Approach ban
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were visual and had the appropriate in flight conditions for making a visual approach and the reported Visibility / RVR at the runway was suficient for a visual approach and ATC cleared you for a visual approach...........then I can't see a problem.
Of course had the RVR reduced below the minima for a visual approach at any time you would have went missed.........and being visual, many of the risks associated with an instrument approach to minimums in poor weather including the temptation to duck under are simply not there.
The absolute minimum RVR for a visual approach is 800m. The ops manual may require more at some aerodromes.
Regards,
DFC
Of course had the RVR reduced below the minima for a visual approach at any time you would have went missed.........and being visual, many of the risks associated with an instrument approach to minimums in poor weather including the temptation to duck under are simply not there.
The absolute minimum RVR for a visual approach is 800m. The ops manual may require more at some aerodromes.
Regards,
DFC
An Approach Ban, of course, can only prevent an Instrument Approach.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I put all post of noyoke together, hope it makes it clear, it is his actual case. He did a safe approach now he a letter for calling 2000 €, $ or pound (my tought). He is looking now for arguments to clarify wasn't braking neither stretching any rules.
"The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. There was no RVR requirements given on the approach plate, only vis. I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach.
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 .......
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some do, some don't because they don't operate to under the same regulatory authority. For example a mate of mine is an Australian, apparently over there the approach ban does not exist in the same way.
What actually happened was that the Vis was good, and indeed the 'reported' Vis 'improved' after landing. I would rather discuss than argue.
Now a general question to all. I am trying to find out if there is a definition of 'reported visibility' in context of a visual approach. For example when talking about Wind the book states 'Tower reported wind'. So could 'reported visibility' be defined as vis reported by anyone? For example, if a 'remote' Met office give a vis and yet the tower ask a departing aircraft to give a Vis report, does that count?
Thanks for joining the confab. I don't have JAR-OPS docs available, so while we are JAR-OPS compliant we are not JAR OPS approved, hence certain convenient differences I think. You couldn't cut and paste 1.430 for me could you, or is there a web location I could look up. I would appreciate your help.
So my point is. I called Visual before the approach ban point. Tower then cleared me for the approach (then a visual approach) although tacit, it was still a clearance. Y/N. My assessment of the Vis was higher than the ATIS Vis."
"The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. There was no RVR requirements given on the approach plate, only vis. I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach.
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 .......
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some do, some don't because they don't operate to under the same regulatory authority. For example a mate of mine is an Australian, apparently over there the approach ban does not exist in the same way.
What actually happened was that the Vis was good, and indeed the 'reported' Vis 'improved' after landing. I would rather discuss than argue.
Now a general question to all. I am trying to find out if there is a definition of 'reported visibility' in context of a visual approach. For example when talking about Wind the book states 'Tower reported wind'. So could 'reported visibility' be defined as vis reported by anyone? For example, if a 'remote' Met office give a vis and yet the tower ask a departing aircraft to give a Vis report, does that count?
Thanks for joining the confab. I don't have JAR-OPS docs available, so while we are JAR-OPS compliant we are not JAR OPS approved, hence certain convenient differences I think. You couldn't cut and paste 1.430 for me could you, or is there a web location I could look up. I would appreciate your help.
So my point is. I called Visual before the approach ban point. Tower then cleared me for the approach (then a visual approach) although tacit, it was still a clearance. Y/N. My assessment of the Vis was higher than the ATIS Vis."
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Visual"
DFC. I am sure you are not doubting me with your 'If' but I assure you the Vis was at between 8 - 10 km. The trouble is that one important part of the and/or gate was missing.
If you were visual and had the appropriate in flight conditions for making a visual approach and the reported Visibility / RVR at the runway was suficient for a visual approach and ATC cleared you for a visual approach...........then I can't see a problem. (PS like the joke 'can't see a problem')
I am interested in your quote of 800 m for a visual approach - where did you find that please?
Our Pt A states:
A visual approach takes place when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and approach is executed by visual reference to the terrain.
Visual approaches are not permitted unless Air Traffic Control (ATC) authorisation is received, and the reported weather conditions at the aerodrome is as follows:
– If circling minima is published, then the cloud ceiling must be at least the MDH specified under "CIRCLE-TO-LAND" or 1500 ft whichever is greater and reported visibility of at least 5 km.
So apart from the 'reported' aspect all was well.
If you were visual and had the appropriate in flight conditions for making a visual approach and the reported Visibility / RVR at the runway was suficient for a visual approach and ATC cleared you for a visual approach...........then I can't see a problem. (PS like the joke 'can't see a problem')
I am interested in your quote of 800 m for a visual approach - where did you find that please?
