I put all post of noyoke together, hope it makes it clear, it is his actual case. He did a safe approach now he a letter for calling 2000 €, $ or pound (my tought). He is looking now for arguments to clarify wasn't braking neither stretching any rules.
"The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. There was no RVR requirements given on the approach plate, only vis. I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach.
Thanks. The point I am trying to make, or perhaps clarify is that prior to reaching the approach ban point I called visual to ATC. They then cleared me for the approach, however they did not actually specify the VIS. I took the clearance as an implicit indication that the conditions for approach had been met or else why clear me for the approach when I had called visual? I know its a buggers muddle, but thanks to you all for you opinions. It looks like I will just have to suffer my spanking .......
I actually had around 8 km Vis, but the tower (the ATIS) was still giving 1000 m. In hindsight I should have called for an update but having observed the actual Vis I continued, thinking I was legal.
Not the case in this one. We had plenty of fuel and had a 'decent' alternate planned. We were visual before the approach ban point. The tower had not changed the weather and shortly after we landed the weather was actually changed on the ATIS. It may be said that we should have clarified the weather, but again with a very busy ATC environment and the appalling level of English precluded this.
A previous poster said that we should have been listening out for 'cleared for the approach' or such like but now with the passage of time I can truthfully not remember the exact terminology. At the end of the day the temperature was around 20'C with a little haze. There was no chance of fog. There had been none forecast and none in the area.
I have operated in the UK for years but I am now overseas. I am aware of RVR, fog, slant visibility etc. The weather conditions preclude any form of fog. I could see for miles - literally! Completed approach and the Vis was as I had assessed, more than 8 km.
I'm just saying that the difference between Jersey (I did my PPL there in 1979 and now 12,500 hrs later ..) and the other side of the Middle East are vastly different. As I tried to say there was no fog. There was no low RVR. There was a Vis given of 1000 m that miraculously became 10 km after our approach. Different strokes.
Good luck with your flying.
Some do, some don't because they don't operate to under the same regulatory authority. For example a mate of mine is an Australian, apparently over there the approach ban does not exist in the same way.
What actually happened was that the Vis was good, and indeed the 'reported' Vis 'improved' after landing. I would rather discuss than argue.
Now a general question to all. I am trying to find out if there is a definition of 'reported visibility' in context of a visual approach. For example when talking about Wind the book states 'Tower reported wind'. So could 'reported visibility' be defined as vis reported by anyone? For example, if a 'remote' Met office give a vis and yet the tower ask a departing aircraft to give a Vis report, does that count?
Thanks for joining the confab. I don't have JAR-OPS docs available, so while we are JAR-OPS compliant we are not JAR OPS approved, hence certain convenient differences I think. You couldn't cut and paste 1.430 for me could you, or is there a web location I could look up. I would appreciate your help.
So my point is. I called Visual before the approach ban point. Tower then cleared me for the approach (then a visual approach) although tacit, it was still a clearance. Y/N. My assessment of the Vis was higher than the ATIS Vis."