Approach Ban in UK for NON-JAR OPS Operators.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Milkway Galaxy
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach Ban in UK for NON-JAR OPS Operators.
Hi everybody.
I extracted the following quatation from Jeppesen ATC -"State Rules & Procedures" pages for UK.
"For non-JAR-OPS operators and those exempt from
JAR-OPS 1.405:
Under U.K. Legislation an aircraft, when making a
descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a
height of 1000ft or more above the aerodrome to a
height less than 1000ft above the aerodrome if the
relevant RVR at the aerodrome is at the time less than
the specified minimum for landing, or
a. continue an “approach to landing” at any aerodrome
by flying below the relevant specified DH,
or
b. descend below the relevant specified MD
unless, in either case, from such height the
specified visual reference for landing is established
and is maintained."
My question is regarding the following scenario:
I am a non JAR-OPS operator and exempted from JAR-OPS 1.405. Planning a CAT 3 approach in UK. RVRs is better than required so descended below 1000 AGL. Suddenly RVR deteriorated below the minima. I continued to DH. By DH, there is no improvement in the last reported RVRs, however at DH I acquired the required visual reference for touchdown. Now, if I continue to land, is this going to be legal in the light of main paragraph and paragraph (a) above.
Thanks for replies,
I extracted the following quatation from Jeppesen ATC -"State Rules & Procedures" pages for UK.
"For non-JAR-OPS operators and those exempt from
JAR-OPS 1.405:
Under U.K. Legislation an aircraft, when making a
descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a
height of 1000ft or more above the aerodrome to a
height less than 1000ft above the aerodrome if the
relevant RVR at the aerodrome is at the time less than
the specified minimum for landing, or
a. continue an “approach to landing” at any aerodrome
by flying below the relevant specified DH,
or
b. descend below the relevant specified MD
unless, in either case, from such height the
specified visual reference for landing is established
and is maintained."
My question is regarding the following scenario:
I am a non JAR-OPS operator and exempted from JAR-OPS 1.405. Planning a CAT 3 approach in UK. RVRs is better than required so descended below 1000 AGL. Suddenly RVR deteriorated below the minima. I continued to DH. By DH, there is no improvement in the last reported RVRs, however at DH I acquired the required visual reference for touchdown. Now, if I continue to land, is this going to be legal in the light of main paragraph and paragraph (a) above.
Thanks for replies,
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the
relevant RVR at the aerodrome is at the time less than
the specified minimum for landing
relevant RVR at the aerodrome is at the time less than
the specified minimum for landing
Well, the RVR when you went below 1000' was above limits, so no problem there. You reached DA and had the required visual reference to land, so also no problem.
In JAR OPS, an approach ban only exist before the FAF (or point) therefore once passed that point you can continue to DA even if the RVR drop below limits, if at DA you have the correct visual references you can land irrespective of the reported RVR, if you don't have the required reference, go around.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading
Quote and remarks.
"For non-JAR-OPS operators and those exempt from
JAR-OPS 1.405:
Under U.K. Legislation an aircraft, when making a
descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a
height of 1000ft or more above the aerodrome to a
height less than 1000ft above the aerodrome if the
relevant RVR at the aerodrome is at the time less than
the specified minimum for landing, or
Having read your question, you have negotiated this obstacle: when you descended from above 1.000 ft HAA to below 1.000 ft HAA, RVR was better than limiting RVR.
Next obstacle is to have sufficient visual reference at or above DH.
a. continue an “approach to landing” at any aerodrome
by flying below the relevant specified DH,
or
b. descend below the relevant specified MD
Please note that I have entered a linefeed at this position. The text beginning with "unless" is not a part of paragraph b., but covers both para's a. and b.
Because, as you state, you have acquired the required visual reference before reaching DH, it is legal to land, provided that the req'd visual reference is maintained throughout.
