I made an interesting approach at LFRQ (Quimper). For the whole flight of four hours we stayed well above the clouds covering France. When approaching LFRQ we had to cross the cloud layer of round about 3.000 ft for landing. The last weather report given to us by Iroise approach was: visibility 2.400 meters OVC 300 ft, light rain. This was an automatic report because at the time when we started our approach no one was at the tower. In general over the day it was always forecasted a visibility at 5.000 meters, OVC between 300 and 400 ft and temporarily visibility of 1300 meters, OVC 100 ft. So we had prepared our alternate at Dinard.
By Iroise we where cleared for the ILS Z approach runway 28 with a minimum of 475 ft.
Runway lights where not available. So have a look at the Video. As you can see on the altimeter the call out for runway in sight was exactly at the minimum. Without runway lights the runway was really hard to see although we hat some ground view before.
Sometimes I’m flying approaches to the minimum like on this day. But this flight reminds me, never to go below the minimum because if not exactly lined up by the autopilot the time to see and catch up with the extended center line for landing is so short. In this case between callout and landing it was 30 seconds.
Hi Peter!
Was the visibility really reported in feet?
With the ALS out, your minimum RVR was 1200 meters. Since I don’t exactly know the conversion fomula, I am not sure if that’s higher than the 2400 feet of visibility you quote from the latest met report. Below minimums?
PCL would have been available with PPR.
Also, just FYI, according to French regulation, a straight-in instrument approach is not allowed in case of absence of the local ATS. You are supposed to circle overhead before landing, which obviously precludes landing in such conditions. See ENR 1.1 for further details.
You are of course aware that, in France, with an unmanned tower, straight-in approaches are not allowed and circling minima apply?
@boscomantico It was 2400 meters not feet. So well above minimum RVR. Mistake corrected.
@Aviathor Thats why I wrote when we started our approach we got the automated weather report. We have been a little bit to early due of some shortcuts. But anyway thanks for the advice, to be honest I haven’t had it in mind.
The reason for sharing this was to help with an outside view of a real minimum approach, as I have captured it with the gopro, because within the last weeks there were some posts of accidents with weather below the minimums.
Were the approach lights out of service or are they operated by pilot control? I did not see the approach lights in the video at the minimum call out?
Here in the US, we have a large number of secondary airports that have ILS and an approach light system. The other Peter was asking about check lists in another thread. I suggest in the US, when flying into such an airport with PCL, to include a do item at the FAF to activate the approach lights. I also do it a second time at the 500 foot point to make sure the PCL system has heard the activation, 5 clicks.
Finally, in the US, we are permitted to continue the approach below the DA if we have the approach lights, but must pick up one of the other visual cues in order to descend below 100 feet above the TDZE. When weather is at actual minimum visibility, you can’t see the runway at the DA and need the approach lights to continue.
NCYankee wrote:
Were the approach lights out of service or are they operated by pilot control? I did not see the approach lights in the video at the minimum call out?
On the plate posted by eddspeter, it is written : PCL with PPR.
On the VAC, it is said PPR 1hr before ATC closure (if SSLIA not required) / 6 hr (if SSLIA required)
Thanks
service de sauvetage et de lutte contre l’incendie des aéronefs sur les aérodromes (SSLIA)
In English: airport rescue and firefighting service
@eddsPeter
Is the box on the glare shield a Portable Powerflarm ?
If so, how do you rate its utility ?
