PDA

View Full Version : CAT I JAR OPS minima


Telstar
13th Apr 2011, 10:21
For CATIIIA landings we have the minima specified in our OM A as 200,125,75m required. The CATI minima is as per the approach plate or 550m whichever is more restrictive. It hasn´t come up until recently suprisingly but is that for all three points? I always assumed it has but now I´m not so sure?

9.G
13th Apr 2011, 10:47
Telstar, same for CAT I 550, 125, 125 or 75 provided you can slow down to below 60 kts prior reaching rollout RVR. You still can perform an auto land but the rollout must be done manually, I'm afraid.:ok:

shaun ryder
13th Apr 2011, 10:47
No.

The controlling RVR is that of the Touchdown Zone. If reported and relevant, the mid point and stop end are also controlling. The minimum RVR, if relevant, for the mid point is 125m and 75m for the stop end.

JonDyer
13th Apr 2011, 23:15
Hi,

Do you have a citation or OPS reference for this please?

9.G
14th Apr 2011, 13:21
reference EU OPS 1.400 The touch-down zone RVR is always controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point and stop end RVR are also controlling. The minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less, and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped with a roll-out guidance or control system, the minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down to a speed of approximately 60 kt. In other words here once again as long as you perform a manual rollout and being within high speed regime RVR 125 is what you're looking for. Once slowed down to 60 kts 75 is sufficient to vacate the runway.:ok:

JonDyer
14th Apr 2011, 16:51
Thanks.

That's at odds with a standard bit of 'tribal knowledge' in the corporate world which says that we need the first two above 550m (or plate minima).

It's always nice to get some facts.

shaun ryder
15th Apr 2011, 19:15
This says a lot about the training given to pilots in some parts of the corporate world. Could be a little better perhaps? I am intrigued that you were unable to find the answer to this yourself JonDyer? Makes you wonder how much inconvenience and fuel wastage could have been avoided by you and your colleagues!

Johnny F@rt Pants
16th Apr 2011, 15:57
In addition to the previous answers, and something which I commonly come across is that the mid-point is a minimum of 125, and is dependent on the facilities at the airfield, and theirs/state limits. The mid-point RVR requirement is the take-off minima for that runway, so if TO minima is 150m, then the mid-point landing minima, and the stop-end minima are 150m if you're going to use the stop-end as part of your landing roll-out, if not then it's 75m for taxiing.

9.G
16th Apr 2011, 21:27
JFP, it's absolutely correct that RVR is dependent on the approach & lightning system installed. However with the new EU OPS WX minima concept the law maker has standardized & categorized the approach lights systems and adjusted mininas accordantly. RVR 550 CAT I can only be authorized for CAT I approach operations to runways with FALS, TDZ and CL and with DH of 200ft therefore operator may use RVR 125 for CAT I landing. Operator may not be authorized to conduct LVTO with RVR 125 but as we saw earlier may use RVR 125 to perform manual rollout on a CAT I approach provided RWY lightning requirements are met. On the other hand, RVR 75 M LVTO approval doesn't constitute approval to use 75 for the MID on CAT I approach as the ILS system doesn't fullfil the stringent CAT II/III ground facilities requirements. In case TDZ and/ or CL lights aren't installed or inoperative RVR minima is raised to 750M.
Well, I wish it was somewhat easier for the ordinary pilot on line kinda push the button is see what you can or can't do thing.:ok:

JonDyer
17th Apr 2011, 11:02
This says a lot about the training given to pilots in some parts of the corporate world. Could be a little better perhaps? I am intrigued that you were unable to find the answer to this yourself JonDyer? Makes you wonder how much inconvenience and fuel wastage could have been avoided by you and your colleagues!


I didn't say I was unable to find it - I asked for the reference because you seemed to have chapter and verse but didn't provide the source. I also asked politely so it seems slightly unjustified to receive a lecture back.

Thanks anyway!

Denti
17th Apr 2011, 14:30
And if you go through the required certification process the RVR for the first segment can be as low as 350m using EVS and LTS operation. Still for CAT I though.

9.G
18th Apr 2011, 21:03
Gents
So according to EU OPS 1.400 in CAT II and CAT IIIA we are allowed to land with mid RVR 75m if we are going to make an autoland. In case of manual landing (w/o rollout guidance) we have to take mid RVR 125m. Correct? I presume you're talking bout MID RVR here? If so, then it's partially correct for CAT III ILS ground facility provided the FMA is at least CAT II, talking airbus here. On a CAT II ILS airbus doesn't recommend to conduct auto rollout due to insufficiently accuracy of the LOC signal. Bear in mind that an AUTO LAND & AUTO ROLLOUT are two different animals. :ok:

Johnman
21st May 2011, 22:18
I was looking at EU OPS 1.400 and it did not mention the figures mentioned above . Can you verify the reference and advise please.