jepperson approach plates legal requirements

[ANSALONI]

Hi everyone,
Just wondering. What are the requirements for approah plates on board an aircraft without EFB???? must both pilots have the original copy or can either have a photo-copied version provided an original is onboard??? I hope this is the appropriate forum for this discussion.

[JeroenC]

1 needs to be on board, photocopy is fine even without original (we print them from a computer, which in effect is a copy).

[dusk2dawn]

You are required to have available the information necessary for the planned flight, inclusive whatever alternate planning you have made.

Your operations manual may specify what vendor to use but wether you chose [insert any company here] it remains your responsibility that the information is current and valid for your flight.

The question about photocopy or "original" could possibly end up being one about copyright, but none of the private vendors are approved for anything - except when they deliver data to your FMC navigation database.

[BOAC]

Be careful with 'photocopies' - an eagle-eyed Flt Ops inspector MIGHT deduce that these are 'uncontrolled' ie not amended to a fixed plan and that 'old' copies could sit around on the flight deck.

[FlightPathOBN]

I get all my Jepp plates from PPRUNE!!!

Thats okay, right?

[Tinstaafl]

Of course it is! The only catch is ensuring 'net access during the approach. That was a bit of an issue for me so now I just use M$ Flight Sim. As a flight planning tool it's not bad either. Why, it wouldn't surprise me if you couldn't plan across the pond with it...

[Checkboard]

Both pilots don't need a copy of the plate either. Just a single copy of the current one has to be on board so, for instance, a pilot flying could brief from a single plate, then hand it to the pilot monitoring for the approach.

[SuperflyTNT]

Can somebody please explain as to why RVR and visibility are mentioned. What is the significance?

Isn't the visibility reported in RVR below 1500m.

Thank you in advance.

[galaxy flyer]

No, it could be reported as viz or RVR, depending on airport facilities operative or available.

GF

[SuperflyTNT]

So why has it been given twice here as RVR 550m and VIS 800m. Which one is the pilot supposed to follow while shooting the approach?

[80-87]

RVR-VIS

Well its a very good question. Instead of asking the question, why not look up the answer. Do your self a favor and learn the information that is located in the Jeppesen 'General' section of the Airway Manual. Instead of putting your feet up, reading the newspaper or the latest edition of GQ, do some work.

If you were working with me on a long haul flight you might learn a thing or two.

[SuperflyTNT]

Well I did read what Jeppesen has to say about it and didn't quite fully understand it. Which is exactly why I posted my question here. Sadly, I'm not working with you on a long haul flight which is why I'm trying to learn off here. Thanks for your advice in any case.

Jeppesen states that - "RVR visibility values are charted only when the value is not the same as the prevailing or meteorological visibility value. When a difference occurs, the respective RVR and prevailing or meteorological values are prefixed with 'RVR' and 'VIS'. When there is no difference, the minimum is shown only once and means either RVR (if RVR is reported for that runway) or visibility if measured otherwise."

[Airmann]

Transmisometers can break. Thats why there is a vis reading. Don't know if its company specific but there are also tables to determine how to convert rvr into vis and vv.

[BOAC]

Wow...where do I sign? That sounds like a cracking day out.

- indeed - put me down on the list too. I need a challenge every now and then. I'll even bring my own rolled-up newspaper.

Originally Posted by Airmann

Transmisometers can break. Thats why there is a vis reading.

- ok, accepted. Now explain why every plate does not have them?

[nitpicker330]

If ATC quote Vis then you need 800m if they quote RVR you need 550m

[greybeard]

It took 16 posts to get the answer?

PPRuNe is a sad place at times, full of crud from trolls and joksters.

[BOAC]

Regrettably, greybeard, now 17 posts and no proper answer! nitpickers answer is of course correct but the query from 'superfly' was 'why do you require a greater vis. without RVR at that airfield'? We still do not know. Have you actually looked at any current Jepp charts?

Most of the UK ILS charts quote only 'RVRxxxm'. We all (hopefully) know about converting met vis to RVR, so as long as generally you have a met vis of at least 550m you are ok for CATI. Why then is it necessary to publish a met vis? 800m is actually the visual approach minimum RVR, and why the quoted chart requires an equivalent RVR of at least 800m I know not. Do you?

Is this purely an 'Indian' thing? Does this appear on any European charts? I recall (going back a bit!) Pristina used to have only a met vis minimum for the ILS 35 which I think WAS 800m.

Aterpster?

[SuperflyTNT]

The above picture/screen shot that I added is from the Jepp lengend manual. So, my guess is its not just an Indian thing. But, I have seen RVR and VIS being reported in quite a few current Indian approach charts.

Nitpickers answer seems to be the most favourable right now. But, visibility is reported in RVR below 1500m, why is VIS here stated at 800m ?

[BOAC]

OK - my initial response then is that it is simply a Jepp 'presentation' issue for the legend page, but you say you have seen it on other charts? Can you image one for me or give me locators?

[justanotherflyer]

@superfly

But, visibility is reported in RVR below 1500m, why is VIS here stated at 800m ?

Not really. Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that visibility above 1500m is normally not reported as RVR.

RVR can be reported only when measured by suitable equipment, and is given for a specific runway direction in the format RXX/XXXX.

Visibility, a more general all round assessment, can indeed be reported as such below 1500m (E.g. showing 0300 on my location's METAR right now - time for coffee!)



.