Shallow Fog - Approach Ban
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what we are debating any more!
I think it is very clear what the regulations are.
If an aircraft continues past the 1000 ft point when the RVR is below the absolute minima for that runway he WILL be reported and action will be taken for a breach of law. It does not matter how capable your aircraft is, whether it be Cat 1, Cat 2, Cat 3.........
If the RVR falls below the required amount after the aircraft passes the 1000ft point a clearance to land will still be issued.
No clearance will be issued if the RVR is below the absolute minima when the aircraft is before the 1000ft point.
As for the wording of the controller if an aircraft continues, only traffic information and wind direction and speed will be passed.
I think it is very clear what the regulations are.
If an aircraft continues past the 1000 ft point when the RVR is below the absolute minima for that runway he WILL be reported and action will be taken for a breach of law. It does not matter how capable your aircraft is, whether it be Cat 1, Cat 2, Cat 3.........
If the RVR falls below the required amount after the aircraft passes the 1000ft point a clearance to land will still be issued.
No clearance will be issued if the RVR is below the absolute minima when the aircraft is before the 1000ft point.
As for the wording of the controller if an aircraft continues, only traffic information and wind direction and speed will be passed.
If an aircraft continues past the 1000 ft point when the RVR is below the absolute minima for that runway he WILL be reported and action will be taken for a breach of law. It does not matter how capable your aircraft is, whether it be Cat 1, Cat 2, Cat 3.........
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Hudson Bay,
That concurs with my understanding.
With the ANO only in consideration the rules are very clear. Once you take JAR OPS into consideration, opens up grey areas.
Cheers
That concurs with my understanding.
With the ANO only in consideration the rules are very clear. Once you take JAR OPS into consideration, opens up grey areas.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spekesoftly.
I don't think you understand.
Absolute minima has nothing to do with Cat 1, Cat 2 etc. Absolute minima is connected to the landing runway. Each runway in the UK has an absolute minima. As controllers you should know what that minima is for your landing runway. If an aircraft passes the 1000 ft point when the RVR is below the absolute minima it is your duty to report this to the CAA.
eg. The absolute minima for 06R at MAN is 550 metres. If an aircraft passes the 1000 ft point when the RVR is 500 metres, he WILL be reported. Simple and clear. No landing clearance will be issued, only the advice mentioned above.
I don't think you understand.
Absolute minima has nothing to do with Cat 1, Cat 2 etc. Absolute minima is connected to the landing runway. Each runway in the UK has an absolute minima. As controllers you should know what that minima is for your landing runway. If an aircraft passes the 1000 ft point when the RVR is below the absolute minima it is your duty to report this to the CAA.
eg. The absolute minima for 06R at MAN is 550 metres. If an aircraft passes the 1000 ft point when the RVR is 500 metres, he WILL be reported. Simple and clear. No landing clearance will be issued, only the advice mentioned above.
Absolute minima has nothing to do with Cat 1, Cat 2 etc. Absolute minima is connected to the landing runway. Each runway in the UK has an absolute minima. As controllers you should know what that minima is for your landing runway. If an aircraft passes the 1000 ft point when the RVR is below the absolute minima it is your duty to report this to the CAA.
There is no requirement to calculate Absolute Minima for Category II/III approaches, nor to pass a warning to pilots conducting such approaches, for which specific procedures for use by the flight crew will have been approved.
Hudson Bay,
I don't think you understand.
A runway may have a number of different Absolute Minima RVR values, for different approaches - Cat1 ILS, NDB, SRA etc. (In the case you mention, the Absolute Minima RVR value for a Visual Approach to RW 06R at MAN is 800 metres, for example. Should a pilot attempt a visual approach when the RVR is less than 800m, then ATC are required to WARN, using precisely worded phraseology, and if ignored, to subsequently REPORT the facts.
However, the 'ATC Absolute Minima Procedure' does not apply to CAT II/III Approaches, as bookworm's quote from a CAA document clearly states.
Please have another look at the LINK I posted earlier.
I don't think you understand.
A runway may have a number of different Absolute Minima RVR values, for different approaches - Cat1 ILS, NDB, SRA etc. (In the case you mention, the Absolute Minima RVR value for a Visual Approach to RW 06R at MAN is 800 metres, for example. Should a pilot attempt a visual approach when the RVR is less than 800m, then ATC are required to WARN, using precisely worded phraseology, and if ignored, to subsequently REPORT the facts.
However, the 'ATC Absolute Minima Procedure' does not apply to CAT II/III Approaches, as bookworm's quote from a CAA document clearly states.
Please have another look at the LINK I posted earlier.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Spekesoftly you are incorrect. I think you may have to read a little more.
AIC 7/25 (Pink 79)
"Each ATC unit has calculated the minimum RVR values, for EACH TYPE OF INSTRUMENT APPROACH available at that airfield, below which pilots should not continue an instrument approach below 1000ft above aerodrome level"
No exemptions except those granted by the CAA to airlines that do not have to comply with the 1000ft barrier.
Does anybody know which airlines do not have to comply with this 1000ft barrier?
