Shallow Fog - Approach Ban
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't help thinking that the Absolute Minima thing is a red herring and simply confusing the issue. Absolute minima are an ATC thing and have no bearing on how
a pilot operates an aircraft. The absolute minimum is supposed to be the lowest minimum that any pilot can ever calculate, therefore it may be lower than the minimum in a particular Ops Manual or AIP plate. The idea is that if a pilot has calculated a minimum below the absolute minimum then he or she has made a mistake and ATC pass the message as a prompt to encourage the pilot to check that the minimum has been correctly calculated. The absolute minima procedure/message is not followed if Cat II/III approaches are available - usually indicated by LVPs being declared in force.
As to the original question, to me as a simple controller, it's all very straightforward. If the visibility at the time the approach is being made is at or above the minimum set out in the pilot's Ops Manual for a Cat I approach then the approach can be made. It really doesn't matter what's going on on the ground - LVPs or whatever. OK, I know there are some variables like whether the flight is operating to JAR-OPS and there's now this thing about the OM or equivalent position but as a controller I don't worry about them. Then there's some legislation about the approach ban that applies to all aircraft in the UK and UK registered aircraft wherever they are just to make the situation even more complex.
All this is only valid for the UK of course. And I don't think any other country has introduced anything as daft as the absolute minima procedure for ATC!
a pilot operates an aircraft. The absolute minimum is supposed to be the lowest minimum that any pilot can ever calculate, therefore it may be lower than the minimum in a particular Ops Manual or AIP plate. The idea is that if a pilot has calculated a minimum below the absolute minimum then he or she has made a mistake and ATC pass the message as a prompt to encourage the pilot to check that the minimum has been correctly calculated. The absolute minima procedure/message is not followed if Cat II/III approaches are available - usually indicated by LVPs being declared in force.
As to the original question, to me as a simple controller, it's all very straightforward. If the visibility at the time the approach is being made is at or above the minimum set out in the pilot's Ops Manual for a Cat I approach then the approach can be made. It really doesn't matter what's going on on the ground - LVPs or whatever. OK, I know there are some variables like whether the flight is operating to JAR-OPS and there's now this thing about the OM or equivalent position but as a controller I don't worry about them. Then there's some legislation about the approach ban that applies to all aircraft in the UK and UK registered aircraft wherever they are just to make the situation even more complex.
All this is only valid for the UK of course. And I don't think any other country has introduced anything as daft as the absolute minima procedure for ATC!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Max Angle, but if I remember correctly there are two countries in Europe where you cannot continue (even if you are) below 1000 AGL if reported RVR falls below minima. UK and Germany.
Or it used to be, maybe things have changed?
Or it used to be, maybe things have changed?
I'm familiar with the "Outer Marker or equivalent position" wording, but there are now so few Markers and no clarity about what an "equivalent position" is. Furthermore, the "Approach Ban" AIC only refers to "1000' aal".
As a result we now use 1000' aal and ignore all reference to Markers and "equivalent positions".
Any comments on that?
As a result we now use 1000' aal and ignore all reference to Markers and "equivalent positions".
Any comments on that?
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keithl,
Well, normally, the marker is used for GS check or as FAF - so the "equivalent position" would be your DME range used for that purpose.
The advantage of using that position (operationally speaking) - is that it's a position already in use - if you've done your GS check, you continue, if GS check not performed yet, you discontinue the approach. So simple even uncle Empty can do it
If you choose to operate using 1000 ft. AAL - you have to figure outr a new altitude on the altimeter - altough I don't know if some operators performed their "stabilised approach´-cut-off at 1000 ft. AAL - most use either 1000 ft. RadAlt or baro minima +1000 ft. (to keep it simple). If your operator uses 1000 AAL for that purpose, well, might as well use that...
But - you delay your cut-off point (at most airports), thereby increasing the chance that you'll have to discontinue the approach i.s.o. going down to DA/H to take a look
- especially relevant in the circumstances described above.
To remain on thread - if you are carrying out an approach (JAR-OPS 1 operators, that is) and the RVR drops below approach minima (visual or otherwise) - your ops manual will prohibit you from continuing the approach. ATC (and through them, possibly, the CAA) will only be a circumstantial factor.
I think the reason why people focus on the ATC bit is that it seems much more powerfull when somebody speaks the words "You can't do that!" as opposed to knowing that the same words are written by your DFO in a book somewhere in the ships library
My 2 eurocents worth - brgds fm
Empty
Well, normally, the marker is used for GS check or as FAF - so the "equivalent position" would be your DME range used for that purpose.
