Eu-ops Aom
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eu-ops Aom
Sorry to trouble, but confused as anything regarding establishing AOM in accordance with EU-OPS (new). Was discussing EU-OPS with a candidate a few days ago and was asked about when we were likely to change to the “new” from the “Old”? Didn’t know, but thought I’d better get my grey matter round the subject before I’m asked a question on it.
Table 5 seems self explanatory. If the DH was 480ft with IALS, I would say that the minimum RVR/CMV should be 1800m. When I look at our Aerad charts for those aerodromes showing EU-OPS Minima I find most don’t seem to conform to the table.
The numbers given above are for the NDB+DME RWY24 at Southend. The Minima on the plate shows 1700m for CAT C.
Now we come to Table 6
Perhaps I’ve missed something but this approach seems to conform to (c).(1).(ii) ie
Vertical profile is 3.5 (within the 3.77 for CAT C), final approach segment is greater than 3nm, inbound QDM is 239 to a runway of 236 (within the 5 degrees for CAT C).
3.4 (d)(1) The minimum RVR/CMV/Visibility shall be the highest of the values derived for table 5 or table 6 but not greater than the maximum values shown in table 6 where applicable.
This approach is shown with a min RVR of 1700m, Table 5 gives a min of 1800m and table 6 gives a min of 750m and max of 2400m.
I have been reading the “highest of table 5 or table 6” as you take the highest of the two ie.1800m. Should I be reading it as take your pick between 5 & 6 and then take the derived value.
Also the bottom right block (table 5) regarding CDFA would seem to indicate it appertains to the Max RVR for approaches not conforming to (c).(1).(ii) and not to the rest of the approaches. Should I read this as “Any approach not conforming to (c).(1).(ii) has a maximum of the value in table 5 up to a maximum of 5000m including the 200/400 increment if not flying a CDFA”, and that the 200’/400’ increment for not flying a CDFA is applicable to all approaches as per 3.4 (d)(4).
Many thanks
Confused.com
Table 5 seems self explanatory. If the DH was 480ft with IALS, I would say that the minimum RVR/CMV should be 1800m. When I look at our Aerad charts for those aerodromes showing EU-OPS Minima I find most don’t seem to conform to the table.
The numbers given above are for the NDB+DME RWY24 at Southend. The Minima on the plate shows 1700m for CAT C.
Now we come to Table 6
Perhaps I’ve missed something but this approach seems to conform to (c).(1).(ii) ie
Vertical profile is 3.5 (within the 3.77 for CAT C), final approach segment is greater than 3nm, inbound QDM is 239 to a runway of 236 (within the 5 degrees for CAT C).
3.4 (d)(1) The minimum RVR/CMV/Visibility shall be the highest of the values derived for table 5 or table 6 but not greater than the maximum values shown in table 6 where applicable.
This approach is shown with a min RVR of 1700m, Table 5 gives a min of 1800m and table 6 gives a min of 750m and max of 2400m.
I have been reading the “highest of table 5 or table 6” as you take the highest of the two ie.1800m. Should I be reading it as take your pick between 5 & 6 and then take the derived value.
Also the bottom right block (table 5) regarding CDFA would seem to indicate it appertains to the Max RVR for approaches not conforming to (c).(1).(ii) and not to the rest of the approaches. Should I read this as “Any approach not conforming to (c).(1).(ii) has a maximum of the value in table 5 up to a maximum of 5000m including the 200/400 increment if not flying a CDFA”, and that the 200’/400’ increment for not flying a CDFA is applicable to all approaches as per 3.4 (d)(4).
Many thanks
Confused.com
Last edited by GunRack; 23rd Nov 2009 at 11:56. Reason: missed a bit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't looked into your example, but perhaps the transition from OPS 1.430 Appendix 1 (Old) to (New) causes the discrepancy??
There was recently another thread going on about discrepancies between Jeppesen plates and regulatory minimas:
http://www.pprune.org/questions/3927...ao-minima.html
There was recently another thread going on about discrepancies between Jeppesen plates and regulatory minimas:
http://www.pprune.org/questions/3927...ao-minima.html
