Approach Ban

[BDD]

Can someone tell me what the approach ban is in the U.K.?

Thank's

[wingisland]

Its when the reported Met Vis is below minimums, you cant continue on past the outer marker or equivalent

[BDD]

Thank's

BDD

[411A]

Of course, in FAA-land it's done just a tad differently.
No such thing as an approach 'ban', the pilot decides whether to land (or not) depending on what he actually sees, at minima.

An entirely more satisfactory arrangement, it seems to me.
Japan has (or at least did have) this arrangement...as I recall being on approach at NRT, with the reported viz/rvr below minima.
In the meantime, a CX L1011 departs, and the fog lifts just a tad, we have runway in sight at DH, and land.
Aircraft behind, however, had no such advantage.
They divert.

IMO, the decision to land (or not) belongs on the FD, not in the tower.

411A........but surely at 1000ft/FAF he is only allowed to continue the approach to minimums to "have a look" if the reported RVR is above minima for the approach in use.


It depends.
Private operators (business jets, for example) have no such restriction and, believe it or not, some airlines outside of the USA (dependant on the regulatory authority) also have no such restriction in their ops specs.

[spoilers yellow]

411A........but surely at 1000ft/FAF he is only allowed to continue the approach to minimums to "have a look" if the reported RVR is above minima for the approach in use.

I agree that you continue down do your minima if the RVR drops below your minima after the 1000ft/FAF but thats the same as the UK.

[Rainboe]

Please can we take a little time to work on our apostrophes first? Note: not apostrophe's! You were giving the man more than one thanks.

[BDD]

OK, Thank's

[wingisland]

411A

I see your point, but that is sort of the same, remember the ban comes into place if the WX is below minimas, ATC wont let you out of the hold until it improves, however if you are past the OM, a reasonable distance, you may continue.

Are you saying that if its below minimas your allowed to start the approach no matter what?

[Pugilistic Animus]

411A of course is correct, just to add a bit

what I've noticed some US pilots confusing in relation to 411a's statement

in US 121 or 135 No air carrier pilot may begin any IAP unless the reported minima meet those list in your company's approved and certificated OpSpecs edit: once established on the final approach course

however, once an approach is commenced the PIC can continue to a landing if adequate visual references are present at DH/DA with the required RVR or other visibility criteria--as stated by 411A above

in part 91 operations the decision is with the PIC as to whether to commence the approach

the actual rules are rather extensive, but that's a concept that I know tends to be confused

but no,... no such thing as an approach in the US ban per se:8

[wingisland]

Right, so instead of having to call off the approach is Vis drops (its only concerning the vis by the way, cloud is irrelevant) as soon as you've started outbound for example, as you would do here, your allowed to continue on to DA/DH and have a look and see?

[Pugilistic Animus]

I can't do better the the FAA but there's plenty more----- i don't worry so much about these thing these day only birds:}

see edits above:

a) Except to the extent permitted by paragraph (b) of this section, no pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure to an airport unless—
(1) That airport has a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator; and
(2) The latest weather report issued by that weather reporting facility indicates that weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport.
(b) A pilot conducting an eligible on-demand operation may begin an instrument approach procedure to an airport that does not have a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by the U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator if—
(1) The alternate airport has a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by the U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator; and
(2) The latest weather report issued by the weather reporting facility includes a current local altimeter setting for the destination airport. If no local altimeter setting for the destination airport is available, the pilot may use the current altimeter setting provided by the facility designated on the approach chart for the destination airport.
(c) If a pilot has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach to an airport under paragraph (b) of this section, and the pilot receives a later weather report indicating that conditions have worsened to below the minimum requirements, then the pilot may continue the approach only if the requirements of §91.175(l) of this chapter, or both of the following conditions, are met—
(1) The later weather report is received when the aircraft is in one of the following approach phases:
(i) The aircraft is on an ILS final approach and has passed the final approach fix;
(ii) The aircraft is on an ASR or PAR final approach and has been turned over to the final approach controller; or
(iii) The aircraft is on a nonprecision final approach and the aircraft—
(A) Has passed the appropriate facility or final approach fix; or
(B) Where a final approach fix is not specified, has completed the procedure turn and is established inbound toward the airport on the final approach course within the distance prescribed in the procedure; and
(2) The pilot in command finds, on reaching the authorized MDA or DA/DH, that the actual weather conditions are at or above the minimums prescribed for the procedure being used.
(d) If a pilot has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach to an airport under paragraph (c) of this section and a later weather report indicating below minimum conditions is received after the aircraft is—
(1) On an ILS final approach and has passed the final approach fix; or
(2) On an ASR or PAR final approach and has been turned over to the final approach controller; or
(3) On a final approach using a VOR, NDB, or comparable approach procedure; and the aircraft—
(i) Has passed the appropriate facility or final approach fix; or
(ii) Where a final approach fix is not specified, has completed the procedure turn and is established inbound toward the airport on the final approach course within the distance prescribed in the procedure; the approach may be continued and a landing made if the pilot finds, upon reaching the authorized MDA or DH, that actual weather conditions are at least equal to the minimums prescribed for the procedure.

