Approach ban
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that assuming there was no fog, visibility actually was quite suitable and legal according to what you say. If I understand correctly, you were operating in a country where ATC and meteorological reports were not up to Western European standards and where the reported visibility was vastly worse than actual visibility.
Well I know what I would have done... But then I operate where more emphasis is placed on actual weather and less on reported weather. Not like the UK at all.
As an aside, calling "visual" and being told "continue" does not constitute a visual approach. I'd be looking for a phrase from ATC including the words "cleared" and "visual approach" before I made that assumption. But again I realise the ATC in that part of the world might not be so precise.
Well I know what I would have done... But then I operate where more emphasis is placed on actual weather and less on reported weather. Not like the UK at all.
As an aside, calling "visual" and being told "continue" does not constitute a visual approach. I'd be looking for a phrase from ATC including the words "cleared" and "visual approach" before I made that assumption. But again I realise the ATC in that part of the world might not be so precise.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of the approach ban is that you should not continue the approach if you have no chance of getting in. Be it the O/M, FAF or the
1000' AAL in the UK. In this case, where Vis was reported at 1000m, there IS a possibility of having the required visual references at 1000' (3 degree slope, 3000' slant range). Regardless, a pilot-in-command may only continue beyond the "approach-ban-point" (without required visual references) IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. So, what I'm saying is, I completely understand the situation, but the regs are quite rigid in this matter. Good luck.
1000' AAL in the UK. In this case, where Vis was reported at 1000m, there IS a possibility of having the required visual references at 1000' (3 degree slope, 3000' slant range). Regardless, a pilot-in-command may only continue beyond the "approach-ban-point" (without required visual references) IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. So, what I'm saying is, I completely understand the situation, but the regs are quite rigid in this matter. Good luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Jockey
Thanks. The point I am trying to make, or perhaps clarify is that prior to reaching the approach ban point I called visual to ATC. They then cleared me for the approach, however they did not actually specify the VIS. I took the clearance as an implicit indication that the conditions for approach had been met or else why clear me for the approach when I had called visual? I know its a buggers muddle, but thanks to you all for you opinions. 
It looks like I will just have to suffer my spanking .......
It looks like I will just have to suffer my spanking .......
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2500m vis to which you refer is the required in-flight visibility (can only be assesed by the crew) - its not an RVR; the 'minimum' minimum RVR for a visual approach in JAR-OPS is 800m (reported/observed). In the UK you would have to call 'Visual' to ATC and recieve permission to continue with a visual approach - prior to passing the AB pt.
I had to answer a very similar question recently. I (and those I consulted) concluded that, going back to basics, an instrument approach is complete on acquisition of the required visual references. The landing is then completed visually. All Cat1 Instrument approaches become visual approaches at some point without further approval from ATC.
Therefore, all that stuff about whether or not you need permission, or 800m, or anything else, is obscuration. You were on an instrument approach - you acquired the visual references - you used them to land. End of story.
Therefore, all that stuff about whether or not you need permission, or 800m, or anything else, is obscuration. You were on an instrument approach - you acquired the visual references - you used them to land. End of story.
Last edited by keithl; 31st Jan 2008 at 13:38.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in a very similar situation last month, where the RVR equipment was between the runway and a river, and reporting considerably less than the actual vis on the runway (which was visible along its full length from 10+ miles), the difference was that my R/T was 'visual, request visual approach' and the reply was 'cleared visual approach, cleared to land'.
While it may often be interpreted as such, calling 'visual' does not constitute requesting a visual approach. Doesn't help much here, but worth bearing in mind for the future.
While it may often be interpreted as such, calling 'visual' does not constitute requesting a visual approach. Doesn't help much here, but worth bearing in mind for the future.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to answer a very similar question recently. I (and those I consulted) concluded that, going back to basics, an instrument approach is complete on acquisition of the required visual references. The landing is then completed visually. All Cat1 Instrument approaches become visual approaches at some point without further approval from ATC.
Therefore, all that stuff about whether or not you need permission, or 800m, or anything else, is obscuration. You were on an instrument approach - you acquired the visual references - you used them to land. End of story.
Therefore, all that stuff about whether or not you need permission, or 800m, or anything else, is obscuration. You were on an instrument approach - you acquired the visual references - you used them to land. End of story.
It's all quite straightforward, really.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reported or as seen by pilot
I actually had around 8 km Vis, but the tower (the ATIS) was still giving 1000 m. In hindsight I should have called for an update but having observed the actual Vis I continued, thinking I was legal.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without knowing all the facts it's hard to give a definitive answer but the following might be of interest.
My user name derives from the first CAA prosecution I defended. Night mail flight commenced an approach with the reported RVR below minimum. Another flight landed a few minutes before also having commenced his approach with RVR below minimum. First aircraft called visual and on touch down announced that the vis was greater than the RVR being broadcast. My client flew the approach and landed short of the runway by a couple of hundred yards. This was in the grass undershoot and there was no damage to man, beast or machine. However, the tyre marks were clearly visible. The CAA got to hear about it and the pilot was charged with recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft. He was convicted of negligent endangerment (having admitted negligence during cross-examination) and was heavily fined.
