None standard instrument approaches. [Archive]

mad_jock

16th Sep 2012, 22:16

The OP will have deleted it.

One of the cultral differences which is taught in CRM is the way different nationalites accept critisim. Or more to the point don't.

He will be away off chuntering about disrespectful island monkeys.

And hoping the the Norwiegens won't be on the look out for a grey market charter flying in IFR in a SET.

The word idiot translated can be more hard core than it is in English native use. Even between natives certain words have different uses and strengths. Mental to a scotsman doesn't mean the same thing as to a southern Englishman which seems to be taken as they have mental health problems which as any scotsman knows most of them do. :p

Anyway the approach thing apart from all that was quite interesting.

I had been digging into the GEN section of the Norway AIP and it had some quite interesting differences to ICAO.

https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/current/AIP/EN_GEN_1_7_en.pdf#page=14

Haven't managed to find the ICAO ref document though.

Contacttower

16th Sep 2012, 22:30

I just got in from an eight hour drive and was really hoping to catch up on the original thread...it was just getting interesting...

Last I looked we were discussing engaging the autopilot during the visual segment; oh well...:sad:

mad_jock

16th Sep 2012, 22:40

Crack on CT be interesting to see what the differences are between what we all have been taught. I would imagine that the latest GA avionics will have a slightly different philosophy to what I am used to.

Personally I wouldn't, but then again I have a ****e AP if fitted which i wouldn't trust. And personally think that looking out the window is the focus not head inside monitoring what george is doing or punching numbers in. And if you can see the runway why use the automatics?

The mode selection and target altitude you set for the segments below MSA is also worthy of discussion.

Contacttower

16th Sep 2012, 23:01

I guess what I was going to add to the original thread was that while in general I defended the OP's point of view in terms of the Jepp chart being misleading on the separate point of the autopilot I wouldn't personally have kept it engaged beyond the MAP. Now I don't know anything about the PC12 and I'm not going to tell him how to fly his plane but I personally wouldn't do that when flying myself in whatever that might be.

My main experience is with the G1000 system and Garmin autopilot. It is capable of taking one down to 200ft on the ILS if so desired. But while the terrain awareness system (if you have it as an option) will scream at you while heading for the ground, in V/S mode you will crash just as hard as with any other older autopilot if you forget about it...

In general I would only use the ALT, HDG and NAV hold modes for enroute flying and FLC (which is an airspeed hold) to change altitude. I was never taught this as such since PPL or indeed IR training often doesn't talk about autopilot philosophy at all but I just worked out that in general one doesn't use the autopilot close to the ground unless it is locked onto the ILS or heading for/already at a pre-selected alt.

semmern

17th Sep 2012, 00:07

It turned into an interesting thread for sure. Shame it disappeared.

Anyway, mad_jock, you seem to have done a bit of flying around our bit of rock. What sort of crates did you fly here in? :)

inbalance

17th Sep 2012, 02:18

I deleted the first thread because I made a mistake.
My mistake was that I believed that it would be possible to discuss seriously in this forum.

With most of the people that was possible, but unfortunately there is one person who doesn´t know the simplest rules of interpersonal communication and has no decency.

This person has repeatedly called me an idiot and not stopped it when I politely asked.

Every word I've written here has been investigated by him, if possible to use it against me.
And he still continues here..

He will be away off chuntering about disrespectful island monkeys.

And hoping the the Norwiegens won't be on the look out for a grey market charter flying in IFR in a SET.

He accusses me of conducting illegal flights.
Is there any proove for that ?

I asked myself why he is doing that.
Did he have a bad childhood, or did his wife ran away? Maybe with a german ? That would explain a lot.
Alcohol may also play a role, as others have noted before.

Note: I am descending to his level now, so that he also can understand me. Being polite, he doesn´t seem to understand.

I am sure now, that he's just a big a s s h o l e and can not do otherwise.

Since my time is too precious to me to deal with such people, I've deleted the thread. It is too bad for the others, I am sorry for that.

I might be banned from here, but I don´t mind, because under this circumstances this Forum is no longer usefull for me.

