LoCo airlines busting minima in LVP's at STN?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the grim repa:
Surely pilots should know about NOTAMS and limitations from their flying school days and/or previous flying experience.
Where all the flights landing at STN that night only RYR?
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations
Where all the flights landing at STN that night only RYR?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the grim repa:
Surely pilots should know about NOTAMS and limitations from their flying school days and/or previous flying experience.
Where all the flights landing at STN that night only RYR?
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations
Where all the flights landing at STN that night only RYR?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by unfazed
Looks to me like a Ryanair witchhunt !
Why ???
Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?
Now that's bound to piss off a few people
even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousy
And no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.
And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain
How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?
Why ???
Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?
Now that's bound to piss off a few people
even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousyAnd no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.
And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain
How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?
Reference the red herring of the ATIS argument (it may state visibility of 10k, what matters is what it is actually like when you arrive) I understood several aircraft were involved. The first may get away with the argument that the conditions only worsened after the FAF / 1000ft point, the subsequent arrivals could not.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by unfazed
Looks to me like a Ryanair witchhunt !
Why ???
Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?
Now that's bound to piss off a few people even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousy
And no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.
And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain
How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?
Why ???
Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?
Now that's bound to piss off a few people
even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousyAnd no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.
And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain
How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?
Reference the red herring of the ATIS argument (it may state visibility of 10k, what matters is what it is actually like when you arrive) I understood several aircraft were involved. The first may get away with the argument that the conditions only worsened after the FAF / 1000ft point, the subsequent arrivals could not.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mojito
JW411, in UK you use 1000ft for the approach ban, anywhere else it is OM or equivalent position (such as 4NM point). Approach ban is applicable for both for CATI and CATII/III approaches....Cheers
(a) 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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system, the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system, the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Interesting points to note.
1. It's the Outer Marker for the approach ban, or it's equivalent position, failing that 1000'AGL. No differentiation between 'UK and elsewhere' under JAR Ops as mojito stated.
2. An often overlooked consideration is my last bold text quote about mid point and stop end values of 125m and 75m (for the 737 with no rollout guidance). If your 'slow down' run will enter these parts of the runway then you need to consider the mid and stop end RVRs too.
PP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mojito
JW411, in UK you use 1000ft for the approach ban, anywhere else it is OM or equivalent position (such as 4NM point). Approach ban is applicable for both for CATI and CATII/III approaches....Cheers
(a) 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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system, the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system, the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Interesting points to note.
1. It's the Outer Marker for the approach ban, or it's equivalent position, failing that 1000'AGL. No differentiation between 'UK and elsewhere' under JAR Ops as mojito stated.
2. An often overlooked consideration is my last bold text quote about mid point and stop end values of 125m and 75m (for the 737 with no rollout guidance). If your 'slow down' run will enter these parts of the runway then you need to consider the mid and stop end RVRs too.
PP
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”
This may be integrated in the QRH or as a handy dandy.
The ICAO AWO Manual may give you the answer.
Clearly the Captain is the sole responsible but how many hurdles does he have to take to get to the required information when informed on short notice there is a problem with one of the components (ground or airborne), clearly the MEL does not apply in this case and the FOM does for non type related issues….so what do you do? You go in the hold or reduce you speed to buy some time and get the books out.
On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?
In short: the approach ban is there for fluctuations in visibility only and not to cover technical problems that make an increase in min required RVR compulsary. You do not escape this principle because you are inside the app ban.
That is the spirit of the app ban rule .......as much as there is a spririt of the rules that govern B 747 flights across half of the world with one engine out...it is simply NOT done.
This may be integrated in the QRH or as a handy dandy.
The ICAO AWO Manual may give you the answer.
Clearly the Captain is the sole responsible but how many hurdles does he have to take to get to the required information when informed on short notice there is a problem with one of the components (ground or airborne), clearly the MEL does not apply in this case and the FOM does for non type related issues….so what do you do? You go in the hold or reduce you speed to buy some time and get the books out.
On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?
In short: the approach ban is there for fluctuations in visibility only and not to cover technical problems that make an increase in min required RVR compulsary. You do not escape this principle because you are inside the app ban.
That is the spirit of the app ban rule .......as much as there is a spririt of the rules that govern B 747 flights across half of the world with one engine out...it is simply NOT done.
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”
This may be integrated in the QRH or as a handy dandy.
The ICAO AWO Manual may give you the answer.
