Absolute Minima procedure

[ATCOJ30]

Has anyone any experiences of applying the "absolute minima" MATS Part 1 SI procedure that they can share? Interested to know if anyone else sees an anomaly in the way ATC are required to apply this and the way that most commercial flight-crew Ops Manuals appear to allow them to commence- and continue an approach down to the outer marker or 1000' aal or the final approach fix (as appropriate), regardless of the RVR. The only stipulation for them appears to be that the RVR must be at or above the minima for that approach aid when they reach that point during the approach. No "contravention of UK legislation" apparent unless they go below 1000 ' aal and the RVR is below the absolute minima, however.

I think I know whay this procedure was introduced (AAIB recommendation after the Coventry Air Alegerie 737 crash?) and I know what it's intended to achieve. That said, it does not seem to add up with what many airlines Ops Manuals allow = potential confusion during a time of high workload for all in mucky weather. Comments folks, or have I missed something?

[2 sheds]

What-ho, mate

Yes - what a pantomime, yet again getting ATC involved in something that should not affect us.

Another aspect is the required RTF phraseology. How does this square with - probably - a radar vectored approach, where the controller will be giving INSTRUCTIONS - or is the assumption that the aircraft will make a procedural approach?

All very unsatisfactory.

[ATCOJ30]

Thanks 2-Sheds for that. It's pretty clear to me that it applies to either R/V or procedural , in that the approach is commenced when the aircraft first accepts radar vectors or leaves the holding fix. My gripe is that the procedure as-written- contains an instruction to ATCOs to use RTF which clearly states that the pilot may be contravening UK legislation and that the controller may be required to report the facts if he/she continues the approach. However:
1) this doesn't square with what most airline pilots I speak to think they can legally do according to their Ops Manuals.
2) my understanding is that no pilot is contravening anything unless they descend below 1000 ft aal (or maybe the outer marker/final approach fix, in some cases) with an RVR below the absolute minima and
3) ATC only file an MOR if the pilot does just that and nothing before that.

Remember the days of passing non-public transport minima on the RTF? I'll pass anything on the RTF in the interests of safety so long as it makes sense and the person driving the aeroplane
knows what I'm talking about. It must tie-up with what he/she knows he/she can do legally on the approach, without ambiguity. There , said my piece now....I'll get off my soap-box!

[bookworm]

ATC is required to read the contravention thing if the crew expresses an intention to make the approach despite the RVR being below minimum. The procedure doen't really cater for "Well we'll start the approach in the hope that the RVR might increase by the time we get to 1000 ft aal but we'll go around if it hasn't actually improved". Is that the scenario you're concerned about? If so, doesn't it just require some common sense in application of the procedure?

[Punditgreen]

The procedure applies to all instrument approaches (except Cat 2/3 ILS) from the time an aircraft indicates an intention to make the approach or from the time radar vectors are given with an intention to position the aircraft on the FAT/ILS. We give all the blurb then, followed by the "nothing to effect..." but only if the aircraft descends below 1000ft (having not already passed it) do we report it. Seems straightforward to me. Most of our operators just hold or divert.
A based pilot has been successfully prosecuted for infringing the 1000ft here, and actually landed. He was a private operator so no Op Manual, but no difference from ATC point of view.

[ATCOJ30]

Thanks guys. Bookworm: that's exactly the scenario that occurs at our airport, on a fairly frequent basis, when we're using the runway end with a Cat 1 ILS. and when the ILS is hovering on limits.
Mike Jenvey: yes, that's how I understand most Ops Manuals applies the procedure for commencing the approach. Thanks for the confirmation.
Punditgreen: it looks straight-forward but I believe there's a fundamental anomaly in the MATS SI application of the procedure and the RTF wording and what pilots (can) actually do, legally.