LoCo airlines busting minima in LVP's at STN?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of questions;
1. Are you sure you cannot get a PIREPS from a landing a/c? In the past, before JAA, at a major European airport which was giving 450m for my CAT 1a/c, a local operator made a CAT 3 approach and confirmed that "the RVR on Touchdown was well in excess of what ATC was publishing". At the OM we were visual with the whole length of the runway and all approach lights. We landed, wrote a report to our C.P who forwarded it to the local CAA and never heard another word. I always thought PIREPS was an acceptable report in any circumstance, not only RVR's.
2. Did ATC, either via radio or ATIS, declare "Low Vis Procedures in force"? If so then an autoland is OK if the relevant minima were respected. If not, and minima were below appropriate CAT 1, then an autoland is not authorised.
There still seems to be the question hanging about as to whether these events ever really happened, and if so what has been published to the crews of the offending airline? Surely they must have taken steps to ensure there is no repeat. The WIP is on-going and this situation will arise again. So, what is the unequivical truth? or is this just a rumour? The RVR's could have been bouncing +/- minima continuously. One a/c lands the next Goes Around due to lower RVR's. Nothing unusual there.
1. Are you sure you cannot get a PIREPS from a landing a/c? In the past, before JAA, at a major European airport which was giving 450m for my CAT 1a/c, a local operator made a CAT 3 approach and confirmed that "the RVR on Touchdown was well in excess of what ATC was publishing". At the OM we were visual with the whole length of the runway and all approach lights. We landed, wrote a report to our C.P who forwarded it to the local CAA and never heard another word. I always thought PIREPS was an acceptable report in any circumstance, not only RVR's.
2. Did ATC, either via radio or ATIS, declare "Low Vis Procedures in force"? If so then an autoland is OK if the relevant minima were respected. If not, and minima were below appropriate CAT 1, then an autoland is not authorised.
There still seems to be the question hanging about as to whether these events ever really happened, and if so what has been published to the crews of the offending airline? Surely they must have taken steps to ensure there is no repeat. The WIP is on-going and this situation will arise again. So, what is the unequivical truth? or is this just a rumour? The RVR's could have been bouncing +/- minima continuously. One a/c lands the next Goes Around due to lower RVR's. Nothing unusual there.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of questions;
1. Are you sure you cannot get a PIREPS from a landing a/c? In the past, before JAA, at a major European airport which was giving 450m for my CAT 1a/c, a local operator made a CAT 3 approach and confirmed that "the RVR on Touchdown was well in excess of what ATC was publishing". At the OM we were visual with the whole length of the runway and all approach lights. We landed, wrote a report to our C.P who forwarded it to the local CAA and never heard another word. I always thought PIREPS was an acceptable report in any circumstance, not only RVR's.
2. Did ATC, either via radio or ATIS, declare "Low Vis Procedures in force"? If so then an autoland is OK if the relevant minima were respected. If not, and minima were below appropriate CAT 1, then an autoland is not authorised.
There still seems to be the question hanging about as to whether these events ever really happened, and if so what has been published to the crews of the offending airline? Surely they must have taken steps to ensure there is no repeat. The WIP is on-going and this situation will arise again. So, what is the unequivical truth? or is this just a rumour? The RVR's could have been bouncing +/- minima continuously. One a/c lands the next Goes Around due to lower RVR's. Nothing unusual there.
1. Are you sure you cannot get a PIREPS from a landing a/c? In the past, before JAA, at a major European airport which was giving 450m for my CAT 1a/c, a local operator made a CAT 3 approach and confirmed that "the RVR on Touchdown was well in excess of what ATC was publishing". At the OM we were visual with the whole length of the runway and all approach lights. We landed, wrote a report to our C.P who forwarded it to the local CAA and never heard another word. I always thought PIREPS was an acceptable report in any circumstance, not only RVR's.
2. Did ATC, either via radio or ATIS, declare "Low Vis Procedures in force"? If so then an autoland is OK if the relevant minima were respected. If not, and minima were below appropriate CAT 1, then an autoland is not authorised.
