EASA reg: controlling RVR LVTO
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
EASA reg: controlling RVR LVTO
Hello,
as I have not learned how to navigate EASA AIR-OPS regultory documents effectively yet, I appreciate your help.
When reported RVR is OK/OK/too low for LVTO, is it permissible to do a TO PERF calculation for the distance equivalent to the first two thirds of the runway, and go?
Somebody recently suggested to me, that once reported, the stopend is mandatory and relevant in any case. Contrary to my previous understanding.
I am looking for chapter and verse to support or dismiss either of the opinions. Thanks, FD.
as I have not learned how to navigate EASA AIR-OPS regultory documents effectively yet, I appreciate your help.
When reported RVR is OK/OK/too low for LVTO, is it permissible to do a TO PERF calculation for the distance equivalent to the first two thirds of the runway, and go?
Somebody recently suggested to me, that once reported, the stopend is mandatory and relevant in any case. Contrary to my previous understanding.
I am looking for chapter and verse to support or dismiss either of the opinions. Thanks, FD.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subject to the approval of the Authority, and provided the requirements in paragraphs (A) to (E) below have been satisfied, an operator may reduce the take-off minima to 125 m RVR (Category A, B and C aeroplanes) or 150 m RVR (Category D aeroplanes) when:
(A) Low visibility procedures are in force;
(B) High intensity runway centreline lights spaced 15 m or less and high intensity edge lights spaced 60 m or less are in operation;
(C) Flight crew members have satisfactorily completed training in a flight simulator;
(D) A 90 m visual segment is available from the cockpit at the start of the take-off run; and
OPS 1.430
(E) The required RVR value has been achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points.
(ii) Subject to the approval of the Authority, an operator of an aeroplane using an approved lateral guidance sys- tem for take-off may reduce the take-off minima to an RVR less than 125 m (Category A, B and C aeroplanes) or 150 m (Category D aeroplanes) but not lower than 75 m provided runway protection and facilities equiva- lent to Category III landing operations are available.
If your calculated accelerate/stop will not get you into that portion of the runway,then the RVR is not required as it is not deemed relevant.
(A) Low visibility procedures are in force;
(B) High intensity runway centreline lights spaced 15 m or less and high intensity edge lights spaced 60 m or less are in operation;
(C) Flight crew members have satisfactorily completed training in a flight simulator;
(D) A 90 m visual segment is available from the cockpit at the start of the take-off run; and
OPS 1.430
(E) The required RVR value has been achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points.
(ii) Subject to the approval of the Authority, an operator of an aeroplane using an approved lateral guidance sys- tem for take-off may reduce the take-off minima to an RVR less than 125 m (Category A, B and C aeroplanes) or 150 m (Category D aeroplanes) but not lower than 75 m provided runway protection and facilities equiva- lent to Category III landing operations are available.
If your calculated accelerate/stop will not get you into that portion of the runway,then the RVR is not required as it is not deemed relevant.
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
Thanks. Your original post said
and that is my thinking too. Because if I do TKOF PERF for 2200 m on a 3600 m long runway, the reported stopend is not relevant.
May I assume that the quoted text is from EU-OPS, OPS 1.430 or its (new) Appendix?
If your perf allows a stop within the two first of the runway then i dont see any problem either way.
May I assume that the quoted text is from EU-OPS, OPS 1.430 or its (new) Appendix?
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
And it turned out to be a misundesratnding parly lost in translation.
Alas, the original question still stands: where do I find this in EASA AIR-OPS ?
Alas, the original question still stands: where do I find this in EASA AIR-OPS ?
Last edited by FlightDetent; 12th Apr 2016 at 01:18.
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
Agreed, it applies in genereal, for landing too. I.e. 250/75/75 for CAT IIIA approved operator can be done with such dispensation, claiming that in the second third and further one would only be completing the rollout <60 kts.
My understanding (or at least my companies understanding that has been written in the manual) is that under EASA as opposed to EU ops. if any of the 3 points are below 200m then all 3 are required to be above the minimum value regardless of runway length or a/c stopping performance. Above 200m you can disregard the stop end if not relevant.
Doesn't make much sense to me but then we are dealing with EASA which generally doesn't make much sense to me anyway.
Doesn't make much sense to me but then we are dealing with EASA which generally doesn't make much sense to me anyway.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After a lot of research into the "relevant" phrase a year or so ago we found reference to 60kt. in the landing case but no definition for the rejected take off. I think 0 is a safe bet as we don't have ASDR figures for 60kt.
Max Angle. If you look at the actual reference you will see that the *** applies to 150/125 but not below 125.
I can't be *rsed posting the table. Guess it depends what your ops spec allows. If 300/200 then the *** does not apply.
Here is a link, look at the table and it becomes clear.
Max Angle. If you look at the actual reference you will see that the *** applies to 150/125 but not below 125.
