Approach ban - single pilot IFR ops.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, someones upset the mighty IO540.
An AOC requirement (in EASA land) is that approach plates for any country that AOC may fly to are checked against the relevant Air Pilot. Most line pilots will not even know that such an action is carried out as they have no requirement to know, in a major carrier the Air Pilots are held in OPs Admin and the checking takes place there. Surely IO540 would have known that as he so often spouts off at others quoting his great knowlwdge and expertise.
JEPP/AERAD become the defining documents for AOC pilots by the virtue of the fact that the Ops Manual will state which type of plate is to be used, and therefore JEPP/AERAD actually become part of the Ops Manual, and the limits defined there become company limits, unless there is an AFM limit, or performance limit which calls for a higher limit to be imposed.
SND
An AOC requirement (in EASA land) is that approach plates for any country that AOC may fly to are checked against the relevant Air Pilot. Most line pilots will not even know that such an action is carried out as they have no requirement to know, in a major carrier the Air Pilots are held in OPs Admin and the checking takes place there. Surely IO540 would have known that as he so often spouts off at others quoting his great knowlwdge and expertise.
JEPP/AERAD become the defining documents for AOC pilots by the virtue of the fact that the Ops Manual will state which type of plate is to be used, and therefore JEPP/AERAD actually become part of the Ops Manual, and the limits defined there become company limits, unless there is an AFM limit, or performance limit which calls for a higher limit to be imposed.
SND
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done that one can sit back and wait for the new Jepp charts to arrive
Need to get up to date, Mr DFC.
The Jepp stuff has been delivered electronically for some years.
SND - where did I bring AOCs into this? I don't know everything, but I can soon spot posts from somebody who hasn't flown for years
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jepp stuff has been delivered electronically for some years.
I don't know everything
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540;
Sorry I missed your post I was away on a trip, DUB-LTN. I fly most days at work and often on my days off. As for JEPPs arriving electronically, I wish. The paperless cockpit is further away than most people realise, thanks to the utter dither at EASA.
SND
Sorry I missed your post I was away on a trip, DUB-LTN. I fly most days at work and often on my days off. As for JEPPs arriving electronically, I wish. The paperless cockpit is further away than most people realise, thanks to the utter dither at EASA.
SND
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need to get up to date, Mr DFC.
The Jepp stuff has been delivered electronically for some years.
SND - where did I bring AOCs into this? I don't know everything, but I can soon spot posts from somebody who hasn't flown for years
The Jepp stuff has been delivered electronically for some years.
SND - where did I bring AOCs into this? I don't know everything, but I can soon spot posts from somebody who hasn't flown for years
Also, just to let you know that when one subscribes to Jeppview or similar, the electronic updates are available every 14 days but one receives the "Chart Change Notices" via the regular post every week.
As for the AOC, well actually you did introduce that because I only know of 3 possibly 4 B747s that land at Heathrow without being an AOC operation and in the case of one of those they definitely produce their own charts!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrrr so why do I get two envelopes of varying thickness per week?
The electronic (Jeppview 3) version does have some paper content (the airway charts are still paper) but that turns up only every few months.
You can also choose the CD or download delivery. The CD version costs extra and there is the delay of the CDs being in the mail.
I used to have the Jepp paper sub, just for the UK, and that was bad enough in terms of time wasting, inserting the stuff in. For say Europe, it would take quite a few hours to do all the updates.
Most airlines fly with Jepp plates, and virtually all light jets do.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really dont know when to stop digging do you
Im epic equipped and have been using electronic charting for 4 years, I subscribe to INDS not jeppesen I get sent the jepp packet that you get with the two discs and I also get INDS data downloaded onto a CD that goes to the FMS's
I also receive paper because as yet having the built in charting function does not simply satisfy your legal requirements, as alluded to above and ignored theres a lot of work to do before coming up with a workable efb solution and that doesnt mean firing up your laptop on the passenger seat when your primary system doesnt work.
I fly a mid size bizjet and doing jepp updates is just part of life, I quite like being in the loop when changes appear on plates that you visit regularly. I can do a big jeppy in about 3 hours my FO 2/3rds that....its no biggy every fortnight.