The advantage of using that position (operationally speaking) - is that it's a position already in use - if you've done your GS check, you continue, if GS check not performed yet, you discontinue the approach. So simple even uncle Empty can do it
If you choose to operate using 1000 ft. AAL - you have to figure outr a new altitude on the altimeter - altough I don't know if some operators performed their "stabilised approach´-cut-off at 1000 ft. AAL - most use either 1000 ft. RadAlt or baro minima +1000 ft. (to keep it simple). If your operator uses 1000 AAL for that purpose, well, might as well use that...
But - you delay your cut-off point (at most airports), thereby increasing the chance that you'll have to discontinue the approach i.s.o. going down to DA/H to take a look
- especially relevant in the circumstances described above.To remain on thread - if you are carrying out an approach (JAR-OPS 1 operators, that is) and the RVR drops below approach minima (visual or otherwise) - your ops manual will prohibit you from continuing the approach. ATC (and through them, possibly, the CAA) will only be a circumstantial factor.
I think the reason why people focus on the ATC bit is that it seems much more powerfull when somebody speaks the words "You can't do that!" as opposed to knowing that the same words are written by your DFO in a book somewhere in the ships library
My 2 eurocents worth - brgds fm
Empty
Guys
At the risk of sounding a bit like "it's God here" can we be a bit less authoritative about what "we" do in the UK - I suspect some of what "we" do is governed by Company Ops manuals.
FWIW, in the UK, for precision approaches my operator uses 1000' agl as the control height ( no mention of 4 miles/ markers), and RVR deterioration or improvements after passing that point must be ignored.......( so if it drops below minima you do not have to go around.
Standing by to be flamed.........
At the risk of sounding a bit like "it's God here" can we be a bit less authoritative about what "we" do in the UK - I suspect some of what "we" do is governed by Company Ops manuals.
FWIW, in the UK, for precision approaches my operator uses 1000' agl as the control height ( no mention of 4 miles/ markers), and RVR deterioration or improvements after passing that point must be ignored.......( so if it drops below minima you do not have to go around.
Standing by to be flamed.........
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director,
To pick up on one of your earlier points, all landings below Cat 1 minima are reported to the CAA, who then wade through them checking against the list of approved Cat II/III operators.
A friend of mine had an interesting time a few years back when the CAA reported him to the FAA for landing below minima, because they didn't check which runway at LHR he had landed on. The "in use" runway was below 550m, but the departure runway was above and ATC were quite happy for him to approach and land on that. Sadly all that the CAA picked up on was that the landing runway was below minima. Wonderful people
To pick up on one of your earlier points, all landings below Cat 1 minima are reported to the CAA, who then wade through them checking against the list of approved Cat II/III operators.
A friend of mine had an interesting time a few years back when the CAA reported him to the FAA for landing below minima, because they didn't check which runway at LHR he had landed on. The "in use" runway was below 550m, but the departure runway was above and ATC were quite happy for him to approach and land on that. Sadly all that the CAA picked up on was that the landing runway was below minima. Wonderful people
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<To pick up on one of your earlier points, all landings below Cat 1 minima are reported to the CAA,>>
OK BizJetJock, perhaps you can tell me how it's done. Having worked as a Heathrow controller most of my life I have to say that I was not aware such action was taken. Just the number of Cat II and Cat III landings which take place at Heathrow and other large airports during bad weather suggests that the paperwork involved would be mountainous.
With the usual proviso that things might have changed since I retired, I am not aware of any ATC involvement in such arrangements - we would have been too busy! At this time of the year Heathrow is below Cat 1 quite frequently and hundreds upon hundreds of flights operate below Cat 1.
OK BizJetJock, perhaps you can tell me how it's done. Having worked as a Heathrow controller most of my life I have to say that I was not aware such action was taken. Just the number of Cat II and Cat III landings which take place at Heathrow and other large airports during bad weather suggests that the paperwork involved would be mountainous.
With the usual proviso that things might have changed since I retired, I am not aware of any ATC involvement in such arrangements - we would have been too busy! At this time of the year Heathrow is below Cat 1 quite frequently and hundreds upon hundreds of flights operate below Cat 1.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Heathrow Director,
Whilst not having any direct knowledge of the system, I would guess that since there is a record of all landings (for BAA to charge their ever so tiny fees!) and presumably a log of the RVR's then it is relatively easy for BAA to have a clerk or a computer correlate these and send them off. This would not require any action by the controllers, and would also explain how my friend came to be pulled up because a clerk/computer assumed that all landings took place on the "landing" runway
Whilst not having any direct knowledge of the system, I would guess that since there is a record of all landings (for BAA to charge their ever so tiny fees!) and presumably a log of the RVR's then it is relatively easy for BAA to have a clerk or a computer correlate these and send them off. This would not require any action by the controllers, and would also explain how my friend came to be pulled up because a clerk/computer assumed that all landings took place on the "landing" runway
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up north
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original post, the question of patchy shallow fog should be considered on a practical basis.
