jepperson approach plates legal requirements

[ANSALONI]

Hi everyone,
Just wondering. What are the requirements for approah plates on board an aircraft without EFB???? must both pilots have the original copy or can either have a photo-copied version provided an original is onboard??? I hope this is the appropriate forum for this discussion.

[JeroenC]

1 needs to be on board, photocopy is fine even without original (we print them from a computer, which in effect is a copy).

[dusk2dawn]

You are required to have available the information necessary for the planned flight, inclusive whatever alternate planning you have made.

Your operations manual may specify what vendor to use but wether you chose [insert any company here] it remains your responsibility that the information is current and valid for your flight.

The question about photocopy or "original" could possibly end up being one about copyright, but none of the private vendors are approved for anything - except when they deliver data to your FMC navigation database.

[BOAC]

Be careful with 'photocopies' - an eagle-eyed Flt Ops inspector MIGHT deduce that these are 'uncontrolled' ie not amended to a fixed plan and that 'old' copies could sit around on the flight deck.

[FlightPathOBN]

I get all my Jepp plates from PPRUNE!!!

Thats okay, right? :}

[Tinstaafl]

Of course it is! The only catch is ensuring 'net access during the approach. That was a bit of an issue for me so now I just use M$ Flight Sim. As a flight planning tool it's not bad either. Why, it wouldn't surprise me if you couldn't plan across the pond with it... :E

[Checkboard]

Both pilots don't need a copy of the plate either. Just a single copy of the current one has to be on board so, for instance, a pilot flying could brief from a single plate, then hand it to the pilot monitoring for the approach.

[SuperflyTNT]

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y486/SuperflyTNT03/Capture_zps110e2c43.png

Can somebody please explain as to why RVR and visibility are mentioned. What is the significance?

Isn't the visibility reported in RVR below 1500m.

Thank you in advance.

[galaxy flyer]

No, it could be reported as viz or RVR, depending on airport facilities operative or available.

GF

[SuperflyTNT]

So why has it been given twice here as RVR 550m and VIS 800m. Which one is the pilot supposed to follow while shooting the approach?

[80-87]

Well its a very good question. Instead of asking the question, why not look up the answer. Do your self a favor and learn the information that is located in the Jeppesen 'General' section of the Airway Manual. Instead of putting your feet up, reading the newspaper or the latest edition of GQ, do some work.

If you were working with me on a long haul flight you might learn a thing or two.

[SuperflyTNT]

Well I did read what Jeppesen has to say about it and didn't quite fully understand it. Which is exactly why I posted my question here. Sadly, I'm not working with you on a long haul flight which is why I'm trying to learn off here. Thanks for your advice in any case.

Jeppesen states that - "RVR visibility values are charted only when the value is not the same as the prevailing or meteorological visibility value. When a difference occurs, the respective RVR and prevailing or meteorological values are prefixed with 'RVR' and 'VIS'. When there is no difference, the minimum is shown only once and means either RVR (if RVR is reported for that runway) or visibility if measured otherwise."

[Airmann]

Transmisometers can break. Thats why there is a vis reading. Don't know if its company specific but there are also tables to determine how to convert rvr into vis and vv.

[BOAC]

Wow...where do I sign? That sounds like a cracking day out. - indeed - put me down on the list too.:ugh: I need a challenge every now and then. I'll even bring my own rolled-up newspaper.

Transmisometers can break. Thats why there is a vis reading. - ok, accepted. Now explain why every plate does not have them?

[nitpicker330]

If ATC quote Vis then you need 800m if they quote RVR you need 550m

:ok:

[greybeard]

It took 16 posts to get the answer?

PPRuNe is a sad place at times, full of crud from trolls and joksters.

:\

[BOAC]

Regrettably, greybeard, now 17 posts and no proper answer! nitpickers answer is of course correct but the query from 'superfly' was 'why do you require a greater vis. without RVR at that airfield'? We still do not know. Have you actually looked at any current Jepp charts?

