Approach Ban
Just started a new job with new Ops Manuals and it's raised an interesting question.
Does anyone know if there is any airport in the world that has an Approach Ban that is other 1000ft HAT? Thanks |
It's 1000' or the FAF. If there's a FAF use that, if not 1000'. So yes many airports around the world.
|
FAF or OM / equivalent pos? Are you sure aerodrome approach ban applies outside uk?
FD (the un-real) |
In Australia there ARE no ABPs.
|
OPS 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 OPS 1.192). (b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 to OPS 1.430, subparagraph (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 RVR/visibility is less than 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. |
Are you sure aerodrome approach ban applies outside uk? EU-OPS 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 OPS 1.192). (b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 to OPS 1.430, subparagraph (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 RVR/visibility is less than 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. In Australia there ARE no ABPs. (4) If an element of the meteorological minima for the landing of an aircraft at an aerodrome is less than that determined for the aircraft operation at the aerodrome, the aircraft must not land at that aerodrome. (6) This regulation does not prevent a pilot from: (a) making an approach for the purpose of landing at an aerodrome; or (b) continuing to fly towards an aerodrome of intended landing specified in the flight plan; if the pilot believes, on reasonable grounds, that the meteorological minima determined for that aerodrome will be at, or above, the meteorological minima determined for the aerodrome at the time of arrival at that aerodrome. and from CAR 2 aerodrome meteorological minima means the minimum heights of cloud base and minimum values of visibility which are determined in pursuance of regulation 257 for the purpose of determining whether an aerodrome may be used for take-off or landing. Discussion on the point took place here: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/310027-approach-ban.html |
Checkboard, I appreciate your inputs and believe we are reading from the same page. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ml#post5418160
You missed my bolding that there was an "aerodrome" AB. On the other hand, now I see that my reservation towards the "approach ban" term being used for EASA principles had been misinformed, because the UK procedure is in fact named "Absolute Minima" in Manual of Air Traffic Services. PPRUNE here: http://www.pprune.org/questions/1114...procedure.html Just for intrest, here's some of the wording: the controller must inform the pilot immediately with the following phraseology: “(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name) approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?” If the pilot states that he still intends to continue the approach below 1000 ft above aerodrome level the controller shall inform the pilot: “(Callsign) if you continue the approach and descend below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, it is believed that you will be contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge.” This shall be followed, at the appropriate moment, by: ”(Callsign) there is no known traffic to affect you making a (name) approach torunway (number).” This brings us back to Five Liver's Q. a) either you mean UK absolute minima procedure in which case I doubt it, because the MATS cites 1000 ft for all and only UK airports. b) or you mean the operator's procedure in which case I doubt it, because whichever text your OM-A provides, it is applicable to YOU as a pilot on any aerodrome worldwide. Note, that if B) is correct and you were an EASA operator, the correct limit is OM or equivalent position, 1000 ft applies only if neither of those two can be established. Sincerely, FD (the un-real) PS: Checkerboard, please accept my apology for making you re-post facts that you provided already so many times around here. :ok: |
I believe the approach ban point just has been changed, our company just changed it to the here below. I just could find a proposal of januari 2009 from easa which state;
"The provisions related to the commencement and continuation of approaches (OPS.GEN.200) include a proposal of the JAA OPSG to replace the outer marker, previously used as a reference point, by a height criteria of 1 000 ft above the aerodrome. As new runways are generally not fitted with an outer marker, the reference point specified in the rule will no longer exist at many aerodromes. The height of 1 000 ft above the aerodrome is universally applicable and considered to facilitate implementation since it is applicable to all instrument approaches. The proposal is considered a safety enhancement because it simplifies the rule and thereby reduces flight crew workload during an instrument approach. All operators will have the same approach ban point for every approach to every runway instead of a different approach ban point for each runway, which is possible under the existing rule. In addition 1 000 feet is commonly used as a reference point for the stabilisation of the approach in Instrument Meteorological Conditions. Therefore using that reference, which is a trigger for other checks, reduces the risk of error or omission. In the same way, Air Traffic Control will know the approach ban point of all approaching aircraft. The only negative impact that could be seen was that operators may have to change their Operations Manuals and modify flight crew training." regards neon |
Well, I might as wel launch my stupid question here. My ops manual states that at the (fuel) flight planning stage, cloud ceiling must be taken account of in the case of a non-precision approach to asses wether an aerodrome is suitable as an alternate. However, once in the air, as I understand it, approach bans only consider RVR, even for non-precision appoaches. Is this assumption correct?
|
Penko, in general only RVR/VIS is relevant to determine the applicable minima regardless of the approach unless stated otherwise either on the chart itself or NOTAM. Usually it's indicated as ceiling required symbol or as a text. :ok:
|
Whilst the thread has crept into definitions off approach bans and even extended into the planning stages on the ground, the original question was "approach ban other than 1000 HAT'" There are airports in the World where, the approach will be "banned" with no relation to RVR but in relation to other climatic considerations, high winds, high clouds etc. FNC has a habit of banning approaches if the winds are outside the mandatory limits for the various reporting points, airfields in Nepal where a visual turn point onto finals must be visable at high levels etc. I'm not sure about every airfield in the World though!
|
Does anyone know if there is any airport in the world that has an Approach Ban that is other 1000ft HAT? From Jepps: Approach Ban An aircraft shall not takeoff or start an approach to land at any airport if the observed RVR is less than the meteorological minimums for that airport. Prior to commencing an instrument approach, if the weather conditions at the airport are below the published or the pilot’s landing minimums, the pilot should notify the ATC facility or Airport Advisory Service Units and request clearance to hold or to proceed to an alternate airport. |
NZ. Approach ban (although it doesn't apply to all operations) applies from FAF.
I thought USA was the same, although I've no evidence for it. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.