LoCo airlines busting minima in LVP's at STN?

[BBT]

Jondc9, having read a couple of your contributions to other threads, may I politely suggest that before jumping with with "authoritive" pronouncements you might like to ask a few questions, or at least ensure you understand important things like "this 1,000' business" (though you are right, it is a variation on the FAA theme). Telling us about KPIT is all very interesting, but hardly relevant to the information provided in this case, etc. etc. etc. It is also interesting that you feel that "if they had crashed, additional grief would come from the CAA." and that since they didn't crash "they will probably "get away with it". From whence do you get such nuggets?

[BBT]

Jondc9, having read a couple of your contributions to other threads, may I politely suggest that before jumping with with "authoritive" pronouncements you might like to ask a few questions, or at least ensure you understand important things like "this 1,000' business" (though you are right, it is a variation on the FAA theme). Telling us about KPIT is all very interesting, but hardly relevant to the information provided in this case, etc. etc. etc. It is also interesting that you feel that "if they had crashed, additional grief would come from the CAA." and that since they didn't crash "they will probably "get away with it". From whence do you get such nuggets?

[jondc9]

BBT:

From whence do I get such nuggets? From observing the way airlines operate from the cockpit and the ground for almost 30 years. From watching regulatory authority sweep things under the rug to keep things going.


If no one is hurt, an airline that "busts mins" might get a little hand slap, don't do it again.

IF someone is hurt, the governmental authority will likely have more pressure upon it to "do something".

And BBT, I did ask questions. I also state that the information I am giving is a USA thing not a BRITISH thing. IF it is not correct, please show me the FARS that have changed since I checked them last.

It would seem that you have a chip on your shoulder.

I have never had the chance to fly in England. I imagine fog in England is like fog in America. Sometimes it can cover just certain parts of the aerodrome and not the parts that really matter to pilots(runways). I think my KPIT experience is quite relevent as stated. Especially when I ask if something similiar happened in this case...if it did not, just say so. I don't subscribe to the london times.

In England, if the visibility is low, are your ATC people required to leave the control tower and make another observation? This being the cloud over the tower scenario. Please note this is in the form of a question and not a statement.

In your flying career have you ever seen fog covering just the transmissometers and not the runway? (also in the form of a question)

And to daysleeper who mentions that a visual approach would be illegal in my previously described scenario, I didn't make a visual. I made an ILS and made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft. As it was quite a bit above the published mins of 1/2 mile we were ok. It was the unique situation of fog over the rvr gadgets and not over the runway that I was describing.


Perhaps the name of this forum shouldn't be the professional pilots rumor network, it should be the european pilots forum.

regards

jon

[jondc9]

BBT:

From whence do I get such nuggets? From observing the way airlines operate from the cockpit and the ground for almost 30 years. From watching regulatory authority sweep things under the rug to keep things going.


If no one is hurt, an airline that "busts mins" might get a little hand slap, don't do it again.

IF someone is hurt, the governmental authority will likely have more pressure upon it to "do something".

And BBT, I did ask questions. I also state that the information I am giving is a USA thing not a BRITISH thing. IF it is not correct, please show me the FARS that have changed since I checked them last.

It would seem that you have a chip on your shoulder.

I have never had the chance to fly in England. I imagine fog in England is like fog in America. Sometimes it can cover just certain parts of the aerodrome and not the parts that really matter to pilots(runways). I think my KPIT experience is quite relevent as stated. Especially when I ask if something similiar happened in this case...if it did not, just say so. I don't subscribe to the london times.

In England, if the visibility is low, are your ATC people required to leave the control tower and make another observation? This being the cloud over the tower scenario. Please note this is in the form of a question and not a statement.

In your flying career have you ever seen fog covering just the transmissometers and not the runway? (also in the form of a question)

And to daysleeper who mentions that a visual approach would be illegal in my previously described scenario, I didn't make a visual. I made an ILS and made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft. As it was quite a bit above the published mins of 1/2 mile we were ok. It was the unique situation of fog over the rvr gadgets and not over the runway that I was describing.


Perhaps the name of this forum shouldn't be the professional pilots rumor network, it should be the european pilots forum.

regards

jon

[BBT]

Jondc9, first and foremost this has nothing to do with U.S. v Europe nor do I have "a chip on my shoulder". If you read what I said closely you will not see any grounds for reaching such conclusions, nor is there justification for making such accusations. In fact, it is your ability to confidently head off at a tangent that is what I was getting at. (Also, you clearly don't "do" irony or you might have stopped to think about what I was getting at).

Second I withdraw my remarks, as the prospect of a further exchange on this does not bear thinking about. Apologies.

[BBT]

Jondc9, first and foremost this has nothing to do with U.S. v Europe nor do I have "a chip on my shoulder". If you read what I said closely you will not see any grounds for reaching such conclusions, nor is there justification for making such accusations. In fact, it is your ability to confidently head off at a tangent that is what I was getting at. (Also, you clearly don't "do" irony or you might have stopped to think about what I was getting at).

Second I withdraw my remarks, as the prospect of a further exchange on this does not bear thinking about. Apologies.

[kms901]

i have flown many times with Ryanair, mostly successfully, but things are not improving. I have resolved to fly myself to the destinations that I can from now on for two reasons:

1. I will not compromise my safety for commercial reasons, whatever the circumstances.

2. I have more hours (and a lot more takeoffs/landings) than most Ryanair FO's.

I await the abuse.

