None standard instrument approaches.

[BackPacker]

But in several cases you can not see the airfield environment from any part of the approach up to and including the MAPt.

I've been reading the other and this thread with interest. I hold no IR, but I have always assumed that the instrument procedure (except the ILS cat 3 autoland) will take you in sight of the runway, or at least the "runway environment", so you proceed visually from there. (Whether that's assisted by an autopilot or other automation is, as far as I'm concerned, a moot point.)

If the instrument procedure ends in line with the runway, you obviously have some lower limits, compared to the situation where some maneuvering is to be done. Fair enough.

But now it appears there are several places where the MAPt is at a point where it is physically impossible to see the runway or runway environment, even in CAVOK weather. Because, as this particular example shows, there is a ridge in the way. (Does anybody have a few more examples of these, by the way, for comparison?)

My first question when reading this was: Why the heck do they use a MAPt that's so low that the airport is hidden behind the ridge? Why not use a higher MAPt so that you stand a fighting chance of seeing the runway? But of course that might have been done because a higher MAPt also requires a higher cloud base. Duh.

But upon reading this thread, I now realize that the question is more like above. At the MAPt you are out of the clouds (but possibly still in a reduced-viz situation). What criteria do you use to continue visually to the airfield, or to fly the missed approach? Somewhere hidden in the AIP is a mention of four lead-in lights but they're not on the approach plate as far as I can tell. And even if they were mentioned, what criteria do you apply then? Should you see one? Two? All four of them? There is no information in the AIP whatsoever, as far as I can see.

Furthermore, you don't have the airfield in sight but the criteria (whatever they are) for continuing visually have been met. You turn left at the MAPt, cross the ridge and find the valley beyond covered in mist, with the airfield invisible. What is your plan? It is impossible to get back onto the approach and fly the missed approach without some seriously fancy maneuvering, but there's also no other easy way out that's properly defined as an instrument procedure of some sort. Or do you use the instrument departure then (if it exists) as your way out?

[mad_jock]

I don't think in this case the airport was invisible from the MAPt.

It was more of the case that it was in a patch of mist and you couldn't see it.

The other approach with the circling lead in lights it definately was which is why they installed the lights.

[Contacttower]

It was more of the case that it was in a patch of mist and you couldn't see it.

It seems that was the essential point that we were discussing, the OP claiming that it wasn't possible to see the runway mist or no mist...without having been there it's hard to tell. One poster pointed out that mathematically given the ridge height and the MDA it should have been...but who knows...

I had never come across and airport where one wouldn't necessarily see the runway environment from the MAP but having seen these Norwegian plates I guess that assumption goes out the window.

The question I would like to know the answer to is whether it is written down anywhere that you don't have to see the runway environment with certain airports (from the point of view of a private operator with no special dispensations etc) in Norway, or indeed anywhere else, whether you at least need to see the lead in lighting or what the deal is?

The obvious thing to do though if one is unsure, as a private operator, is to phone up the airport and get a briefing from a local pilot who will know the answer before going because while inbalance's thread was interesting, without a local who knows the airport in question well we are all kind of guessing exactly what you are meant to see at the MAP.

All somewhat uncharted territory for me who usually flies into airports with approaches that lead directly to the runway.

[mm_flynn]

I have found a source for the answers to my question in FAA/TERPS land

1. What does a charted Visual Segment mean (the dashed arrows on the Jepp chart - not the dashed missed approach line and not any lead in lights (which are not on the main plan view). Specifically, is the Visual Segment a path of the ground which one should fly visually or is it just a general guide to where the airport is. Is this different for PANS-OPS and TERPS, is Jepp's use consistent

It is the ground track one is supposed to fly (visually). The Jepp depiction does not comply with the AIM in several respects. 1 - It does not include a heading and distance, 2 - It is clearly the wrong direction as it unnecessarily goes over a ridge and does not connect to the lead in lights (which is logically where the approach designers want you to fly in from.

