Approach ban
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach ban
HI guys. Done a search on the pprune but can't find an answer to this. If once reaching the approach ban point, are we allowed to proceed with the approach if we become visual with the airport?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The criteria for continuing past the "approach ban point" or more usually the final approach fix is that your visibility must be above that required to commence the approach. If the reported visibility is less, you must go around.. If you are visual at the point you reach the final approach fix then by definition the visibility "should" be above the minima required to land hence you are permitted to continue.
If the reported minima has dropped below that required to commence the approach but you are already past the final approach fix, you are permitted to continue to decision height.
OSOP
If the reported minima has dropped below that required to commence the approach but you are already past the final approach fix, you are permitted to continue to decision height.
OSOP
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks profile
Being hassled for completing an approach. The Vis was 200 m below that which was required, but before reaching the aaproach ban point I was visual. Do you have a reference I could quote in my defence. I'm not being lazy, just don't have access to the required docs. Thanks. Please PM if you need further details,
regards,
NJ
regards,
NJ
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Hemisphere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correct me if I am wrong. I always thought that one may not continue past the final approach point only if an RVR is used to report visibility of the airfield. and the RVR value is below the minimum RVR required for the approach. For reported visibility from the tower/observed by met office, even if it is below the minimum visibility, one may still continue past the FAF/FAP and if runway environment sighted, a landing can be done legally.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your profile says UK based, so I assume you are operating under JAR OPS.
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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system,the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the
runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down
to a speed of approximately 60 knots.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
PP
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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system,the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the
runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down
to a speed of approximately 60 knots.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
PP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Hemisphere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just to clearify....
so if RVR/Visibility reported BELOW required minimums approach NOT allowed to past FAP/FAF. if no RVR used, reported visibility counts too?
if inside the FAP/FAF when reported Vis/RVR dropped below Minimums, can continue to DA/MDA.
and when at DA/MDA if landing environment sighted legal to land? or one must go around?
so if RVR/Visibility reported BELOW required minimums approach NOT allowed to past FAP/FAF. if no RVR used, reported visibility counts too?
if inside the FAP/FAF when reported Vis/RVR dropped below Minimums, can continue to DA/MDA.
and when at DA/MDA if landing environment sighted legal to land? or one must go around?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. Would that be considered legal?
Last edited by NoJoke; 24th Jan 2008 at 13:49.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had this sort of discussion a while back. Most operators in the UK have a min of 800m for a 'VISUAL' aproach. In my book, if you were visual at the FAF with 1000m you were ok. This, however, is a disputed view!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 86
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All ILSs have a glide slope check altitude point which may be the outer marker. However these are now increasingly rare and have been replaced by either a locator or a DME range (usually 4 miles). When I was active the approach ban took effect at 1000ft agl. Is it now normal to use the locator or the 4 mile point? This would be practical as, in theory, a call and altitude check should take place at the GS check alt, an incapacitation call should take place around here, and an altimeter cross check is also needed. If this all took place at the same time, it would surely reduce workload.
So let me get this straight. The only thing that matters is "Reported" RVR/Visibility. Actual visibility is irrelevant. How ridiculous!
Surely there needs to be some common sense here. If a pilot arrives at a the "Approach ban point" and can see the runway, for goodness sake, what is the problem?! Obviously the conditions were fluctuating over a short period of time, and made it difficult for the reports from the tower to keep up.
I mean what do you expect the people in the tower to do, dedicate someone to constantly broadcast the RVR fluctuations every 10 seconds? How ridiculous!
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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
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. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
I mean what do you expect the people in the tower to do, dedicate someone to constantly broadcast the RVR fluctuations every 10 seconds? How ridiculous!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stupid but the law
I was at EMA many moons ago, and just landed, at night, then the guy behind went missed.
The sky was 100% clear.....but there was a fog blob on the RVR reders...
glf
The sky was 100% clear.....but there was a fog blob on the RVR reders...
glf
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The required visibility was 1200 metres. The actual visibility was 1000 metres by the ATIS. ... I continued the approach to the approach ban point then became visual with the ground and the airport environs so continued the approach.
"Becoming visual with the ground" or seeing the runway is irrelevant (however nice it may be for practical reasons.)
If the visibility was actually 1200m or more, you did nothing wrong in continuing the approach regardless of the ATIS, as far as I understand the rules. But it might be hard for you to prove to your employer!
So what was the actual visibility at the airfield as you passed the approach ban point?
(Added note: regarding continuing with >800m visibility: excuse my ignorance, but don't you have to be cleared by ATC to perform a visual approach? And this guy wasn't. Unless it was an uncontrolled airfield, the visual approach excuse would seem to be unavailable.)
This requirement was introduced to prevent the situation t)hat can exist with shallow fog whereby the runway is visable quite some way out but becomes obscured very close to the ground. (slant visual range ) This situation is quite common in europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ocktas8
The AB point was approximately 4.2 NM from the threshold so I continued, using the ILS as guidance. I was out in cowboy country where nobody speaks English. Try getting an actual wind or vis report from the tower!!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Leeds
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. Would that be considered legal?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NJ
If you were in cowboy country it may be too long after the event - do you have a timing for the RVR that you were given? I am not going to get involved in the rights or wrongs of the situation as there is insufficient information available other than to speculate that if you can see the runway from the point at which you have to make the decision do you not, by definition, have the appropriate visual reference? Those of us that have had to operate in some of the more forgotten or ignored corners of the world probably appreciate your dilemma.
Operating into Khartoum many years back and the "actual" gave the weather as well below limits but the "actual" was four hours old, if I remember correctly. Fortunately we managed, after a delay of about 20 minutes, to get something a bit more relevant and, as anticipated, it was fine. Being where I was at that time of day and at that time of year I was planning to continue anyway to have a look for myself.
Good luck.
If you were in cowboy country it may be too long after the event - do you have a timing for the RVR that you were given? I am not going to get involved in the rights or wrongs of the situation as there is insufficient information available other than to speculate that if you can see the runway from the point at which you have to make the decision do you not, by definition, have the appropriate visual reference? Those of us that have had to operate in some of the more forgotten or ignored corners of the world probably appreciate your dilemma.
Operating into Khartoum many years back and the "actual" gave the weather as well below limits but the "actual" was four hours old, if I remember correctly. Fortunately we managed, after a delay of about 20 minutes, to get something a bit more relevant and, as anticipated, it was fine. Being where I was at that time of day and at that time of year I was planning to continue anyway to have a look for myself.
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
YAD
The weather report was around 30 mins old. The point being is that before I was in a situation where I could see the airport before the approach ban point, I called visual and was told 'continue' by ATC. Calling visual surely put me into the visual approch category - 2500 m, 600' or circling minima whichever is the highest. There was no cloud to speak of, just haze.