X-Ray Vision in Perth?
Capt Basil Brush-----ok but prior to 1000' AGL if the reported RVR ( or VIS if
RVR not available ) is below the chart required then CANNOT continue.
If already below 1000' AGL you can continue to minima and "decide"
RVR not available ) is below the chart required then CANNOT continue.
If already below 1000' AGL you can continue to minima and "decide"
Exactly, we've had CAT3B qualified crews sitting in the hold waiting while CAT1 only crews take it down the ILS to have a look see, then go around....
Time to introduce an approach ban.
Time to introduce an approach ban.
Basil Brush,
Pretty sure Perth only uses RVs (at this stage) hence the minima of 800m. Does that change things in this case?
VA have an Approach Ban policy, however with a reported Cat 1 RVR of 550m an approach can be conducted to the minima.
So the RVR is below CAT2 and these CAT1 only heroes without an approach ban get to take a look while we have to run around a holding pattern and quite possibly divert because we can't wait.....
Yeah that's a good idea...
Yeah that's a good idea...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes your right Transition, I just had a look at Perth and no RVR - surprise surprise. So 800m it is. In that case if previous aircraft have been landing, the PIC I believe has the option to use that observation to continue below the approach ban. (If it's a state requirement or company procedure)
Transistion----yes the Perth ILS chart says 0.8. This can be either RVR or VIS. Whichever they give it must be 800m to go below 1000'
If we were told an RVR or VIS 550m then we could not fly below 1000'. ( approach ban )
In our case----
Approach Ban. The Commander/PIC shall not commence an approach (i.e. descent below 1,000 FT AAL) if the reported RVR is below the published minimum. When RVR is not available, reported visibility shall be used instead. In such circumstances, reported visibility shall be controlling in the same manner as RVR. Factoring of reported visibility to obtain an equivalent RVR is not permitted for an approach.
If we were told an RVR or VIS 550m then we could not fly below 1000'. ( approach ban )
In our case----
Approach Ban. The Commander/PIC shall not commence an approach (i.e. descent below 1,000 FT AAL) if the reported RVR is below the published minimum. When RVR is not available, reported visibility shall be used instead. In such circumstances, reported visibility shall be controlling in the same manner as RVR. Factoring of reported visibility to obtain an equivalent RVR is not permitted for an approach.
Good ol Perth, has it all...
YPPH 201109Z 2012/2118 36008KT 9999 SCT030
FM210000 34016KT 9999 -SHRA SCT025 BKN035
FM210500 26013KT 9999 -SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210900 22012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT020 BKN030
INTER 2100/2103 5000 SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2103/2109 3000 +SHRA BKN006
INTER 2109/2114 5000 SHRA SCT010
PROB30 2014/2101 0300 FG
PROB30
INTER 2104/2108 32025G50KT 2000 TSRA BKN006 FEW018CB
YPPH 201109Z 2012/2118 36008KT 9999 SCT030
FM210000 34016KT 9999 -SHRA SCT025 BKN035
FM210500 26013KT 9999 -SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210900 22012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT020 BKN030
INTER 2100/2103 5000 SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2103/2109 3000 +SHRA BKN006
INTER 2109/2114 5000 SHRA SCT010
PROB30 2014/2101 0300 FG
PROB30
INTER 2104/2108 32025G50KT 2000 TSRA BKN006 FEW018CB
Oops, they've issued another one without the Fog
YPPH 201348Z 2013/2118 01008KT 9999 SCT030
FM210100 36012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT025 BKN035
FM210400 35016G26KT 9999 SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210700 26014KT 9999 SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210900 22012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT020 BKN030
INTER 2101/2104 5000 SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2104/2109 VRB25G45KT 2000 +SHRA BKN006
INTER 2109/2112 24020G35KT 4000 SHRA BKN008
INTER 2112/2116 5000 SHRA SCT010
PROB30
INTER 2104/2107 32030G50KT 2000 TSRA BKN006 FEW018CB
YPPH 201348Z 2013/2118 01008KT 9999 SCT030
FM210100 36012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT025 BKN035
FM210400 35016G26KT 9999 SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210700 26014KT 9999 SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210900 22012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT020 BKN030
INTER 2101/2104 5000 SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2104/2109 VRB25G45KT 2000 +SHRA BKN006
INTER 2109/2112 24020G35KT 4000 SHRA BKN008
INTER 2112/2116 5000 SHRA SCT010
PROB30
INTER 2104/2107 32030G50KT 2000 TSRA BKN006 FEW018CB
In that case if previous aircraft have been landing, the PIC I believe has the option to use that observation to continue below the approach ban. (If it's a state requirement or company procedure)
Lets face it - the VA guy coupled up and made his own CAT 3 approach and landing, which then led to the muppets from Malaysian and Jetstar doing likewise (not all JQ as the later one of them missed and diverted)
I don't anyone give me crap about 'drifting fog banks' etc. It was a pea-souper.