Inbalance

peterh337

17th Sep 2012, 04:53

I would have deleted the thread myself in the same circumstances.

mm_flynn

17th Sep 2012, 06:16

Reposting the technical questions I had - which I think are useful and interesting to discuss in the abstract so hopefully can be done with less emotion.

As a reminder, these come from the charts for the ENOV localiser approach and the differences between the Jepp depiction and the AIP. For the sake of argument, the questions apply on the basis that the ENOV runway environment is hidden by a small hill about a quarter mile away on the line of sight from the MAPt to the runway environment. (There are other airports where it is impossible to see the airport from the MAPt)

The questions

What does a charted Visual Segment mean (the dashed arrows on the Jepp chart - not the dashed missed approach line and not any lead in lights (which are not on the main plan view). Specifically, is the Visual Segment a path of the ground which one should fly visually or is it just a general guide to where the airport is. Is this different for PANS-OPS and TERPS, is Jepp's use consistent
For an approach with a charted visual segment, what visual queues do you need to continue with the approach. Is this different if there is a MAPt (there are Visual Approaches that start using a navaid (KDCA, LFMD) and then visual reference but have not MAPt. If the answer to one above is anything other than the 'runway environment', does anyone have a reference to that.
There is another approach that was discussed where you follow lead in lights around the hill. I assume lead in lights count as 'the runway environment', but once again, does anyone have a reference to that.
On an approach with a visual segment, when you are cleared for the approach (i.e. the localiser) are you also cleared for the visual segment
Norway's AIP does not publish visibility minimums on their charts. Jepp does. How does Jepp determine the visiblity they publish and is it consistent with Euro rules (BW flags that his interpretation of the rules would result in a minimum vis of 5000m but Jepp publishes 1500m

FlyingStone

17th Sep 2012, 07:15

And hoping the the Norwiegens won't be on the look out for a grey market charter flying in IFR in a SET.

My bet is that most IFR flights in SET around Europe fall into the grey zone you describe.

Anonystude

17th Sep 2012, 07:37

Part-OPS 1.430 Appx 1 suggests that to proceed below MDA/MDH you need sight of (effectively) the runway or lighting system and that general ground contact isn't sufficient unless specifically approved. That said, ISTR that sight of any part of the aerodrome or surroundings is sufficient for a circling approach, but I can't find such a provision in Part-OPS. Also not sure of the interaction between a limit specified in terms of height AAL/altitude AMSL and a lateral limit on the approach based on a spatial MAPt; that said the approach terminates at the MAPt, and my hunch is that proceeding beyond it, even at or above MDA, without the references specified in 1.430 is a bust (and, I have to concur with MJ, a bit of an idiotic thing to do).

500 above

17th Sep 2012, 07:46

Play nice now boys!

Accusing someone of a grey market charter is pretty serious. He may fly for a private owner or a corporate flight department.

mad_jock

17th Sep 2012, 08:17

I haven't done that much to be honest but done a reasonable amount of strange approaches between big lumps of rock in both hot and cold climates in other bits of the world.

Most of my flying was further south in the CAT B airfields. The stuff up north was on special flight permits to return people home after an accident. Normally we would't have been able to do it. As you proberly know there is another rule book comes out for commercial operations into those fields. Which if your not a Norweigen carrier the training infrastructure and performance documentation makes it uneconomic to do charters. To be honest normally I would be crying foul but they know what they are doing and they have a pretty good safety record all things considering so thats fine by me. These sort of places need to be flown regularly to keep things safe in even slightly nasty wx. The Vargar route I flew as charters maybe 5 times a year max and it was always 2-3 days of self briefing before I went. And always had the feeling I was on the edge of my abilitys and the aircrafts and its the only route I refused to operate with certain FO's. And it was always a weight dropping off after successfully completeing the trip.

This thread was to discuss none ICAO compliant designed approaches with surrounding dangers to flight safety.

I am sure it doesn't matter what people say the only point you will be looking for is that the Jepp plate is wrong (which it isn't) and you will contact Jepp anyway and more than likely they will change it. And the thousands of pilots across europe the next month will have a moments pause while sticking it in the folder to think "that looks a bit of a bastard" and the world will go on. In reality its proberly less than 10 aircraft a year shoot that approach that arn't Norwegien registered with Scandi pilots on board.

