IMC minimium
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the IMC test, the minima flown to are to 500' precision,
600' non-precision - assuming lower airfield minima.
While training my instructors would take me to 250' on
ILS approaches, where it gets significantly harder as the
beam width shrinks.
-- Andrew
600' non-precision - assuming lower airfield minima.
While training my instructors would take me to 250' on
ILS approaches, where it gets significantly harder as the
beam width shrinks.
-- Andrew
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
db
Your minima is 500 feet as this is the recommended procedure for IMC rating holders unless you are not current (28 days) when you add another 100 ft!
Don't confuse Standard Operating Procedures with the Law.
Andrew is quite right.
Your minima is 500 feet as this is the recommended procedure for IMC rating holders unless you are not current (28 days) when you add another 100 ft!
Don't confuse Standard Operating Procedures with the Law.
Andrew is quite right.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
It is correct - you may not descend below 1000' on your approach until the RVR or visibility is above your minimum. That is ICAO law, as taught in the ATPL syllabus, and I believe incorporated into JARs.
My understanding is that the assumptions here that the extended RVR minimum for IMC-rated pilots is a mandatory limit is correct - this one is not a recommendation, but a requirement.
It is correct - you may not descend below 1000' on your approach until the RVR or visibility is above your minimum. That is ICAO law, as taught in the ATPL syllabus, and I believe incorporated into JARs.
My understanding is that the assumptions here that the extended RVR minimum for IMC-rated pilots is a mandatory limit is correct - this one is not a recommendation, but a requirement.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having posted the question, and now read the ANO, it seems to me the most likely interpretation is that BOTH the recommended height addition to the minimum for IMC rated pilots AND the absolute minimum for IMC rated pilots are recommendations, but it would be legal for an IMC rated pilot to operate to the same minimum as an IR holder. In addition it would seem IMC rated pilots need to be aware of an RVR minimum of 1800m, somewhat higher than that for an IR holder.Commonsense may well dictate otherwise, but my impression is that very many IMC holders believe their legal privileges are different from IR holders.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
send clowns
you may not descend below 1000' on your approach until the RVR or visibility is above your minimum. That is ICAO law, as taught in the ATPL syllabus, and I believe incorporated into JARs.
In which case the FAA is in breach of ICAO laws.
FAR 91.175(d)
It doesn't matter what RVR is reported (if it is reported at all), you can descend to 200 ft on the ILS to have a look-see for yourself what flight visibility is. How can you find out what flight visibility is if you cannot go below 1000ft to look? ATC definitely don't know what it is, they might not even be able to see if it's cloudy outside.
There are several minima relevant for an approach. If you bust one you might just die, bust another you might just lose your licence. I think this thread is trying to identify the latter, but I'll be damned if I have read an authoritative answer
Why are people so worried about upsetting ATC by flying the missed at "two miles out"? It's a valid flight profile, ATC should be prepared for it at any stage, and should separate traffic accordingly. Do you pay for a practice approach in the UK? If so, ATC should be nice to you, the paying customer. If they don't want you to fly the published missed procedure, what is wrong with them just saying "fly runway heading", politely of course?
you may not descend below 1000' on your approach until the RVR or visibility is above your minimum. That is ICAO law, as taught in the ATPL syllabus, and I believe incorporated into JARs.
In which case the FAA is in breach of ICAO laws.
FAR 91.175(d)
Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, may land that aircraft when the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used.
There are several minima relevant for an approach. If you bust one you might just die, bust another you might just lose your licence. I think this thread is trying to identify the latter, but I'll be damned if I have read an authoritative answer
Why are people so worried about upsetting ATC by flying the missed at "two miles out"? It's a valid flight profile, ATC should be prepared for it at any stage, and should separate traffic accordingly. Do you pay for a practice approach in the UK? If so, ATC should be nice to you, the paying customer. If they don't want you to fly the published missed procedure, what is wrong with them just saying "fly runway heading", politely of course?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are people so worried about upsetting ATC by flying the missed at "two miles out"? It's a valid flight profile, ATC should be prepared for it at any stage, and should separate traffic accordingly. Do you pay for a practice approach in the UK? If so, ATC should be nice to you, the paying customer. If they don't want you to fly the published missed procedure, what is wrong with them just saying "fly runway heading", politely of course?
. Yes, you do pay for practice approaches in the UK. UK controllers will, on the whole, give you your missed approach instructions in good time and will issue those based on procedural (9 times out of 10 vertical) separation. An early missed approach shouldn't therefore pose any problems.CM
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand the need to be sure of your minima before you go for your IMC renewal and of course to have a darned good idea when doing your pre-flight planning.