1. For an approach with a charted visual segment, what visual queues do you need to continue with the approach. Is this different if there is a MAPt (there are Visual Approaches that start using a navaid (KDCA, LFMD) and then visual reference but have not MAPt.
2. If the answer to one above is anything other than the 'runway environment', does anyone have a reference to that.
3. There is another approach that was discussed where you follow lead in lights around the hill. I assume lead in lights count as 'the runway environment', but once again, does anyone have a reference to that.

The AIM provides the following specific guidance

Originally Posted by FAA AIM

When executing the visual segment, the flight visibility must not be less than that prescribed in the IAP, the pilot must re- main clear of clouds and proceed to the airport maintaining visual contact with the ground. Altitude on the visual flight path is at the discretion of the pilot.

The annotation “Fly Visual to Airport” provides relief from part 91.175 requirements that the pilot have distinctly visible and identifiable visual references prior to descent below MDA/DA

So, in a TERPS approach, my take is you go descend to MDA, if you are clear of cloud, ISOS, have the specified flight visibility and sufficient visibility to fly visually to the airport and (implicitly) if necessary fly back out, you carry on the visual segment

1. Norway's AIP does not publish visibility minimums on their charts. Jepp does. How does Jepp determine the visiblity they publish and is it consistent with Euro rules (BW flags that his interpretation of the rules would result in a minimum vis of 5000m but Jepp publishes 1500m

All of the above answers are for TERPS approaches, we were discussing PANS-OPS. This question is specific to Norway and PANS-OPS. But added to this - A TERPS approach would have an explicit 'Fly Visual' statement which is the waiver of the normal 'Field in Sight' requirement. What if anything indicates a similar waiver (as the ENRA approach is clearly impossible without adding at least something about lead in lights to the list of required visual queues. As a note 1.430 does allow 'any other reference specified by the authority - but where does one find that?'

[mad_jock]

The approaches aren't compilent. The GEN section of the AIP holds the differences.

Although I think the highlighting of expectations under FAA/ICAO rules might be one of the many problems with planning these approaches. The differences to ICAO are documented. I don't have a clue how FAA are different again to ICAO.

[Flaymy]

Contacttower

I did the line-of-sight calculation. Unless you want to dispute Euclid as well as the designers of the procedure (and I have utmost respect for those designing procedures for some of the airports in the fjords and in the Alps), it is not a case of "who knows".

According to both charts available at 1800 feet at the MAPt there is a direct line of sight to the threshold. That the video shows mist in the vicinity of the airport gives a reason that appropriate visual references could not be seen far more likely than a serious error in the design of the approach that no-one else has reported.

[mm_flynn]

Flaymy,

I am pretty sure you did the geometry on the wrong hill. If anything is blocking the runway is the small ridge immediately adjacent to the field, not the roughly 1000 ft hill halfway between the MAPt and the field.

Also I think the only error being advanced as a possibility is that Jepp's visual segment either shouldn't be there are should follow a different ground track.

[mad_jock]

Not really this following the ground line depicted isn't standard for EU pilots.

You get to your MAPt see your references and then self position onto finals.

Myself I would have seen that line as the lead round the corner for the visual circling approach for the other end then would have seen the note on the bottom saying you can't do it without approval and ignored it. Then looking at The AIP plates would have confirmed it.

I would have also thought sod that for a game for dafty's after looking at the area profile in the AIP to make the circling approach.

[Contacttower]

I did the line-of-sight calculation. Unless you want to dispute Euclid as well as the designers of the procedure (and I have utmost respect for those designing procedures for some of the airports in the fjords and in the Alps), it is not a case of "who knows".

I don't doubt that your calculations are correct based on the chart. What I was alluding to is what mm_flynn has just pointed out and indeed was partly the premise of the original thread that there may be other factors and that there is terrain in the vicinity that is not on the chart. Without having actually been to the airport myself or spoken to a local I don't believe it is possible to ascertain exactly what one can actually see from the MAP.

