Approach ban - single pilot IFR ops.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach ban - single pilot IFR ops.
I'd assumed this was decided by the FAF/FAP or, at the latest, 1,000 ARTE, but I've been directed to the Journal of the European Union, where it's (apparently) re-defined as 1,000 ARTE.
I'd appreciate the answer to three questions:
1) What is the Journal of the European Union, and is it 'our' new bible?
2) Is there an online source (searching only produces a 10-page intro to the Single European Sky)?
3) Does it over-ride the AIP for UK ops?
Many thanks.
I'd appreciate the answer to three questions:
1) What is the Journal of the European Union, and is it 'our' new bible?
2) Is there an online source (searching only produces a 10-page intro to the Single European Sky)?
3) Does it over-ride the AIP for UK ops?
Many thanks.
Last edited by FlyingGoat; 5th Nov 2010 at 13:00.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested in knowing the answer to this, and also the min vis, for a private flight, SE, with autopilot, UK or Europe, G-reg or N-reg.
I don't think the answer is clear. This topic has been done to death on these forums for as long as I can remember.
The Jepp plates give min vis (e.g. 550m on a particular ILS approach).
I don't think the answer is clear. This topic has been done to death on these forums for as long as I can remember.
The Jepp plates give min vis (e.g. 550m on a particular ILS approach).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought for SE it was RVR min. 800m cut and dried by 1,000' ARTE (or previously the FAF). Apologies if it's been flogged to death already, but I couldn't see any reference to this EU document and the 1,000' ARTE being discussed on the Forum.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potentially down to 550m single crew in an appropriately equipped aircraft - ie one with an approach coupled autopilot and certified as such. The autopilot will have its own certification limits for minimum height agl for disconnecting, eg in a DA42 (KAP140) it's 250'. So potentially a way of flying a legal approach with 600m vis, even if the cloudbase is too low to successfully land off the approach in practice.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just read an article written by a CAA IR examiner (in the current pplir.org magazine; the current edition is members only) which, if I read it correctly, says that the min vis can be 800m / 1.5 = 533m, with the right kind of runway lights, etc.
The minimum flight manual-authorised usable height for the autopilot also needs to be increased a bit...
According to the article, the approach ban exists only at 1000ft. Before 1000ft, you can continue, and after 1000ft you can continue.
But how all this maps onto different aircraft regs (i.e. is a State of Registry dependent factor) and airspaces (i.e. is an airspace factor like e.g. the UK requirement for an ADF for all IFR in CAS) I have no idea.
The minimum flight manual-authorised usable height for the autopilot also needs to be increased a bit...
According to the article, the approach ban exists only at 1000ft. Before 1000ft, you can continue, and after 1000ft you can continue.
But how all this maps onto different aircraft regs (i.e. is a State of Registry dependent factor) and airspaces (i.e. is an airspace factor like e.g. the UK requirement for an ADF for all IFR in CAS) I have no idea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a seriously useful article, IO540 - thanks for pointing it out. (The author has an interesting website: gCAP and publishes CAT A approach plates for single-pilot IFR).
Two very short extracts from the PPL/IR article:
Minimum RVR single pilot: The minimum RVR for single-pilot ops is 800m unless the aircraft is coupled to an ILS.
Approach ban: In fact, you can start an approach with the RVR as low as zero, but you can’t continue beyond the outer marker (or equivalent position) if it’s below limits at that time. There are hardly any IAPs in the UK now which use markers, so you need to know that the ‘equivalent position’ is 1000ft above the aerodrome. If the RVR/visibility is good enough as you pass this equivalent position then you can continue, and even if it subsequently falls you can continue all the way to the missed approach point. The bottom line is that the RVR/visibility must be at least equal to the minimum for the approach as you pass the equivalent position; before this point it doesn’t matter, and after this point it doesn’t matter.
Two very short extracts from the PPL/IR article:
Minimum RVR single pilot: The minimum RVR for single-pilot ops is 800m unless the aircraft is coupled to an ILS.