But it sounds like a lot of you actually want to go off on days when conditions are going to get marginal and may actually be below your minima when you are making your initial approach.
Perhaps those that suffer from "Get home itis" whatever the cost should not get airborne if they cannot be sure of getting back to terra firma within limits. There's always another day when the sun might shine.
By the way, ATIS information usually gives met visibility, not IRVR's. IRVR's may fluctuate, with values being above your minima as you commence an approach which could easily dip below as you get closer.
Question: Nobody has mentioned continuing their approach at MDH for a short duration just in case a gap appears??
But it sounds like a lot of you actually want to go off on days when conditions are going to get marginal and may actually be below your minima when you are making your initial approach.
Perhaps those that suffer from "Get home itis" whatever the cost should not get airborne if they cannot be sure of getting back to terra firma within limits. There's always another day when the sun might shine.
By the way, ATIS information usually gives met visibility, not IRVR's. IRVR's may fluctuate, with values being above your minima as you commence an approach which could easily dip below as you get closer.
Question: Nobody has mentioned continuing their approach at MDH for a short duration just in case a gap appears??
I agree with Fuji Abound and RR's interpretation of the AIP. The word absolute is an antonym of relative or incremental, not recommended. I can't find any other sensible use of the word in which it means mandatory.
Note of course that the 1800 m flight vis for take-off and landing is mandatory. See ANO Schedule 8 B.
Note of course that the 1800 m flight vis for take-off and landing is mandatory. See ANO Schedule 8 B.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpshot: You can ask for RVR values at any time, but ATC might not actually be recording them (if there is no IRVR equipment they need to send a bloke out to a designated spot by the runway to count runway lights..) above certain met visibility. If the reported visibility or RVR/IRVR values meet your minima then you can legally descend below 1000ft QFE and follow the approach to DA/DH/MDA/MDH as appropriate. If you get down there an can't see anything, then you have to execute the missed approach. Beware of being caught in the trap of being able to see the lights and land and then finding the official RVR is below the airport minima. Then you'll be in trouble!!
Your question about going to MDH/MDA and flying level is quite OK, provided you start the Missed Aproach no later than the Missed Approach Point (shown on the approach plate). Indeed, some people advocate descending to MDA/MDH fairly quickly after passing the FAF and flying level until you either see the lights or whatever or until you reach MAP, whichever comes first.
Remember, however, that if you are on a precision approach, you must commmence a Missed Approach IMMEDIATELY if you reach DA/DH and do not have the required visual reference to land.
Your question about going to MDH/MDA and flying level is quite OK, provided you start the Missed Aproach no later than the Missed Approach Point (shown on the approach plate). Indeed, some people advocate descending to MDA/MDH fairly quickly after passing the FAF and flying level until you either see the lights or whatever or until you reach MAP, whichever comes first.
Remember, however, that if you are on a precision approach, you must commmence a Missed Approach IMMEDIATELY if you reach DA/DH and do not have the required visual reference to land.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eye in the sky:
Thanks, I like where you are coming from!
I just happen to work & fly at well equipped airfield....have never actually had to go and count the lights at 60m spacing...yet!
On the occasions we have lost the transmissometers, and it's always in the middle of winter, we have to have good vis for hours to re-calibrate. Remember we lost a flight on Christmas day once because we could not give a midpoint value!!
Point taken about going round from the MAPT. And no, if on an ILS, I think friends in the tower would be apoplectic if they noted me at 600' at 4 DME
Thanks, I like where you are coming from!
I just happen to work & fly at well equipped airfield....have never actually had to go and count the lights at 60m spacing...yet!
On the occasions we have lost the transmissometers, and it's always in the middle of winter, we have to have good vis for hours to re-calibrate. Remember we lost a flight on Christmas day once because we could not give a midpoint value!!
Point taken about going round from the MAPT. And no, if on an ILS, I think friends in the tower would be apoplectic if they noted me at 600' at 4 DME
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work at a radar facility that works a lot of aircraft from C152's, corporate aircraft, to airliners that do pratice approaches on a regular basis (ILS's, VOR's, NDB's, GPS, and Back Courses, and the always enjoyable ASR)
Running a sequence with multiple acft some doing the instrument approach and some on a visual approach and with varying types of aircraft and speeds and to crossing runways, does tend to get challengeing.
AT FWA we let the tower issue alternate MA instructions because we don't want the pilot doing the published missed and tangling with another acft.
Mike
Running a sequence with multiple acft some doing the instrument approach and some on a visual approach and with varying types of aircraft and speeds and to crossing runways, does tend to get challengeing.
AT FWA we let the tower issue alternate MA instructions because we don't want the pilot doing the published missed and tangling with another acft.
Mike