You may scoff at paper but you can read them in any light, dont need charging, dont take up panel space and (again) dont need charging. I'm guessing you're one of these chaps that fly along with the coaming looking like the gadget show (which privately I find very entertaining), thats fine but space is at a premium in a bizjet cockpit ....panel space more so.
Its been around a while has paper - EFB's have some way to go to mature and the OEM's need to start making provisions for them in much the same way that they do with HF and media installations
You need to realise that Paper is the norm, EFB's are the exception in the vast majority of cases and simply because you can doesnt mean you should in aviation
Im epic equipped and have been using electronic charting for 4 years, I subscribe to INDS not jeppesen I get sent the jepp packet that you get with the two discs and I also get INDS data downloaded onto a CD that goes to the FMS's
I also receive paper because as yet having the built in charting function does not simply satisfy your legal requirements, as alluded to above and ignored theres a lot of work to do before coming up with a workable efb solution and that doesnt mean firing up your laptop on the passenger seat when your primary system doesnt work.
I fly a mid size bizjet and doing jepp updates is just part of life, I quite like being in the loop when changes appear on plates that you visit regularly. I can do a big jeppy in about 3 hours my FO 2/3rds that....its no biggy every fortnight.
You may scoff at paper but you can read them in any light, dont need charging, dont take up panel space and (again) dont need charging. I'm guessing you're one of these chaps that fly along with the coaming looking like the gadget show (which privately I find very entertaining), thats fine but space is at a premium in a bizjet cockpit ....panel space more so.
Its been around a while has paper - EFB's have some way to go to mature and the OEM's need to start making provisions for them in much the same way that they do with HF and media installations
You need to realise that Paper is the norm, EFB's are the exception in the vast majority of cases and simply because you can doesnt mean you should in aviation
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The electronic (Jeppview 3) version does have some paper content (the airway charts are still paper) but that turns up only every few months.
Let's Start with;
The Introduction pages
Chart Change Notices
Enroute Section which for Europe covers the RAD, UK LARS, UK Middle Airspace Radar and a few other bits and pieces
The Paper Charts (HI and LO)
Area Charts
Those are the bits that come in the post when amended. The Chart Change Notices come every 7 days by post and the RAD seems to change every AIRAC date so plenty of pages to file.
Please take the time to read the Jeppesen Customer Service Bulletin all about why you have to always have paper charts available even when using electronic ones.
Perhaps for your small amount of flying you don't use too much ink printing off charts but for people who fly a lot, it is cheaper to get the Jeppesen paper Versions in addition to Jeppview than spend 3 times that on ink.
It is also very difficult to obtain approval for a 100% paperless cockpit and Private or Commercial, GA or AOC, until you have that approval you are required to have paper copies of the relevant information aboard.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious, and excuse the thread creep, as a relative newcomer (having been tucked away in one of the airline sections for centuries) but are there threads on pprune which aren't tedious chains of point-scoring? Or is it a male form of feather display?
Isn't there such a concept as learning off each other, considering we come from an impressive array of backgrounds?
Or is that a bit happy-clappy?
Apologies, and back to battle.
Isn't there such a concept as learning off each other, considering we come from an impressive array of backgrounds?
Or is that a bit happy-clappy?
Apologies, and back to battle.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a bit happy clappy....
Many seem to create an authorative aura upon here - that can be good and bad, sometimes people can back it up with facts sometimes they cant....
Personally I feel some of these threads can literally be quite dangerous, I'm not suggesting people would launch off into weather as authorised by Pprune (or would they) but theres now a new rumour floating about that SPIR minima is 531.35 meters (or whatever) due to some wonderful manipulation of a pocket calculator and some CATII landing lights.
So apologies if you think the thread got hijacked by some strutting peacocks, its no more macho than somebody attempting to self authorise themselves down to the very very least restrictive minima they can possibly eek out of some magazine article and what they can seek to find out on pprune.
In much the same way you see/perceive the antagonists on here feather waving, I see pilots propping up the flying club bar trying to be more capable than the next guy launching off in all kinds of crap weather overreliant on automatics pleased with themsleves that by some interpretation of the rulebook and registration they managed to to shave 250m from the required minima.
That view is probably wrong I admit and apologies to those who take a sensible view of minima, equipment redundancy, currency etc in those kind of operations etc etc, but its just the image that jumps into my head for that I apologise.