Approach ban: In fact, you can start an approach with the RVR as low as zero, but you can’t continue beyond the outer marker (or equivalent position) if it’s below limits at that time. There are hardly any IAPs in the UK now which use markers, so you need to know that the ‘equivalent position’ is 1000ft above the aerodrome. If the RVR/visibility is good enough as you pass this equivalent position then you can continue, and even if it subsequently falls you can continue all the way to the missed approach point. The bottom line is that the RVR/visibility must be at least equal to the minimum for the approach as you pass the equivalent position; before this point it doesn’t matter, and after this point it doesn’t matter.
Last edited by FlyingGoat; 6th Nov 2010 at 00:12.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it from the AIP AD 1.1.13
4.4 Single Pilot Operations
4.4.1 For single pilot operations in an aeroplane, the minimum RVR for all approaches shall be in accordance with the above, (4.3) except
that an RVR of less than 800 m is not permitted unless using a suitable autopilot coupled to an ILS or MLS, in which case normal minima
apply. The Decision Height applied must not be less than 1.25 x the minimum use height for the autopilot.
So with an approved autopilot one's single pilot limits are 250' (200 x 1.25) and 600m RVR (not 550 because a DH of 250 requires the extra 50'. (4.3.1)
BUT
If flying without an A/P, single crew the minima is 200' (without PEC) but the RVR is 800m.
So you have a lower DH minimum without an A/P !!!!
BD
4.4 Single Pilot Operations
4.4.1 For single pilot operations in an aeroplane, the minimum RVR for all approaches shall be in accordance with the above, (4.3) except
that an RVR of less than 800 m is not permitted unless using a suitable autopilot coupled to an ILS or MLS, in which case normal minima
apply. The Decision Height applied must not be less than 1.25 x the minimum use height for the autopilot.
So with an approved autopilot one's single pilot limits are 250' (200 x 1.25) and 600m RVR (not 550 because a DH of 250 requires the extra 50'. (4.3.1)
BUT
If flying without an A/P, single crew the minima is 200' (without PEC) but the RVR is 800m.
So you have a lower DH minimum without an A/P !!!!
BD
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: seat 0A
Age: 41
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just read an article written by a CAA IR examiner (in the current pplir.org magazine; the current edition is members only) which, if I read it correctly, says that the min vis can be 800m / 1.5 = 533m, with the right kind of runway lights, etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm no great expert on aircraft ops but in answer to your first two questions - the Official Journal of the European Union is the central and definitive repository of European legislation. Until any text is published in the OJ (as it is commonly known) it is not law.
The OJ is available on-line although it's not always easy to find what you want. It's a sad fact - particularly in the minds of some CAA people - but it really doesn't matter what a magazine article says, it's the legislation that counts! Sadly though, my experience of EU legislation (mainly in relation to ATM and SES) is that it leaves much open to interpretation.
The OJ is available on-line although it's not always easy to find what you want. It's a sad fact - particularly in the minds of some CAA people - but it really doesn't matter what a magazine article says, it's the legislation that counts! Sadly though, my experience of EU legislation (mainly in relation to ATM and SES) is that it leaves much open to interpretation.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with an approved autopilot one's single pilot limits are 250' (200 x 1.25) and 600m RVR (not 550 because a DH of 250 requires the extra 50'. (4.3.1)
What about an N-reg landing in Germany (JAR-FCL plus probably local gold plating)?
What about an N-reg landing in Spain (JAR-FCL but probably without gold plating because nobody in the Spanish CAA can understand these regs)?
What about an N-reg landing in Croatia (non-EU but JAR-FCL)?
What about an N-reg landing in Ethiopia? That one, surely, must be simply the more stringent of a) the flight manual limits and b) wot it sez on the Jepp plate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The above applies only in UK airspace and possibly (that bit is often hard to unravel in the ANO) applies to G-reg only.
brgds
421C
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What about an N-reg landing in Germany (JAR-FCL plus probably local gold plating)? ...
For EU-OPS compliant states, all the relevant numbers (including the single-pilot RVR of 800m or less with a "suitable coupled autopilot") can be found in Appendix 1 to EU-OPS 1.430.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The approach ban is not a "European" or "UK" issue.