The fact that reported RVR had dropped to below required minimum RVR, after you were already below 1.000 ft HAA does not make your position below 1.000 ft HAA illegal. Just as during a take-off you decide to abort the take-off or to continue, you cannnot comeback on that decision after you have taken it. After the decision to descend below 1.000 ft HAA, the next decision is to continue below DH, or to go-around.
unless, in either case, from such height the
specified visual reference for landing is established
and is maintained."
"For non-JAR-OPS operators and those exempt from
JAR-OPS 1.405:
Under U.K. Legislation an aircraft, when making a
descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a
height of 1000ft or more above the aerodrome to a
height less than 1000ft above the aerodrome if the
relevant RVR at the aerodrome is at the time less than
the specified minimum for landing, or
Having read your question, you have negotiated this obstacle: when you descended from above 1.000 ft HAA to below 1.000 ft HAA, RVR was better than limiting RVR.
Next obstacle is to have sufficient visual reference at or above DH.
a. continue an “approach to landing” at any aerodrome
by flying below the relevant specified DH,
or
b. descend below the relevant specified MD
Please note that I have entered a linefeed at this position. The text beginning with "unless" is not a part of paragraph b., but covers both para's a. and b.
Because, as you state, you have acquired the required visual reference before reaching DH, it is legal to land, provided that the req'd visual reference is maintained throughout.
The fact that reported RVR had dropped to below required minimum RVR, after you were already below 1.000 ft HAA does not make your position below 1.000 ft HAA illegal. Just as during a take-off you decide to abort the take-off or to continue, you cannnot comeback on that decision after you have taken it. After the decision to descend below 1.000 ft HAA, the next decision is to continue below DH, or to go-around.
unless, in either case, from such height the
specified visual reference for landing is established
and is maintained."
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blighty - On secondment
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVRs were in excess of minimum for the approach allowing you to descend below 1000agl and continue to DH/MD.
You state "at DH I acquired the required visual reference for touchdown" and continue to land which is inline with the regs you quote. But if you dont acquire the lights then you would have to go around. Deciding to GA at DH the inertia will take you below minimums so adding at least 50feet to the DH is normal in our operation.
What do you SOPs recommend?
rgds,
GP
You state "at DH I acquired the required visual reference for touchdown" and continue to land which is inline with the regs you quote. But if you dont acquire the lights then you would have to go around. Deciding to GA at DH the inertia will take you below minimums so adding at least 50feet to the DH is normal in our operation.
What do you SOPs recommend?
rgds,
GP
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Georgia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You state "at DH I acquired the required visual reference for touchdown" and continue to land which is inline with the regs you quote. But if you dont acquire the lights then you would have to go around. Deciding to GA at DH the inertia will take you below minimums so adding at least 50feet to the DH is normal in our operation.
What do you SOPs recommend?
rgds,
GP
I have never heard of anyone adding 50 feet for inertia. Does anyone else do this?
I have heard instructors saying that main wheel contact with the runway may occur on the go around due to inertia!
Worlddc10
What do you SOPs recommend?
rgds,
GP
I have never heard of anyone adding 50 feet for inertia. Does anyone else do this?
I have heard instructors saying that main wheel contact with the runway may occur on the go around due to inertia!
Worlddc10
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We only add 50 feet when using a constant-angle approach down all the way down to MDA. Can't ever go below MDA without the stuff in sight, so 50 feet accounts for the go-around. (Even then, we don't apply the additive within the US, only to international airports where we can't be assured an obstacle survey has been completed) Never does it make any sense to add anything to a DH, that's what's it designed for in the first place.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global Pilot - I'm afraid I'm with WorldDC10 at being surprised at your "add 50 feet". The Decision Height is actually determined on the assumption you will briefly descend through it during a go around - in the extreme case of a Cat 3 your main wheels can touch the runway. Contrast that with a non-precision approach where the assumption (and the instrument check ride standard) is that you do NOT descend below the MDA. In that case, it is quite common to add 50 feet to make sure you don't go below MDA - but it would be most unusual to do that on a DH.
In a normal 3 degree Cat 1 ILS with limiting RVR of 550 metres, you will NOT see the lights at 250 feet - you will need to keep going to 200 feet, or you'll not get in.