BTW - there is no RVR (determined electronically) at Perth, only Runway Visibility (RV) reported by an Approved Observer - in this case the Safety Officer(s) down at ground level. The TWR couldn't see a thing - their Vis was about 5 feet.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about Perth, but at YMML and YBBN, I have seen QF land while others hold, because they have the RNP-AR procedures in the box...(they dont have coded procedures for the A330...only B737/A320)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OhSpareMe (your attitude)
Look up a few posts and you will see that no RVR in Perth has already been determined.
I was remarking in general - not about what did or did not occur in Perth regarding QF330's and Virgin, Malaysian etc. You seem to be all worked up about this, got a chip on your shoulder(s) for some reason? A bit of inexperience showing through as well. Calm down, it's not good for your blood pressure. 
BTW - there is no RVR (determined electronically) at Perth, only Runway Visibility (RV) reported by an Approved Observer - in this case the Safety Officer(s) down at ground level. The TWR couldn't see a thing - their Vis was about 5 feet.
In that case if previous aircraft have been landing, the PIC I believe has the option to use that observation to continue below the approach ban. (If it's a state requirement or company procedure)
Sorry Capt Basil, but the previous aircraft (the 2 QF A330's) didn't land - most likely because the crews couldn't see squat. That would have been their 'observation.'
Sorry Capt Basil, but the previous aircraft (the 2 QF A330's) didn't land - most likely because the crews couldn't see squat. That would have been their 'observation.'
Lets face it - the VA guy coupled up and made his own CAT 3 approach and landing, which then led to the muppets from Malaysian and Jetstar doing likewise (not all JQ as the later one of them missed and diverted)
I don't anyone give me crap about 'drifting fog banks' etc. It was a pea-souper.
I don't anyone give me crap about 'drifting fog banks' etc. It was a pea-souper.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to burst your little bubble Nitpicker, but it did happen, as described,
one caveat though,
the time was back in the "wild, wild ,west days" of 2004!
Back when there was a distinct lack of maturity on flight decks due to youngins getting commands with 15months of experience instead of 15+ years!
one caveat though,
the time was back in the "wild, wild ,west days" of 2004!
Back when there was a distinct lack of maturity on flight decks due to youngins getting commands with 15months of experience instead of 15+ years!
Low visibility landings in QF have a ban on proceeding below 1000 AGL if the ATC reported visibility or controlling zone RVR is lower than the published minimum required for landing.
As Perth RWY 21 is Cat 1 only - and therefore by definition not a low visibility approach - one can continue to the MAP for a 'look' irrespective of the reported VIS if the PIC believes the required visual reference will be attained. Nothing wrong with that, as demonstrated on Thursday night. Its the bit about landing below minima that is of concern.
Thanks for medical advice Capt Basil. I shall bear it in mind.