[wingisland]

Thats an incredible memory you've got!

[DBate]

FAA Foreign Operations Specifications C060f state:

Operating Limitations: The foreign air carrier shall not begin the final approach segment of a CAT3 instrument approach procedure, unless the latest reported controlling RVR for the landing runway is at or above the minimums authorized for the operation being conducted and all of the following conditions are met:...According to US definition the final approach segment starts at the OM or equivalent position.

Furthermore (CRAR United States):

Activation of LVO is normally neither announced on ATIS nor reported by ATC. At some major APs this may be handled differently. ATC my INFO only about actual VIS or if AVBL the RVR once with the approach clearance and again with the landing clearance given by TWR controller. Determination that existing WX/VIS is adequate for APCH/LDG and TKOF is the responsibility of the pilot. Honestly - flying LOVIS Ops in the United States appears to be far more complicated than in other parts of the world (I am quite sure 411A will disagree on that ;)). Far too many rules and exceptions to be found in the regulations.

My two cents...

P.S. Pugilistic Animus (http://www.pprune.org/members/160551-pugilistic-animus) was faster than me... :ok:

[Spitoon]

IMO, the decision to land (or not) belongs on the FD, not in the tower.Speaking as a UK qualified controller, I agree and that's exactly how it is in the UK. All the tower does is report vis/RVR - the pilot consults his/her rules to find out if the approach can be started or continued.

And in most of Europe we go even further than the US, unless the runway is blocked (usually by snow that cannot be cleared) we don't close the airport - we still leave it up to the pilot.

[411A]

Far too many rules and exceptions to be found in the regulations.


Yup, I disagree...these exceptions allow far more latitude on the part of the PIC, which quite frankly I would approve of.
We don't need the tower/approach to tell the pilot...do not land, the field is closed.
Unless, of course the runway might be blocked for whatever reason.
FAA...far more practical, IMO.
In many ways....;)
Costs, for example.:ok:

[DBate]

We don't need the tower/approach to tell the pilot...do not land, the field is closed.Well, cannot disagree on that.

Just to give you an example of what I meant with 'too many rules and exceptions':

(CRAR United States)

In the U.S. 2 RVR values are required for CAT 2/3 approaches
TDZ and rollout value required. TDZ RVR controlling, rollout advisory only. Rollout may be substituted by mid (or if available far end) RVR.


So the first RVR value is controlling, i.e. obligatory, the second one is advisory only, i.e. it may have any value, you just need to have it 'heard' at one time. Whether you take that one into your considerations or not is up to you.

BUT...

With a certain CAT 3b minimum and a fail operational landing system with fail operational rollout control system the whole situation changes:

FAA Foreign Operations Specifications C060d (4):

Required RVR Reporting Equipment. The foreign air carrier shall not conduct any CAT3 operation unless the following RVR reporting systems are installed and operational for the runway of intended landing:

Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-operational Rollout Control Systems.
- For CAT3 landing minimums as low as TDZ RVR 300 (75 meters), Mid RVR 300 (75 meters), and Rollout RVR (75 meters) require the following:
The TDZ, Mid and Rollout RVR reporting systems are normally required and are controlling for all operations.
If one of these RVR reporting systems is temporarily inoperative, these operations may be initiated and continued using the two remaining RVR reporting systems. Both RVR reports are controlling.

So suddenly, and in contrary to the paragraph I mentioned above, you need 3 RVR values, and all are controlling. But hey, if one fails - no worries, just use the remaining ones.

Why not facilitate this whole thing and stick to the first paragraph? Why complicate things with the second one, saying you need three RVR values, all of them governing, and then just generate an exception to that just in the next sentence, basically saying 'Hey, you need three RVR values, but on the other hand, if one fails - two will do'? :ugh:

While I completely understand your point of

these exceptions allow far more latitude on the part of the PIC

I think especially these paragraphs show the bureaucracy and is what I meant with my first post. Why not just keep it simple?

