is at a premium in a bizjet cockpit ....panel space more so.

Its been around a while has paper - EFB's have some way to go to mature and the OEM's need to start making provisions for them in much the same way that they do with HF and media installations

You need to realise that Paper is the norm, EFB's are the exception in the vast majority of cases and simply because you can doesnt mean you should in aviation

DFC
1st Dec 2010, 18:25
The electronic (Jeppview 3) version does have some paper content (the airway charts are still paper) but that turns up only every few months.



I think that you need to ask someone to show you what pieces of paper come with the Electronic Versions.

Let's Start with;

The Introduction pages

Chart Change Notices

Enroute Section which for Europe covers the RAD, UK LARS, UK Middle Airspace Radar and a few other bits and pieces

The Paper Charts (HI and LO)

Area Charts

Those are the bits that come in the post when amended. The Chart Change Notices come every 7 days by post and the RAD seems to change every AIRAC date so plenty of pages to file.

Please take the time to read the Jeppesen Customer Service Bulletin all about why you have to always have paper charts available even when using electronic ones.

Perhaps for your small amount of flying you don't use too much ink printing off charts but for people who fly a lot, it is cheaper to get the Jeppesen paper Versions in addition to Jeppview than spend 3 times that on ink.

It is also very difficult to obtain approval for a 100% paperless cockpit and Private or Commercial, GA or AOC, until you have that approval you are required to have paper copies of the relevant information aboard.

FlyingGoat
1st Dec 2010, 18:51
I'm curious, and excuse the thread creep, as a relative newcomer (having been tucked away in one of the airline sections for centuries) but are there threads on pprune which aren't tedious chains of point-scoring? Or is it a male form of feather display?

Isn't there such a concept as learning off each other, considering we come from an impressive array of backgrounds?

Or is that a bit happy-clappy?

Apologies, and back to battle.

G-SPOTs Lost
2nd Dec 2010, 07:38
Thats a bit happy clappy....

Many seem to create an authorative aura upon here - that can be good and bad, sometimes people can back it up with facts sometimes they cant....

Personally I feel some of these threads can literally be quite dangerous, I'm not suggesting people would launch off into weather as authorised by Pprune (or would they) but theres now a new rumour floating about that SPIR minima is 531.35 meters (or whatever) due to some wonderful manipulation of a pocket calculator and some CATII landing lights.

So apologies if you think the thread got hijacked by some strutting peacocks, its no more macho than somebody attempting to self authorise themselves down to the very very least restrictive minima they can possibly eek out of some magazine article and what they can seek to find out on pprune.

In much the same way you see/perceive the antagonists on here feather waving, I see pilots propping up the flying club bar trying to be more capable than the next guy launching off in all kinds of crap weather overreliant on automatics pleased with themsleves that by some interpretation of the rulebook and registration they managed to to shave 250m from the required minima.

That view is probably wrong I admit and apologies to those who take a sensible view of minima, equipment redundancy, currency etc in those kind of operations etc etc, but its just the image that jumps into my head for that I apologise.

That said , the fact that somebody managed to work out a minima in a SPIR/SEP thats less than my 550m in a 2 sim trained crew / CATII capable / 2 channel autopilot equipped bizjet is slightly concerning....

Do you not agree?

Anyway back on topic if you like

Sir Niall Dementia
2nd Dec 2010, 09:59
G-SPOT;

You have just written what so many of us were thinking. In fact PPRune "armchair expertry" was much discussed during our last CRM course, and the possibility that someone, somewhere is going to take advice from a couple of the posters here and find out the hard way that the advice is at best flawed and at worse lethal.

A chat with our local ATC was illuminating. If a pilot continues an approach and lands below the minima published in the UKAIP (not a pilot calculation from JEPP/AERAD/Gcap or whatever) then an MOR will be filed as required in MATs Part 1 for ALL aerodromes within the UK.

Ergo Absolute minima are laid down by AIP, and are then adopted into the plates by the publishers. There are NO lower minima.