The aircraft had flown a PAPI approach and there was evidence that suggested that these could become unreliable in the drifting low lying fog conditions that prevailed because of moisture refraction. This is particularly so if the PAPI's have not been switched on long enough to heat up and disperse any moisture inside the equipment.
As another contributor to the thread has already remarked part of the purpose of the legislation is that an apparently visual approach can be lost at a low and critical stage because of low lying fog/haze and the slant effect. This would appear to be what happened in our case.
My user name derives from the first CAA prosecution I defended. Night mail flight commenced an approach with the reported RVR below minimum. Another flight landed a few minutes before also having commenced his approach with RVR below minimum. First aircraft called visual and on touch down announced that the vis was greater than the RVR being broadcast. My client flew the approach and landed short of the runway by a couple of hundred yards. This was in the grass undershoot and there was no damage to man, beast or machine. However, the tyre marks were clearly visible. The CAA got to hear about it and the pilot was charged with recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft. He was convicted of negligent endangerment (having admitted negligence during cross-examination) and was heavily fined.
The aircraft had flown a PAPI approach and there was evidence that suggested that these could become unreliable in the drifting low lying fog conditions that prevailed because of moisture refraction. This is particularly so if the PAPI's have not been switched on long enough to heat up and disperse any moisture inside the equipment.
As another contributor to the thread has already remarked part of the purpose of the legislation is that an apparently visual approach can be lost at a low and critical stage because of low lying fog/haze and the slant effect. This would appear to be what happened in our case.
I (and those I consulted) concluded that, going back to basics, an instrument approach is complete on acquisition of the required visual references. The landing is then completed visually. All Cat1 Instrument approaches become visual approaches at some point without further approval from ATC.
JAR OPS 1 Subpart D 1.405
Commencement and continuation of 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.
Non-public transport aircraft – aerodrome operating minima
49(4) Without prejudice to paragraph (2) an aircraft to which this article applies when making a descent at an aerodrome to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.
Public transport aircraft registered in the United Kingdom – aerodrome operating
minima
47(9) An aircraft [required to have an Ops Manual], when making a descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.
JAR-OPS talks about an instrument approach, and keithl's assertion that the instrument approach is complete when visual reference is acquired (or at least when the aircraft is cleared for a visual approach) may offer a loophole for the continuance of an approach where there's visual reference but a sub-minimum RVR.
The ANO is quite clear for non-PT flights. No mention of an IAP. What matters is whether or not there exists an IAP for the runway to which an approach is made (that in itself is interestingly ambiguous but not relevant). If there is, and the RVR is below the minimum for it, you can't continue the approach belw 1000 ft.
But what to make of Art 47(9)? "Relevant RVR at the aerodrome"? "Relevant" is not defined. Is it to be interpreted as Art 49(4), or differently? If you choose to interpret it differently, I think you're on pretty thin ice. The law doesn't normally allow the commanders of PT-flights more discretion than non-PT flights.
This is very interesting. I quite see your point, bookworm, the whole thing hinges on the rules being written around "Reported RVR" or "Relevant RVR", when there should be provision for "Observed (by crew) visibility". I don't have much to add at this point, and I'm still happy (for now) with my earlier answer. However, I'd like to see the discussion continue, so I'm posting this to keep the thread alive.
Some will act on their observed vis. and required visual references, others will say the regulations specify reported RVR. In UK there is the extra barrier of the "Absolute Minima Procedure".
Lets have some more opinions.
Some will act on their observed vis. and required visual references, others will say the regulations specify reported RVR. In UK there is the extra barrier of the "Absolute Minima Procedure".
Lets have some more opinions.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the 're-kindle' Keith - back in to point out that the 'min vis' of 1200m would almost certainly be tied to the appropriate approach angle/MDH/MDA, and as food for thought, would it not be a moot point if the actual vis was 1000m but the runway was in sight? What are the chances of a 'fog bank' obscuring the runway below 1000' in those conditions? Also, in which direction was the met vis 'observed'? I recall sitting drinking coffee at RAF Cranwell 'in the fog' waiting for the airfield to become flyable, when the met man rubbed the condensation off the met office window....
I still believe we are placed in the cockpit to make SENSIBLE AND SAFE decisions and my view would be that the debrief should revolve around 'discussion' rather than 'bollock'. Of course, this POV does not logically extend to lower DH/DA's for, say, an ILS, but for a NPA..?
I still believe we are placed in the cockpit to make SENSIBLE AND SAFE decisions and my view would be that the debrief should revolve around 'discussion' rather than 'bollock'. Of course, this POV does not logically extend to lower DH/DA's for, say, an ILS, but for a NPA..?