That said , the fact that somebody managed to work out a minima in a SPIR/SEP thats less than my 550m in a 2 sim trained crew / CATII capable / 2 channel autopilot equipped bizjet is slightly concerning....
Do you not agree?
Anyway back on topic if you like
Many seem to create an authorative aura upon here - that can be good and bad, sometimes people can back it up with facts sometimes they cant....
Personally I feel some of these threads can literally be quite dangerous, I'm not suggesting people would launch off into weather as authorised by Pprune (or would they) but theres now a new rumour floating about that SPIR minima is 531.35 meters (or whatever) due to some wonderful manipulation of a pocket calculator and some CATII landing lights.
So apologies if you think the thread got hijacked by some strutting peacocks, its no more macho than somebody attempting to self authorise themselves down to the very very least restrictive minima they can possibly eek out of some magazine article and what they can seek to find out on pprune.
In much the same way you see/perceive the antagonists on here feather waving, I see pilots propping up the flying club bar trying to be more capable than the next guy launching off in all kinds of crap weather overreliant on automatics pleased with themsleves that by some interpretation of the rulebook and registration they managed to to shave 250m from the required minima.
That view is probably wrong I admit and apologies to those who take a sensible view of minima, equipment redundancy, currency etc in those kind of operations etc etc, but its just the image that jumps into my head for that I apologise.
That said , the fact that somebody managed to work out a minima in a SPIR/SEP thats less than my 550m in a 2 sim trained crew / CATII capable / 2 channel autopilot equipped bizjet is slightly concerning....
Do you not agree?
Anyway back on topic if you like
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-SPOT;
You have just written what so many of us were thinking. In fact PPRune "armchair expertry" was much discussed during our last CRM course, and the possibility that someone, somewhere is going to take advice from a couple of the posters here and find out the hard way that the advice is at best flawed and at worse lethal.
A chat with our local ATC was illuminating. If a pilot continues an approach and lands below the minima published in the UKAIP (not a pilot calculation from JEPP/AERAD/Gcap or whatever) then an MOR will be filed as required in MATs Part 1 for ALL aerodromes within the UK.
Ergo Absolute minima are laid down by AIP, and are then adopted into the plates by the publishers. There are NO lower minima.
SND
You have just written what so many of us were thinking. In fact PPRune "armchair expertry" was much discussed during our last CRM course, and the possibility that someone, somewhere is going to take advice from a couple of the posters here and find out the hard way that the advice is at best flawed and at worse lethal.
A chat with our local ATC was illuminating. If a pilot continues an approach and lands below the minima published in the UKAIP (not a pilot calculation from JEPP/AERAD/Gcap or whatever) then an MOR will be filed as required in MATs Part 1 for ALL aerodromes within the UK.
Ergo Absolute minima are laid down by AIP, and are then adopted into the plates by the publishers. There are NO lower minima.
SND
Last edited by Sir Niall Dementia; 2nd Dec 2010 at 10:11.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I feel some of these threads can literally be quite dangerous, I'm not suggesting people would launch off into weather as authorised by PPRuNe (or would they) but theres now a new rumour floating about that SPIR minima is 531.35 meters (or whatever) due to some wonderful manipulation of a pocket calculator and some CATII landing lights.
No one is suggesting that a single pilot can use and RVR or CMV minima of less than 800m without Autopilot etc.
What people have quite correctly pointed out is that when RVR is not reported, a visibility of 533m will when the appropriate lighting is available and the appropriate EU-OPS factor is applied give a CMV of 800m.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that an it is 100% in compliance with UK and European requirements.
When describing the absolute minima I believe the person was referring to the fact that with the best possible combination fo lights etc the lowest visibility that one could ever make an approach with is 533m.
Every experienced commercial pilot here should be aware that when landing off a CAT1 ILS with an RVR of 550m, the reported visibility will generally be well less than 500m. Therefore a single pilot private operation in current flying practice limiting themselves to an absolute minimum visibility of 535m is clearly putting in a safety factor.
ATC use the absolute minima published for the procedure in terms of RVR. For many CAT 1 ILS this will be 550m. Private pilots using an RVR or CMV of 800m (whatever the visibility) will never have a problem with the CAA even if someone does file an MOR because they are complying 100% with the requirements.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW...
Private flight with all-electronic data is 100% legal in both G-reg and N-reg. This one has been done to death many times.
