Approach ban and circling
Ut Sementem Feeceris
"Can I continue the Approach?"
You can do what you like. Whether or not you will continue in employment with your Company or the CAA will allow you to exercise the priveledges of your licence any more is another matter. At the very least it's tea (probably without biccies) and a "chat" with the CP.
However ............
From JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and continuation of the approach.
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated may
commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
So what's the applicable minima? You are not flying an ILS to land, you are using the ILS to position yourself to circle so does the approach ban apply? I cannot find any reference in the JAR's to say it does or does not.
I can see the arguement that continuing below 1,000 agl/OM/4D is "OK" because I'm going to level at 600' to Circle - NOT to continue the ILS with the restrictive RVR. However it's almost one for the lawyers now and interpretation of words.
Perhaps the best description of the interpretation (I'm NOT doing an ILS, I'm going to Circle) is "not in the spirit intended" by the writer of the regulations.
Still looking for the definative.
A4
You can do what you like. Whether or not you will continue in employment with your Company or the CAA will allow you to exercise the priveledges of your licence any more is another matter. At the very least it's tea (probably without biccies) and a "chat" with the CP.
However ............
From JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and continuation of the approach.
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated may
commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
So what's the applicable minima? You are not flying an ILS to land, you are using the ILS to position yourself to circle so does the approach ban apply? I cannot find any reference in the JAR's to say it does or does not.
I can see the arguement that continuing below 1,000 agl/OM/4D is "OK" because I'm going to level at 600' to Circle - NOT to continue the ILS with the restrictive RVR. However it's almost one for the lawyers now and interpretation of words.
Perhaps the best description of the interpretation (I'm NOT doing an ILS, I'm going to Circle) is "not in the spirit intended" by the writer of the regulations.
Still looking for the definative.
A4
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again you have the applicable minima therefore there is no reason why you can not continue the approach to minima and if you have the required visual references complete the circling procedure.
The decend to 1000ft and decide there is a total red herring. If you set your decision height or minimum descent height to 1000ft then;
a) You need higher Visibility / RVR for an approach; and
b) JAR OPS says that if the minima are at or above 1000ft then the company must set a higher height at which the Ban becomes applicable....which is common sense really.
Thus with a new self imposed MDH of 1000ft the ban height would be 1500ft or 2000ft or whatever the company has set.
Overall, we must all remember that we are talking about a rule that deals with comencing and Continuation of an approach which are two separate issues.
Once can not commence an approach when the weather is below applicable minima. That simply means do not start, do not pass go, stay in the hold or however you wish to think of it.
If one has commenced the approach because when one did have the applicable weather at that time, if the weather subsequently deteriorates then there are two cases -
a) Outside the OM or equivalent position or height - Go Arround.
b) Inside the OM or equivalent position or height - continue to minima and decide there.
Thus if the above situation exists before you start the approach then if you believe that you can not complete the approach to applicable minima you will not be starting it a all and you will be diverting or using some holding fuel to hold awaiting an improvement.
Regards,
DFC
The decend to 1000ft and decide there is a total red herring. If you set your decision height or minimum descent height to 1000ft then;
a) You need higher Visibility / RVR for an approach; and
b) JAR OPS says that if the minima are at or above 1000ft then the company must set a higher height at which the Ban becomes applicable....which is common sense really.
Thus with a new self imposed MDH of 1000ft the ban height would be 1500ft or 2000ft or whatever the company has set.
Overall, we must all remember that we are talking about a rule that deals with comencing and Continuation of an approach which are two separate issues.
Once can not commence an approach when the weather is below applicable minima. That simply means do not start, do not pass go, stay in the hold or however you wish to think of it.
If one has commenced the approach because when one did have the applicable weather at that time, if the weather subsequently deteriorates then there are two cases -
a) Outside the OM or equivalent position or height - Go Arround.
b) Inside the OM or equivalent position or height - continue to minima and decide there.