Some will act on their observed vis. and required visual references, others will say the regulations specify reported RVR. In UK there is the extra barrier of the "Absolute Minima Procedure".
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get-in-itis
Not the case in this one. We had plenty of fuel and had a 'decent' alternate planned. We were visual before the approach ban point. The tower had not changed the weather and shortly after we landed the weather was actually changed on the ATIS. It may be said that we should have clarified the weather, but again with a very busy ATC environment and the appalling level of English precluded this.
A previous poster said that we should have been listening out for 'cleared for the approach' or such like but now with the passage of time I can truthfully not remember the exact terminology. At the end of the day the temperature was around 20'C with a little haze. There was no chance of fog. There had been none forecast and none in the area.
A previous poster said that we should have been listening out for 'cleared for the approach' or such like but now with the passage of time I can truthfully not remember the exact terminology. At the end of the day the temperature was around 20'C with a little haze. There was no chance of fog. There had been none forecast and none in the area.
BOAC remembers fogged-up windows at Cranwell, I remember smoke from a bonfire drifting across the runway at Deci - "The airfield, she is Clo-zed". Wouldn't happen with RVR kit - or would it? At least it makes the point that ground measurements of visibility can be fallible. There are still places reporting vis. rather than RVR, too.
Also, the Approach Ban doesn't protect you against vis deterioration after you've passed the AB point - although I recognise this wasn't the situation that NJ was in.
Bookworm reckons the AB was introduced to take this particular decision out of the cockpit. In doing so, I'm sure it has been successful in preventing many accidents. But is it too blunt an instrument and should the crew be able to "over-ride" the Ban if they can demonstrate that it is based on a false, or erroneous measurement of visibility?
Also, the Approach Ban doesn't protect you against vis deterioration after you've passed the AB point - although I recognise this wasn't the situation that NJ was in.
Bookworm reckons the AB was introduced to take this particular decision out of the cockpit. In doing so, I'm sure it has been successful in preventing many accidents. But is it too blunt an instrument and should the crew be able to "over-ride" the Ban if they can demonstrate that it is based on a false, or erroneous measurement of visibility?
It's a tricky one, isn't it? In general, I'm a strong supporter of the idea that the flight crew are almost certainly in the best position to make any judgment in respect of the safety of their flight: hence the for a perfect crew, it will always be safer to allow the commander to overrule any arbitrary regulation (even in non-emergency situations).
In practice though, the airline whose crews make sound safety judgments may lose out to the airlines whose crews push the boundaries just that little bit further. Hence explicit regulation that the flight crew cannot overrule is an essential tool in ensuring a level playing field. It was with that attitude in mind ("Well they're giving RVR 400 m but I reckon it must be at least 700m, eh? :wink:") that the approach ban was introduced. You can't police whether the crew can actually see the visual reference at DH, but you can stop them from putting themselves in the position of needing a little creative vision at DH by mandating a minimum reported RVR. However, that means that you occasionally get some daft situations where something that's perfectly safe is contrary to the regulation.
(BTW I don't doubt for a moment that NoJoke's crew risk-managed this perfectly -- I just think this may be one of those daft situations.)
In practice though, the airline whose crews make sound safety judgments may lose out to the airlines whose crews push the boundaries just that little bit further. Hence explicit regulation that the flight crew cannot overrule is an essential tool in ensuring a level playing field. It was with that attitude in mind ("Well they're giving RVR 400 m but I reckon it must be at least 700m, eh? :wink:") that the approach ban was introduced. You can't police whether the crew can actually see the visual reference at DH, but you can stop them from putting themselves in the position of needing a little creative vision at DH by mandating a minimum reported RVR. However, that means that you occasionally get some daft situations where something that's perfectly safe is contrary to the regulation.
(BTW I don't doubt for a moment that NoJoke's crew risk-managed this perfectly -- I just think this may be one of those daft situations.)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Leeds
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hasn't anyone ever attempted to land in fog but can see the runway all the way down the approach ?? It happened to us in Guernsey, RVR was 550m / 200m / 125m. We could see the runway and airport from about 10 miles out and stayed visual until about 100ft, the runway then disappeared. I know a few people this has happened to and is the reason that a 'visual' approach should not be carried out if the RVR is less than your required minima.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TenAndie
I have operated in the UK for years but I am now overseas. I am aware of RVR, fog, slant visibility etc. The weather conditions preclude any form of fog. I could see for miles - literally! Completed approach and the Vis was as I had assessed, more than 8 km.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ten
I'm just saying that the difference between Jersey (I did my PPL there in 1979 and now 12,500 hrs later ..) and the other side of the Middle East are vastly different. As I tried to say there was no fog. There was no low RVR. There was a Vis given of 1000 m that miraculously became 10 km after our approach. Different strokes.
Good luck with your flying.
NJ
Good luck with your flying.
NJ