Is ATIS legally binding ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In a hotel (again)
Age: 41
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is ATIS legally binding ?
Hi,
I was sat at an Airport today in the cockpit first things first get the ATIS 800 Mtrs in haze it tells me.( smoke from burn off )
The thing is I am at the far end of the runway where the GA apron is located and I can see the far end of a 3200 mtr runway from where I am sitting, sure its not real clear but I can just make out the shape of trees at the far end but not much after it.
So is it legally binding ? I asume it is.
And it looks like wx will be the same for days as all the locals countue to burn off.
Also I am overseas but flying a VH reged aircraft dont know if that changes things.
anyone else been in this situation any solutions?
I was sat at an Airport today in the cockpit first things first get the ATIS 800 Mtrs in haze it tells me.( smoke from burn off )
The thing is I am at the far end of the runway where the GA apron is located and I can see the far end of a 3200 mtr runway from where I am sitting, sure its not real clear but I can just make out the shape of trees at the far end but not much after it.
So is it legally binding ? I asume it is.
And it looks like wx will be the same for days as all the locals countue to burn off.
Also I am overseas but flying a VH reged aircraft dont know if that changes things.
anyone else been in this situation any solutions?
No it isnt binding
You as PIC are an authorised met observer for the purposes of determining visibility in this case, so if you assess that the vis is sufficient to meet your regulatory responsibilities then you are good to go
You as PIC are an authorised met observer for the purposes of determining visibility in this case, so if you assess that the vis is sufficient to meet your regulatory responsibilities then you are good to go
Be very careful if you are overseas. Many countries have approach bans when the RVR is below the minima - overriding the PICs authority. This might equate to takeoff minima as well.
I did hear of couple of US corporate pilots recently spent 8 days in the slammer in Moscow recently after making an approach with the ATIS RVR below minima (ie - to have a look).
I did hear of couple of US corporate pilots recently spent 8 days in the slammer in Moscow recently after making an approach with the ATIS RVR below minima (ie - to have a look).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In a hotel (again)
Age: 41
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oohhhh really that is quite intresting. I will look that up cheers, I dont like the sound of that very much! they are pretty sensitive about anything Australian at the moment I am departing Malaysia to arrive in Indonesia.( ferry to oz )
pistin!
pistin!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing "mandatory" about an ATIS it is simply a substitute for the controller having to read everything out over the frequency in use.How the ATIS is interpreted by ATC depends on who made the observation that is on the ATIS.
If it was the controller (as in OZ, qualified met observers) then they are watching conditions change and at that moment would probably have agreed with you, the pilot. However they can't change the ATIS every two minutes as the fog drifts through. It confuses the pilots and the approach/centre controllers as no-one is sure what the current letter is! (In this case it sounds as if they picked the CAT 1 minima as a mean vis so everyone who wanted could shoot an approach.).
If on the other hand the met observers are doing the observations and ATC are only recording what they say then the controllers cannot overide the met man because they are not qualified observers. In this case even if the controllers can see 3000 metres they have to abide by the met observations in setting the airport configuration. (Instrument/Visual etc)
Given all of that the ATIS visibility is a ground visibility. Pilots alone can make a Flight visibility assessment and it is this that determines whether you can land or take off. ATC does not (or should not have) the authority to withhold a landing or take off clearance for other than traffic or runway damage reasons.
If it was the controller (as in OZ, qualified met observers) then they are watching conditions change and at that moment would probably have agreed with you, the pilot. However they can't change the ATIS every two minutes as the fog drifts through. It confuses the pilots and the approach/centre controllers as no-one is sure what the current letter is! (In this case it sounds as if they picked the CAT 1 minima as a mean vis so everyone who wanted could shoot an approach.).
If on the other hand the met observers are doing the observations and ATC are only recording what they say then the controllers cannot overide the met man because they are not qualified observers. In this case even if the controllers can see 3000 metres they have to abide by the met observations in setting the airport configuration. (Instrument/Visual etc)
Given all of that the ATIS visibility is a ground visibility. Pilots alone can make a Flight visibility assessment and it is this that determines whether you can land or take off. ATC does not (or should not have) the authority to withhold a landing or take off clearance for other than traffic or runway damage reasons.
ATC does not (or should not have) the authority to withhold a landing or take off clearance for other than traffic or runway damage reasons.
Caveat Aviator