LVTO OPERATIONS - AEROPLANES
For a low visibility take-off (LVTO) with an aeroplane the following provisions should apply:
(a) for an LVTO with a runway visual range (RVR) below 400 m the criteria specified in Table 1.A;
(b) for an LVTO with an RVR below 150 m but not less than 125 m:
(1) high intensity runway centre line lights spaced 15 m or less apart and high intensity edge lights spaced 60 m or less apart that are in operation;
(2) a 90 m visual segment that is available from the flight crew compartment at the start of the take-off run; and
(3) the required RVR value is achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points;
(c) for an LVTO with an RVR below 125 m but not less than 75 m:
(1) runway protection and facilities equivalent to CAT III landing operations are available; and
(2) the aircraft is equipped with an approved lateral guidance system.
For a low visibility take-off (LVTO) with an aeroplane the following provisions should apply:
(a) for an LVTO with a runway visual range (RVR) below 400 m the criteria specified in Table 1.A;
(b) for an LVTO with an RVR below 150 m but not less than 125 m:
(1) high intensity runway centre line lights spaced 15 m or less apart and high intensity edge lights spaced 60 m or less apart that are in operation;
(2) a 90 m visual segment that is available from the flight crew compartment at the start of the take-off run; and
(3) the required RVR value is achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points;
(c) for an LVTO with an RVR below 125 m but not less than 75 m:
(1) runway protection and facilities equivalent to CAT III landing operations are available; and
(2) the aircraft is equipped with an approved lateral guidance system.
Here is a link, look at the table and it becomes clear.
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
MAX: the change requires 150 TDZ to be reported, which used to be "replacable by pilot assesment". For 150 m OPS that is.
The "relevant" is still part of the sentence, and my regulator as well as the company agree that as long as we can calculate ASDA and TODA within the first 66%, then stopend does not enter the equation. Could be closed too!
The "relevant" is still part of the sentence, and my regulator as well as the company agree that as long as we can calculate ASDA and TODA within the first 66%, then stopend does not enter the equation. Could be closed too!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: <60 minutes
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I am confused. Lots of replies here that meant I had to go and look at the books.
So the OP asked...
Well, what does YOUR Ops manual say? Could tell you what mine says but its no use to you. Perhaps even the info posted above may mislead you as most of it is AMC or EU-OPS and MAY not apply to your takeoff scenario. Not all AOC holders are equal. There are common obligations on them however, for example:
CAT.OP.MPA.100(a)
The operator shall establish aerodrome operating minima for each departure....
So to begin with its their risk assessment and they may expect all of the runway to be considered, even if on some days you can get airborne form the first 33% on a long runway. If a runway is shortened by notam then the operator is aware, but if crews are shortening it artificially?
Unless your operator is approved under SPA-LVO, the only ALLEVIATION for a REPORTED RVR is pilot assessment of the initial take-off run(AMC1.CAT.OP.MPA.100 Table 1.a or, if no performance, 2.a)
If you are LVO approved, then only the RELEVANT, reported RVR is limiting if this is defined in your OPS manual and varies by equipment and facilities(AMC1.SPA.LVO.100)
So it may be legal to depart in your scenario if the operator states so. RELEVANT is not a pilot determination, its an operators.
For me, I would consider the likelihood of zipping into the rollout portion with < 125m rvr and a burst tyre from an RTO a factor. So would my chief pilot probably.
Made me think though, good question.
Ps: here it is...https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/technical-publications/easy-access-rules-air-operations"]https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-...air-operations[/URL]
So the OP asked...
When reported RVR is OK/OK/too low for LVTO, is it permissible to do a TO PERF calculation for the distance equivalent to the first two thirds of the runway, and go?
CAT.OP.MPA.100(a)
The operator shall establish aerodrome operating minima for each departure....
So to begin with its their risk assessment and they may expect all of the runway to be considered, even if on some days you can get airborne form the first 33% on a long runway. If a runway is shortened by notam then the operator is aware, but if crews are shortening it artificially?
Unless your operator is approved under SPA-LVO, the only ALLEVIATION for a REPORTED RVR is pilot assessment of the initial take-off run(AMC1.CAT.OP.MPA.100 Table 1.a or, if no performance, 2.a)
If you are LVO approved, then only the RELEVANT, reported RVR is limiting if this is defined in your OPS manual and varies by equipment and facilities(AMC1.SPA.LVO.100)
So it may be legal to depart in your scenario if the operator states so. RELEVANT is not a pilot determination, its an operators.
For me, I would consider the likelihood of zipping into the rollout portion with < 125m rvr and a burst tyre from an RTO a factor. So would my chief pilot probably.
Made me think though, good question.
Ps: here it is...https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/technical-publications/easy-access-rules-air-operations"]https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-...air-operations[/URL]
Last edited by darkbarly; 15th Apr 2016 at 17:10.
