View Full Version : ICAO Approach Ban - your assistance needed
Inboardflap
9th May 2013, 15:36
The ICAO Annex 6 states the following regarding continuation of an approach when the reported Vis or RVR is below the specified minimums.
How do you interpret the last sentence, regarding legality of continuing to land if the reported RVR/VIS is below the minumums prescribed when i reach DA?
Logically i would expect to be able to land when reaching the DH and the visual references are seen (as stated specically in the EU-OPS). However from the wording below, one might conclude that regardless of the actual visual conditions, seeing that the last reported RVR was below minima i am expected not to land.
Thanks in advance for any assistance!
4.4.1.3 If, after passing the outer marker fix in case of precision approach, or after descending below 300 m (1 000 ft)
above the aerodrome in case of non-precision approach, the reported visibility or controlling RVR falls below the specified
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H. In any case, an aeroplane shall not continue its approach-to-land at any aerodrome beyond a point at which the limits of the operating minima specified for that aerodrome
would be infringed.
FlightPathOBN
9th May 2013, 15:43
There are some very well 'developed' RVR/Vis threads on this Board....
with that I wish you luck....
On first read, total confusion. Second time around I think it is just 'arse-covering' by ICAO in saying that if when you get to DA/DH you cannot see the required visual cues then you cannot continue to land because the "limits of the operating minima specified for that aerodrome" (ie t/down lights/approach lights/runway itself, whatever is appropriate for the CAT) have not been met? I assume this since it follows "the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H."
Indeed a strange way of putting it!
giggitygiggity
9th May 2013, 15:53
I believe what it is saying is that if you conduct an approach, you can descend below the 1000ft (approach ban height) if visibility is above the approach ban minima. If at any time during the approach the visibility falls below minima, you can continue down to DA/MDA but you must go around if not visual by DA/MDA.
So to re-iterate, if you descend past the approach ban height, and then the visibility reduces below the prescribed minima, you can continue down to minimums which may or may not result in getting visual and a subsequent landing.
Edit: I perhaps misread the question. Yes, sounds like they're covering themselves perhaps by stating the obvious?
FlightPathOBN
9th May 2013, 16:02
e) The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the required visual reference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
Natstrackalpha
9th May 2013, 20:27
Below a thousand, concentrate on the approach, the last RVR you got was within limits, its not your fault that the RVR suddenly dropped at the last minute. To MDA/MDH/DH/DA/DDA*
Should the RVR be below minimums when you are above a thousand feet on the approach then you cannot continue the approach.
*Normal actions at the MDA/H (etc) or DH (etc) apply subject to the conditions.
Whats Chinese about that?
Addendum: The right to kick your a--- is reserved.
FlightPathOBN
9th May 2013, 21:44
Note the part in BOLD and specifically.. "Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists..."
OPS 1.405
Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima (see OPS 1.192).
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 to OPS 1.430, subparagraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height, for each approach procedure, below which the approach shall not be continued if RVR/visibility is less than applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the required
visual reference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
If that is the latest ICAO reference, Inboard, then ICAO are well out of step with reality (surprise?) since their wording makes no allowance for a 'missing' OM whereas for decades (certainly CAP371 onwards) UK and Euro regs have.
You don't tell us what your 'interest' is in this, but if it is as a pilot or procedure designer, I suggest you put that bit of Annex 6 on a high top shelf and just do what we all do regarding 'approach bans':)
Edit: Incidentally I note 4.4.1.2. is equally inadequate. After all, how many Precision Approaches have an 'OM fix'?
Oktas8
10th May 2013, 08:11
Most of them, in Australia. With a DME too, go figure. But we have to use the OM to assess glideslope integrity, not DME. Because DME is too new-fangled to trust, I suppose.
A real blast from the past.
Hobbyhorse, HALT! Diiiiiiiiiiiis-mount!
