Question for CAT I operation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: earth
Age: 36
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for CAT I operation.
Hi,everybody
Can we continue flying the approach from IAF when reported cloud base is lower than the DA ,I remember that I was told we can't continue .but where is the regulation to support that. I have a hard time to find that. Can anybody help?
Can we continue flying the approach from IAF when reported cloud base is lower than the DA ,I remember that I was told we can't continue .but where is the regulation to support that. I have a hard time to find that. Can anybody help?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Can't remember
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it you can not commence an approach if the weather is below minima (approach ban). However, if you have already commenced the approach you may continue to DA.
Rule 1. The answer to this question and the rules you must work to should be in your own outfit's Ops Manual, not on PPRuNe.....
However as BOAC said: "How does cloudbase effect this??
The controlling factor for a precision approach is usually the RVR ( it will be on the plates, typically it may be something like 550 metres RVR at the touchdown end, your allowable midpoint should be your manuals, but lets call it XXX)...cloudbase is usually not limiting and not controlling unless you are dealing with a non-precision approach, but no doubt there are exceptions.
So, generally, if when flying a CAT 1 approach you hear ATC issue RVR's of "550/XXX/XXX" as you reach the approach ban point (which BTW may well not coincide with the FAF for a precision approach), you can continue to DA regardless of the cloudbase (and assuming no equipment failures)
But I must emphasise again - The answer and the rules you must work to in your operation should be in your own outfit's Ops Manual, not on Pprune.....
However as BOAC said: "How does cloudbase effect this??
The controlling factor for a precision approach is usually the RVR ( it will be on the plates, typically it may be something like 550 metres RVR at the touchdown end, your allowable midpoint should be your manuals, but lets call it XXX)...cloudbase is usually not limiting and not controlling unless you are dealing with a non-precision approach, but no doubt there are exceptions.
So, generally, if when flying a CAT 1 approach you hear ATC issue RVR's of "550/XXX/XXX" as you reach the approach ban point (which BTW may well not coincide with the FAF for a precision approach), you can continue to DA regardless of the cloudbase (and assuming no equipment failures)
But I must emphasise again - The answer and the rules you must work to in your operation should be in your own outfit's Ops Manual, not on Pprune.....
Last edited by wiggy; 3rd Aug 2014 at 08:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: earth
Age: 36
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
So if the RVR is say 1000, even if the cloud is BKN 001 , you can still go on the approach from any approach phase to the DH,and then if you "see" the runway , you can land legally ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: earth
Age: 36
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Ops say lot of RVR,
When mentioned cloud base ,only one sentence say that we need to refer to cloud base and RVR/vis, no detail describe .
I am not sure , because in common sense , BKN 001 means go alternate now ,why try?
Is there any regulation mentioned that ?like ICAO8168 or FAR91？
When mentioned cloud base ,only one sentence say that we need to refer to cloud base and RVR/vis, no detail describe .
I am not sure , because in common sense , BKN 001 means go alternate now ,why try?
Is there any regulation mentioned that ?like ICAO8168 or FAR91？
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky-738
Cloudbase needs be referred to as for instance when doing a non-precision approach with O/001 it makes little sense when you need e.g. 500' base, but when only F/001, why not commence the approach as the chance of not seeing runway is slim.
B/001 does not indicate you will not see anything at minimums.
If a precision approach takes you to 200' AGL then chances are there may be enough visual references for you to continue and land safely on that approach.
As long as there is sufficient horizontal visibility available, an approach may be commenced (subject to LVO requirements if so restricted of course)
From an operator's perspective, instructing crew to divert in favour of attempting an approach costs a lot more money then letting them attempt an approach (or two) before making the diversion a reality.
After all, we all rather have happy passengers, a return flight (more or less) on time and no disruption to the entire onwards operation, rather then divert, wait maybe for buses before returning to base, hours delayed and at what cost and inconvenience to passengers...
Ops say lot of RVR,
When mentioned cloud base ,only one sentence say that we need to refer to cloud base and RVR/vis, no detail describe .
When mentioned cloud base ,only one sentence say that we need to refer to cloud base and RVR/vis, no detail describe .
B/001 does not indicate you will not see anything at minimums.
If a precision approach takes you to 200' AGL then chances are there may be enough visual references for you to continue and land safely on that approach.
As long as there is sufficient horizontal visibility available, an approach may be commenced (subject to LVO requirements if so restricted of course)
From an operator's perspective, instructing crew to divert in favour of attempting an approach costs a lot more money then letting them attempt an approach (or two) before making the diversion a reality.