And another cultural difference calling a scotsman an Arschloch really doesn't bother them if they don't respect the person saying it. Someone that comes off an instrument approach without the required visual references doesn't get respect. Be they a 200 hour pilot or a 20k 17 types on there license pilot. They then get it back by saying I stuffed that one up, the plate wasn't the best but thats no excuse.

I have lived and worked in Germany and still have friends there. I also know the standard reaction to critisim from someone who isn't percieved to be socially/proffessionally superiour to themselves (usually gauged by age and number of letters after your name on your card) and more to the point if you are German or not.

About the grey market stuff not really, its not part of my world. The scandi's look after there own and they are perfectly in there rights to have a look at any flight they want to. Just as they are within there rights to spot breath test you on the apron, stick a drug dog onboard and run an engineer over the airframe. All done with politness. I love the place and would be more than happy to work there for a local carrier but unfortunately I don't speak the required lingo. Cracking flying, lovely country and lovely people.

Pace

17th Sep 2012, 08:30

Inbalance

Do not be offended by Mad Jock as he cannot spell and probably meant something else?:rolleyes:
He is your man if you are thinking of building power stations or submerged generators in the Tidal areas up there.
It is just his style! He is ok Really other than his love affair with EASA and making bizarre postings the later into the night it gets :ok:

Pace

mad_jock

17th Sep 2012, 08:41

I don't love EASA you cheeky man.

And I presumed he was taking mining types up there there are a couple of new big ones up there and there is a few folk sniffing round trying to see how to get personel/emergency freight in and out.

The only thing that even comes near what they want to do is a baby CASA or its big expensive brother. Then there is the issue of getting them on a european reg. The dreaded shorts 360 has been mentioned :eek: after which the pilots quickly change the subject.

mm_flynn

17th Sep 2012, 09:25

Could we try and move on from the original thread. I am actually quite interested in these non-icao approaches and the views of how (or if) any of the flight deck technology should be used in the visual segment.

For Anonystude, yes that is the book answer. But in several cases you can not see the airfield environment from any part of the approach up to and including the MAPt. Clearly they did not intend every approach to end in a missed approach, so there is something beyond the basic rule.

Immortal

17th Sep 2012, 09:36

Anybody flown into this one:

Isafjordur Spectacular Approach Cockpit Fk50 - YouTube

Extreme Airport Approach in Iceland! (HD) - YouTube

Seems interesting looking at the charts:

http://caa.is/media/PDF/AD_2_BIIS.pdf

mad_jock

17th Sep 2012, 09:45

That was the reason why I started the thread to be honest.

As far as I can tell actually Anonystude is correct for your normal pilot.

When you start operating regularly into these fields you can get dispensations from the NAA for lower minimums after providing them with performance figures etc. These can also include additional allowable references which are then documented in the company airfield brief.

For example I wouldn't be suprised if the lit mast on the shore of the Fjord was somehow involved in the approach for local operators.

In scotland there are several instrument approaches which arn't even public on the AIP site. But companys can apply and be allowed to use them by the airfield operator.

BackPacker

17th Sep 2012, 10:01

But in several cases you can not see the airfield environment from any part of the approach up to and including the MAPt.

I've been reading the other and this thread with interest. I hold no IR, but I have always assumed that the instrument procedure (except the ILS cat 3 autoland) will take you in sight of the runway, or at least the "runway environment", so you proceed visually from there. (Whether that's assisted by an autopilot or other automation is, as far as I'm concerned, a moot point.)

If the instrument procedure ends in line with the runway, you obviously have some lower limits, compared to the situation where some maneuvering is to be done. Fair enough.

But now it appears there are several places where the MAPt is at a point where it is physically impossible to see the runway or runway environment, even in CAVOK weather. Because, as this particular example shows, there is a ridge in the way. (Does anybody have a few more examples of these, by the way, for comparison?)

My first question when reading this was: Why the heck do they use a MAPt that's so low that the airport is hidden behind the ridge? Why not use a higher MAPt so that you stand a fighting chance of seeing the runway? But of course that might have been done because a higher MAPt also requires a higher cloud base. Duh.

