jepperson approach plates legal requirements
GF
Thanks.
We flew at times as civ public aircraft and at times Part 91 and even tried to act 121 occasionally.
But I've often been cleared for low approaches to closed runways here at OKC...the tower would place altitude restrictions on them if there were vehicles or people on the runway along with the big lighted "X"...limited to something in the neighborhood of no lower than 500 feet, possibly in line with the sparsely populated guidance. Not sure.
But I figured if they were happy, I was. Never heard a word about it, but of course, we were them.
Thanks.
We flew at times as civ public aircraft and at times Part 91 and even tried to act 121 occasionally.
But I've often been cleared for low approaches to closed runways here at OKC...the tower would place altitude restrictions on them if there were vehicles or people on the runway along with the big lighted "X"...limited to something in the neighborhood of no lower than 500 feet, possibly in line with the sparsely populated guidance. Not sure.
But I figured if they were happy, I was. Never heard a word about it, but of course, we were them.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FPO
It is amazing to me to read the general pilot response(s) to RVR/VIS....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
But your decision to go beyond the approach ban is based on what is passed on by ATIS or ATC. It surely takes precedence over potentially expired info published by MET/METAR. And I don't think ATC would ever pass both Vis and RVR.
I can see why the publication of both Vis and RVR on a plate bothers you though. One would think there is a reason...
Talking of approach ban. "Commencement and continuation of approach" was defined in EU-OPS under 1.405. The cross-reference table published by EASA says the equivalent section is now in CAT.OP.MPA.305. There is indeed such a section in Part-CAT, except it only covers visual reference at DH/DA and does not say a word about RVR. Sigh.
Certainly in the UK met vis will be issued from MET (and on the METAR) and RVR from ATC so both would be 'in force' and presumably available.
I can see why the publication of both Vis and RVR on a plate bothers you though. One would think there is a reason...
Talking of approach ban. "Commencement and continuation of approach" was defined in EU-OPS under 1.405. The cross-reference table published by EASA says the equivalent section is now in CAT.OP.MPA.305. There is indeed such a section in Part-CAT, except it only covers visual reference at DH/DA and does not say a word about RVR. Sigh.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - it is really an unnecessary complication to my mind. Re the Approach ban - the dilemma is that IF at the relevant point the met vis is below the 'published' minimum but the RVR is above...??? - which one do you take note of? I have never seen a plate like those plates posted here in Europe, so the problem has never arisen. Indeed the only time I have even seen a met vis minimum published was in the early Pristina days.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the VIS/RVR data for Bangalore from the government source...
and for your reading pleasure... JAR-OPS 1.430 Appendix 1
and
Manual of Runway Visual Range Observing and Reporting Practices. Doc 9328
and for your reading pleasure... JAR-OPS 1.430 Appendix 1
and
Manual of Runway Visual Range Observing and Reporting Practices. Doc 9328
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 30th Apr 2013 at 16:17.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's getting better!
As we thought, the minima stem from the Indian AIP. Still does not answer my question, though.............................
PS JarOps not relevant there (and only refers to CMV), and the observing and reporting of RVR is not relevant either!
As we thought, the minima stem from the Indian AIP. Still does not answer my question, though.............................PS JarOps not relevant there (and only refers to CMV), and the observing and reporting of RVR is not relevant either!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR-OPS link posted as there are posts in the thread that ref.
ICAO doc is relevant, and gives the foundation for the different VIS and RVR values and foundation for the different numbers per procedure type..
ICAO doc is relevant, and gives the foundation for the different VIS and RVR values and foundation for the different numbers per procedure type..