Our Pt A states:
A visual approach takes place when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and approach is executed by visual reference to the terrain.
Visual approaches are not permitted unless Air Traffic Control (ATC) authorisation is received, and the reported weather conditions at the aerodrome is as follows:
– If circling minima is published, then the cloud ceiling must be at least the MDH specified under "CIRCLE-TO-LAND" or 1500 ft whichever is greater and reported visibility of at least 5 km.
So apart from the 'reported' aspect all was well.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standby...call you back..
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
here, you'll find more infos...
Jar-ops 1 Subpart E, appendix 1 to jar-ops 1.430
para "g"
Visual Approach, An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800m for a visual approach.
If you 're interested to get all that stuff..here's the link>>
http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/jar-ops-1.pdf
You can go straight to page 118..
rgds
here, you'll find more infos...
Jar-ops 1 Subpart E, appendix 1 to jar-ops 1.430
para "g"
Visual Approach, An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800m for a visual approach.
If you 're interested to get all that stuff..here's the link>>
http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/jar-ops-1.pdf
You can go straight to page 118..
rgds
Last edited by roljoe; 20th Feb 2008 at 17:13.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roljoe
Sure enough I looked up the link you kindly supplied. Again we come down to the same old problem. It is allowed to factor the Vis to RVR but the place I was at does not have RVR specified on the approach plate.
Nothing to do with any of the posts on this thread, and I thank you all - but where the hell is that brick wall ......
Nothing to do with any of the posts on this thread, and I thank you all - but where the hell is that brick wall ......
Blessed relief I found it. 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rainbow Island
Age: 50
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible Demotion or Termination?
Hi people, I am a new upgraded captain, recently I performed an approach into a certain airfield, atis was giving 4000m, controler was giving 4000m, then during the approach, it went was reported 600m. (required 1200m), we requested to continue to the approach ban, and during the whole approach I knew I had at least 2000-3000m, so I requested to continue and Tower cleared me. At MDA, a small patch of fog emerged over the threshold and we did a missed approach. To make a long story short, 2 missed approaches that day were done and on the third attempt we landed uneventful. I am now grounded and my employers said they will give me their decision soon. My argument was that I had at least 2000-3000 meters, theirs was that I was still not leagal to pass the approach ban, after our discussion I agree. But my question is, is there a chance of me being demoted or fired? If anyone has info on previous experiances of this sort please advise. For info: Fuel was not an issue, we landed with extra, and CRM was not an issue, no disagreements between F/O and I. I am aware of the approach ban defenitions, just that I am anxious in getting opinions on this case. Thank you people!
Oh dear! My sympathies LFTR.
I've no direct experience, such as you are seeking, but your situation is a little beyond what this thread has been discussing. The first approach may have been the sort of thing we were talking about, but having found fog on that one, the approach ban was shown to be well founded, I think, so the next two approaches were, shall I just say, "Questionable"?
I've no direct experience, such as you are seeking, but your situation is a little beyond what this thread has been discussing. The first approach may have been the sort of thing we were talking about, but having found fog on that one, the approach ban was shown to be well founded, I think, so the next two approaches were, shall I just say, "Questionable"?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standby...call you back..
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I agree with Keithl,
one app.should have enough...
Now, about your question ..that's depend only upon your flying dept..
No general rules...only company rules...so difficult to say anything else..
Hope You'll just get a gentle "Attention...next time...."..
I agree with Keithl,
one app.should have enough...
Now, about your question ..that's depend only upon your flying dept..
No general rules...only company rules...so difficult to say anything else..
Hope You'll just get a gentle "Attention...next time...."..
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFTR
Sorry to hear about the unsympathetic prats you 'work' with. I agree with loljoe, a gentle tap can work much more effectively than a total work over. I am afraid to say that a lot of 'so called' management have no idea of what management involves, especially NEW management. You were trying your best I am sure. In life, and in aviation sometimes having absolutes can be dangerous.
It is normally the plonkers behind thier ivory towering desks that cause the problem.
It is normally the plonkers behind thier ivory towering desks that cause the problem.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rainbow Island
Age: 50
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank You Kiethl, Roljoe and Nojoke
Thank you for your replies, I hope and pray that you will all have safe take offs and safe landings. I know this is out the thread, just that okay, when we did the go around the first time, we noted that the whole rwy and rwy environment was super visible, just that patch on the threshhold, we decided to shoot another one imediately, judging that that patch will move, but it was worse on the second attempt. We went into the hold for roughly 35 minutes, and it cleared up and we landed. I was not land minded on the first 2 attempts, and it just cleared up on the third. I was promised just culture, and now I am waiting. I will be sure to update you. Thanks again