But upon reading this thread, I now realize that the question is more like above. At the MAPt you are out of the clouds (but possibly still in a reduced-viz situation). What criteria do you use to continue visually to the airfield, or to fly the missed approach? Somewhere hidden in the AIP is a mention of four lead-in lights but they're not on the approach plate as far as I can tell. And even if they were mentioned, what criteria do you apply then? Should you see one? Two? All four of them? There is no information in the AIP whatsoever, as far as I can see.

Furthermore, you don't have the airfield in sight but the criteria (whatever they are) for continuing visually have been met. You turn left at the MAPt, cross the ridge and find the valley beyond covered in mist, with the airfield invisible. What is your plan? It is impossible to get back onto the approach and fly the missed approach without some seriously fancy maneuvering, but there's also no other easy way out that's properly defined as an instrument procedure of some sort. Or do you use the instrument departure then (if it exists) as your way out?

mad_jock

17th Sep 2012, 10:15

I don't think in this case the airport was invisible from the MAPt.

It was more of the case that it was in a patch of mist and you couldn't see it.

The other approach with the circling lead in lights it definately was which is why they installed the lights.

Contacttower

17th Sep 2012, 12:37

It was more of the case that it was in a patch of mist and you couldn't see it.

It seems that was the essential point that we were discussing, the OP claiming that it wasn't possible to see the runway mist or no mist...without having been there it's hard to tell. One poster pointed out that mathematically given the ridge height and the MDA it should have been...but who knows...

I had never come across and airport where one wouldn't necessarily see the runway environment from the MAP but having seen these Norwegian plates I guess that assumption goes out the window.

The question I would like to know the answer to is whether it is written down anywhere that you don't have to see the runway environment with certain airports (from the point of view of a private operator with no special dispensations etc) in Norway, or indeed anywhere else, whether you at least need to see the lead in lighting or what the deal is?

The obvious thing to do though if one is unsure, as a private operator, is to phone up the airport and get a briefing from a local pilot who will know the answer before going because while inbalance's thread was interesting, without a local who knows the airport in question well we are all kind of guessing exactly what you are meant to see at the MAP.

All somewhat uncharted territory for me who usually flies into airports with approaches that lead directly to the runway.

mm_flynn

17th Sep 2012, 12:47

I have found a source for the answers to my question in FAA/TERPS land

What does a charted Visual Segment mean (the dashed arrows on the Jepp chart - not the dashed missed approach line and not any lead in lights (which are not on the main plan view). Specifically, is the Visual Segment a path of the ground which one should fly visually or is it just a general guide to where the airport is. Is this different for PANS-OPS and TERPS, is Jepp's use consistent

It is the ground track one is supposed to fly (visually). The Jepp depiction does not comply with the AIM in several respects. 1 - It does not include a heading and distance, 2 - It is clearly the wrong direction as it unnecessarily goes over a ridge and does not connect to the lead in lights (which is logically where the approach designers want you to fly in from.

For an approach with a charted visual segment, what visual queues do you need to continue with the approach. Is this different if there is a MAPt (there are Visual Approaches that start using a navaid (KDCA, LFMD) and then visual reference but have not MAPt. If the answer to one above is anything other than the 'runway environment', does anyone have a reference to that.
There is another approach that was discussed where you follow lead in lights around the hill. I assume lead in lights count as 'the runway environment', but once again, does anyone have a reference to that.

The AIM provides the following specific guidance

When executing the visual segment, the flight visibility must not be less than that prescribed in the IAP, the pilot must re- main clear of clouds and proceed to the airport maintaining visual contact with the ground. Altitude on the visual flight path is at the discretion of the pilot.