May not be "wise", which is why I print off all info needed for the planned flight plus diversions. But that's a different debate.
On AOC ops, if the approved manual says you have to wear pink underpants when flying a VOR approach, and blue ones when flying an NDB approach, that's what you have to do. But that isn't private flight.
I am no supporter of Jepp as a company (having suffered their dreadful customer service a number of times) but the great thing about electronic Jepp delivery is that it is very quick and easy to update the package, while it doesn't in any way preclude flying with printed data.
I used to have the UK Jepp (and before that the Aerad) paper subs, and one gets the warm feeling of sitting in the airport cafe for an hour, inserting the changes into the ring binder so everybody around thinks you are a "real commercial pilot". Now I just have my cup of tea and s0d off home, while several other "pretend commercial pilots" go through the ritual
There are commercial certified EFB solutions but they are always duplicated systems working off separate power sources etc.
1 or 2 pilots I know fly with an Ipad holding all their data, which I think will bite them in the b*m one day, when the thing packs up. It's OK as a backup...
Private flight with all-electronic data is 100% legal in both G-reg and N-reg. This one has been done to death many times.
May not be "wise", which is why I print off all info needed for the planned flight plus diversions. But that's a different debate.
On AOC ops, if the approved manual says you have to wear pink underpants when flying a VOR approach, and blue ones when flying an NDB approach, that's what you have to do. But that isn't private flight.
I am no supporter of Jepp as a company (having suffered their dreadful customer service a number of times) but the great thing about electronic Jepp delivery is that it is very quick and easy to update the package, while it doesn't in any way preclude flying with printed data.
I used to have the UK Jepp (and before that the Aerad) paper subs, and one gets the warm feeling of sitting in the airport cafe for an hour, inserting the changes into the ring binder so everybody around thinks you are a "real commercial pilot". Now I just have my cup of tea and s0d off home, while several other "pretend commercial pilots" go through the ritual
There are commercial certified EFB solutions but they are always duplicated systems working off separate power sources etc.
1 or 2 pilots I know fly with an Ipad holding all their data, which I think will bite them in the b*m one day, when the thing packs up. It's OK as a backup...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: England
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I renewed my IR abroad recently, and the discussion arose about "single pilot" 800m RVR minima. UK IRE told me - it applies in all countries, as far as he knew. Spanish and Austrian IREs told me - never heard of that - must be a UK thing, OR, it must only be for commercial ops, not private.
The other thing I asked about was the expression "single pilot". Does it mean (a) it would be OK to go down to the published RVR minima if we have two IR pilots up front in the C172, or (b) it only applies to AIRCRAFT that are certified for single crew ops. The last I heard, the answer is (b). However, the expression "single pilot" is ambiguous, and open to misinterpretation - beware.
The other thing I asked about was the expression "single pilot". Does it mean (a) it would be OK to go down to the published RVR minima if we have two IR pilots up front in the C172, or (b) it only applies to AIRCRAFT that are certified for single crew ops. The last I heard, the answer is (b). However, the expression "single pilot" is ambiguous, and open to misinterpretation - beware.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The references on the first page of this thread refer to single pilot public transport ops.
Definitely European regs. and possibly ICAO (see previous) and answer (b) would be correct. I don't think single pilot ops is particularly ambiguous and it would be unusual, if not meaningless, to have dual crew in a 172.
Personal opinion though....
Definitely European regs. and possibly ICAO (see previous) and answer (b) would be correct. I don't think single pilot ops is particularly ambiguous and it would be unusual, if not meaningless, to have dual crew in a 172.
Personal opinion though....
Last edited by FlyingGoat; 27th Dec 2010 at 22:38.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Everyone,
After reading each post, One question is remaining for me:
As a single pilot, I need 800m of visibility, but is it 200ft AGL as a minimum DH of do I have to increase the chart DH by 200ft?
Regards
After reading each post, One question is remaining for me:
As a single pilot, I need 800m of visibility, but is it 200ft AGL as a minimum DH of do I have to increase the chart DH by 200ft?
Regards
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See section 8.2 of the article here: http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/...cle%20v133.pdf
There have been some changes to the regs since the 2010 posts in this thread.
There have been some changes to the regs since the 2010 posts in this thread.