Thus if the above situation exists before you start the approach then if you believe that you can not complete the approach to applicable minima you will not be starting it a all and you will be diverting or using some holding fuel to hold awaiting an improvement.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my tuppence worth...I believe the key word here is not applicable minima, but REPORTED RVR/visibility. We all seem to agree that for a circling we need both ceiling and vis not below what the plate says, but once again reported RVR would in my case be applied, hence "...reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.." and I would go somewhere else.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
DFC:
"....Once can not commence an approach when the weather is below applicable minima. That simply means do not start, do not pass go, stay in the hold or however you wish to think of it......"
But that's in direct contradiction of the JAR-OPS 1.405 as I quoted a couple of post earlier.
"....may commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima."
The crux of the question is this; Are you allowed to disregard the approach ban because you are NOT INTENDING to fly the ILS all the way to land in below minima RVR? You will be leveling off well above CAT 1 minima to circle to the other end which may be "all the 9's" and is clearly visible from the point you level off to commence the circling (new approach - new applicable minima?)
Good topic this.
A4
"....Once can not commence an approach when the weather is below applicable minima. That simply means do not start, do not pass go, stay in the hold or however you wish to think of it......"
But that's in direct contradiction of the JAR-OPS 1.405 as I quoted a couple of post earlier.
"....may commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima."
The crux of the question is this; Are you allowed to disregard the approach ban because you are NOT INTENDING to fly the ILS all the way to land in below minima RVR? You will be leveling off well above CAT 1 minima to circle to the other end which may be "all the 9's" and is clearly visible from the point you level off to commence the circling (new approach - new applicable minima?)
Good topic this.
A4
Thread Starter
but once again reported RVR would in my case be applied, hence "...reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.."
Prevailing Meteorological Visibility is 10 km or more
RVR runway 19 is 400 m
RVR runway 01 is more than 1500 m
You talk about "RVR/visibility" but the whole point is that they're very different.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, had reason to research this recently and confirmed the following IAW my own Co.'s ops manual (JAR compliant, they tell me):
1) You fly the primary IAP to not lower than Circ. Min. Alt. for the RW of intended landing (no point going lower because you wouldn't be permitted to commence the circle).
2) You break for the circle with relevant Vis Ref (you don't need the RW in sight yet - that's for the final descent below Circ. Min. Alt.), but no later than the IAP Missed Approach Point (obviously) [the MAP for an ILS is the point where the Glideslope intersects the ILS DA]
3) Circ. Min. Visibility is quoted for planning purposes and doesn't play a role in consideration of an approach ban: you may proceed with the circle as long as you have Vis Ref and 800m RVR or more (if reported) [Again, no point flying the IAP with less than 800m RVR because you may not fly a circling approach in these conditions, but you may still fly to the approach ban point (1000') hoping the reported weather would comply by then, but you would have to go around from that point if it didn't]
4) To answer a point made above - generally if minima drop below the IAP minima we may still continue to the approach ban point (1000'ARTE) - an immediate GA is not required, but you need mins. at the ban point. And you may fly the approach to the approach ban point if RVRs<mins.: that is the point - RVRs might be varying above and below minimum, but you make your decision based on the last received on reaching the ban point.
That's what the ops manual I fly to has to say, anyhow - as with any PT operation, the details may vary from operator to operator, so it all has to be taken with a health warning......
1) You fly the primary IAP to not lower than Circ. Min. Alt. for the RW of intended landing (no point going lower because you wouldn't be permitted to commence the circle).
2) You break for the circle with relevant Vis Ref (you don't need the RW in sight yet - that's for the final descent below Circ. Min. Alt.), but no later than the IAP Missed Approach Point (obviously) [the MAP for an ILS is the point where the Glideslope intersects the ILS DA]
3) Circ. Min. Visibility is quoted for planning purposes and doesn't play a role in consideration of an approach ban: you may proceed with the circle as long as you have Vis Ref and 800m RVR or more (if reported) [Again, no point flying the IAP with less than 800m RVR because you may not fly a circling approach in these conditions, but you may still fly to the approach ban point (1000') hoping the reported weather would comply by then, but you would have to go around from that point if it didn't]
4) To answer a point made above - generally if minima drop below the IAP minima we may still continue to the approach ban point (1000'ARTE) - an immediate GA is not required, but you need mins. at the ban point. And you may fly the approach to the approach ban point if RVRs<mins.: that is the point - RVRs might be varying above and below minimum, but you make your decision based on the last received on reaching the ban point.
