A/C landing in CAT I with 200 m RVR

[askell]

On 2nd of September, I was unable to take-off from my base in Poland, due to low RVR (down to 50 m). We were taxiing back to stand, waiting for better conditions, when I heard "... clear to land". I immediately called the tower to check latest visibility (our airport is CAT I): "RVR 200/200/unkwn).

The guys landed and never answered the tower, who asked them to mention which taxiway they would use to taxi to stand (probably unable to read any panel !). The Captain later on said that visi was 600 m to the ground agent, who reported this to me (pure lie, of course, as it was 200 m only).

I am planning to visit Turkey in the coming months, but I would be scared flying with such guys. I tried to contact the airline twice, but no answer (they must consider this as a minor problem).

Do any of you have comments about Pegasus safety policy ?
Thanks.

[Ollie Onion]

Don't forget though, that if they had the required RVR to make the approach and then it fell below the minima after the FAF or 1000aal then they would be quite entitled to continue and have a look at the minima. If they have the require visibility at minima they can land regardless of the reported RVR.

[captplaystation]

Agreed, but it would have to have been a VERY rapid deterioration to go from 550m @ 1000AGL to 200m when the landing clearance was issued (assumedly not too long afterwards as landing clearances can normally be issued earlier anyhow in LVP's due increased separation.)

Don't waste your time waiting for an answer from the Turks. . . . . as there was no accident "it never happened" & their head will be buried ostrich- like.
Only lesson here is choose carefully who you book for your vacation flight, wish I could say I am surprised but . . . . . . . . . :hmm:

[paulsalem]

I tried to contact the airline twice, but no answer (they must consider this as a minor problem).

Does this mean you were going to tattle on the pilots? Mind your own business.

[de facto]

Does this mean you were going to tattle on the pilots? Mind your own business.

Its everyone's business:mad:

[askell]

I am also a passenger, so how far should I wait before doing anything, when such things happen ? "My own business", yes, of course, it can be a philosophy. How do you call a guy (sorry, a crew) who lands in these conditions, as long as thy succeed ? Answer: pilots (or bad pilots if you like). Now, how would you call them if they fail: criminals. The difference between you and me is that YOU just wait that it happens, I try to act on things so that they don't happen. And I am very sorry if this can bother two guys, who made their choice without asking their passenger opinions. Let me remind you that this happened in Poland. I am sure that "Smolensk" means something to them and that, if they were asked, these passengers would have considered that this could be my business !

To answer other points: I spent 15 minutes on the runway, we taxied to both ends of it, expecting an improvement and I never left the frequency before they land. The best we had was 200 meters, the least was 50. Of course, from the sky, it may have looked good. But from the ground, I can tell you that, even for taxi, we had to be carefull.

Captain's behavior is already one thing, but I also wondered how they work, as a crew...

[Dg800]

Does this mean you were going to tattle on the pilots? Mind your own business.

Safety culture at its best... NOT! :=

[Golf-Sierra]

Excuse me for a perhaps somewhat daff SLF question - in the event of low lying layered fog wouldn't you have exactly the effect that at ground level the visibility is quite poor whilst at even a quite small altitude you would have considerably better visibility?

Also - if this raises such concern are there not formal channels to bring this to the attention of the relative authority in Poland? I think you need to go to this page http://www.transport.gov.pl/2-48230038f3e66.htm download the 5th excel document and then email it to the mentioned email address.

[paulsalem]

Other than the visibility do you know any other fact about this?

Do you know what the weather was prior to the FAF?
Do you know the fuel status?
Do you know the alternate airport(s) wx?
Do you know the health of the crew and pax?
Do you know the condition of the aircraft?
Do you know the flight visibility when the broke out?
Do you know when they got the lights in sight?
Do you know if it was a revenue leg (not sure if that matters in Europe, it does in the US)?

[de facto]

Paulsalem,

You are a PPL holder at best,arent you?

[paulsalem]

I'll answer your question when you've answered mine. :)

[askell]

Paulsalem, I could answer YES to almost every point. Regarding the fuel, they did not declare an emergency. Let me remind you that the Captain said that Visi was 600, which is absolutely wrong. The lights in sight or anything else does not allow them to continue the approach below 1000 AGL if RVR<550m, which was the case. And I am not talking about 500 meters, but 200 !!!!!