Pontius
10th May 2013, 08:39
All this FAF, OM stuff is just nonsense. Why not just use 1000' AFE all over the planet and have done with it?
Pontius - most times I have but don't tell anyone.....................http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif PS Where does FAF come into it?
Oktas - you still have NDB OMs/fan markers around a lot?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif
Oktas8
10th May 2013, 10:00
Seems about half, two-thirds, of the ILS's use outer markers. Mandatory to use them, not any other reference, for glideslope check. Even if the OM is at 4DME, and you've joined at 12DME.
As you say, :eek:
And there is no approach ban in Australia. Below minimum visibility? No worries mate, pop on down to DA and have a look. With paying passengers on board. :eek:
Capn Bloggs
10th May 2013, 11:23
Inboard Flap, I'm familiar with the Approach Ban concept but don't use it. Your quote, on the face of it, is confusing, but when read in conjunction with para a) quoted by FlightpathOBN, it makes sense (but it is from a different document?). The earlier paragraphs of your reference will probably fill in the puzzle.
how many Precision Approaches have an 'OM fix'?
The only ones in Oz are the PRM ILSs at YSSY as far as I can see.
And there is no approach ban in Australia. Below minimum visibility? No worries mate, pop on down to DA and have a look. With paying passengers on board.
Perhaps they don't need rules that, in a lot of cases eg in the bush, simply don't work because there is no reported visibility anyway. I don't see you criticising the old "Operational Control"...
Mandatory to use them, not any other reference, for glideslope check. Even if the OM is at 4DME, and you've joined at 12DME.
That's obvious isn't it? Why wouldn't you use an OM if it was there and working? Easier than a DME check. If you miss it, just use the DME profile.
4DME/12DME?? Relevance to a GS check? At least the Australians have had, for many years, the DME/slope profile from top to bottom on their charts, for those who like checking the GS further out...
RAT 5
11th May 2013, 11:57
4.4.1.3 If, after passing the outer marker fix in case of precision approach, or after descending below 300 m (1 000 ft)
above the aerodrome in case of non-precision approach, the reported visibility or controlling RVR falls below the specified.....................
Am I out of touch? I thought the 1000' was in case of no OM or DME/radial/ equivalent position or u/s equipment. I thought the FAF was the ruling point on an NPA. Please enlighten me.
There's that 'FAF' thing again - is that a US ruling? There is no mention of it in EUOPS
"but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position,"
ICAO may well be out of touch as well, of course.:)
Pontius
11th May 2013, 13:04
BOAC,
Where does FAF come into it?
AIP Japan mate. They use FAF, OM, 1000'.
Yes, before you say it, I know; precision approach, FAF etc but try telling the Japanese that :)
:eek: - the FAF can be as much as 10 miles or more out! That is really restrictive.
RAT 5
11th May 2013, 17:14
Enlightenment sought once again. IMH memory the FAF is often the final descent point on NPA, not always, but often. I'm an old fart and all this new fangled EUOPS stuff has flown me by, perhaps. Thus a FAF was not a part of a precision approach, only NPA. An ILS and NDB are often overlaid. However, there might only be an NPA to the RW. Thus there will be no OM, and the NDB might be on the airfield. It could even be procedural with timings, i.e. no DME. Thus my old fuddled brain thinking was that an approach ban on an NPA was related to passing the FAF, which must be promulgated.
Please clarify.
Could well have been - indeed Pontius tells us it is in Japan. I suspect on your 'traditional' NDB, no OM , beacon on the field etc (God, they were fun.............), the point would, as you say, be the 'equivalent point' in Europe ie 1000'?
Inboardflap
11th May 2013, 19:32
I don't have an issue with the FAF or OM. The problem is with the sentence marked in bold in my original post. The quote allowing to continue from the DA if visual references are established and maintained are from the EU-OPS and are clear. ICAO specifically does not state this and instead have the sentence marked in bold.
When landing in countries using ICAO standards we are required to meet those standards and need to know what to do.