That's what the ops manual I fly to has to say, anyhow - as with any PT operation, the details may vary from operator to operator, so it all has to be taken with a health warning......
Last edited by NW1; 30th Aug 2007 at 13:21. Reason: Edited to highlight Circ. App. RVR minimum
Thread Starter
3) Circ. Min. Visibility is quoted for planning purposes and doesn't play a role in consideration of an approach ban: you may proceed with the circle as long as you have Vis Ref and 800m RVR or more (if reported)
That's a very interesting interpretation of Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430 paras (f) and (g). So if I turn a circling approach into a visual approach, I can just ignore the (much higher) Table 8 met vis minima?!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if this helps, from AIC 100/2006 (Pink 103):
4 If pilots state that it is their intention to commence an instrument approach and the reported RVR is below the Absolute Minimum,
ATC will issue a warning message as follows:
‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name)
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’
4.1 If pilots indicate that it is their intention to continue the approach below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, ATC will pass the
following message:
‘(Callsign) if you continue the approach and descend below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, it is believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge’.
This will be followed, at the appropriate moment, with:
‘(Callsign) there is no known traffic to affect you making a (name) approach to runway (number)’.
Subsequently, ATC controllers will not issue a landing clearance but will use the following phraseology at the appropriate time:
‘(Callsign) runway visual range (number) metres, there is no known traffic to affect you landing, surface wind (number) degrees
(number (knots))’.
ATC will issue a warning message as follows:
‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name)
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’
4.1 If pilots indicate that it is their intention to continue the approach below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, ATC will pass the
following message:
‘(Callsign) if you continue the approach and descend below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, it is believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge’.
This will be followed, at the appropriate moment, with:
‘(Callsign) there is no known traffic to affect you making a (name) approach to runway (number)’.
Subsequently, ATC controllers will not issue a landing clearance but will use the following phraseology at the appropriate time:
‘(Callsign) runway visual range (number) metres, there is no known traffic to affect you landing, surface wind (number) degrees
(number (knots))’.
You cannot descend from your circling MDA unless you have visual contact with the landing runway itself.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Quote:
"Again, no point flying the IAP with less than 800m RVR because you may not fly a circling approach in these conditions..."
But if you had RVR 800m......you'd just fly a CAT 1 ILS and land - no need to circle. As the original question stated RVR 01 is P1500U so you DO HAVE the minimum RVR for the runway you are circling to land on. If RVR 19 is 200m that doesn't matter because you are not flying an approach TO LAND on that runway - merely using its facilities to put you in a position where you may be landing from a circling approach.
I would like a legal answer to this: Are you allowed to disregard the approach ban because you are NOT INTENDING to fly the ILS all the way to land in below minima RVR?
A4
"Again, no point flying the IAP with less than 800m RVR because you may not fly a circling approach in these conditions..."
But if you had RVR 800m......you'd just fly a CAT 1 ILS and land - no need to circle. As the original question stated RVR 01 is P1500U so you DO HAVE the minimum RVR for the runway you are circling to land on. If RVR 19 is 200m that doesn't matter because you are not flying an approach TO LAND on that runway - merely using its facilities to put you in a position where you may be landing from a circling approach.
I would like a legal answer to this: Are you allowed to disregard the approach ban because you are NOT INTENDING to fly the ILS all the way to land in below minima RVR?
A4
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4: <<But if you had RVR 800m......you'd just fly a CAT 1 ILS and land >> On a practical note, circling to land off a perfectly adequate IAP is normally done because some other factor precludes landing on the IAP RW - usually wind being outside FM tailwind limits - rather than playing semantics with minima. On my fleet we have a destination in India which regularly offers an ILS with a tailwind - if more than 15kts (my 'plane's TWC limit) we must fly the ILS and circle to land on the reciprocal which has no IAP.