AIC 7/25 (Pink 79)
"Each ATC unit has calculated the minimum RVR values, for EACH TYPE OF INSTRUMENT APPROACH available at that airfield, below which pilots should not continue an instrument approach below 1000ft above aerodrome level"
No exemptions except those granted by the CAA to airlines that do not have to comply with the 1000ft barrier.
Does anybody know which airlines do not have to comply with this 1000ft barrier?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bucks. UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H B - The AIC doesn't say "airlines", it says "flights". This presumably means particular flights maybe military, which are perhaps concerned with security, national emergency or whatever and which are granted exemption on a one-off basis. Don't really know.
You really are wrong in your interpretation of Absolute Minima but I don't blame you. The AIC if read in isolation would lead to any reasonable person drawing the conclusion which you have. It really needs to be read in association with the Supplementary Instruction in the MATS Part 1 which details the ATC procedure referred to in the Pink AIC.
Just to quote a bit of it "Operators who are approved to make Cat II or III approaches are required to undergo specific approval for their operations. It has been decided that the passing of minima, as detailed in this SI, will not apply to Cat II or III approaches. However the procedure will be applied when the performance of an ILS is downgraded and it is capable of providing only Cat I guidance or localiser only approaches."
Just re-read the SI and it says that "Military flights, including those operating as General Air Traffic are excluded from this procedure".
You really are wrong in your interpretation of Absolute Minima but I don't blame you. The AIC if read in isolation would lead to any reasonable person drawing the conclusion which you have. It really needs to be read in association with the Supplementary Instruction in the MATS Part 1 which details the ATC procedure referred to in the Pink AIC.
Just to quote a bit of it "Operators who are approved to make Cat II or III approaches are required to undergo specific approval for their operations. It has been decided that the passing of minima, as detailed in this SI, will not apply to Cat II or III approaches. However the procedure will be applied when the performance of an ILS is downgraded and it is capable of providing only Cat I guidance or localiser only approaches."
Just re-read the SI and it says that "Military flights, including those operating as General Air Traffic are excluded from this procedure".
Last edited by brimstone; 10th Dec 2005 at 11:22.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. It says flights not Airlines.
I am not privy to the SI in the MATS so I cannot comment on that. I do have access to my company manuals and AIC's and I know what they state and that is where my information comes from.
I guess in all walks of life their are always different takes on issues such as this.
I am not privy to the SI in the MATS so I cannot comment on that. I do have access to my company manuals and AIC's and I know what they state and that is where my information comes from.
I guess in all walks of life their are always different takes on issues such as this.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Specific example.
We returned to BHX last year, at night. Now the location of their IRVR detectors is awful - just to the right of 15, in a dip, first to catch the fog.
We saw the airfield from 20 miles out, they were giving RVR's below Cat 1, rwy 15 in use, centre line lights out due work in progress.
We are Cat 3 but now can't conduct Cat 3 landing because of no centre line lights.
Decide to continue until the 4 mile point (our approach limit for RVR) then enter the hold if below Cat 1.
It was, we held. Other operators were making autolands, their ops manuals may have been different.
ATC asked us to go up a thousand to let someone take off from 33, our cunning plan was hatched ! 33 was localiser only, 900m RVR from memory was needed, we asked for immediate vectors for 33 as we knew the RVR would improve. It did but was dropping fast as we approached 4 miles, we were above Cat 1 RVR at 4 miles ( never lost sight of the runway throughout), then it dropped below, he asked for our intentions, we said continue.
The controller then came out with a whole long statement about being below state minima and there were no known obstructions to prevent our landing - we landed.
We queried the statement as we taxied in and he said it was for the tape recorder and was to protect the controller in the event of an incident.
To conclude - we landed when the RVR was below the minima for the runway, however we had crossed our 4 mile mark and were entitled to continue to our MDA which we did. We never lost sight of the runway so we were legal - complicated isn't it
We returned to BHX last year, at night. Now the location of their IRVR detectors is awful - just to the right of 15, in a dip, first to catch the fog.
We saw the airfield from 20 miles out, they were giving RVR's below Cat 1, rwy 15 in use, centre line lights out due work in progress.
We are Cat 3 but now can't conduct Cat 3 landing because of no centre line lights.
Decide to continue until the 4 mile point (our approach limit for RVR) then enter the hold if below Cat 1.
It was, we held. Other operators were making autolands, their ops manuals may have been different.
ATC asked us to go up a thousand to let someone take off from 33, our cunning plan was hatched ! 33 was localiser only, 900m RVR from memory was needed, we asked for immediate vectors for 33 as we knew the RVR would improve. It did but was dropping fast as we approached 4 miles, we were above Cat 1 RVR at 4 miles ( never lost sight of the runway throughout), then it dropped below, he asked for our intentions, we said continue.
The controller then came out with a whole long statement about being below state minima and there were no known obstructions to prevent our landing - we landed.
We queried the statement as we taxied in and he said it was for the tape recorder and was to protect the controller in the event of an incident.