In a normal 3 degree Cat 1 ILS with limiting RVR of 550 metres, you will NOT see the lights at 250 feet - you will need to keep going to 200 feet, or you'll not get in.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Milkway Galaxy
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for replies.
Not now but before I was flying with a JAR-OPS operator. So I am well aware what JAR-OPS 1 #1.405 cites about approach ban. That is exactly same what Mini-Jumbo mentions. However with my question, I intended to ask whether UK Rule particularly for Non Jar-Ops Operator (as I am curently employed) is slightly different than that. Because the format of the whole text I quoted gives me the idea that the last portion of the text starting with "Unless..." ("unless, in either case, from such height the specified visual reference for landing is established and is maintained." ) belongs only to paragrah (b). If it is so, then I commented (maybe because of inadequacy of my english): In UK, for a Non Jar Ops Operator, once got below 1000 feet (similiarly to Jar Ops Operator) pilot is stilll allowed to continue to DH (with expectation by that time an improvenent may occur). However (differently than Jar Ops operator) he/she it is not allowed to land as long as the reported RVR is below the mininima regardless the Non Jar-Ops Operator pilot acquires the required visual reference.
As EMIT did, if the paragraph (b) is broken up so that the part starting with "unless..." is also considered covering the paragrah (a), then I received my answer clearly.
Regarding the other comments (slightly veered off my question
), I put the following extract from PAN-OPS FLIGHT PROCEDURES (DOC 8168) PART III. APPROACH PROCEDURES PARA 1.6.2 (Same can be found on JEPPESEN ATC Page 213). I guess it is a proper reference showing application of a certain amount of height correction is valid only when flying a "Stabilized Non Precision Approach". My company`s SOP suggests this as "50" feet.
.....The stabilized approach technique is also
associated with operator-specified limits of speed,
power, configuration and displacement at (a) specified
height(s) designed to ensure the stability of the
approach path and a requirement for an immediate
go-around if these requirements are not met.
NOTE:
1. To achieve a constant descent gradient where
stepdown fixes are specified, descent may be
delayed until after passing the FAF, or the FAF
crossed at an increased altitude/height. If a
greater height is used, ATC clearance should be
obtained to ensure separation.
2. When using the “stabilized approach” technique
in a non-precision approach, the height/altitude
at which the missed approach maneuver is initiated
is a matter of pilot judgement based on the
prevailing conditions and the overriding requirement
to remain above the MDA/H. Where an operator
specifies an advisory initiation altitude/
height (above MDA/H) based on average
conditions, the associated visibility requirements
should be based on the MDA/H and not the advisory
altitude/height
Regards to all
Not now but before I was flying with a JAR-OPS operator. So I am well aware what JAR-OPS 1 #1.405 cites about approach ban. That is exactly same what Mini-Jumbo mentions. However with my question, I intended to ask whether UK Rule particularly for Non Jar-Ops Operator (as I am curently employed) is slightly different than that. Because the format of the whole text I quoted gives me the idea that the last portion of the text starting with "Unless..." ("unless, in either case, from such height the specified visual reference for landing is established and is maintained." ) belongs only to paragrah (b). If it is so, then I commented (maybe because of inadequacy of my english): In UK, for a Non Jar Ops Operator, once got below 1000 feet (similiarly to Jar Ops Operator) pilot is stilll allowed to continue to DH (with expectation by that time an improvenent may occur). However (differently than Jar Ops operator) he/she it is not allowed to land as long as the reported RVR is below the mininima regardless the Non Jar-Ops Operator pilot acquires the required visual reference.
As EMIT did, if the paragraph (b) is broken up so that the part starting with "unless..." is also considered covering the paragrah (a), then I received my answer clearly.
Regarding the other comments (slightly veered off my question
), I put the following extract from PAN-OPS FLIGHT PROCEDURES (DOC 8168) PART III. APPROACH PROCEDURES PARA 1.6.2 (Same can be found on JEPPESEN ATC Page 213). I guess it is a proper reference showing application of a certain amount of height correction is valid only when flying a "Stabilized Non Precision Approach". My company`s SOP suggests this as "50" feet......The stabilized approach technique is also
associated with operator-specified limits of speed,
power, configuration and displacement at (a) specified
height(s) designed to ensure the stability of the
approach path and a requirement for an immediate
go-around if these requirements are not met.
