LVP'S and Approach Bans
Guest
Posts: n/a
LVP'S and Approach Bans
Are RVR readings relevant to a Cat 1 approach to an airfield without LVP procedures in force or is it airfield visibillity?
Is the approach ban applicable to a Cat 1 approach in this case?
Is it legal for the approach to be conitnued down to minimums on a cat 1 even if you have been given a vis less than that required prior to passing the IAF?
What are the penalties for ignoring the approach ban and continuing to DH?
Is the approach ban applicable to a Cat 1 approach in this case?
Is it legal for the approach to be conitnued down to minimums on a cat 1 even if you have been given a vis less than that required prior to passing the IAF?
What are the penalties for ignoring the approach ban and continuing to DH?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe the new JAR-OPS rules have changed the "can't begin an approach with viz less than required" rule.
I believe now that you can start an approach with ANY viz, no matter how poor. I think you can continue to outer marker or minima, but I'm not sure. Hmm. I should really know this one. But then again, so should all of you!
I believe now that you can start an approach with ANY viz, no matter how poor. I think you can continue to outer marker or minima, but I'm not sure. Hmm. I should really know this one. But then again, so should all of you!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think this varies from company to company.
Some can't start an approach when RVR is less than that required to land.
Others I have come across have started an approach in vis. below minima, commenced final descent to no lower than 1000 feet and if RVR is still below minima, gone around. If, however, at 1000 feet they have visual reference they have gone on and landed regardless of RVR (ie shallow or patchy fog) or obviously if RVR is above minima landed also.
Often on days when RVR is fluctuating it can be a lottery as to whether you get in. If you're lucky enough to be on final approach just after a heavy departure has swirled the fog up, that usually gets the RVR up a bit!
If you have to hold until RVR is at or above minima then you've probably got less chance of getting in than if you can fly an approach and hope it improves in time. This assumes that you are not taking the space in a sequence of an aircraft that can land in the prevailing conditions. If so, you will have to wait for either a natural gap in traffic or a weather improvement.
We ATCOs can't police the system. If you say you can commence an approach below minima and hope for an improvement, then fine. But we do need to know your minima for overall planning needs.
There is a reference to the 1000 foot bit in the AIP somewhere, but I don't know the page.
(correcting typos)
[This message has been edited by cossack (edited 06 October 2000).]
Some can't start an approach when RVR is less than that required to land.
Others I have come across have started an approach in vis. below minima, commenced final descent to no lower than 1000 feet and if RVR is still below minima, gone around. If, however, at 1000 feet they have visual reference they have gone on and landed regardless of RVR (ie shallow or patchy fog) or obviously if RVR is above minima landed also.
Often on days when RVR is fluctuating it can be a lottery as to whether you get in. If you're lucky enough to be on final approach just after a heavy departure has swirled the fog up, that usually gets the RVR up a bit!
If you have to hold until RVR is at or above minima then you've probably got less chance of getting in than if you can fly an approach and hope it improves in time. This assumes that you are not taking the space in a sequence of an aircraft that can land in the prevailing conditions. If so, you will have to wait for either a natural gap in traffic or a weather improvement.
We ATCOs can't police the system. If you say you can commence an approach below minima and hope for an improvement, then fine. But we do need to know your minima for overall planning needs.
There is a reference to the 1000 foot bit in the AIP somewhere, but I don't know the page.
(correcting typos)
[This message has been edited by cossack (edited 06 October 2000).]
Different countries have different rules.
The reason for the approach ban in some countries is that the missed approach protected airspace is based upon the missed approach being a statistically rare event. In Australia the missed approach only provides 100' obstacle clearance.
Should approaches be permitted when the vis or cloud base is below the minima, then the missed approach could no longer be regarded as a statistically rare event, and the minima would therefore have to be raised significantly.
The reason for the approach ban in some countries is that the missed approach protected airspace is based upon the missed approach being a statistically rare event. In Australia the missed approach only provides 100' obstacle clearance.
Should approaches be permitted when the vis or cloud base is below the minima, then the missed approach could no longer be regarded as a statistically rare event, and the minima would therefore have to be raised significantly.