After all, we all rather have happy passengers, a return flight (more or less) on time and no disruption to the entire onwards operation, rather then divert, wait maybe for buses before returning to base, hours delayed and at what cost and inconvenience to passengers...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before PANS OPS and JAA etc. the French sometimes had 'ceiling required'. That has since gone, but perhaps some territories still retain philosophy; not EU I think.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Spain
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, friends
According to OPS 1.405:
The Commander, or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated, may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
According to OPS 1.405:
The Commander, or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated, may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
If you are FAA-licensed, you should know that in FAR 91 visibility is the controlling weather, ceiling is not required. In fact, neither is required in non-commercial ops.
GF
GF
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HI
listen sky 738 in the good old USA, ceiling is not req'd. I still remember when it changed. IT USE to be that you needed 200 and 1/2, but they finally changed it to just the 1/2 (or RVR equiv as published for the apch)>
and you mention the IAF. MOST people reference the FAF, which as you all know is the lowest published glideslope interception altitude (usually just outside the outer marker. Do not get the maltese cross symbol for the non precision localizer only apch confused with the FAF for the ILS.
So, the IAF is really not too important, the FAF is.
Do tell us if you are part 91 or part 121 or others.
listen sky 738 in the good old USA, ceiling is not req'd. I still remember when it changed. IT USE to be that you needed 200 and 1/2, but they finally changed it to just the 1/2 (or RVR equiv as published for the apch)>
and you mention the IAF. MOST people reference the FAF, which as you all know is the lowest published glideslope interception altitude (usually just outside the outer marker. Do not get the maltese cross symbol for the non precision localizer only apch confused with the FAF for the ILS.
So, the IAF is really not too important, the FAF is.
Do tell us if you are part 91 or part 121 or others.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sky738:
If you are licensed in the US, you should become familiar with FAR 91.175, 121.567, and 121.613. If you are flying under another country's certificate, you should become familiar with their regulations.
If you want accurate answers, you have to provide full information...
If you are licensed in the US, you should become familiar with FAR 91.175, 121.567, and 121.613. If you are flying under another country's certificate, you should become familiar with their regulations.
If you want accurate answers, you have to provide full information...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@sky-738
Look, I told you on the thread about AC Packs to not pretend to be an airline pilot type rated on the 737 if you're not. I also said that people won't mind if you're asking questions, as long as you're not pretending.
The regs in Canada are quite clear about when you can initiate an approach, and when you cannot initiate but can continue an approach, and when the reported visibility (and what type) or pilot's visibility applies. It can all be found in the CAP. I can only assume it's just as clear in the FAR or their equivalent documentation. If you're US licensed as you said you are, those sources of information can be easily found.
I don't believe you're 737 type rated. I don't even believe you're licensed. I believe you're flying a computer. But, THAT'S OKAY. I flew computers for years, and still do on occasion, while also flying real airplanes. But it's NOT OKAY to pretend to be an airline pilot. (I'm not an airline pilot.) You're contributing to the general opinion and distaste for people who fly flight sims at home.
I would recommend you either sit out of reach of the keyboard when reading this forum, or stick to flight sim forums (there are plenty available), if you cannot adhere to the simple rule of not playing pretend.
Look, I told you on the thread about AC Packs to not pretend to be an airline pilot type rated on the 737 if you're not. I also said that people won't mind if you're asking questions, as long as you're not pretending.
The regs in Canada are quite clear about when you can initiate an approach, and when you cannot initiate but can continue an approach, and when the reported visibility (and what type) or pilot's visibility applies. It can all be found in the CAP. I can only assume it's just as clear in the FAR or their equivalent documentation. If you're US licensed as you said you are, those sources of information can be easily found.
I don't believe you're 737 type rated. I don't even believe you're licensed. I believe you're flying a computer. But, THAT'S OKAY. I flew computers for years, and still do on occasion, while also flying real airplanes. But it's NOT OKAY to pretend to be an airline pilot. (I'm not an airline pilot.) You're contributing to the general opinion and distaste for people who fly flight sims at home.
I would recommend you either sit out of reach of the keyboard when reading this forum, or stick to flight sim forums (there are plenty available), if you cannot adhere to the simple rule of not playing pretend.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sure hope you are not a professional IFR rated pilot...but I am quite sure you are a flightsimmer...
Cloud base has nothing, zero, nada, zip to do with minima for a cat1 approach.
As long as you have the required RVR values and see the required amount of approach/runway lights at your DA, then you can legally land.
I have performed countless cat1 landings where stated cloudbase is OVC001. Most of the time, approach and runway lights on max. Intensity shine right through the soup, especially if the cloudlayer is this low ( meaning stratiform clouds).
Cloud base has nothing, zero, nada, zip to do with minima for a cat1 approach.
As long as you have the required RVR values and see the required amount of approach/runway lights at your DA, then you can legally land.
I have performed countless cat1 landings where stated cloudbase is OVC001. Most of the time, approach and runway lights on max. Intensity shine right through the soup, especially if the cloudlayer is this low ( meaning stratiform clouds).
