Peter wrote:
One “colourful” FI who used to prop up the bar at Shoreham many years ago said that the French post office pilots were authorised for zero-zero ILS ops, and all hand flown.
that’s true.
Legally, the night french post was authorized to shoot an ILS approach without visibility.
Here is a link (in french) where the “Postal Approach” methodology is described. I will try to translate later on.
Briefly, the First Officer was shooting the approach; the captain was looking outside, and ready to take control for the flare; the flight engineer was watching the aircraft and the pilots.
Once the aircraft was on the ground, it was fully stopped; it was only at this moment the first officer was authorised to look outside, and help the captain to taxi the aircraft out of the runway to the ramp.
Good explanation of the RVR/visibility requirements for Part 91 operations: https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/weather/how-runway-visual-range-rvr-works/
Europe has the “approach ban” where you cannot descend below 1000ft or whatever unless the reported RVR is above the plate requirement; the US does not.
However there is e.g. this which suggests that you could not get busted at most smaller airports because they don’t have automated RVR measurement equipment. Many pilots have flown approaches at certain airports in solid fog, down to minima, went around and did it a few more times, for IR practice, and perhaps on the chance that the fog suddenly disappears. No evidence of getting reported if there is no RVR measurement; if there is then ATC are required to file a report. It would be slightly bizzare if you could not do this; for example you can legally fly a “training” approach at a major airport with official RVR reporting (say with a 200ft DH) in a real OVC001 (i.e. you never get visual) if the RVR is “ok” but you cannot legally fly the same approach in OVC010 if the RVR is “not ok”. It doesn’t make logical sense and was presumably done for the “benefit” of “cowboy” AOC ops to prevent “temptation”; these guys don’t do practice approaches as such.
As noted above the point at which you get “visual” (which has a specific meaning – certainly in the US where you have that long definition I posted a link to) is pilot-interpreted so you can’t get busted for busting it unless (a) your co-pilot reports you (as AIUI he is required to do in AOC ops) or (b) there is a CAA employee sitting in the plane 
Zsoszu wrote:
If you are CATI, no rwy or rwy enviroment in sight at DA/DH, you have to go around. At 207 was not, he passed 200, 1..2..3. and then had the lights.
AFAIK the approach lights are part of the “runway environment” so that’s all you need to see. In the video, the approach lights become visible at the same time as he calls out “two hundred”. He might very well have seen them a moment before they were visible on camera. Also we don’t know what the altimeter actually showed the moment he started calling out “two hundred”.
I don’t know about the US regs, but in Europe the visibility becomes irrelevant from a legal point of view once you descend below 1000 AAL.
So I don’t think you can say with any degree of certainty whether this was a minimum bust or not.
Peter wrote:
Europe has the “approach ban” where you cannot descend below 1000ft or whatever unless the reported RVR is above the plate requirement
Do you mean that you cannot continue beyond the FAF unless the reported RVR is above the minimum required? I don’t know anything about “1000ft or whatever”, so I wonder if I’m missing something.
I have heard approaches at the local airport with commercial traffic where the tower conveniently doesn’t mention the RVR if it is too bad.
NCYankee wrote:
but they must have the required flight visibility at and below the DH to avoid a missed approach.
…which he didn’t have, IMHO, at least not from the cockpit. That ‘front camera view’ has a different angle looking down, so runway lights are visible earlier in the approach, maybe because the light has to travel less distance through the fog than the pilot looking out the cockpit… anyway, I think it’s quite obvious he didn’t see anything until about 50ft or so. Which I would say is well below minimums, no matter how you look at it.
I agree.
About 2 seconds after “200” the front camera saw this
The runway environment
appears 6.5 seconds after the 200ft point.
That’s my understanding… maybe the first pic is OK above 100ft? I don’t think so.
boscomantico wrote:
In this US, if only flight visibility is relevant, then it’s very hard to bust people because it is, well, only judged from inside the cockpit.
That is true, unless of course you video tape the approach and publish it.
Rwy enviroment means for rwy or app lights. If you have it, you may continue. Anyhow exists in US, I have my own ban. In a single engine / singel IFR aircraft you must have a good AP to concetrate on the aircraft / outside world and not to risk too much…if rhe WX marginal like that. Being landing minded is very dangerous thing. Landing is an option. I know it is a different business, but in our operation at DH we say “continue” and not Landing. Anything may happen below DA which may obstruct the safe landing.
2 years ago, a Hungarian company ASL Cargo 737-300 ran-off in BGY/LIME. They were comited to land. On the CVR you may hear, “we will land in all cases” At that point the crash was armed. They landed on the last 500 m.
