Yet another RVR minima question

[Timothy]

At your airfield, your ILS absolute minimum RVR is 800m, and LOC only is 1300m.

On the day in question the RVR is 1000m, the ILS is fully operational.

For reasons officially unknown to you, an aircraft with fully functioning ILS eqpt announces it's intention to perform a LOC only approach*

Are you into the sphere of "No traffic reason to affect..." and MORs?

Timothy

* If you wonder how this might arise, NOTAM C0408/04 refers ;)

[DFC]

If the weather minima are below that required for the LOC approach the the approach ban applies.

Don't know the politics of the situation however, I expect the reason why the ILS is prohibited for SE aircraft in that case is because the Single Engine Threshold and aiming point is well beyond the ILS touchdown point.

One can't have a precision approach that aims you at the ground some distance before the threshold!

I note that the restriction only applies to piston aircraft. Obvously other single engine aircraft don't need a safety area!! :D

I believe that that airfield is going to get a heck of a lot of arrivals from the east electing to complete the ILS and then circle.

Regards,

DFC

[Timothy]

I believe that that airfield is going to get a heck of a lot of arrivals from the east electing to complete the ILS and then circle.Or, because they are not performance limited, accepting a tailwind on landing. I don't believe that an ILS and circle to land gives any minima benefit over a non-precision approach easterly.

So, pilots will have to do a considerably less safe procedure in the name of safety. (A higher proportion of people die due to f***ed up non-precision approaches than precision ones) :* :{

I imagine that the first widow's legal action against the airport for not making the ILS available to her late husband will invalidate any current savings on not buying up the safety zone! :hmm:

Timothy

[DFC]

The point I was making is that the straight in MDAs for 08 are now the same as the circling MDA following an approach to 26 in a CAT A aircraft (most single engine pistons).

Thus why fly past the airfield by 10 miles and turn round and make an approach when one can shoot the ILS followed by a quick circle to land on the appropriate part of the runway.

I was under the impression that RESA applied to all aircraft. Am I wrong?

Also why restrict the runway length for departures on 26...if there are houses, there is no restriction on climbing straight ahead and having an engine failure just in time to hit them.

Saying no intersection departures would be more appropriate!!

Regards,

DFC

[Timothy]

I thought I posted this in ATC. Am I going mad....or was it moved?

Timothy

[Spitoon]

Well first off, it's illustrated to me just how difficult it is to find a specific NOTAM on the AIS site (if you don't really know what it's about)!

Second, it's a most peculiar NOTAM that doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Nonetheless it's there and rules is rules - if a pilot elects to make an instrument approach and the visibility is below the absolute minimum ten the controller gives the pilot a warning and fills in the form.

Sorry.

[Timothy]

I thought I posted this in ATC. Am I going mad....or was it moved?I did post this in ATC. did, did, did, did

Last night it was in Rumours and News. was,was,was

Now, it's here back in ATC again.

Are you mods messing around in my brain? Do you think that if you keep the pressure up you are going to drive me to the top of a water tower with a high powered rifle or summat? :{ :uhoh:

What's going on? :ugh:

If you do move it I wish you would annotate it as such...if you didn't then the server is in a worse state than we thought!

Second, it's a most peculiar NOTAM that doesn't seem to make much sense to me.It's all to do with recent legislation and creating safety zones under where SEPs (not SETs for some reason) fly. In this particular instance they have displaced the threshold for SEPs, thus making the precision approach unsuitable for SEPs, meaning that SEPs have to do non-precision approaches, meaning that they are much more likely to crash on the very garden shed that this whole nonsense is designed to protect (no, really, it is about a garden (though I don't know whether there is a shed in it, truth be told)).

I am loathe to criticise airport managements (except in the case of Wolverhampton, which I am happy to criticise all day and all night ig given half the chance) but the team at Exeter do seem to have taken a crassly stupid and potentially self-destructive decision in this case.

I hope no-one dies before they realise it.

Timothy

[Spitoon]

Timothy, thanks for the additional info - although it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. An aircraft making an approach should follow the same general path however it's powered. And why should a SEP be any more likely (in practical terms) to drop out of the sky during the approach. But I guess that's why I'm where I am .....

[FWA NATCA]

Timothy,

In the U.S. the approach minimums are established for the pilot, as a controller I'm not tasked with determining what your minimums are. So if you want to be vectored for an approach I'll put you on the approach, it is up to you to not violate your minimums.


Mike

[whitebeard]

Ahhhh, the good old days in the UK before the Approach Ban.

[Timothy]

FWA NATCA

Oh, yes, number 456 in the 9,857 reasons why it is better, easier, cheaper to fly in the US than the UK.

There are one or two counter examples (I do think our R/T standards are better, for example) but they are pissing in the wind in comparison.

:(

Timothy