Jeppesen discrepencies from state/icao minima ???

[snorrip3]

Hi there

I'm trying to figure out a mistery, with recent jeppesen charts, that may or may not have something to do with EASA

earlier charts have respected state/icao system weather minima, but are no longer doing so, and I can't find the regulatory clause for these changes

example; Kastrup CPH DENMARK ILS 04L (among many others) has a DH of 202'

System (& Denmark state minima) for DH 200 is 550m, and 600m RVR for systems 201' to 299'DH

Earlier Jeppesen plates stated correctly 600m RVR, but are now stating 550m RVR

Can anybody shed some light on why this change has come about ? and more importantly where I can read up on these changes

/SNO

[411A]

Jeppesen publishes, as part of most tailored airline specific subscriptions, detailed ICAO/EASA minima on a separate page.
Refer to, and apply.
As for our ops, we use the published Jep minima, on the approach chart.

Simple, really.:rolleyes:

[BOAC]

snorrip - IEX? If so, unless things have changed you will indeed be using the minima to which you refer and your company minima will be 600m for 202' (highest applies). It does sound odd. What is the DA for 04L shown on the chart? I think the t/d elevation was something like 12/13', so 214/5'? NB If you are Iceair/Bluebird I have no idea!:)

Just checked and I am either missing an amendment to EUOPS or Jepp have screwed up!

[snorrip3]

I find it really strange, because the decision height (DH) has not changed since last publication of the Jeppesen. And up until this point I have never seen Jeppesen charts below state minima as detailed in the danish regs

"As for our ops, we use the published Jep minima, on the approach chart.

Simple, really." - 411A


the problem is, following jeppesen minima could simply be illegal.

[411A]

the problem is, following jeppesen minima could simply be illegal.

Sadly, this is where EASA (JAA before) have made it so very complicated/obtuse.
In 43 years of professional flying (and a couple to go), every company that I have worked for used the Jeppesen charted minima...for the particular category of aircraft, in our case, category D (heavy jet).
You folks in EASA-land are truly behind the times, with your complications.

Now, if your particular airline is up to snuff, they could order, from Jeppesen, specific approach charts, with your specific airline allowed minima...at a slight extra cost.
In this way, possible mistakes (and illegality) are eliminated.
Few do this of course, hence the confusion by some...including I expect, the original poster.

Snorrip3, you have my sympathy.

[snorrip3]

Definetly including me ; )

I'll let you know when I've found the reason for this weird change.

Thanks all for your inputs

[BOAC]

The confusion, 411, appears to be also yours! The query was about Jeppeson publishing minima below ICAO minima, not company minima, and the company minima in any case are ICAO. That is, of course, unless you have an allowed RVR of 550m for a DH above 200'?

snorrip - interested to hear the answer - don't forget to come back.

[snorrip3]

Gents, After going through considerable amounts of resources. Chief flight instructors, examiners and CAA administrators, the answer simply enough was laid down in Air Traffic Control section of the Jeppesen detailing changes to AOM aerodrome operating minimas, where there have been changes to allow 550m with a DH of up to 250' or so. The changes are detailed for each 10' increment, making it virtually impossible to remember.

In all cases, I asked because of curiosity, and to create awareness of the fact that the Jeppesen plates may be publishing minimas below presently current minimas.

And as far as practicality of it goes.. well 50 meters :D

Thanks for your time

[BOAC]

Good to see you back, snorrip. Have you found where the changes originated - are they valid for EU OPS, and what has your company said about this? Obviously if we can knock off another 50 mtrs ......................:ok:

[snorrip3]

haha sorry for the vague reply

Yes its EU ops. I don't have the manual with me but I believe page 601 of ATC does all the detailed explanation.

From what I understand as well is that JAR ops have implemented the minimums as well as per one or another appendix.

However since I fly by neither JAR or EU ops, it's not in my interest to dwell to long on this. page atc-600some to find out more! ; )

Happy landings

[172_driver]

A few months ago I found this "Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430" - which allows 550 m RVR up to 250 ft DH. I had no clue, so I passed the question on to a Flight Inspector at Swedish CAA.

His answer:

1. Appendix New is new "law" from 16 July 2011.

2. Operators are allowed to use Appendix New already now, if they so wish. But it has to be based on a voluntarily change. The Authority cannot enforce Appendix New before 16/7-11. Thus, there may be operators on both Appendix Old (traditional one) and Appendix New before said date.


3. Interestingly, the inspector said specifically in Denmark you may not use Appendix 1 before 16 July 2011. I don't know why it would be so, because EU Commission apparently doesn't prohibit the use of Appendix New before 16/7-11. Maybe he was mistaking on this one??

[snorrip3]

Interesting ; )

I'd love to know why, if anyones flying ops in DK

[BOAC]

Thanks guys! The usual bureaucratic muddle! It is going to make the 'approach ban' interesting!

[None]

Like snorrip3, I have encountered issues with Jeppesen over the last few years. What I have learned is that Jeppesen will only publish information that is in the legal source document, usually the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).

When I see something that I think is questionable, I look at the AIP (not fun), and on occasion I have found the Jepps have not kept up with the AIP changes. I suppose Jeppesen may have reduced their staff just like the rest of us.

Jeppesen is responsive to our suggestions, and that is appreciated.