[kms901]

i have flown many times with Ryanair, mostly successfully, but things are not improving. I have resolved to fly myself to the destinations that I can from now on for two reasons:

1. I will not compromise my safety for commercial reasons, whatever the circumstances.

2. I have more hours (and a lot more takeoffs/landings) than most Ryanair FO's.

I await the abuse.

[old-timer]

tight time

Scary - sign of the times I fear

[old-timer]

tight time

Scary - sign of the times I fear

[jondc9]

KMS901


Hi, you mentioned the number of flying hours that ryanair f/o's have. this is a sincere question: about how many hours do they have?

I am very interested and do not have the answer.


In the USA there are some places that hire very low time copilots. I mean well under 1500 hours. (we have an expression here too about P51 time(and not the Mustang), do you have that expression too and does it apply?)

thanks

jon

[jondc9]

KMS901


Hi, you mentioned the number of flying hours that ryanair f/o's have. this is a sincere question: about how many hours do they have?

I am very interested and do not have the answer.


In the USA there are some places that hire very low time copilots. I mean well under 1500 hours. (we have an expression here too about P51 time(and not the Mustang), do you have that expression too and does it apply?)

thanks

jon

[Hial Flyer]

[QUOTE=chiglet]

Originally Posted by JW411

the grim repa:
I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.
I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).
So "Essex Radar/APC" have NOT kept you informed/up to date on current IRVRs then?
watp,iktch

As ATCO's during LVP's we have to vector the aircraft to a minimum of a 10 mile final, at SS in excess of 3000ft. When established the current IRVR is passed to the a/c, then the a/c is transferred to the TWR who will again pass the IRVR. The a/c will be well above the decision altitude when the IRVR's are given.

[Hial Flyer]

[QUOTE=chiglet]

Originally Posted by JW411

the grim repa:
I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.
I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).
So "Essex Radar/APC" have NOT kept you informed/up to date on current IRVRs then?
watp,iktch

As ATCO's during LVP's we have to vector the aircraft to a minimum of a 10 mile final, at SS in excess of 3000ft. When established the current IRVR is passed to the a/c, then the a/c is transferred to the TWR who will again pass the IRVR. The a/c will be well above the decision altitude when the IRVR's are given.

[chiglet]

Thanx Hial,
Not [that familiar with SS procs.
watp,iktch

[chiglet]

Thanx Hial,
Not [that familiar with SS procs.
watp,iktch

[Daysleeper]

jondc9

made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft.

you cant do this in Europe.

If you think the IRVR is wrong best you can do is try to persuade ATC to send someone out to do a manual reading (count lights) this would probably take 30 minutes plus to arrange. A JAR OPS manual would have a phrase something like "regardless of whether the runway can be seen a visual approach may not be continued below 1000' if the reported RVR is below xxx(800) meters."

So in your scenario, we get to 1000' AGL on the ILS and the RVR is 300m we cannot continue the ILS because of the approach ban, but we see the runway so we call visual but we cannot continue a visual approach because of the approach ban.

The regulation is there to prevent people either
A: lying that they can see the runway or
B: flying into sucker gaps in the fog.

[Daysleeper]

jondc9

made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft.

you cant do this in Europe.

If you think the IRVR is wrong best you can do is try to persuade ATC to send someone out to do a manual reading (count lights) this would probably take 30 minutes plus to arrange. A JAR OPS manual would have a phrase something like "regardless of whether the runway can be seen a visual approach may not be continued below 1000' if the reported RVR is below xxx(800) meters."

So in your scenario, we get to 1000' AGL on the ILS and the RVR is 300m we cannot continue the ILS because of the approach ban, but we see the runway so we call visual but we cannot continue a visual approach because of the approach ban.

The regulation is there to prevent people either
A: lying that they can see the runway or
B: flying into sucker gaps in the fog.

[klink]

The term of decision point is confused here with decision altitude (DA).
i.e. the mentioned decision point refers to the approach ban, meaning that the approach can be continued past this point regardless of what happens to the RVR.
Say, you do the CAT III, and before this point (can be the Glideslope Intercept point / Final Approach Point - can be at 5NM final) the RVRs are the minimum 200 meters; if after this point the RVRs decrease too, say, 100 meters, it is at your discretion to continue the approach to your Decision Height of 50' (to "Look and see"). If Wx then doesn't improve and you make a GA, you'llnot be able to even start the approach next tim, since the RVR are below the minima needed at your "gate".


Edit: Changed Desision Altitude into Decision Height, for the CatIII example. Thanks JAR!

[klink]

The term of decision point is confused here with decision altitude (DA).
i.e. the mentioned decision point refers to the approach ban, meaning that the approach can be continued past this point regardless of what happens to the RVR.
Say, you do the CAT III, and before this point (can be the Glideslope Intercept point / Final Approach Point - can be at 5NM final) the RVRs are the minimum 200 meters; if after this point the RVRs decrease too, say, 100 meters, it is at your discretion to continue the approach to your Decision Height of 50' (to "Look and see"). If Wx then doesn't improve and you make a GA, you'llnot be able to even start the approach next tim, since the RVR are below the minima needed at your "gate".


Edit: Changed Desision Altitude into Decision Height, for the CatIII example. Thanks JAR!