The annotation “Fly Visual to Airport” provides relief from part 91.175 requirements that the pilot have distinctly visible and identifiable visual references prior to descent below MDA/DA

So, in a TERPS approach, my take is you go descend to MDA, if you are clear of cloud, ISOS, have the specified flight visibility and sufficient visibility to fly visually to the airport and (implicitly) if necessary fly back out, you carry on the visual segment

Norway's AIP does not publish visibility minimums on their charts. Jepp does. How does Jepp determine the visiblity they publish and is it consistent with Euro rules (BW flags that his interpretation of the rules would result in a minimum vis of 5000m but Jepp publishes 1500m

All of the above answers are for TERPS approaches, we were discussing PANS-OPS. This question is specific to Norway and PANS-OPS. But added to this - A TERPS approach would have an explicit 'Fly Visual' statement which is the waiver of the normal 'Field in Sight' requirement. What if anything indicates a similar waiver (as the ENRA approach is clearly impossible without adding at least something about lead in lights to the list of required visual queues. As a note 1.430 does allow 'any other reference specified by the authority - but where does one find that?'

mad_jock

18th Sep 2012, 06:41

The approaches aren't compilent. The GEN section of the AIP holds the differences.

Although I think the highlighting of expectations under FAA/ICAO rules might be one of the many problems with planning these approaches. The differences to ICAO are documented. I don't have a clue how FAA are different again to ICAO.

Flaymy

18th Sep 2012, 16:41

Contacttower

I did the line-of-sight calculation. Unless you want to dispute Euclid as well as the designers of the procedure (and I have utmost respect for those designing procedures for some of the airports in the fjords and in the Alps), it is not a case of "who knows".

According to both charts available at 1800 feet at the MAPt there is a direct line of sight to the threshold. That the video shows mist in the vicinity of the airport gives a reason that appropriate visual references could not be seen far more likely than a serious error in the design of the approach that no-one else has reported.

mm_flynn

18th Sep 2012, 19:05

Flaymy,

I am pretty sure you did the geometry on the wrong hill. If anything is blocking the runway is the small ridge immediately adjacent to the field, not the roughly 1000 ft hill halfway between the MAPt and the field.

Also I think the only error being advanced as a possibility is that Jepp's visual segment either shouldn't be there are should follow a different ground track.

mad_jock

18th Sep 2012, 19:30

Not really this following the ground line depicted isn't standard for EU pilots.

You get to your MAPt see your references and then self position onto finals.

Myself I would have seen that line as the lead round the corner for the visual circling approach for the other end then would have seen the note on the bottom saying you can't do it without approval and ignored it. Then looking at The AIP plates would have confirmed it.

I would have also thought sod that for a game for dafty's after looking at the area profile in the AIP to make the circling approach.

Contacttower

18th Sep 2012, 19:59

I did the line-of-sight calculation. Unless you want to dispute Euclid as well as the designers of the procedure (and I have utmost respect for those designing procedures for some of the airports in the fjords and in the Alps), it is not a case of "who knows".

I don't doubt that your calculations are correct based on the chart. What I was alluding to is what mm_flynn has just pointed out and indeed was partly the premise of the original thread that there may be other factors and that there is terrain in the vicinity that is not on the chart. Without having actually been to the airport myself or spoken to a local I don't believe it is possible to ascertain exactly what one can actually see from the MAP.

Not really this following the ground line depicted isn't standard for EU pilots.

The line on the Jepp chart did baffle me somewhat, it is not on the AIP chart and almost certainly should not be there. I'm not sure it has to do with EU vs non-EU pilots as such and more to do with a symbol that is perhaps usually used for US "Fly Visual" approaches and has been wrongly applied here. There is no doubt that as depicted it is a "visual track" by Jepp's own definitions with the ostensible implication to follow the geographical path of the line to the runway.

I think the Jepp chart seems like a pitfall for the unwary really, a proper visual examination of one's environment and a subsequent decision on the safest path to the runway environment is obviously the preferred approach (pun intended...) once at the MAP, but Jepp, by placing this "visual track" line on the chart is possibly inviting one (as was the case with our PC12 friend) to plot a course to the runway that is not the safest. The best thing for Jepp to do (and I hope the OP does contact Jepp about the plate) would be to simply delete the track line and either just leave it up to pilots to decide how to fly it or place a new one on the chart which avoids the ridge.

mad_jock

18th Sep 2012, 20:32

I don't believe it is possible to ascertain exactly what one can actually see from the MAP.

Tree's grow.....

You will not always get in from the MAPt even with approaches that are fully compliant.

