OK465

Not sure about the closed runway rules in the FARs, but you couldn't do a declared low approach to one in the USAF. The CAR Approach Ban does have specific exemption for training when the reported weather is below limits under the ban, low approach only. IIRC.

GF

In regards to designing procedures, with DA/MDA having a visibility component...

It is amazing to me to read the general pilot response(s) to RVR/VIS....

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. :}

- OK - apart from being amazed, your contribution to this thread was......?

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.

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.

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

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!

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..