Not really this following the ground line depicted isn't standard for EU pilots.

The line on the Jepp chart did baffle me somewhat, it is not on the AIP chart and almost certainly should not be there. I'm not sure it has to do with EU vs non-EU pilots as such and more to do with a symbol that is perhaps usually used for US "Fly Visual" approaches and has been wrongly applied here. There is no doubt that as depicted it is a "visual track" by Jepp's own definitions with the ostensible implication to follow the geographical path of the line to the runway.

I think the Jepp chart seems like a pitfall for the unwary really, a proper visual examination of one's environment and a subsequent decision on the safest path to the runway environment is obviously the preferred approach (pun intended...) once at the MAP, but Jepp, by placing this "visual track" line on the chart is possibly inviting one (as was the case with our PC12 friend) to plot a course to the runway that is not the safest. The best thing for Jepp to do (and I hope the OP does contact Jepp about the plate) would be to simply delete the track line and either just leave it up to pilots to decide how to fly it or place a new one on the chart which avoids the ridge.

[mad_jock]

I don't believe it is possible to ascertain exactly what one can actually see from the MAP.

Tree's grow.....

You will not always get in from the MAPt even with approaches that are fully compliant.

You don't see the visual features thats just plain tough you go-around.

The fact is that scandi's arn't shy types especially the northerners if you really couldn't have seen the required visual features some one would have phoned there mate in the CAA. All the TRE's etc know someone in the CAA and would have got it sorted if you couldn't. By rights if a pilot recons they can't see the required features they should MOR it. These approaches will get calibrated ever 6 months or so, It will have been checked that it is possible.

[Contacttower]

The fact is that scandi's arn't shy types especially the northerners if you really couldn't have seen the required visual features some one would have phoned there mate in the CAA.

I would tend to agree with that...however there was an interesting thread on the Biz jets section here which highlights that it is possible for there to be issues with approaches (granted somewhat different issue than the subject of this thread) that persist for many years without anyone doing anything about it.

With reference to not being able to see the runway at the MAP having read the AIP and the various ICAO differences you highlighted while their approaches are not compliant in many ways (steep angles, shorter segments etc) I couldn't see any references to "required visual references" in the doc saying they deviated from ICAO. There is nothing noted in the airport's AIP entry either which suggests anything non standard either as far as I can see.

[Immortal]

I know Google Earth isn't always the same as the real world, but according to their model, you can't see the airfield from the MAPt. I took this screenshot from an eye altitude of 1800 feet at the MAPt.

The red line indicates the path to HN and the 2 blue lines go to the threshold and the end or the runway.

[mad_jock]

Exactly if they don't have an documented difference it is normal rules which is you need the references or you go around.

Now commercially you can get a dispensation and approval to reduce your minimas and also use none standard references.

But you have to jump through a heap of hoops, document everything, have a training program for it, maybe fly a few proving flights for it and then still need a flight monitoring program to make sure that its not leading to unstable approaches. Although to be honest I suspect most approaches up there will be classed as unstable by the normal critiria.

And very interesting article. And it one of the reasons why I don't mind getting fannyed around while the calibrator is at work. At least the instrument approaches in most of europe get checked every 6-12 months.

And can you put another line in please to the end of the approach lights.

They have a none standard flashing white light at the end/start of the approach lights for this very reason I think.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by mad_jock

Tree's grow.....

You will not always get in from the MAPt even with approaches that are fully compliant.

You don't see the visual features thats just plain tough you go-around.

The fact is that scandi's arn't shy types especially the northerners if you really couldn't have seen the required visual features some one would have phoned there mate in the CAA. All the TRE's etc know someone in the CAA and would have got it sorted if you couldn't. By rights if a pilot recons they can't see the required features they should MOR it. These approaches will get calibrated ever 6 months or so, It will have been checked that it is possible.

