Cat 1 minima

[General_Kirby]

Any easy or ryr pilots tell me what their cat1 minima is vis/cloud? ta

[Man Flex 37.5]

This varies at each airport, the absolute minima is 200 foot cloud base and 550m

[BOAC]

Again there is, in JAR/EU Ops, no 'minimum' cloudbase. There is only a minimum decision height of 200'. It is not uncommon for successful CATI approaches in cloudbases as low as 100'. How many times..............?

[airman13]

boac is right......'cause, assuming cloud base is 150ft and rvr is 600m, do you tell me you'll not continue the approach?......

[Dog E. Stile]

Minima are defined by the airport equipment and approach type; it doesn't matter whether it's a RYR of EZY or anyone else flying the approach. Absolute minima for a CAT 1 ILS is 550m RVR. Cloudbase is irrelevant. The RVR (and DA) can be higher due to approach lighting config or terrain.

[411A]

Cloudbase is irrelevant.

Usually.
I've just operated one week ago to URMO, where the airport was declared 'closed due to wx' when the cloudbase went below 200 agl....so, it really depends on the specific airport and the regulations they use.

The ILS, by the way, is a rather old navaid.
It was developed jointly by Reed Pigman and Sperry, in 1938, or thereabouts.
Reed was also instramental in the development of the VOR system of navigation.
And, the Sperry Zero Reader flight director, the first type in service.
The Sperry autopilot, used on large piston transports?
Yup, that, too.

Unfortunately, Reed came to an untimely end trying to circle at 200 agl at Ardmore Oklahoma in an Electra, many years ago.
Nasty accident, that.

[Boingboingdriver]

Cat 1 in JAR LAND: 550m RVR , cloud base irrelevant HOWEVER some airports may start LVO based on Ceilings.(ie VIENNA:stage 1 : RVR 1200 m and ceiling 300ft or less//Stage 2: 550m ,ceiling 200ft or less//Stage 3:RVR 350m or less.

Airports criteria differ..morning in AMS LVP in use..1500 m vis,cloud base 300 feet if i remember correctly..

411A: Approaching 6000 posts...time to start playing golf?

Capt STD

[Rainboe]

And lose all that experience? You may not like having the Tristar thrust down your throat, but rather a lot of education and common sense follows it!

[Carmoisine]

Again there is, in JAR/EU Ops, no 'minimum' cloudbase. There is only a minimum decision height of 200'. It is not uncommon for successful CATI approaches in cloudbases as low as 100'. How many times..............?

BOAC I have started working on the basis that to every rule there is an obscure exception that one has forgotten about!

The JAR approach ban exists as we know, which is a minimum RVR minima to start the approach (For those that don't know what it is). There are also in Europe even, Approach plates where a ceiling is specified too. Cagliari is an airfield I know you are familiar with and if you look at the current plates for 32 with prescribed breakoff to 32R. You can see in the corner of the Minimums box "Ceiling required" in the top left corner, instead of the usual JAR-OPS symbol. I have also seen this on plenty of non JAR countries.

[BOAC]

Got me beat there, Carm! It is not on the current 'Temp' plates, and MAY refer to the airfield notes which (presumably poorly translated!) say you cannot land "below 400".

On the other hand, it is an Italian mil airfield (say no more). I cannot see any actual ceiling specified either! Have not been there since Jepp charts 11-1 to 3 were published and I do not recall the note on Aerad charts before that, so cannot help. There is no mention of a ceiling requirement for a precision approach in JAR/EU ops

Perhaps ATC close the airport below a certain cloudbase - got kind of used to 'she is a cloZed' in days at Decci

[Carmoisine]

There is a section in the Jepp book that we carry that covers charting symbols. It's a very subtle requirement but one I now look at in my scan of the plate. I am led to believe in certain countries in the world that they can have this note on ILS approaches too.

I probably forgot to mention that this is for a VOR approach in Elmas. ATC are so utterly inept in Cagliari, they would I am sure, not even be aware of the restriction and would let you start the approach anyway. They are so useless it has to be seen to be believed.

[BOAC]

1) VOR is NOT a CATI approach which is what this thread is about, and therefore there ARE ceiling limits in JAR/EU ops for that approach

2) BUT: There is a 'Ceiling Required' on the ILS plate 2004. What does your Jepp guide say about that?

[Carmoisine]

Haven't got it to hand just now, but I'd be very hesitant to do something other then what is instructed on the plate. The jepp guide forms part of our OPS manual (Part C is it?)

[Wojtus]

Minima are defined by the airport equipment and approach type; it doesn't matter whether it's a RYR of EZY or anyone else flying the approach.

It does, company can define its own minima. Most of them do not, just copy the tables from JAR-OPS or other regulations. But they are exceptions - for example, Ryanair requires 2600m visibility for some non-precision approach where other airlines require 1000m RVR. Huge difference.