Most of the UK ILS charts quote only 'RVRxxxm'. We all (hopefully) know about converting met vis to RVR, so as long as generally you have a met vis of at least 550m you are ok for CATI. Why then is it necessary to publish a met vis? 800m is actually the visual approach minimum RVR, and why the quoted chart requires an equivalent RVR of at least 800m I know not. Do you?

Is this purely an 'Indian' thing? Does this appear on any European charts? I recall (going back a bit!) Pristina used to have only a met vis minimum for the ILS 35 which I think WAS 800m.

Aterpster?

[SuperflyTNT]

The above picture/screen shot that I added is from the Jepp lengend manual. So, my guess is its not just an Indian thing. But, I have seen RVR and VIS being reported in quite a few current Indian approach charts.

Nitpickers answer seems to be the most favourable right now. But, visibility is reported in RVR below 1500m, why is VIS here stated at 800m ?

[BOAC]

OK - my initial response then is that it is simply a Jepp 'presentation' issue for the legend page, but you say you have seen it on other charts? Can you image one for me or give me locators?

[justanotherflyer]

@superfly

But, visibility is reported in RVR below 1500m, why is VIS here stated at 800m ?

Not really. Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that visibility above 1500m is normally not reported as RVR.

RVR can be reported only when measured by suitable equipment, and is given for a specific runway direction in the format RXX/XXXX.

Visibility, a more general all round assessment, can indeed be reported as such below 1500m (E.g. showing 0300 on my location's METAR right now - time for coffee!)



.

[rcav8r]

Wouldn't it be read equivalent to US CATI minimums?

e.g. RVR18 or 1/2sm VIS

If you have RVR reported, it controls over the VIS?

So in your example, if RVR wasn't reported you could shoot the approach with 800m vis? If RVR was reported you would need 550m?

[SuperflyTNT]

That was my guess as well. You shoot the approach with 800m VIS or above if RVR is not reported. In the case of the RVR being reported then visibility should be 550m or >. Nobody seems to be certain though.

[SuperflyTNT]

@ BOAC

This is a picture for the ILS approach at Bangalore for Runway 09. Notice how VIS (800m) and RVR (720m) is stated.

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y486/SuperflyTNT03/photo_zpsfdbd1182.jpg

[BOAC]

Thanks, superfly - puzzling to me. In EU-land, where RVR is not 'available' EU-OPS gives us the option of 'converting' met vis to RVR (although there was always 'discussion' (never resolved) about whether loss of RVR barred a Cat I approach based on the wording in our OM).

I have to assume that the relevant Air regs do not allow this conversion. Again, in ideal conditions on a full instrument runway, in EU-land a met vis of 600m would suffice by day and 300m by night, so why 800m I know not.

[justanotherflyer]

I'm going to speculate that the 800m VIS is regarded as a state minimum, (perhaps by dint of being defined here (http://www.dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20cars/D8C-C1(DRAFT).pdf) in line with ICAO Cat 1 definition), but that Jepp have calculated the RVR upwards (from the AIP-published 550m) for some reason, and have charted both together. RVR (or vis without conversion) would then be the compulsory minimum. One possibility is that this is from an operator-tailored chart. Or maybe <speculate> in Jeppesen's estimation the AIP minima are too low and don't meet PANS-OPS requirements.</speculate>

(Per Jeppesen: (http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/quickref/euopsjeppesen.pdf))

If State minimums are officially published the depiction of AOM may differ from the standard depiction where all values are expressed as RVR or CMV.

1. If RVR/CMV and VIS are charted together, the RVR value is compulsory. If no RVR is reported, the VIS has to be used without conversion.

2. No prefix is charted if RVR/CMV and VIS is identical. The reported RVR is compulsory. If no RVR is reported, the VIS has to be used without conversion.

3. If only VIS is charted, the VIS has to be used without conversion.

[SuperflyTNT]

Read this while reading on Auto land (Oxford).

The auto land weather requirement for a CAT I approach is : "Decision Height should be no lower than 200ft, and with either a visibility of no less than 800m or an RVR of no less than 550m."


So, my guess is when both RVR and VIS are stated on the approach plate. As long as you satisfy one of the two requirements you can continue the approach to land. So a few people who said it before I did were right. Again, I'm only guessing.