I doubt these approaches are viewed by the Norwegian CAA as non-compliant. Being very sad, I had a trawl through the EN approaches (as published by Jepp) and there are a reasonable number where the distance from the MAPt to the threshold is 2-3 times the minimum RVR published for the approach and one or two like ENOV where it is doubtful you can see the field from the MAPt even in CAVOK. If they weren't intending pilots to fly a visual segment, why specify such low RVRs? I am clearly no expert in this, but several different authorities clearly specify that a fly visual segment waives the requirement to be visual with the runway environment at the MAPt. I have searched the EN ICAO differences (as you suggested) and can find nothing that addresses this anomaly (or provides the permission to use lead in lights rather than the runway environment as is required for the approach at ENRA to be possible).... So I am pretty sure there is something in the Norwegian air law that addresses these descrepancies, we just can't find it.

[mad_jock]

lead in lights is always allowed.

If it isn't I have over 250 busts to my record on NPA's.

They are and they are documented as not compliant with IACO same as the icelandic fields. Its not a huge problem.

Min RVR has nothing to do with seeing the field its all about stopping people even attempting them when is plain stupid and may end up killing themselves aka the cork crash.

[M609]

why specify such low RVRs?

As stated in the deleted topic, RVR/visibility is NEVER published in the Norwegian AIP. What Jeppesen do with AIP and BSL D 1-11 (CAP with rules regulating operators Wx minima for IFR flights) is their business.

(Same as deleting major islands from their obstacle database, and displaying wrong elevation on major mountains in the Garmin series TWAS, which is very poor indeed in some parts of Norway.)

Not surprised that the detail on the ENOV chart is low.

As to required visual references at MApt, there is an AIC valid in Norway specifying the therm "required visual reference"-

AIC - N 58/00 (Google translate)

It kind of suggests that you need CAA approval to use the approach into ENOV, IF the runway or app lights are not visible from MApt.

[Contacttower]

I thought someone on the Nordic section might be able to help...

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Always quite enjoyed the NDB/DME 100 prodedure at Oxford EGTK. The MAP is at the beacon which is VERY adjacent to the runway, on an approach to 19/01.

Basically it puts you in the vicinity of the runway for a low level circuit to land. Hundreds of Oxford trained pro's have done this one as the last aproach of their IR.

Always seems odd approaching halfway along a runway at 90 degrees to it, and then trying to find it in the gloop again 4 minutes later.

I seem to remember Bergen had a couple of interesting VOR procedures that did a similar thing.

SND

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by M609

As stated in the deleted topic, RVR/visibility is NEVER published in the Norwegian AIP. What Jeppesen do with AIP and BSL D 1-11 (CAP with rules regulating operators Wx minima for IFR flights) is their business.

Interesting, as these are not ICAO compliant approaches, it is not clear what basis Jepp are using to create the RVRs and visibilities. Prior to this thread I han't really thought to check that Jepp publish the correct vis minima.

Having just checked, the UK seem clear that EU-OPS 1.430 Appendix I defines the RVR for UK airports (and that commercial flight guides use the same), However, LFMD in the French AIP (just the first example I had to hand), publishes a minimum vis on their chart (1500 m on an MDH of 1780), which is a third of that calculated in EU-OPS (5000m ), ENOV and many of the other Norweigan airports we have discussed, would be 5000m by EU-OPS, but Jepp is publishing much lower numbers. The logic for RVRs (as well as the definition of the 'other allowable visual references') seems to only exist in BSL d 1-11 - a Norweigan only document accessed via links on an almost exclusively Norweigan web site!

How does a private operator establish what the approach minima are if they are not in the AIP and the Jepp minima may be wrong for a number of these airports.

[mad_jock]

Eu-OPS is only commercial isn't it?

The private minimas are usually defined some where else. UK has just said that eu-ops applys to all its instrument approaches.

Has ICAO 8168 got anything in it?