As Perth RWY 21 is Cat 1 only - and therefore by definition not a low visibility approach - one can continue to the MAP for a 'look' irrespective of the reported VIS if the PIC believes the required visual reference will be attained. Nothing wrong with that, as demonstrated on Thursday night. Its the bit about landing below minima that is of concern.
Thanks for medical advice Capt Basil. I shall bear it in mind.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OhSpareMe,
Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. You got it right in the first paragraph, but attempted to justify the QF A330's shooting approaches to have a "look" when the reported vis was less than 800m. Iam not sure if the intent of "Low Visibility Landings" justifies continuing below the approach ban point knowing the visibility is less than the minima, by saying Cat 1 is not low visibility, and therefore the approach ban does not apply? Maybe that is QF's policy?
Iam with Nitpicker on this one, approach bans in most (I would actually assume all) airlines that have an approach ban policy applies to ALL instrument approaches, not just below Cat 1, and usually not only for ILS approaches.
It would be interesting to see the different policies on approach bans that different airlines use.
Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. You got it right in the first paragraph, but attempted to justify the QF A330's shooting approaches to have a "look" when the reported vis was less than 800m. Iam not sure if the intent of "Low Visibility Landings" justifies continuing below the approach ban point knowing the visibility is less than the minima, by saying Cat 1 is not low visibility, and therefore the approach ban does not apply? Maybe that is QF's policy?
Iam with Nitpicker on this one, approach bans in most (I would actually assume all) airlines that have an approach ban policy applies to ALL instrument approaches, not just below Cat 1, and usually not only for ILS approaches.
It would be interesting to see the different policies on approach bans that different airlines use.
Sorry I still call "bull****"
I know a lot of the checkers and trainers in the Airline you are so keen to point the finger at and they have years of experience. I would be very surprised if any of their Commanders ever ignored a Windshear warning unless there was a greater emergency.
Back in 2004 they were still a startup Airline that employed mostly direct entry Commanders that had come from An and Tn via Mh and Sq with years of mature experience behind them flying for highly reputable Airlines. Those that were upgraded Commanders were trained by these guys too.
So, sorry but I say crap. Your friend was obviously pulling your leg in order to talk down the opposition...
I know a lot of the checkers and trainers in the Airline you are so keen to point the finger at and they have years of experience. I would be very surprised if any of their Commanders ever ignored a Windshear warning unless there was a greater emergency.
Back in 2004 they were still a startup Airline that employed mostly direct entry Commanders that had come from An and Tn via Mh and Sq with years of mature experience behind them flying for highly reputable Airlines. Those that were upgraded Commanders were trained by these guys too.
So, sorry but I say crap. Your friend was obviously pulling your leg in order to talk down the opposition...
Capt Basil Brush not sure if I'm interpreting your post correctly but if you are asking AIP specifically defines CAT I as not 'low visibility', not just QF.
ENR 1.5 - 4.8.
Low Visibility Operations
4.8.1 A low visibility operation is an operation involving:
a. an approach with minima less than precision approach CAT I;or
b. a take--off with visibility below 550M.
4.8.2 Aircraft operators may conduct low visibility operations only if spe-
cifically approved by CASA. Approvals are granted in the form of
an exemption to the standard IFR take--off and approach minima
and will be subject to specified requirements.
ENR 1.5 - 4.8.
Low Visibility Operations
4.8.1 A low visibility operation is an operation involving:
a. an approach with minima less than precision approach CAT I;or
b. a take--off with visibility below 550M.
4.8.2 Aircraft operators may conduct low visibility operations only if spe-
cifically approved by CASA. Approvals are granted in the form of
an exemption to the standard IFR take--off and approach minima
and will be subject to specified requirements.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying to tie the bit about Cat 1 and low visibility procedures in with the normal requirements of approach bans, where applicable. However if QF's approach ban only applies to low vis ops, then it gives them an advantage over other operators with an approach ban that applies to all approaches. Ie including Cat 1 approaches.
Clear as mud I suppose.
Clear as mud I suppose.