There still seems to be the question hanging about as to whether these events ever really happened, and if so what has been published to the crews of the offending airline? Surely they must have taken steps to ensure there is no repeat. The WIP is on-going and this situation will arise again. So, what is the unequivical truth? or is this just a rumour? The RVR's could have been bouncing +/- minima continuously. One a/c lands the next Goes Around due to lower RVR's. Nothing unusual there.
Hial Flyer:
I am well aware of what you are SUPPOSED to do at STN when LVPs are in force. However, as I pointed out in my last posting what actually happens is not always along strict guidelines.
My last post was not perhaps written exactly as intended in that several commas were perhaps missing and it was open to interpretation.
Let me start again:
London hands me over to Essex Radar shortly after Clacton.
I am required to check in with my Aircraft Type and the ATIS code.
This I do and I get either 'Direct Abbot' or Radar Vectors.
Now then, in normal circumstances it all works out well and I get descents and vectors to 3000 ft and sometimes 2000 ft and then I get handed over to 123.8 with the admonition that I should maintain 160 to 4D.
Now, in fairness, I don't remember being told to maintain 160 to 4D in LVP but I can certainly remember getting late handovers to Tower.
On the other hand, the same organisation has put me at 6000 feet thinking I was landing on 05 when they had changed to 23 without telling me.
What I am trying to say is that I do not trust anyone including myself!
Now let us look at a CAT2 approach and landing, for example.
Under the Old Queen we could not even start a CAT2 approach until we had the touchdown RVR (usually 300 metres). Therefore, we had to go round the LOREL hold until ATC came up with a touch down RVR of 300 metres.
Life changed under JARS. Suddenly it was perfectly legal to start an approach with less than touch down PROVIDED that when you got to the IAF (or decision point if you like) that the RVR was now 300 metres. For G-registered aircraft (which Ryanair are absolutely NOT) the British CAA said that should the RVR go below minimums after 1000 feet AGL then you could continue the approach and land.
Now I have been flying for a European airline for many years and we didn't use the 1000 foot rule but used the IAF instead.
I could name at least two major European very major airfields that would give vectors to quite a late stage and by the time you were transferred to Tower and given the RVRs you were already past the decision point. This was probably not strictly kosher but at least you could have a look.
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.
I am well aware of what you are SUPPOSED to do at STN when LVPs are in force. However, as I pointed out in my last posting what actually happens is not always along strict guidelines.
My last post was not perhaps written exactly as intended in that several commas were perhaps missing and it was open to interpretation.
Let me start again:
London hands me over to Essex Radar shortly after Clacton.
I am required to check in with my Aircraft Type and the ATIS code.
This I do and I get either 'Direct Abbot' or Radar Vectors.
Now then, in normal circumstances it all works out well and I get descents and vectors to 3000 ft and sometimes 2000 ft and then I get handed over to 123.8 with the admonition that I should maintain 160 to 4D.
Now, in fairness, I don't remember being told to maintain 160 to 4D in LVP but I can certainly remember getting late handovers to Tower.
On the other hand, the same organisation has put me at 6000 feet thinking I was landing on 05 when they had changed to 23 without telling me.
What I am trying to say is that I do not trust anyone including myself!
Now let us look at a CAT2 approach and landing, for example.
Under the Old Queen we could not even start a CAT2 approach until we had the touchdown RVR (usually 300 metres). Therefore, we had to go round the LOREL hold until ATC came up with a touch down RVR of 300 metres.
Life changed under JARS. Suddenly it was perfectly legal to start an approach with less than touch down PROVIDED that when you got to the IAF (or decision point if you like) that the RVR was now 300 metres. For G-registered aircraft (which Ryanair are absolutely NOT) the British CAA said that should the RVR go below minimums after 1000 feet AGL then you could continue the approach and land.
Now I have been flying for a European airline for many years and we didn't use the 1000 foot rule but used the IAF instead.
I could name at least two major European very major airfields that would give vectors to quite a late stage and by the time you were transferred to Tower and given the RVRs you were already past the decision point. This was probably not strictly kosher but at least you could have a look.
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.
Hial Flyer:
I am well aware of what you are SUPPOSED to do at STN when LVPs are in force. However, as I pointed out in my last posting what actually happens is not always along strict guidelines.
My last post was not perhaps written exactly as intended in that several commas were perhaps missing and it was open to interpretation.
Let me start again:
London hands me over to Essex Radar shortly after Clacton.