The fact that you raised these points shows that, in your opinion, you could disregard rules in case you estimate you have good reasons to do so. I would agree, in case of a real emergency. But here, it was not the case: they parked just beside my plane and I discussed with the ground staff afterward. Smolensk crew also had good reasons: they had polish president on board ! It does not change the result...

GolfSierra, you are right: we were exactly in a situation of thin fog patches (or layer): from the sky, you can see the ground. From the ground, you can't see anything. I had to work on an event where the Cpt elected to continue eventhough he lost briefly the sight of the ground. At touchdown, he has mistaken the side lights for the center lights and corrected accordingly: he deviated to the side of the RWY, left the RWY, cut the taxiway (that was empty, by chance) before coming back to the runway. The presence of an A/C on this RWY would have caused an other Tenerife.

I will check the link, thank you.

[askell]

Paulsalem, you wrote FAF... hope you are joking ! Of course, it was an ILS, it's already bad enough !!!

[paulsalem]

Paulsalem, you wrote FAF... hope you are joking ! Of course, it was an ILS, it's already bad enough !!!
Sorry I don't understand, I'm an American. To us the FAF is the Final Approach Fix, which is glide slope intercept on an ILS.

[de facto]

Do you know what the weather was prior to the FAF?
What does an FAF have to do with anything?In any case,fog rarely moves away quickly,as no or little wind,so a change from RVR 550 to rvr 200 between the FAF and the usual approach ban of 1000 ft is quite unlikely.
Do you know the fuel status?
No need,either thay had enough fuel to divert or they didnt,if not a low fuel emergency would have been declared.
Do you know the alternate airport(s) wx?
No need,alternate airports are chosen for this not to have to happen.
Do you know the health of the crew and pax?
Obviously the crew were mentally unwell ,if pax were that sick,an emergency would been declared to land below minima.
Do you know the condition of the aircraft?
No needed,a cat 3a approach can not be flown in actual wx if the airport is not equipped....
Do you know the flight visibility when the broke out?
Rvr 200 as by the tower.
Do you know when they got the lights in sight
Below cat 1 minima,so at 200rvr,they must have seen the lights around 50 ft HAT.
Do you know if it was a revenue leg (not sure if that matters in Europe, it does in the US)?
Revenue or not,you need to follow the regs,THAT makes me think you may be a PPL at best or an under trained Part 91 biz FO.

The tower should not have cleared them to land...thats another story...

[paulsalem]

None of the questions answered by you contain any hard proof it's all hearsay, insinuation, or answers to questions not asked.

Revenue or not,you need to follow the regs,THAT makes me think you may be an under trained Part 91 biz pilot.

I've flown 121 and 91. Since you've taken this from a polite debate to personal insults I'm done with the conversation. Not sure what the reasoning for your turning to a personal attacks was.

[de facto]

So do you really think one would get any visual reference in 200 rvr at a DA of 200ft?
Why do you think some pilots care about this and are told by you to mind their own business?
I have flown in poland and i have witnessed Eurolot taking off when rvr was 200 m also..
Would you do such thing in your biz jet?go below minima?
Google approach ban while you are at it...

Nothing personal ,just trying to understand the experience of someone who may accept such actions..

[askell]

"Mind your own business" is probably a polite expression in US, then :bored:

For FAF, ok, I didn't know it was like that in US. We use FAP for ILS.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

So do you really think one would get any visual reference in 200 rvr at a DA of 200ft?

Edinburgh's RVRometer is down a slight incline, in grass, to the side of the runway. It was in fog and showing 300m RVR whilst we could clearly see the whole runway from 15 miles away.

;)

[de facto]

Edinburgh's RVRometer is down a slight incline, in grass, to the side of the runway. It was in fog and showing 300m RVR whilst we could clearly see the whole runway from 15 miles away.

Im sure the tower was aware of this incorrect reading hence gave you a clearance to land.
In Poland,i was told it is up to the pilot to decide when it comes to vis minima as they dont know all crew limitations!They should know pilots minima are limited by the airport minima at least.In that case cat1.
Undertrained ATC,poor pilot judgement ,the third problem is just waiting to happen and uve got an accident,with passengers dying while they here minding their own business.