I`ve landed at LGW on 26R with reported RVRs below minima for CAT 1 ILS to 26L. On landing the fog was very low and very patchy, had 26L been in use LVP`s would have been in force.
Why ban approaches in such a scenario just because the auto RVR meter indicates a low value! why can`t the tower controller be given some discretion.
In the USA the rules are even tighter, you may continue passed the marker but if at decision height the RVR is below limits you must go around what`s happened to common sense here?
Fog is often patchy and the best person to decide if a landing can be safely achieved is the Captain at decision height.
( Airbus may beg to differ)
I`ve landed at LGW on 26R with reported RVRs below minima for CAT 1 ILS to 26L. On landing the fog was very low and very patchy, had 26L been in use LVP`s would have been in force.
Why ban approaches in such a scenario just because the auto RVR meter indicates a low value! why can`t the tower controller be given some discretion.
In the USA the rules are even tighter, you may continue passed the marker but if at decision height the RVR is below limits you must go around what`s happened to common sense here?
Fog is often patchy and the best person to decide if a landing can be safely achieved is the Captain at decision height.
( Airbus may beg to differ)
Guest
Posts: n/a
To pick up on one of your earlier points, all landings below Cat 1 minima are reported to the CAA
But it hasn't been done for several years to my knowledge.
[Edit below]
And another thing, MANTHRUST, the reason that the rigid rules are in place in some parts of the world today is because when pilots were allowed to make the judgement they go it wrong more often than the authorities - and the passengers - could tolerate.
Last edited by Spitoon; 30th Nov 2005 at 17:41.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<LHR ATC may not have had any active involvement beyond recording the RVR (which they would probably do anyway). >>
Yet again I have to hope that somebody in current practice can help, but during my time at Heathrow ATC certainly did not record the IRVR and I'm sure it wasn't automaticallly recorded. Heck, it would change by the second, let alone the minute!
Yet again I have to hope that somebody in current practice can help, but during my time at Heathrow ATC certainly did not record the IRVR and I'm sure it wasn't automaticallly recorded. Heck, it would change by the second, let alone the minute!
It's always been my understanding that IRVR readings are automatically recorded. It was once explained to me, many moons ago, that this is a CAA requirement, and that the data had to be available for cross-checking by their 'AWOPS Department', should they so desire.
Yes, the AGIVIS 2000 website confirms this:-
"The information is also entered onto a magnetic cartridge recorder and page printer for archiving and legal record purposes."
I'm pretty sure that the AGI IRVR system records data that it measures
"The information is also entered onto a magnetic cartridge recorder and page printer for archiving and legal record purposes."
MANTHRUST, “Why ban approaches in such a scenario just because the auto RVR meter indicates a low value!”
”Fog is often patchy and the best person to decide if a landing can be safely achieved is the Captain at decision height."
The reasons against change are because the scenarios are unpredictable, often with misleading visual cues. Furthermore human judgement is often flawed or the perceptual system confused. The RVR system was developed to overcome disparities in visibility measurement; I flew on many of the flight trials in various fog conditions. By far the most challenging were the periods of fog formation or dispersal, most often associated with Cat 1 becoming Cat 2, or Cat 3 improving to Cat 2.
When ‘shallow’ fog forms there are successive periods of layering and subduction; each layer associated with different visual ranges, vertical extent, water content, etc. The conventional view of shallow fog is a single layer, thus over flying at height you can see down through it to the runway, but during an approach the visibility reduces as the aircraft enters the layer. This effect alone has cause many accidents.
In reality a shallow fog layer may have many layers and the visual effects are similar to entering and exiting many stratus layers, which alternately reduce and brighten the approach lights and have similar effect on the slant visual range. Thus, the far point of visibility can oscillate towards or away from you; it is very disconcerting.
When fog begins to clear, often from a stable homogeneous deep layer (that is why Cat 3 conditions are more predictable), the clearance pattern is similar to the formation of small cumulus clouds. Even where the sun burns through the fog some areas remain thick and dense with greatly reduced visibilities. Flying through these ‘cumulus’ causes rapid changes in visual range, approach light intensity, and ambient light level.
Don’t mess with the unstable periods of fog formation or dispersal. Cat 2 (RVR) is one operation where you can make a valid decision to land and then find that you are wrong before you get to the threshold.
--------------------
Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.
”Fog is often patchy and the best person to decide if a landing can be safely achieved is the Captain at decision height."
The reasons against change are because the scenarios are unpredictable, often with misleading visual cues. Furthermore human judgement is often flawed or the perceptual system confused. The RVR system was developed to overcome disparities in visibility measurement; I flew on many of the flight trials in various fog conditions. By far the most challenging were the periods of fog formation or dispersal, most often associated with Cat 1 becoming Cat 2, or Cat 3 improving to Cat 2.