SND

DFC
2nd Dec 2010, 11:20
Personally I feel some of these threads can literally be quite dangerous, I'm not suggesting people would launch off into weather as authorised by PPRuNe (or would they) but theres now a new rumour floating about that SPIR minima is 531.35 meters (or whatever) due to some wonderful manipulation of a pocket calculator and some CATII landing lights.




I think that you have mis-read the posts.

No one is suggesting that a single pilot can use and RVR or CMV minima of less than 800m without Autopilot etc.

What people have quite correctly pointed out is that when RVR is not reported, a visibility of 533m will when the appropriate lighting is available and the appropriate EU-OPS factor is applied give a CMV of 800m.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that an it is 100% in compliance with UK and European requirements.

When describing the absolute minima I believe the person was referring to the fact that with the best possible combination fo lights etc the lowest visibility that one could ever make an approach with is 533m.

Every experienced commercial pilot here should be aware that when landing off a CAT1 ILS with an RVR of 550m, the reported visibility will generally be well less than 500m. Therefore a single pilot private operation in current flying practice limiting themselves to an absolute minimum visibility of 535m is clearly putting in a safety factor.

ATC use the absolute minima published for the procedure in terms of RVR. For many CAT 1 ILS this will be 550m. Private pilots using an RVR or CMV of 800m (whatever the visibility) will never have a problem with the CAA even if someone does file an MOR because they are complying 100% with the requirements.

IO540
5th Dec 2010, 08:18
FWIW...

Private flight with all-electronic data is 100% legal in both G-reg and N-reg. This one has been done to death many times.

May not be "wise", which is why I print off all info needed for the planned flight plus diversions. But that's a different debate.

On AOC ops, if the approved manual says you have to wear pink underpants when flying a VOR approach, and blue ones when flying an NDB approach, that's what you have to do. But that isn't private flight.

I am no supporter of Jepp as a company (having suffered their dreadful customer service a number of times) but the great thing about electronic Jepp delivery is that it is very quick and easy to update the package, while it doesn't in any way preclude flying with printed data.

I used to have the UK Jepp (and before that the Aerad) paper subs, and one gets the warm feeling of sitting in the airport cafe for an hour, inserting the changes into the ring binder so everybody around thinks you are a "real commercial pilot". Now I just have my cup of tea and s0d off home, while several other "pretend commercial pilots" go through the ritual :)

There are commercial certified EFB solutions but they are always duplicated systems working off separate power sources etc.

1 or 2 pilots I know fly with an Ipad holding all their data, which I think will bite them in the b*m one day, when the thing packs up. It's OK as a backup...

pumpkinpilot
27th Dec 2010, 21:49
I renewed my IR abroad recently, and the discussion arose about "single pilot" 800m RVR minima. UK IRE told me - it applies in all countries, as far as he knew. Spanish and Austrian IREs told me - never heard of that - must be a UK thing, OR, it must only be for commercial ops, not private.

The other thing I asked about was the expression "single pilot". Does it mean (a) it would be OK to go down to the published RVR minima if we have two IR pilots up front in the C172, or (b) it only applies to AIRCRAFT that are certified for single crew ops. The last I heard, the answer is (b). However, the expression "single pilot" is ambiguous, and open to misinterpretation - beware.

FlyingGoat
27th Dec 2010, 22:28
The references on the first page of this thread refer to single pilot public transport ops.

Definitely European regs. and possibly ICAO (see previous) and answer (b) would be correct. I don't think single pilot ops is particularly ambiguous and it would be unusual, if not meaningless, to have dual crew in a 172.

Personal opinion though....

Cap20
4th Mar 2012, 13:08
Hi Everyone,

After reading each post, One question is remaining for me:

As a single pilot, I need 800m of visibility, but is it 200ft AGL as a minimum DH of do I have to increase the chart DH by 200ft?

Regards

421C
4th Mar 2012, 13:43
See section 8.2 of the article here: http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/pplir_files/vb%20weather%20minima%20article%20v133.pdf
There have been some changes to the regs since the 2010 posts in this thread.

Cap20
4th Mar 2012, 13:47
Thank you for the link!