To conclude - we landed when the RVR was below the minima for the runway, however we had crossed our 4 mile mark and were entitled to continue to our MDA which we did. We never lost sight of the runway so we were legal - complicated isn't it
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brimstone
I thought these procedures were brought in because of General Aviation traffic breaking the rules in the first place. Can't see why the rules don't apply to them.
Javelin
You make a good point and it illustrate's the differences in what is written in company manuals.
Our company allows us to designate any point down the approach as long as it is before the 1000 ft point.
I thought these procedures were brought in because of General Aviation traffic breaking the rules in the first place. Can't see why the rules don't apply to them.
Javelin
You make a good point and it illustrate's the differences in what is written in company manuals.
Our company allows us to designate any point down the approach as long as it is before the 1000 ft point.
Hudson Bay,
Understandably perhaps, I suggest you are confusing the generic term 'General Aviation', with 'General Air Traffic' (GAT) - which has a specific (AIP) definition. (more reading required!)
The existing legislation does apply to both Public Transport and civil non Public Transport flights.
It does not apply to Military Flights, be they operating as GAT or OAT (Operational Air Traffic).
I thought these procedures were brought in because of General Aviation traffic breaking the rules in the first place. Can't see why the rules don't apply to them.
The existing legislation does apply to both Public Transport and civil non Public Transport flights.
It does not apply to Military Flights, be they operating as GAT or OAT (Operational Air Traffic).
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
Watsyors,
The FAF/FAP is not a JAR-OPS requirement.
The term used is "....outer marker (or equivalent position) If no such position exists, the decision to continue or discontinue the approach shall be made before passing 1000 ft. AAL".
So - using the FAP (9 miles/3000 ft. in some cases) as the cutoff could leave you between the FAP and the OM equivalent position (most often the DME GS check) with RVRs below required approach minima - and thinking that you were allowed to continue. Not adviseable, in my humble opinion.
...but always willing to be proved wrong
Brgds
Empty
The FAF/FAP is not a JAR-OPS requirement.
The term used is "....outer marker (or equivalent position) If no such position exists, the decision to continue or discontinue the approach shall be made before passing 1000 ft. AAL".
So - using the FAP (9 miles/3000 ft. in some cases) as the cutoff could leave you between the FAP and the OM equivalent position (most often the DME GS check) with RVRs below required approach minima - and thinking that you were allowed to continue. Not adviseable, in my humble opinion.
...but always willing to be proved wrong
Brgds
Empty
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok guys lets not point score here.
Never heard the term General Air Traffic and I've been flying for over 20 years. I assumed and gave you the benifit of the doubt that you meant General Aviation.
My guess is that General Air Traffic is what it says. Just that. Maybe you could tell all? Is it an ATC term?
As for absolute minima, it would never affect the majority of flight deck as they never go below minima anyway.
Never heard the term General Air Traffic and I've been flying for over 20 years. I assumed and gave you the benifit of the doubt that you meant General Aviation.
My guess is that General Air Traffic is what it says. Just that. Maybe you could tell all? Is it an ATC term?
As for absolute minima, it would never affect the majority of flight deck as they never go below minima anyway.
Hudson, try this Its not an AIP reference, but it does indicate the difference between OAT and GAT.
Furthermore, I confim Empty Cruise's statement that FAF/FAP is not a JAR requirement.
Furthermore, the appropriate AIC (latest 7/2005) only refers to 1000ft Above Aerodrome Level. No reference to Markers, Fixes or anything else. That AIC also contains the full required spiel as reported by Javelin.
Furthermore, I confim Empty Cruise's statement that FAF/FAP is not a JAR requirement.
Furthermore, the appropriate AIC (latest 7/2005) only refers to 1000ft Above Aerodrome Level. No reference to Markers, Fixes or anything else. That AIC also contains the full required spiel as reported by Javelin.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a point of order that 1000ft is QNH l assume ?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tea green International
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can of worms
We operate gulfstream aircraft in Russia, and almost all approach procedures are based on QFE.
We are a JAR charter operation.
There is almost no JAR guidance in the check list or operations manual for QFE operations, apart from the Glf operating manual, and QRH. Howver these are biased towards an 18000ft TL, and not 3000 ft as we are often using.
So we change all the height references in the FMS from QNH to QFE, and fly with the inputted data.
Remember we are given levels and heights in Metres...
The radar vector to GS intercept is often 1000ft AGL.....
Fun is not the word I used last night...
Bumz
We are a JAR charter operation.
There is almost no JAR guidance in the check list or operations manual for QFE operations, apart from the Glf operating manual, and QRH. Howver these are biased towards an 18000ft TL, and not 3000 ft as we are often using.
So we change all the height references in the FMS from QNH to QFE, and fly with the inputted data.
Remember we are given levels and heights in Metres...
The radar vector to GS intercept is often 1000ft AGL.....
Fun is not the word I used last night...
Bumz
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't need to operate on QFE to know where the 1000' point is.
For example, when making an approach to Bristol, it is @ 1622' MSL.
I hope this makes things clear for you.
For example, when making an approach to Bristol, it is @ 1622' MSL.
I hope this makes things clear for you.