Any counter on this?

[Autobrake RTO]

2. No prefix is charted if RVR/CMV and VIS is identical. The reported RVR is compulsory. If no RVR is reported, the VIS has to be used without conversion.

Hi justanotherflyer

Your reference to the Jeppesen charted minima above, can you please state the Jeppesen page reference?
I have had a look today and all I can find is this:

Quote" Visibility values in meters are labeled with an "m" while values in kilometers are labeled with a "km". When an RVR value is not equivalent to the associated meteorological visibility, both are shown and labeled "R" and "V".’ When RVR and MET VIS are equivalent, the visibility is shown once, ’and labeled as R/V, meaning either RVR or MET VIS"
Reference: Jeppesen manual. Introduction Tab. page: Approach 9.

Autobrake RTO

[MarkerInbound]

At least in FAA/NWS land, visibility and RVR are two different things. From the Federal Meteorological Handbook:

Prevailing visibility. The visibility that is considered representative of visibility conditions at the station; the greatest distance that can be seen throughout at least half the horizon circle, not necessarily continuous.

The runway visual range is the maximum distance at which the runway, or the specified lights or markers delineating it, can be seen from a position above a specified point on its center line. This value is normally determined by visibility sensors located alongside and higher than the center line of the runway. RVR is calculated from visibility, ambient light level, and runway light intensity.

So RVR is calculated for a specific runway while visibility is a general airport observation. Since the conditions at the end of the runway could be lower than the stated visibility, visibility mins are bumped up a bit to account for any variation from the airport observation. If you have a RVR report for a specific runway, it trumps the airport visibility report. If, for any reason, a RVR report for a specific runway is not available, you use the airport visibility.

[justanotherflyer]

Hi Autobrake

can you please state the Jeppesen page reference?

I took it not from the manual but from this Jeppesen briefing document (see p.23):

http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/quickref/euopsjeppesen.pdf

However to me that seems to be largely an amplification of your reference from the manual. On page Approach-10 in the manual, the Guide for Visibility Label Usage indicates that the labels V and VIS (similarly R and RVR) are equivalent - in my experience the labels VIS and RVR are generally used, notwithstanding the wording you quote from page 9.

On page 10 we also see:

Only visibilities that have been supplied by the State Authority will be labeled with a "V".

....feeding my speculation in the Bangalore case (with apologies for this serious thread drift) that Jepp are quoting the VIS (800) as published by the State, but are recalculating the RVR upwards from the usual 550 for some reason (a more accurate derivation per PANS OPS criteria, perhaps?) also knowing that this more conservative RVR will trump the published VIS for their customers.

It would be nice to get some clarification on the question from Jeppesen themselves.

[BOAC]

Let's stick with Bangalore - hypothetical scenario:

ILS R09: Met Vis 700m, RVR R09 1200m.

What to do, and why?

[thermostat]

It's difficult for me, a retired pilot, to understand why all this confusion. We now fly $150 million dollar super jets and pilots have to put up with all this nonsense. Why can't it be simple like it was 40 years ago. Seems pretty stupid to me. Not sure I want to put me foot in an aircraft anymore. Looks like idiots running aviation now.

[BOAC]

Me too, thermo, and so far no-one brave enough to answer my question!

I guess this is 'progress'?

[Permafrost_ATPL]

Daft question: would an airfield not stop reporting VIS once it starts reporting RVR and vice versa? I should probably know that :(

[BOAC]

Certainly in the UK met vis will be issued from MET (and on the METAR) and RVR from ATC so both would be 'in force' and presumably available.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi BOAC,
Let's stick with Bangalore - hypothetical scenario:

ILS R09: Met Vis 700m, RVR R09 1200m.

What to do, and why?
You may continue the approach because RVR (if reported) takes precedence.

[aterpster]

thermostat:


It's difficult for me, a retiredpilot, to understand why all this confusion. We now fly $150 million dollarsuper jets and pilots have to put up with all this nonsense. Why can't it besimple like it was 40 years ago. Seems pretty stupid to me. Not sure I want toput me foot in an aircraft anymore. Looks like idiots running aviation now.
You’ve had 40 years of substantial progress in technology.