I am required to check in with my Aircraft Type and the ATIS code.
This I do and I get either 'Direct Abbot' or Radar Vectors.
Now then, in normal circumstances it all works out well and I get descents and vectors to 3000 ft and sometimes 2000 ft and then I get handed over to 123.8 with the admonition that I should maintain 160 to 4D.
Now, in fairness, I don't remember being told to maintain 160 to 4D in LVP but I can certainly remember getting late handovers to Tower.
On the other hand, the same organisation has put me at 6000 feet thinking I was landing on 05 when they had changed to 23 without telling me.
What I am trying to say is that I do not trust anyone including myself!
Now let us look at a CAT2 approach and landing, for example.
Under the Old Queen we could not even start a CAT2 approach until we had the touchdown RVR (usually 300 metres). Therefore, we had to go round the LOREL hold until ATC came up with a touch down RVR of 300 metres.
Life changed under JARS. Suddenly it was perfectly legal to start an approach with less than touch down PROVIDED that when you got to the IAF (or decision point if you like) that the RVR was now 300 metres. For G-registered aircraft (which Ryanair are absolutely NOT) the British CAA said that should the RVR go below minimums after 1000 feet AGL then you could continue the approach and land.
Now I have been flying for a European airline for many years and we didn't use the 1000 foot rule but used the IAF instead.
I could name at least two major European very major airfields that would give vectors to quite a late stage and by the time you were transferred to Tower and given the RVRs you were already past the decision point. This was probably not strictly kosher but at least you could have a look.
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.
I am well aware of what you are SUPPOSED to do at STN when LVPs are in force. However, as I pointed out in my last posting what actually happens is not always along strict guidelines.
My last post was not perhaps written exactly as intended in that several commas were perhaps missing and it was open to interpretation.
Let me start again:
London hands me over to Essex Radar shortly after Clacton.
I am required to check in with my Aircraft Type and the ATIS code.
This I do and I get either 'Direct Abbot' or Radar Vectors.
Now then, in normal circumstances it all works out well and I get descents and vectors to 3000 ft and sometimes 2000 ft and then I get handed over to 123.8 with the admonition that I should maintain 160 to 4D.
Now, in fairness, I don't remember being told to maintain 160 to 4D in LVP but I can certainly remember getting late handovers to Tower.
On the other hand, the same organisation has put me at 6000 feet thinking I was landing on 05 when they had changed to 23 without telling me.
What I am trying to say is that I do not trust anyone including myself!
Now let us look at a CAT2 approach and landing, for example.
Under the Old Queen we could not even start a CAT2 approach until we had the touchdown RVR (usually 300 metres). Therefore, we had to go round the LOREL hold until ATC came up with a touch down RVR of 300 metres.
Life changed under JARS. Suddenly it was perfectly legal to start an approach with less than touch down PROVIDED that when you got to the IAF (or decision point if you like) that the RVR was now 300 metres. For G-registered aircraft (which Ryanair are absolutely NOT) the British CAA said that should the RVR go below minimums after 1000 feet AGL then you could continue the approach and land.
Now I have been flying for a European airline for many years and we didn't use the 1000 foot rule but used the IAF instead.
I could name at least two major European very major airfields that would give vectors to quite a late stage and by the time you were transferred to Tower and given the RVRs you were already past the decision point. This was probably not strictly kosher but at least you could have a look.
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are all gone a little technical here and have gone off the original story.
Which is..........
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006
Which is..........
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are all gone a little technical here and have gone off the original story.
Which is..........
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006
Which is..........
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think PIREPS are not allowed due to possibility of misleading information. In the past I have seen the runway from a few miles off, but getting closer entered a fog bank and it disappears.
Some people above are suggesting that recognition of a fact and learning of a fact are different things - yes that is true, but good training will help you recognise what you know to be the facts.
Also people are saying that STN is really busy and so things may have been missed and that humans make mistakes. Well these things are true - we do make mistakes and STN is busy. However, STN is no so busy that you forget to do your job (I fly into or out of somewhere busier every day). And we are not talking about one or two mistakes being made - we are talking about a large number of aircraft landing below limits, so therefore a large number of mistakes. If indeed a lot of aircraft did land below limits, then it proves that Ryanairs training/awareness/culture leads people into making these mistakes and so therefore needs changing. QED.