The approach ban is an ICAO standard and applicable to General Aviation Operations. ICAO Annex 6 Volume 2 refers.
In simple terms,
An approach can be started regardless of the weather.
The approach can not continue beyond the Outer Marker or equivalent position (precision approach) or descend below 1000ft AAL (non-precision approach) if the weather is below the applicable minima.
If the aircraft has passed the Outer Marker or is below 1000ft AAL and the weather deteoriates below the applicable minima the approach can be continued to the DA / MDA.
Regardless of weather conditions the aircraft can not continue the approach below the applicable DA / MDA unless the required visual references are visible and continue to be so.
The UK has decided that private operations shall use the minima etc published in the AIP which are aligned with EU-OPS (the standards for commercial ops). Therefore G reg operators and all other operators when in the UK must comply with the requirments.
A quick look at the GEN section of an AIP will tell you if there any differences from the ICAO standard.
Commercial flight guides may also have this information.
RE 800m single pilot limitation.
It is an RVR of 800m.
If RVR is not reported then it is permitted to obtain an equivalent figure by converting the met visibility based on certain criteria. As others have said, in certain cases the visibility can be multiplied by 1.5 to give a CMV of 800m.
There is nothing to gain from this because if RVR is reported then that figure has to be used. If RVR is not reported then the CMV will usually be a figure very similar to that which would be reported as RVR.
Again, no matter how far above minima the RVR is (or the CMV is) if you don't have the required visual reference at DA you are not going to land (legally).
-----------
Not necessarily. Imagine the same calculation with a certified autopilot where the minimum use height was 100ft.
or
Imagine using your autopilot with minimum use height of 200ft when the DH is 250ft.
There are plenty of ILS's where coupled approaches are not allowed or are not allowed below a height that is higher than the DH.
However, it is not simply about how low you can go. With a suitable autopilot the workload is a lot lower and one can (while fully monitoring the approach) spend a lot more time peering into the mist for the approach lights than if one hand-flies.
The approach ban is an ICAO standard and applicable to General Aviation Operations. ICAO Annex 6 Volume 2 refers.
In simple terms,
An approach can be started regardless of the weather.
The approach can not continue beyond the Outer Marker or equivalent position (precision approach) or descend below 1000ft AAL (non-precision approach) if the weather is below the applicable minima.
If the aircraft has passed the Outer Marker or is below 1000ft AAL and the weather deteoriates below the applicable minima the approach can be continued to the DA / MDA.
Regardless of weather conditions the aircraft can not continue the approach below the applicable DA / MDA unless the required visual references are visible and continue to be so.
The UK has decided that private operations shall use the minima etc published in the AIP which are aligned with EU-OPS (the standards for commercial ops). Therefore G reg operators and all other operators when in the UK must comply with the requirments.
A quick look at the GEN section of an AIP will tell you if there any differences from the ICAO standard.
Commercial flight guides may also have this information.
RE 800m single pilot limitation.
It is an RVR of 800m.
If RVR is not reported then it is permitted to obtain an equivalent figure by converting the met visibility based on certain criteria. As others have said, in certain cases the visibility can be multiplied by 1.5 to give a CMV of 800m.
There is nothing to gain from this because if RVR is reported then that figure has to be used. If RVR is not reported then the CMV will usually be a figure very similar to that which would be reported as RVR.
Again, no matter how far above minima the RVR is (or the CMV is) if you don't have the required visual reference at DA you are not going to land (legally).
-----------
So you have a lower DH minimum without an A/P !!!!
or
Imagine using your autopilot with minimum use height of 200ft when the DH is 250ft.
There are plenty of ILS's where coupled approaches are not allowed or are not allowed below a height that is higher than the DH.
However, it is not simply about how low you can go. With a suitable autopilot the workload is a lot lower and one can (while fully monitoring the approach) spend a lot more time peering into the mist for the approach lights than if one hand-flies.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No wonder few people understand this.
Most people who fly seriously fly with Jepp plates, which give the visibility figure directly.
With an autopilot whose flight manual supplement says "200ft min", it looks like 533m is going to be the absolute minimum for a private flight.