If ground crew tell u the airport is fogged in like it was the case in the above example,and some land by risking their pax lives,it drives me nuts hence the i itial harsh reaction.
Ive heard too many of those examples,including a fact in my previous airline.:}

[Spitoon]

Im sure the tower was aware of this incorrect reading hence gave you a clearance to land.Not condoning anyone who chooses to land below minima or who thinks it's OK to do so but in Lord Spandex's example (which is in the UK) the RVR was not incorrect, it was the measured RVR and this is what gets reported. As a general principle, again in the UK but also in many other States, ATC does not question a pilot's operating minima and will not withhold a landing clearance because of the weather.

Just about anyone involved with operations at Edinburgh soon becomes familiar with the 'Gogar Burn problem'. The standard position for siting RVR measurement equipment runs alongside a small river called the Gogar Burn and in the right conditions shallow fog forms over the river and can easily drift toward/over the RVR transmissometers resulting in low RVR values. It can be frustrating to clearly see the airport and runways from a few thousand feet up and be prevented from making an approach but it's better than having aircraft mishaps because the pilot's view becomes far less clear when on short final. If I recall correctly there was at least one accident where this was a major contributory factor before the rules about approach minima were tightened up.

As a controller I saw a good few carriers repeatedly land in conditions where it was hard to believe that the necessary visual conditions existed from the flight deck. I chose not to use those carriers for my travel.

If any procedures were clearly breached or disregarded I would take the appropriate reporting action. If a pilot (or carrier) routinely feels that some rules can be broken what confidence can you have that any other rules will be respected?

[de facto]

Spitoon,

I agree with all that you wrote,but as a tower controller,you should know cat 1 minima right?if all your rvr report 200 meters and looking outside looks like 200 meters,ther is a big chance the pilot will not see approach lights by the standard 200 ft.
At 550 rvr,pilot will just start to see the approach lights at 200 ft,runway about 150-100feet.
At 200rvr(having flown actual cat 3a ),the visual will be between 50-70 ft.

I think the approach ban is to avoid crew to duck under and should be inforced by ATC.
There is a difference of lets say rvr decreasing from 550 to 500 rvr after the approach ban altitude as 50 meters may not necessarely be such a big drop not to have the required lights by DA.
200 rvr is just not possible with cat 1 minima.

Some airports may have local issues for their rvr readings but At the airport i was mentionning,the all airport was in fog,i barely saw the eurolot taxiing in front of my aircraft,it took off....
Now the airport in question is cat 1, no fences around,just a big forest:ooh:

[askell]

On this APT like on many others, RVR meters are above the grass and might give inaccurate information, in some conditions where fog develops above humid surfaces and not over the RWY. We can observe this from te ground from time to time. Anyway, as soon as RVR is transmitted and even if we can observe that actual conditions are better, we don't take off, as it's not legal.

From the air, you can sometime see the runway from 50 NM, but if RVR is below 550 m, we hold or we divert: we know that we may see it till 50 ft and then lose all references just before touchdown. AS we are not LOTO players but professional pilots, we don't guess, we follow the rules.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Im sure the tower was aware of this incorrect reading hence gave you a clearance to land.


Well yes, but they were using LVPs and we were using a CAT II approach.

Just a bit odd carrying out a CAT II in anger when it was, effectively, clear as a bell.

[Spitoon]

I agree with all that you wrote,but as a tower controller,you should know cat 1 minima right?if all your rvr report 200 meters and looking outside looks like 200 meters,ther is a big chance the pilot will not see approach lights by the standard 200 ft.Yup, I've got a pretty good idea about operating minima and AWO. But the point I was making is that in the UK (and a good few other States) the responsibility for operating the aircraft lies with the pilot and ATC provides information and instructions to assist the pilot. This general principle is applied throughout ATC procedures with very few exceptions and most pilots - quite understandably - fiercely protect their authority in this respect.

I do not condone pilots who bust the approach minimum or who creatively interpret the rules in other ways. But I do believe that the rules should be followed - if you don't think the rules are good there are channels through which you can attempt to get them changed. But the bottom line is that the rules are the rules and if individuals pick and choose which ones they wish to follow no-one can rely on the actions of anyone else. Aviation achieves almost incredibly good safety performance and much of this results from the comprehensive and effective rules.

If anyone chooses to break the rules without good justification I have little sympathy when they have to pay the resulting penalties. But the 'police' are the relevant supervisory/regulatory authority, not ATC (any more than it is pilots). Apparent infringements should be reported and appropriately investigated and the results acted upon by the CAA or whatever. The problem seems to be that this latter part of the system often seems to be ineffective.