I know your question is trying to squeeze a fine point of regulation - but often the situation is actually simpler in practice because if there's that much porridge you're probably off to your #1 div anyhow. But to bravely attempt to address what I think you're after - no: I don't think you may progress beyond or below the approach ban point or altitude without the IAP minima for the IAP RW. And you cannot circle without visual reference (or 800m RVR on the landing RW).
You may, though, fly to the ban point without the IAP RW minima being met, and I suppose if you had the visual references required and 800m RVR for the landing runway you might argue that it would legal at that point to break for the circle. But how likely is it that? I don't know, but I would opine that you're really starting to dig holes in very limiting conditions that you may reasonably decide are not worth digging....
I know your question is trying to squeeze a fine point of regulation - but often the situation is actually simpler in practice because if there's that much porridge you're probably off to your #1 div anyhow. But to bravely attempt to address what I think you're after - no: I don't think you may progress beyond or below the approach ban point or altitude without the IAP minima for the IAP RW. And you cannot circle without visual reference (or 800m RVR on the landing RW).
You may, though, fly to the ban point without the IAP RW minima being met, and I suppose if you had the visual references required and 800m RVR for the landing runway you might argue that it would legal at that point to break for the circle. But how likely is it that? I don't know, but I would opine that you're really starting to dig holes in very limiting conditions that you may reasonably decide are not worth digging....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm: Yes, they are indeed different, and the more accurate one, RVR, is below. And that is what I will emphasize in my judgement. I understand there are different opinions in that regard, but I will for sure not be invited for tea, no biscuits, based on that.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm: As I said "That's what the ops manual I fly to has to say, anyhow - as with any PT operation, the details may vary from operator to operator, so it all has to be taken with a health warning......"; various companies' FMs will all have their own (CAA inspected and approved) interpretations of JAR-OPS, and whilst JAR-OPS is a useful reference in its own right, when flying to a company FM - that is your ultimate reference. Ours quotes the 3.6k of table 8 as a planning reference as it refers to an in-flight visibility and so if you have the required detailed visual references you are considered to be compliant for the circle provided you have 800m RVR if reported (to cover you for the dangers associated with MIFG). Also, FM's (like JAR-OPS-1) are subject to edits, changes and volte-faces!!!!
Thread Starter
I know your question is trying to squeeze a fine point of regulation - but often the situation is actually simpler in practice because if there's that much porridge you're probably off to your #1 div anyhow.
METAR ESGP 052120Z 00000KT 9999 R01/P2000 R19/0400V0650 BCFG NSC 15/14 Q1018=
Goeteborg does have an NP IAP (NDB/DME) to 01 and I thought with NSC the obvious answer was a visual approach to 01, so applied a ceiling. But the scenario is not all that far fetched.
Thread Starter
That's what the ops manual I fly to has to say...
Thread Starter
Yes, they are indeed different, and the more accurate one, RVR, is below.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4,
Sorry,you are correct. Getting mixed up with what we do as opposed to the rules!
------
‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current visibility is 10K+ metres which is not below the absolute minimum for a Circling
approach to runway 01. What are your intentions?’
Make an approach please (Callsign)
Would those that operate into Innsbruck be worried about some shallow fog at the place where the LDA guides you when the field is reporting met above minima for the circle to land.
I think that you will agree that in such a case, you will not even know the RVR at the point where the LDA guides you to.
If there was a VOR/DME X procedure published from a nearby facility say east of the field with (of course) only circle to land minima which were the same as those above, would you not make the approach and circle with the same RVRs and Visibility reported?
Regards,
DFC
Sorry,you are correct. Getting mixed up with what we do as opposed to the rules!
------
‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name)
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’
approach to runway 01. What are your intentions?’
Make an approach please (Callsign)
Would those that operate into Innsbruck be worried about some shallow fog at the place where the LDA guides you when the field is reporting met above minima for the circle to land.
I think that you will agree that in such a case, you will not even know the RVR at the point where the LDA guides you to.