You don't see the visual features thats just plain tough you go-around.

The fact is that scandi's arn't shy types especially the northerners if you really couldn't have seen the required visual features some one would have phoned there mate in the CAA. All the TRE's etc know someone in the CAA and would have got it sorted if you couldn't. By rights if a pilot recons they can't see the required features they should MOR it. These approaches will get calibrated ever 6 months or so, It will have been checked that it is possible.

Contacttower

18th Sep 2012, 20:46

The fact is that scandi's arn't shy types especially the northerners if you really couldn't have seen the required visual features some one would have phoned there mate in the CAA.I would tend to agree with that...however there was an interesting thread on the Biz jets section here (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2012-08-01/fly-plate-and-you-wont-get-hurt) which highlights that it is possible for there to be issues with approaches (granted somewhat different issue than the subject of this thread) that persist for many years without anyone doing anything about it.

With reference to not being able to see the runway at the MAP having read the AIP and the various ICAO differences you highlighted while their approaches are not compliant in many ways (steep angles, shorter segments etc) I couldn't see any references to "required visual references" in the doc saying they deviated from ICAO. There is nothing noted in the airport's AIP entry either which suggests anything non standard either as far as I can see.

Immortal

18th Sep 2012, 20:53

I know Google Earth isn't always the same as the real world, but according to their model, you can't see the airfield from the MAPt. I took this screenshot from an eye altitude of 1800 feet at the MAPt.

The red line indicates the path to HN and the 2 blue lines go to the threshold and the end or the runway.

http://air.volatus.com/MAPt.png

mad_jock

18th Sep 2012, 20:59

Exactly if they don't have an documented difference it is normal rules which is you need the references or you go around.

Now commercially you can get a dispensation and approval to reduce your minimas and also use none standard references.

But you have to jump through a heap of hoops, document everything, have a training program for it, maybe fly a few proving flights for it and then still need a flight monitoring program to make sure that its not leading to unstable approaches. Although to be honest I suspect most approaches up there will be classed as unstable by the normal critiria.

And very interesting article. And it one of the reasons why I don't mind getting fannyed around while the calibrator is at work. At least the instrument approaches in most of europe get checked every 6-12 months.

And can you put another line in please to the end of the approach lights.

They have a none standard flashing white light at the end/start of the approach lights for this very reason I think.

mm_flynn

18th Sep 2012, 21:26

Tree's grow.....

You will not always get in from the MAPt even with approaches that are fully compliant.

You don't see the visual features thats just plain tough you go-around.

The fact is that scandi's arn't shy types especially the northerners if you really couldn't have seen the required visual features some one would have phoned there mate in the CAA. All the TRE's etc know someone in the CAA and would have got it sorted if you couldn't. By rights if a pilot recons they can't see the required features they should MOR it. These approaches will get calibrated ever 6 months or so, It will have been checked that it is possible.
I doubt these approaches are viewed by the Norwegian CAA as non-compliant. Being very sad, I had a trawl through the EN approaches (as published by Jepp) and there are a reasonable number where the distance from the MAPt to the threshold is 2-3 times the minimum RVR published for the approach and one or two like ENOV where it is doubtful you can see the field from the MAPt even in CAVOK. If they weren't intending pilots to fly a visual segment, why specify such low RVRs? I am clearly no expert in this, but several different authorities clearly specify that a fly visual segment waives the requirement to be visual with the runway environment at the MAPt. I have searched the EN ICAO differences (as you suggested) and can find nothing that addresses this anomaly (or provides the permission to use lead in lights rather than the runway environment as is required for the approach at ENRA to be possible).... So I am pretty sure there is something in the Norwegian air law that addresses these descrepancies, we just can't find it.

mad_jock

18th Sep 2012, 21:44

lead in lights is always allowed.

If it isn't I have over 250 busts to my record on NPA's.

They are and they are documented as not compliant with IACO same as the icelandic fields. Its not a huge problem.

Min RVR has nothing to do with seeing the field its all about stopping people even attempting them when is plain stupid and may end up killing themselves aka the cork crash.

M609

18th Sep 2012, 22:22

why specify such low RVRs?