You’ve also had 40 years of aviation bureaucrats thinking up more policies and schemes to justify building their big empires. Worst of all is ICAO, with its endless panels and meetings and “haromizations,” ad nauseum.

[BOAC]

RVR (if reported) takes precedence. - have you a reference for that? I do not see it anywhere. Remember that a published MINIMUM met vis is a limit.

Like thermo, I feel this has got ridiculous and people should stop meddling with what WAS a very simple concept. RVR and CMV were perfectly fine, simple and easy to work with.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi BOAC,

The closest I can find is on page 108/109 of
http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/opinions/2011/04/Annexes%20to%20Regulation.pdf

"(c) Where the RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility."
It basically says that if RVR is available - then use it, if it is not available then you may convert the VIS to RVR.

[BOAC]

That's OK with a single minimum (ie RVR, when you can use CMV), but when you print both......................???

[galaxy flyer]

OK465

Not sure about the closed runway rules in the FARs, but you couldn't do a declared low approach to one in the USAF. The CAR Approach Ban does have specific exemption for training when the reported weather is below limits under the ban, low approach only. IIRC.

GF

[FlightPathOBN]

In regards to designing procedures, with DA/MDA having a visibility component...

It is amazing to me to read the general pilot response(s) to RVR/VIS....

[OK465]

GF

Thanks.

We flew at times as civ public aircraft and at times Part 91 and even tried to act 121 occasionally.

But I've often been cleared for low approaches to closed runways here at OKC...the tower would place altitude restrictions on them if there were vehicles or people on the runway along with the big lighted "X"...limited to something in the neighborhood of no lower than 500 feet, possibly in line with the sparsely populated guidance. Not sure.

But I figured if they were happy, I was. Never heard a word about it, but of course, we were them. :}

[BOAC]

It is amazing to me to read the general pilot response(s) to RVR/VIS.... - OK - apart from being amazed, your contribution to this thread was......?

[Permafrost_ATPL]

BOAC
Certainly in the UK met vis will be issued from MET (and on the METAR) and RVR from ATC so both would be 'in force' and presumably available.

But your decision to go beyond the approach ban is based on what is passed on by ATIS or ATC. It surely takes precedence over potentially expired info published by MET/METAR. And I don't think ATC would ever pass both Vis and RVR.

I can see why the publication of both Vis and RVR on a plate bothers you though. One would think there is a reason...

Talking of approach ban. "Commencement and continuation of approach" was defined in EU-OPS under 1.405. The cross-reference table published by EASA says the equivalent section is now in CAT.OP.MPA.305. There is indeed such a section in Part-CAT, except it only covers visual reference at DH/DA and does not say a word about RVR. Sigh.

[BOAC]

Yes - it is really an unnecessary complication to my mind. Re the Approach ban - the dilemma is that IF at the relevant point the met vis is below the 'published' minimum but the RVR is above...??? - which one do you take note of? I have never seen a plate like those plates posted here in Europe, so the problem has never arisen. Indeed the only time I have even seen a met vis minimum published was in the early Pristina days.

[FlightPathOBN]

Here is the VIS/RVR data for Bangalore from the government source...

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ScreenHunter_45-Apr.-30-09.04-e1367338331104.jpg

and for your reading pleasure... JAR-OPS 1.430 Appendix 1 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:010:0001:0206:EN:PDF)

and

Manual of Runway Visual Range Observing and Reporting Practices. Doc 9328 (ftp://ftp.at.fcen.uba.ar/aeronautica/DOCUMENTOS%20VARIOS/manual%20de%20RVR_ingles.pdf)

[BOAC]

That's getting better!:) As we thought, the minima stem from the Indian AIP. Still does not answer my question, though.............................

PS JarOps not relevant there (and only refers to CMV), and the observing and reporting of RVR is not relevant either!

[FlightPathOBN]

JAR-OPS link posted as there are posts in the thread that ref.

ICAO doc is relevant, and gives the foundation for the different VIS and RVR values and foundation for the different numbers per procedure type..