CAT I JAR OPS minima
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: Euroville
CAT I JAR OPS minima
For CATIIIA landings we have the minima specified in our OM A as 200,125,75m required. The CATI minima is as per the approach plate or 550m whichever is more restrictive. It hasnīt come up until recently suprisingly but is that for all three points? I always assumed it has but now Iīm not so sure?
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
From: Dry bar
No.
The controlling RVR is that of the Touchdown Zone. If reported and relevant, the mid point and stop end are also controlling. The minimum RVR, if relevant, for the mid point is 125m and 75m for the stop end.
The controlling RVR is that of the Touchdown Zone. If reported and relevant, the mid point and stop end are also controlling. The minimum RVR, if relevant, for the mid point is 125m and 75m for the stop end.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
From: paradise
reference EU OPS 1.400
In other words here once again as long as you perform a manual rollout and being within high speed regime RVR 125 is what you're looking for. Once slowed down to 60 kts 75 is sufficient to vacate the runway.
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 kt.
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 kt.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: Camped on the doorstep
Thanks.
That's at odds with a standard bit of 'tribal knowledge' in the corporate world which says that we need the first two above 550m (or plate minima).
It's always nice to get some facts.
That's at odds with a standard bit of 'tribal knowledge' in the corporate world which says that we need the first two above 550m (or plate minima).
It's always nice to get some facts.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
From: Dry bar
This says a lot about the training given to pilots in some parts of the corporate world. Could be a little better perhaps? I am intrigued that you were unable to find the answer to this yourself JonDyer? Makes you wonder how much inconvenience and fuel wastage could have been avoided by you and your colleagues!
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 8
From: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
In addition to the previous answers, and something which I commonly come across is that the mid-point is a minimum of 125, and is dependent on the facilities at the airfield, and theirs/state limits. The mid-point RVR requirement is the take-off minima for that runway, so if TO minima is 150m, then the mid-point landing minima, and the stop-end minima are 150m if you're going to use the stop-end as part of your landing roll-out, if not then it's 75m for taxiing.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
From: paradise
JFP, it's absolutely correct that RVR is dependent on the approach & lightning system installed. However with the new EU OPS WX minima concept the law maker has standardized & categorized the approach lights systems and adjusted mininas accordantly. RVR 550 CAT I can only be authorized for CAT I approach operations to runways with FALS, TDZ and CL and with DH of 200ft therefore operator may use RVR 125 for CAT I landing. Operator may not be authorized to conduct LVTO with RVR 125 but as we saw earlier may use RVR 125 to perform manual rollout on a CAT I approach provided RWY lightning requirements are met. On the other hand, RVR 75 M LVTO approval doesn't constitute approval to use 75 for the MID on CAT I approach as the ILS system doesn't fullfil the stringent CAT II/III ground facilities requirements. In case TDZ and/ or CL lights aren't installed or inoperative RVR minima is raised to 750M.
Well, I wish it was somewhat easier for the ordinary pilot on line kinda push the button is see what you can or can't do thing.
Well, I wish it was somewhat easier for the ordinary pilot on line kinda push the button is see what you can or can't do thing.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: Camped on the doorstep
Originally Posted by SeanRyder
This says a lot about the training given to pilots in some parts of the corporate world. Could be a little better perhaps? I am intrigued that you were unable to find the answer to this yourself JonDyer? Makes you wonder how much inconvenience and fuel wastage could have been avoided by you and your colleagues!
Thanks anyway!
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
From: paradise
Gents
So according to EU OPS 1.400 in CAT II and CAT IIIA we are allowed to land with mid RVR 75m if we are going to make an autoland. In case of manual landing (w/o rollout guidance) we have to take mid RVR 125m. Correct?
So according to EU OPS 1.400 in CAT II and CAT IIIA we are allowed to land with mid RVR 75m if we are going to make an autoland. In case of manual landing (w/o rollout guidance) we have to take mid RVR 125m. Correct?