As stated in the deleted topic, RVR/visibility is NEVER published in the Norwegian AIP. What Jeppesen do with AIP and BSL D 1-11 (CAP with rules regulating operators Wx minima for IFR flights) is their business.

(Same as deleting major islands from their obstacle database, and displaying wrong elevation on major mountains in the Garmin series TWAS, which is very poor indeed in some parts of Norway.)

Not surprised that the detail on the ENOV chart is low.

As to required visual references at MApt, there is an AIC valid in Norway specifying the therm "required visual reference"-

AIC - N 58/00 (Google translate) (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luftfartstilsynet.no%2Fregelverk%2Faic-n%2Farticle1098.ece&act=url)

It kind of suggests that you need CAA approval to use the approach into ENOV, IF the runway or app lights are not visible from MApt.

Contacttower

19th Sep 2012, 18:16

I thought someone on the Nordic section might be able to help (http://www.pprune.org/nordic-forum/495845-enov-orsta-volda-other-interesting-approaches-norway-some-guidance.html#post7422465)...

Sir Niall Dementia

20th Sep 2012, 13:56

Always quite enjoyed the NDB/DME 100 prodedure at Oxford EGTK. The MAP is at the beacon which is VERY adjacent to the runway, on an approach to 19/01.

Basically it puts you in the vicinity of the runway for a low level circuit to land. Hundreds of Oxford trained pro's have done this one as the last aproach of their IR.

Always seems odd approaching halfway along a runway at 90 degrees to it, and then trying to find it in the gloop again 4 minutes later.

I seem to remember Bergen had a couple of interesting VOR procedures that did a similar thing.

SND

mm_flynn

20th Sep 2012, 16:01

As stated in the deleted topic, RVR/visibility is NEVER published in the Norwegian AIP. What Jeppesen do with AIP and BSL D 1-11 (CAP with rules regulating operators Wx minima for IFR flights) is their business.Interesting, as these are not ICAO compliant approaches, it is not clear what basis Jepp are using to create the RVRs and visibilities. Prior to this thread I han't really thought to check that Jepp publish the correct vis minima.

Having just checked, the UK seem clear that EU-OPS 1.430 Appendix I defines the RVR for UK airports (and that commercial flight guides use the same), However, LFMD in the French AIP (just the first example I had to hand), publishes a minimum vis on their chart (1500 m on an MDH of 1780), which is a third of that calculated in EU-OPS (5000m ), ENOV and many of the other Norweigan airports we have discussed, would be 5000m by EU-OPS, but Jepp is publishing much lower numbers. The logic for RVRs (as well as the definition of the 'other allowable visual references') seems to only exist in BSL d 1-11 - a Norweigan only document accessed via links on an almost exclusively Norweigan web site!

How does a private operator establish what the approach minima are if they are not in the AIP and the Jepp minima may be wrong for a number of these airports.

mad_jock

21st Sep 2012, 07:34

Eu-OPS is only commercial isn't it?

The private minimas are usually defined some where else. UK has just said that eu-ops applys to all its instrument approaches.

Has ICAO 8168 got anything in it?

peterh337

21st Sep 2012, 08:04

Given that Jepp stuff is used by the majority of commercial ops (and practically all bizjet ops) around the world, I would think twice before assuming they have done this wrong at a number of airports especially ones surrounded by terrain. Not impossible; just unlikely.

So, in a TERPS approach, my take is you go descend to MDA, if you are clear of cloud, ISOS, have the specified flight visibility and sufficient visibility to fly visually to the airport and (implicitly) if necessary fly back out, you carry on the visual segment

I agree; it would be daft to become visual at the MDA and have to go around if you cannot see the runway at that instant despite the conditions being pefectly good enough for VFR flight.

mad_jock

21st Sep 2012, 10:30

It then depends how current you are with the airfield you are at or if there are any issues.

In general I would agree for normal places.

This ain't.

They have cables and masts all over the place most of the time they haven't got lights on them, also have masking terrian behind them,

Personally I tend to stick over water then when I have the PAPIS 2 or 3 white then decend if in VFR wx but I would cancel IFR first. Mainly to see if the controller comes back negative in case I have missed something in my planning and doing that is banned by some local procedure.