If the reported facts are wrong and aircraft didn't land below limits, then that is a different matter.
Some people above are suggesting that recognition of a fact and learning of a fact are different things - yes that is true, but good training will help you recognise what you know to be the facts.
Also people are saying that STN is really busy and so things may have been missed and that humans make mistakes. Well these things are true - we do make mistakes and STN is busy. However, STN is no so busy that you forget to do your job (I fly into or out of somewhere busier every day). And we are not talking about one or two mistakes being made - we are talking about a large number of aircraft landing below limits, so therefore a large number of mistakes. If indeed a lot of aircraft did land below limits, then it proves that Ryanairs training/awareness/culture leads people into making these mistakes and so therefore needs changing. QED.
If the reported facts are wrong and aircraft didn't land below limits, then that is a different matter.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think PIREPS are not allowed due to possibility of misleading information. In the past I have seen the runway from a few miles off, but getting closer entered a fog bank and it disappears.
Some people above are suggesting that recognition of a fact and learning of a fact are different things - yes that is true, but good training will help you recognise what you know to be the facts.
Also people are saying that STN is really busy and so things may have been missed and that humans make mistakes. Well these things are true - we do make mistakes and STN is busy. However, STN is no so busy that you forget to do your job (I fly into or out of somewhere busier every day). And we are not talking about one or two mistakes being made - we are talking about a large number of aircraft landing below limits, so therefore a large number of mistakes. If indeed a lot of aircraft did land below limits, then it proves that Ryanairs training/awareness/culture leads people into making these mistakes and so therefore needs changing. QED.
If the reported facts are wrong and aircraft didn't land below limits, then that is a different matter.
Some people above are suggesting that recognition of a fact and learning of a fact are different things - yes that is true, but good training will help you recognise what you know to be the facts.
Also people are saying that STN is really busy and so things may have been missed and that humans make mistakes. Well these things are true - we do make mistakes and STN is busy. However, STN is no so busy that you forget to do your job (I fly into or out of somewhere busier every day). And we are not talking about one or two mistakes being made - we are talking about a large number of aircraft landing below limits, so therefore a large number of mistakes. If indeed a lot of aircraft did land below limits, then it proves that Ryanairs training/awareness/culture leads people into making these mistakes and so therefore needs changing. QED.
If the reported facts are wrong and aircraft didn't land below limits, then that is a different matter.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wherever they send me
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wherever they send me
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Cheers
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JW411
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.
Besides, the outage of lights are published in a NOTAM. It should ring a bell when it says Centreline lights not available. But from what i've heard is that Ryanair is not the best in sorting out which NOTAM's are current and which ones aren't. So I understand it that you guys have difficulties getting the correct ones.
C
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JW411
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.
Besides, the outage of lights are published in a NOTAM. It should ring a bell when it says Centreline lights not available. But from what i've heard is that Ryanair is not the best in sorting out which NOTAM's are current and which ones aren't. So I understand it that you guys have difficulties getting the correct ones.
C
CloggyUK:
I thank you very much for kind invitation but there would be no point in me visiting you.
Firstly I have already visited your splendid empire and secondly I am now retired.
I thank you very much for kind invitation but there would be no point in me visiting you.
Firstly I have already visited your splendid empire and secondly I am now retired.
CloggyUK:
I thank you very much for kind invitation but there would be no point in me visiting you.
Firstly I have already visited your splendid empire and secondly I am now retired.
I thank you very much for kind invitation but there would be no point in me visiting you.
Firstly I have already visited your splendid empire and secondly I am now retired.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying that night and we diverted to LGW (at 2205 RVRs were 375m). I understand that all Cpts arriving at STN that evening have been phoned by FR management and asked to confirm the weather conditions when they landed.
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning."
I'll remember that statement next time I think of booking with FR.
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning."
I'll remember that statement next time I think of booking with FR.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying that night and we diverted to LGW (at 2205 RVRs were 375m). I understand that all Cpts arriving at STN that evening have been phoned by FR management and asked to confirm the weather conditions when they landed.
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning."
I'll remember that statement next time I think of booking with FR.
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning."
I'll remember that statement next time I think of booking with FR.