Clearly the Captain is the sole responsible but how many hurdles does he have to take to get to the required information when informed on short notice there is a problem with one of the components (ground or airborne), clearly the MEL does not apply in this case and the FOM does for non type related issues….so what do you do? You go in the hold or reduce you speed to buy some time and get the books out.
On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?
In short: the approach ban is there for fluctuations in visibility only and not to cover technical problems that make an increase in min required RVR compulsary. You do not escape this principle because you are inside the app ban.
That is the spirit of the app ban rule .......as much as there is a spririt of the rules that govern B 747 flights across half of the world with one engine out...it is simply NOT done.
This may be integrated in the QRH or as a handy dandy.
The ICAO AWO Manual may give you the answer.
Clearly the Captain is the sole responsible but how many hurdles does he have to take to get to the required information when informed on short notice there is a problem with one of the components (ground or airborne), clearly the MEL does not apply in this case and the FOM does for non type related issues….so what do you do? You go in the hold or reduce you speed to buy some time and get the books out.
On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?
In short: the approach ban is there for fluctuations in visibility only and not to cover technical problems that make an increase in min required RVR compulsary. You do not escape this principle because you are inside the app ban.
That is the spirit of the app ban rule .......as much as there is a spririt of the rules that govern B 747 flights across half of the world with one engine out...it is simply NOT done.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AIMS by IBM
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”
On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?
PP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AIMS by IBM
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”
On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?
PP
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot Pete
It is, in Part A section 8. Many companies reproduce this in the form of a 'handy dandy' laminated card, others do not. It is also available in the Jepp Text manual. Both these publications are available on the flight deck. It only takes a few seconds during your brief to extract the relevant page from the manual and have it available before you start your LVO approach.
PP
PP
As far as I know there is no alert height on the B 737 NG and on those Aircraft that have one the interpretation marging as to what it really means are wide open.
Definition:
The alert height is a specified radio height, based on the characteristics of the aeroplane and its fail-operational landing system. In operational use, if a failure occurred above the alert height in one of the required redundant operational systems in the aeroplane (including, where appropriate, ground roll guidance and the reversionary mode in a hybrid system), the approach would be discontinued and a go-around executed unless reversion to a higher decision height is possible. If a failure in one of the required redundant operational systems occurred below the alert height, it would be ignored and the approach continued.
Alert height is type related and a fixed value determined by certification. In my opinion it is illegal to increse it above it's certified value of usually about 100 feet agl. Doing so would expose the aircraft with a failure much longer that needed (read certified). Once more it's clear that companies that do this, abuse the redundancy available for commercial reasons only...in my opinion a NO GO.
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot Pete
It is, in Part A section 8. Many companies reproduce this in the form of a 'handy dandy' laminated card, others do not. It is also available in the Jepp Text manual. Both these publications are available on the flight deck. It only takes a few seconds during your brief to extract the relevant page from the manual and have it available before you start your LVO approach.
PP
PP
As far as I know there is no alert height on the B 737 NG and on those Aircraft that have one the interpretation marging as to what it really means are wide open.
Definition:
The alert height is a specified radio height, based on the characteristics of the aeroplane and its fail-operational landing system. In operational use, if a failure occurred above the alert height in one of the required redundant operational systems in the aeroplane (including, where appropriate, ground roll guidance and the reversionary mode in a hybrid system), the approach would be discontinued and a go-around executed unless reversion to a higher decision height is possible. If a failure in one of the required redundant operational systems occurred below the alert height, it would be ignored and the approach continued.
Alert height is type related and a fixed value determined by certification. In my opinion it is illegal to increse it above it's certified value of usually about 100 feet agl. Doing so would expose the aircraft with a failure much longer that needed (read certified). Once more it's clear that companies that do this, abuse the redundancy available for commercial reasons only...in my opinion a NO GO.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot Pete
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
How wonderfull this PPRuNe can be....
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot Pete
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.
PP
How wonderfull this PPRuNe can be....
I had it in mind (and I am talking about CAT2) that you have to be able to slow your aircraft to 60 knots before entering the mid-point sector for 125 metres to apply. If you cannot then you must have touch down RVR in the mid point also.
I had it in mind (and I am talking about CAT2) that you have to be able to slow your aircraft to 60 knots before entering the mid-point sector for 125 metres to apply. If you cannot then you must have touch down RVR in the mid point also.