Regards,
DBate

[ComJam]

It's RVR not Met Vis in the UK

[Mansfield]

With regard to the approach ban concept in the UK, I believe the relevant paragraph is CAP 393, Section 1, Part V, para 39:

An aircraft to which article 31 of this Order applies, when making a descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a height of 1000 ft or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 ft above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.

Article 31 refers to public transport aircraft.

This is nearly parallel to the US requirement for air carrier operations, contained in FAR 121.651:

b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no pilot may continue an approach past the final approach fix, or where a final approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure—

(2) At airports within the United States and its territories or at U.S. military airports, unless the latest weather report for that airport issued by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by that Service, or a source approved by the Administrator, reports the visibility to be equal to or more than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure.

(c) If a pilot has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and after that receives a later weather report indicating below-minimum conditions, the pilot may continue the approach to DA/DH or MDA. Upon reaching DA/DH or at MDA, and at any time before the missed approach point, the pilot may continue the approach below DA/DH or MDA if either the requirements of §91.175(l) of this chapter, or the following requirements are met: etc., etc.

The principal difference is the location, 1000 feet vs. the final approach point, etc. As has already been stated, Part 91 operations are rather less restrictive.

Regarding CAT III RVR requirements, Dbate cited Ops Specs para C060(d)(4), which addresses fail-operational landing systems with fail-operational rollout systems. Similar requirements will appear in C060(d)(3), addressing fail-operational landing systems with fail-passive rollout guidance. The important point in this configuration is that you will be using an alert height, not a decision height. Since no visual references are required prior to touchdown, there is no absolute need for touchdown zone RVR. This allows the TDZ RVR to be "temporarily" inoperative. However, temporarily generally does not mean deferred while waiting for backordered parts.

Para C060(d)(2) refers to a fail-passive system with any rollout system, and C060(d)(1) refers to a fail-passive system with no rollout system. The RVR requirements for a fail-passive configuration will always specify TDZ RVR because visual references are required in this case. The MID and R/O criteria are designed to address the rollout, with or without automatic rollout guidance.

Hope that helps a bit.

[MU3001A]

411A Of course, in FAA-land it's done just a tad differently.
No such thing as an approach 'ban', the pilot decides whether to land (or not) depending on what he actually sees, at minima.

There's no explicit approach 'ban' as in Canada or the UK. But I wouldn't want to chance my arm against an FAA enforcement action, by landing with an RVR below minimums, based on what I actually see at minima. You can argue tower viz. v in-flight viz, but there's no arguing with RVR.

[Fratemate]

Of course, in FAA-land it's done just a tad differently.
No such thing as an approach 'ban', the pilot decides whether to land (or not) depending on what he actually sees, at minima.

the pilot may continue the approach only if the requirements of §91.175(l) of this chapter, or both of the following conditions, are met—
(1) The later weather report is received when the aircraft is in one of the following approach phases:
(i) The aircraft is on an ILS final approach and has passed the final approach fix;

No difference at all then. In the UK and Japan if you receive information that the RVR is below minimums before the approach ban point (FAF, OM or 1000' depending on what's available at the airfield), then you discontinue the approach. After passing the appoach ban point, you may continue the approach to DH. From the quotation above, you can only continue an approach with RVR below mins, in the States, if you've passed the FAF (i.e. the approach ban point, just like UK & Japan). If the wx is below minimums before the final part of the approach i.e. before the FAF, then the approach must be discontinued.

FARs & JARs may write it differently but they both mean the same thing, despite 411A's assumption that in the USA the PIC can decide everything depending on how he feels on the day :rolleyes:

[MU3001A]

you can only continue an approach with RVR below mins, in the States, if you've passed the FAF

Works for tower reported viz but not RVR. There's no arguing with RVR. Or at least none that I'd care to make with my license on the line.

[411A]

If the wx is below minimums before the final part of the approach i.e. before the FAF, then the approach must be discontinued.

FARs & JARs may write it differently but they both mean the same thing, despite 411A's assumption that in the USA the PIC can decide everything depending on how he feels on the day

Private ops in the USA by US registered aircraft, excepted.:)

[8che]

Just to clear one thing up (JAA/EU). The FAF has nothing what so ever to do with the approach ban. Its the OM or equivalent position or if neither exist then 1000ft. (The FAF can regularly be 6 or 7 miles out)