bookworm
13th Aug 2011, 08:57
I'm puzzled. Here's EU-OPS (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:254:0001:0238:EN:PDF), Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430 starts at page 70.
(d) Determination of RVR/CMV/Visibility minima for Category I, APV and non-precision approach operations
1. The minimum RVR/CMV/Visibility shall be the highest of the values derived from Table 5 or Table 6 but not greater than the maximum values shown in Table 6 where applicable
2. The values in Table 5 are derived from the formula below.
Required RVR/visibility (m) = [(DH/MDH (ft) × 0,3048)/tanα] – length of approach lights (m)
Note 1: α is the calculation angle, being a default value of 3,00 degrees increasing in steps
It all looks very logical. The required RVR is effectively the distance of the nearest approach light at the DH on the glideslope (or nominal glideslope for a CDFA).
But there's a catch. Table 5 does not appear to use that formula with a consistent value of α = 3,00 degrees. Using α = 3,00 degrees,
Required RVR/visibility (m) = [DH/MDH (ft) × 5.816] – length of approach lights (m)
At a DH of 200 ft, the formula gives RVR = 1163 m – length of approach lights. Looking at the table, no approach light system (NALS) gives 1200 m, which is believable, and a FALS gives 550m, which assumes 720 m of approach light. OK, so far so good.
But now try some higher DHs. Let's try 500 ft. The formula gives RVR = 2908 m – length of approach lights. But Table 5 gives 2300 m for NALS, and 1500 m for FALS. Those are much lower than expected, by 600 m or so. At 1000 ft the formula gives RVR = 5816 m – length of approach lights, but Table 5 gives 4500 for NALS and 3800 for FALS.
What's going on? Why are the numbers in the table not consistent with the formula? Something to do with "being a default value of 3,00 degrees increasing in steps"? If so, what on earth does that mean?
(d) Determination of RVR/CMV/Visibility minima for Category I, APV and non-precision approach operations
1. The minimum RVR/CMV/Visibility shall be the highest of the values derived from Table 5 or Table 6 but not greater than the maximum values shown in Table 6 where applicable
2. The values in Table 5 are derived from the formula below.
Required RVR/visibility (m) = [(DH/MDH (ft) × 0,3048)/tanα] – length of approach lights (m)
Note 1: α is the calculation angle, being a default value of 3,00 degrees increasing in steps
It all looks very logical. The required RVR is effectively the distance of the nearest approach light at the DH on the glideslope (or nominal glideslope for a CDFA).
But there's a catch. Table 5 does not appear to use that formula with a consistent value of α = 3,00 degrees. Using α = 3,00 degrees,
Required RVR/visibility (m) = [DH/MDH (ft) × 5.816] – length of approach lights (m)
At a DH of 200 ft, the formula gives RVR = 1163 m – length of approach lights. Looking at the table, no approach light system (NALS) gives 1200 m, which is believable, and a FALS gives 550m, which assumes 720 m of approach light. OK, so far so good.
But now try some higher DHs. Let's try 500 ft. The formula gives RVR = 2908 m – length of approach lights. But Table 5 gives 2300 m for NALS, and 1500 m for FALS. Those are much lower than expected, by 600 m or so. At 1000 ft the formula gives RVR = 5816 m – length of approach lights, but Table 5 gives 4500 for NALS and 3800 for FALS.
What's going on? Why are the numbers in the table not consistent with the formula? Something to do with "being a default value of 3,00 degrees increasing in steps"? If so, what on earth does that mean?