NOTE:
1. To achieve a constant descent gradient where
stepdown fixes are specified, descent may be
delayed until after passing the FAF, or the FAF
crossed at an increased altitude/height. If a
greater height is used, ATC clearance should be
obtained to ensure separation.
2. When using the “stabilized approach” technique
in a non-precision approach, the height/altitude
at which the missed approach maneuver is initiated
is a matter of pilot judgement based on the
prevailing conditions and the overriding requirement
to remain above the MDA/H. Where an operator
specifies an advisory initiation altitude/
height (above MDA/H) based on average
conditions, the associated visibility requirements
should be based on the MDA/H and not the advisory
altitude/height
Regards to all
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The text "unless, in either case, from such height the
specified visual reference for landing is established
and is maintained."Applies to both a) and b). It states "in either case", which implies that in case a) or case b) you may only continue below DA or MDA when the visual requirements have been met.
specified visual reference for landing is established
and is maintained."Applies to both a) and b). It states "in either case", which implies that in case a) or case b) you may only continue below DA or MDA when the visual requirements have been met.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we know if this approach ban lark is just a British and JAR OPS thing??
Do other countries in Europe apply this to all IFR ops, or is it just Public Transport (JAR OPS / EASA) and the Brits??
Cheers
Do other countries in Europe apply this to all IFR ops, or is it just Public Transport (JAR OPS / EASA) and the Brits??
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do other countries in Europe apply this to all IFR ops, or is it just Public Transport (JAR OPS / EASA) and the Brits??
Certainly not in the usual palces I flew...AMS/FRA/CDG/VIE/ZRH etc
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And German.
Also we only add the 50' for non precision approaches where the glide path is manually checked. Gives a heads up prior to the MDH/MDA and saves 'spooning' the MDA/MDH.
Also we only add the 50' for non precision approaches where the glide path is manually checked. Gives a heads up prior to the MDH/MDA and saves 'spooning' the MDA/MDH.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ? ? ?
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st I agree with mini-jumbo and others, I consider legal the submitted scenario.
Jar-Ops 1.405 refers to OM or equivalent position. Where no OM or equivalent position exists the gate is referred to 1000 ft HAA.
So the rule's sense could be to enclose non-JAR-OPS operators and those exempt from JAR-OPS 1.405 into Jar-Ops layout.
In JAR OPS, an approach ban only exist before the FAF (or point)
So the rule's sense could be to enclose non-JAR-OPS operators and those exempt from JAR-OPS 1.405 into Jar-Ops layout.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: lgw
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside. One of the tech questions at ek as of late last year has a question with such a scenario. None of the answers were as per the approach ban mentioned here jar ops et al. Scenario interception of glide above platform(3000) and deterioation of rvr before faf.
The nearest option was not to descend past the faf (publish platform 2500 meets glide.)
Maintain platform and track loc to missedapproach point and go around.The other options were ludicrous
Now it made a few assumption about having a dme for map not a da etc etc but as ek are jar compliant was it just a badly constructed question or is there still a version of an icao apprach ban that is as per this question
It was i believe constructed around a generic icao apprach ban, ie no 1000' or equivalent postion. Now the jar ban is an evolution of earlier regs vis vis faf or fap
Anyone care to comment.
The nearest option was not to descend past the faf (publish platform 2500 meets glide.)
Maintain platform and track loc to missedapproach point and go around.The other options were ludicrous
Now it made a few assumption about having a dme for map not a da etc etc but as ek are jar compliant was it just a badly constructed question or is there still a version of an icao apprach ban that is as per this question
It was i believe constructed around a generic icao apprach ban, ie no 1000' or equivalent postion. Now the jar ban is an evolution of earlier regs vis vis faf or fap
Anyone care to comment.