Most people who fly seriously fly with Jepp plates, which give the visibility figure directly.
With an autopilot whose flight manual supplement says "200ft min", it looks like 533m is going to be the absolute minimum for a private flight.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With an autopilot whose flight manual supplement says "200ft min", it looks like 533m is going to be the absolute minimum for a private flight.
200ft minimum use height * 1.25 = 250ft
So the absolute minimum RVR is 600m
If using CMV then the minimum visibility that will give you a CMV of 600m is at best:
400m ( *1.5) by day and 300m (*2.0) by night.
However, once the new bits of EU-OPS (which are already being used by most commercial operators) are put into the AIP fro private operators then you will be able to have DH = minimum use height but the CMV can not be used for minima less than 800m
So if you want to get used to the new parts then unless RVR is reported, you are going to be stuck with 800m CMV!!
-----
Most people who fly seriously fly with Jepp plates, which give the visibility figure directly
No.
Jeppesen does not cover all situations and in some cases (CDFA minimums published as DA(H) being one) there are significant issues to be resolved.
It is very much the amateur pilot who blindly follows what a company with a disclaimer as long as your arm publishes.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very much the amateur pilot who blindly follows what a company with a disclaimer as long as your arm publishes.
Otherwise, when you go on your next holiday Mr DFC, you better not fly anybody but British Airways, since BA is one of the very few airlines not flying with Jepp plates
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll let someone else give you a history of AERAD lesson.
Some people will even remember Pre-Aerad!!
Many airlines use their own charts. It's not so difficult in this digital age.
Many more will pay Jeppesen to produce company specific charts.
All airlines will audit the information provided by Jeppesen when it is included in their Ops Manual Part C.
Some people will even remember Pre-Aerad!!
Many airlines use their own charts. It's not so difficult in this digital age.
Many more will pay Jeppesen to produce company specific charts.
All airlines will audit the information provided by Jeppesen when it is included in their Ops Manual Part C.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK/Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disclaimer
"Disclaimer as long as your arm" - The one which in short says "Thank you for your 600 quid, now we accept no responisbility for the contents which should not be used without first being checked against the appropriate national publication"
So how many people actually do check all their Jepps against the AIP before usung them ? I think that counts as blindly following.
So how many people actually do check all their Jepps against the AIP before usung them ? I think that counts as blindly following.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how many people actually do check all their Jepps against the AIP before usung them ? I think that counts as blindly following.
What a bunch of pompous stuck-up people... one could not get a #1 Pozi screwdriver up half the sphincters here.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every 747 pilot landing at LHR does that. Yeah............ they carry the AIP for every airspace they overfly.
Airlines have an ops department that in some cases produces their own charts and in other cases uses a 3rd party eg Jepp to produce the charts that they use.
Either way what we are talking about in an Airline / AOC operator's case is Part C of the Operations Manual. That document is inspected approved and audited. An airline / AOC operator will invest more money and time in establishing a proper relationship with their chart supplier than the average private pilot.
You seem to forget that an airline does not wake up in the morning and say "let's grab the Jepps and fly to somewhere new". A new route or a new area of operation involves a lot of research, consultation, training and approvals.
Airlines are not only interested in the accuracy of the data they also get quite involved in the AIRAC change-over times for the various databases. You may not have realised it but while AIRAC changes happen at midnight (ish) most databases change over at 0900z on the AIRAC date. This means that if you are in Europe, departing at 0500 and arriving at 0800 the database will not be updated.
In this case, Airlines and AOC operators will have measures in place to ensure that the pilots are aware of any changes and the flight complies with any changes that may be in the system.
Overnight flights from far away also have to be aware of this and have measures in place.
So while Airline pilots may not have the AIP under their arm, they are accutely aware of many more relevant AIM aspects than you seem to be.
Finally as an example, it takes less than a minute to check what changes are happening in the UK on 16 December (Next AIRAC date). Having done that one can sit back and wait for the new Jepp charts to arrive. If they don't arrive then one is still aware of what is changing and can cope. Same thing can be done for every other European country. Not very hard now is it?