When ‘shallow’ fog forms there are successive periods of layering and subduction; each layer associated with different visual ranges, vertical extent, water content, etc. The conventional view of shallow fog is a single layer, thus over flying at height you can see down through it to the runway, but during an approach the visibility reduces as the aircraft enters the layer. This effect alone has cause many accidents.
In reality a shallow fog layer may have many layers and the visual effects are similar to entering and exiting many stratus layers, which alternately reduce and brighten the approach lights and have similar effect on the slant visual range. Thus, the far point of visibility can oscillate towards or away from you; it is very disconcerting.
When fog begins to clear, often from a stable homogeneous deep layer (that is why Cat 3 conditions are more predictable), the clearance pattern is similar to the formation of small cumulus clouds. Even where the sun burns through the fog some areas remain thick and dense with greatly reduced visibilities. Flying through these ‘cumulus’ causes rapid changes in visual range, approach light intensity, and ambient light level.
Don’t mess with the unstable periods of fog formation or dispersal. Cat 2 (RVR) is one operation where you can make a valid decision to land and then find that you are wrong before you get to the threshold.
--------------------
Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson Bay
If a particular runway is designated CAT 1 and lets say the RVR is calculated at 550 metres (as published in the AIP which is the same as what is published in the Aerad plates) this RVR is known as "absolute minima" If the RVR is below 550 and an aircraft now commences an approach, after an initial warning ATC will pass the following message
" (Callsign) If you continue the approach and descend below 1000ft above aerodrome level, It is believed that you will be contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge".
No landing clearance will be given, only advice on traffic and wx conditions.
This absolute minima applies to any approach whether it be visual or instrument.
To conclude, if you pass 1000ft and the RVR reported is below the absolute minima for that runway you will be reported for breaking the law.
Would this approach ban speech be given if the RVR dropped below minima once established on the approach but before the 1000ft AGL check?
After passing 1000ft AGL if the RVR dropped below minima and the pilot continued to DA/MDA made visual contact. Would you still refuse the clearance to land and if so what RT phraseology would be used to indicate that it is safe to land?
My understanding was we could continue to land after passing 1000ft AGL assuming adequate visual reference is maintained at DA/MDA?
Thank You,
Johnny
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Wiggy,
>>FWIW, in the UK, for precision approaches my operator uses 1000' agl as the control height ( no mention of 4 miles/ markers), and RVR deterioration or improvements after passing that point must be ignored.......( so if it drops below minima you do not have to go around.<<
My operators Ops Manual only refers to RVR deteriororations at/after the relevant point (usually 1000' AGL) It doesn't really make sense (practically or commercially) to ignore improvements after that point.
Cheers,
THICKO
>>FWIW, in the UK, for precision approaches my operator uses 1000' agl as the control height ( no mention of 4 miles/ markers), and RVR deterioration or improvements after passing that point must be ignored.......( so if it drops below minima you do not have to go around.<<
My operators Ops Manual only refers to RVR deteriororations at/after the relevant point (usually 1000' AGL) It doesn't really make sense (practically or commercially) to ignore improvements after that point.
Cheers,
THICKO
Hi Thicko
I take your point , but as far as "my" ops manual is concerned RVRs passed below 1000' are ignored, and since that's what the boss says......( I guess it's to prevent "a can we, can't we?" conversation at not a lot of feet if you get a subsequent equipment malfunction)
Rgds
I take your point , but as far as "my" ops manual is concerned RVRs passed below 1000' are ignored, and since that's what the boss says......( I guess it's to prevent "a can we, can't we?" conversation at not a lot of feet if you get a subsequent equipment malfunction)
Rgds
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought... all this talk about the 1,000 ft "point"... I presume that this has all come in during the last 2-3 years? I worked at Heathrow thousands of times in LVPs and I've seen hundreds of aircraft carrry out missed approaches from below 1,000 ft (and well inside 4 miles) when the RVR has dropped below their minima. Just recently I was told about the pilot of a large private jet asking ATC if he could "have a go" even though the RVR was below his minima. The controller, having already obtained the pilots' minima, emphatically responded with the RVR reading. The response was "roger" and the aircraft continued holding...
Surely, the various rules regarding starting or continuing approaches in poor visibility are framed with safety in mind? It would be a great shame if, under commercial presure, things went back to the "old days" when people were regularly "having a go".. and occasionally ending up strewn down the runway. If the final decision is left to the captain and not based on the RVR system there must always be the temptation to descend that little bit further...........
Surely, the various rules regarding starting or continuing approaches in poor visibility are framed with safety in mind? It would be a great shame if, under commercial presure, things went back to the "old days" when people were regularly "having a go".. and occasionally ending up strewn down the runway. If the final decision is left to the captain and not based on the RVR system there must always be the temptation to descend that little bit further...........