None standard instrument approaches.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that Jepp stuff is used by the majority of commercial ops (and practically all bizjet ops) around the world, I would think twice before assuming they have done this wrong at a number of airports especially ones surrounded by terrain. Not impossible; just unlikely.
I agree; it would be daft to become visual at the MDA and have to go around if you cannot see the runway at that instant despite the conditions being pefectly good enough for VFR flight.
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It then depends how current you are with the airfield you are at or if there are any issues.
In general I would agree for normal places.
This ain't.
They have cables and masts all over the place most of the time they haven't got lights on them, also have masking terrian behind them,
Personally I tend to stick over water then when I have the PAPIS 2 or 3 white then decend if in VFR wx but I would cancel IFR first. Mainly to see if the controller comes back negative in case I have missed something in my planning and doing that is banned by some local procedure.
In general I would agree for normal places.
This ain't.
They have cables and masts all over the place most of the time they haven't got lights on them, also have masking terrian behind them,
Personally I tend to stick over water then when I have the PAPIS 2 or 3 white then decend if in VFR wx but I would cancel IFR first. Mainly to see if the controller comes back negative in case I have missed something in my planning and doing that is banned by some local procedure.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree; it would be daft to become visual at the MDA and have to go around if you cannot see the runway at that instant despite the conditions being pefectly good enough for VFR flight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always found these approaches easier at night with wx towards mins to be honest.
Not very nice feeling though large black objects either side of you and the knowledge that if you go over half scale deflection you might hit something.
Not very nice feeling though large black objects either side of you and the knowledge that if you go over half scale deflection you might hit something.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe this information is so well hidden - and that I had never noticed it before!
PS - Peter, I 'know' Jepp is likely to be correct, but having had the question raised, I was really surprised at the variability in approaches to setting and documenting the viz minima in each country's AIP.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also in the gen section it states that approaches can be more than 30degrees off runway track.
There is a long list in the gen section which there has been given a link for.
https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/curre...GEN_1_7_en.pdf
It must have been in the deleted one.
There is a long list in the gen section which there has been given a link for.
https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/curre...GEN_1_7_en.pdf
It must have been in the deleted one.
Last edited by mad_jock; 21st Sep 2012 at 14:08.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a final approach track more than 30 degrees offset from the runway centreline is perfectly compliant with PANS-OPS , and in fact is common in mountainous terrain. PANS-OPS just says that in this case the approach has to be a specified as a circling approach, which this one at ENOV is.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are three other pages of differences if that one doesn't work.
Maybe standard as much as they can would be a better term. Somethings you better know about before attempting because you will get a nasty shock if you don't know about them.
Maybe standard as much as they can would be a better term. Somethings you better know about before attempting because you will get a nasty shock if you don't know about them.
Last edited by mad_jock; 21st Sep 2012 at 14:38.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are only a few that apply to IAPs and I can't see any that would give a pilot of a Cat A/B a nasty shock as long as the approach is flown in the way PANS-OPS expects.
What is interesting is that the Jeppesen chart for this approach has the usual "PANS-OPS" note in the margin. That means that "that the State has specified that the approach procedure complies with ICAO Document 8168, Volume II, First or Second Edition."
What is interesting is that the Jeppesen chart for this approach has the usual "PANS-OPS" note in the margin. That means that "that the State has specified that the approach procedure complies with ICAO Document 8168, Volume II, First or Second Edition."
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O well you can call them standard then.
To me in that enviroment they are none standard and would take several hours to do the performance planning, escape route planning, missed approach plan, area brief, terrain brief and chat with the tower.
None of which I would do if I was going to any normal standard airports.
To me in that enviroment they are none standard and would take several hours to do the performance planning, escape route planning, missed approach plan, area brief, terrain brief and chat with the tower.
None of which I would do if I was going to any normal standard airports.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't argue with any of that. Personally, when planning to fly an IAP for the first time, especially where terrain is an issue, I always include a check of the state chart as part of the brief.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
O well you can call them standard then.
To me in that enviroment they are none standard and would take several hours to do the performance planning, escape route planning, missed approach plan, area brief, terrain brief and chat with the tower.
None of which I would do if I was going to any normal standard airports.
To me in that enviroment they are none standard and would take several hours to do the performance planning, escape route planning, missed approach plan, area brief, terrain brief and chat with the tower.
None of which I would do if I was going to any normal standard airports.
Approaches like ENOV are not to be attempted offhand without a thorough pre-briefing. For example, what do you do if you for some reason need to get out of Dodge after having left the LLZ track and turned VFR towards the field? You need to have a plan for that. How high is the surrounding terrain in different directions? You need to know that beforehand. Do you turn to a predetermined inbound track for the NDB west of the field? Etc. etc.
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?
Prior to about 1992, there were no such mandatory minima for private and aerial work flights in the UK. The advice was to use the public transport minima, but there was no approach ban.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet a new question BW? Jepp publishes minimum visibilities on UK and Norwegian plates. The UK in the AIP seems to say the EU-OPS minima (with regard to visibility ) apply to all operators on published approaches. But there appears to be no comment from the Norwegians. How do I as a rather thick pilot know what the relevance of the Jepp minima are - the UK seems to be mandatory whereas the Norwegian ones seem to be just a number jepp dreamed up through some internal process with no practical or regulatory relevance. What about .... (any one of the nearly 200 contracting countries?
Last edited by mm_flynn; 22nd Sep 2012 at 13:47.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just started flying a 79,000 KG jet into some of these places, by all accounts there is a weeks course including Sim for the really interesting places in the north of Norway.........I think I am about to see some places that make Chambery and Funchal look tame !