Contacttower

21st Sep 2012, 11:19

I agree; it would be daft to become visual at the MDA and have to go around if you cannot see the runway at that instant despite the conditions being pefectly good enough for VFR flight.

True, during the day at least. My question on the Nordic forum about this came back with the reply that in general there will always be at least lead in lights that should be visible at the MAP, otherwise one couldn't do the approaches at night.

mad_jock

21st Sep 2012, 11:40

I have always found these approaches easier at night with wx towards mins to be honest.

Not very nice feeling though large black objects either side of you and the knowledge that if you go over half scale deflection you might hit something.

mm_flynn

21st Sep 2012, 12:37

Eu-OPS is only commercial isn't it?

The private minimas are usually defined some where else. UK has just said that eu-ops applys to all its instrument approaches.

Has ICAO 8168 got anything in it?

The reason I ask is that several posters (who appear to be familiar with Norwegian operations) have indicated a lack of confidence that Jepp are calculating their minimum vis correctly, France seems to use something other than EU-OPS (which I accept is targeted to commercial operators), the UK has their minima buried in the GEN section, the Norwegians don't appear to document what they are doing regarding vis minima (at least not in English), and PANS-OPS doesn't apply as the approaches in question are notified as not compliant anyhow. How is a pilot supposed to work out his minimums!

I can't believe this information is so well hidden - and that I had never noticed it before!

PS - Peter, I 'know' Jepp is likely to be correct, but having had the question raised, I was really surprised at the variability in approaches to setting and documenting the viz minima in each country's AIP.

giloc

21st Sep 2012, 13:10

and PANS-OPS doesn't apply as the approaches in question are notified as not compliant anyhow.

really? where is that notification then?

mad_jock

21st Sep 2012, 13:21

They have on the plates and also in the gen section of the AIP that they don't conform to the ICAO annex of procedure design.

giloc

21st Sep 2012, 13:45

The state chart says that the descent gradient for this approach exceeds the maximum defined in PANS-OPS. Is that what you mean by non-compliant?

mad_jock

21st Sep 2012, 13:52

Also in the gen section it states that approaches can be more than 30degrees off runway track.

There is a long list in the gen section which there has been given a link for.

https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/current/AIP/EN_GEN_1_7_en.pdf

It must have been in the deleted one.

giloc

21st Sep 2012, 14:21

Having a final approach track more than 30 degrees offset from the runway centreline is perfectly compliant with PANS-OPS , and in fact is common in mountainous terrain. PANS-OPS just says that in this case the approach has to be a specified as a circling approach, which this one at ENOV is.

mad_jock

21st Sep 2012, 14:34

There are three other pages of differences if that one doesn't work.

Maybe standard as much as they can would be a better term. Somethings you better know about before attempting because you will get a nasty shock if you don't know about them.

giloc

21st Sep 2012, 14:54

There are only a few that apply to IAPs and I can't see any that would give a pilot of a Cat A/B a nasty shock as long as the approach is flown in the way PANS-OPS expects.

What is interesting is that the Jeppesen chart for this approach has the usual "PANS-OPS" note in the margin. That means that "that the State has specified that the approach procedure complies with ICAO Document 8168, Volume II, First or Second Edition."

mad_jock

21st Sep 2012, 15:44

giloc

21st Sep 2012, 15:58

Can't argue with any of that. Personally, when planning to fly an IAP for the first time, especially where terrain is an issue, I always include a check of the state chart as part of the brief.

semmern

21st Sep 2012, 23:28

O well you can call them standard then.

To me in that enviroment they are none standard and would take several hours to do the performance planning, escape route planning, missed approach plan, area brief, terrain brief and chat with the tower.

None of which I would do if I was going to any normal standard airports.

Words of wisdom :) Approaches like ENOV are not to be attempted offhand without a thorough pre-briefing. For example, what do you do if you for some reason need to get out of Dodge after having left the LLZ track and turned VFR towards the field? You need to have a plan for that. How high is the surrounding terrain in different directions? You need to know that beforehand. Do you turn to a predetermined inbound track for the NDB west of the field? Etc. etc.