If there was a VOR/DME X procedure published from a nearby facility say east of the field with (of course) only circle to land minima which were the same as those above, would you not make the approach and circle with the same RVRs and Visibility reported?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: on the edge
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genlemen/Ladies,
Look at this as a Risk Management exercise.
Technically or academically (I am not familiar with UK CARs or whataever) you may be allowed to carry out this approach. However, the accident stats indicate that you have a very high risk of a prang and hull loss.
My company has gone so far as banning Circling Approaches in their Ops Specs (as a result of the Risk Management of this manoeuvre).
I, personally thank my company for reducing my Blood pressure/Heart rate.
Look at this as a Risk Management exercise.
Technically or academically (I am not familiar with UK CARs or whataever) you may be allowed to carry out this approach. However, the accident stats indicate that you have a very high risk of a prang and hull loss.
My company has gone so far as banning Circling Approaches in their Ops Specs (as a result of the Risk Management of this manoeuvre).
I, personally thank my company for reducing my Blood pressure/Heart rate.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
NW1;
I appreciate that circling is usually due to xs TWC - my reference to landing off the CAT 1 ILS with 800 RVR was with respect to the initial question i.e. wind 000/00. You are correct in saying that it is a fine point of regulation - but nonetheless it would be nice to have a definate answer from a higher authority.
Think about the situation; 3000m runway the first 1000m in fog RVR 300m, the other 2000m is "CAVOK". Outer Marker at 4d (1300' agl on G/S), overcast 1100'.
From a legal standpoint, what is wrong with flying the ILS to the "foggy end" (even though RVR is below CAT 1 minima), levelling at 800' and circling to the "CAVOK" end? I fully agree that when conditions become more marginal then very serious consideration has to be given about even contemplating an approach.
I'm really interested in the legal (i.e. what would the Authority say about it) - we live in a world dominated by rules, regs, health and safety etc. It's all very well for someone behind a desk weeks after the event to say "yes, but under sub section blah blah........ " I cannot find anywhere where it says the approach BAN applies if you intend to circle. Logically speaking it should not apply because you are NOT going to land in the restricted touchdown zone but manouver safely above it.
Gimmesumvalium;
Bold move by your Co.
A4
I appreciate that circling is usually due to xs TWC - my reference to landing off the CAT 1 ILS with 800 RVR was with respect to the initial question i.e. wind 000/00. You are correct in saying that it is a fine point of regulation - but nonetheless it would be nice to have a definate answer from a higher authority.
Think about the situation; 3000m runway the first 1000m in fog RVR 300m, the other 2000m is "CAVOK". Outer Marker at 4d (1300' agl on G/S), overcast 1100'.
From a legal standpoint, what is wrong with flying the ILS to the "foggy end" (even though RVR is below CAT 1 minima), levelling at 800' and circling to the "CAVOK" end? I fully agree that when conditions become more marginal then very serious consideration has to be given about even contemplating an approach.
I'm really interested in the legal (i.e. what would the Authority say about it) - we live in a world dominated by rules, regs, health and safety etc. It's all very well for someone behind a desk weeks after the event to say "yes, but under sub section blah blah........ " I cannot find anywhere where it says the approach BAN applies if you intend to circle. Logically speaking it should not apply because you are NOT going to land in the restricted touchdown zone but manouver safely above it.
Gimmesumvalium;
Bold move by your Co.
A4
Last edited by A4; 31st Aug 2007 at 15:34. Reason: General incompetance with spelling.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2) You break for the circle with relevant Vis Ref (you don't need the RW in sight yet - that's for the final descent below Circ. Min. Alt.), but no later than the IAP Missed Approach Point (obviously) [the MAP for an ILS is the point where the Glideslope intersects the ILS DA]
7.2.2 After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment should be kept in sight
while at minimum descent altitudeheight (MDA/H) for circling. The runway environment includes features such as the
runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway.
while at minimum descent altitudeheight (MDA/H) for circling. The runway environment includes features such as the
runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway.
Mucking around <1000' in a commercial jet without being able to see exactly where you want to go is asking for trouble IMHO whatever the legalities.