what_next wrote:
Maybe even to the point that an approach ban for private flights will be introduced here as well.
If what you mean with this is that private flights are not to be allowed to fly an approach if the minima are not given, then I thought that is already so.
NCO.OP.160 Meteorological conditions
(b) The pilot-in-command shall only commence or continue an IFR flight towards the planned destination aerodrome if the latest available meteorological information indicates that, at the estimated time of arrival, the weather conditions at the destination or at least one destination alternate aerodrome are at or above the applicable aerodrome operating minima.
@JasonC, if the will is there to divert if necessary, why not. From the TAF he was legal to depart and ELLX was above minima easily and is not that far away. The question remains why he did not divert when he saw that RVR is way below his minimum.
If what you mean with this is that private flights are not to be allowed to fly an approach if the minima are not given, then I thought that is already so.
In theory. But as you see, you still get an approach clearance in Germany. In Switzerland you won’t. They ask you about your minima on first contact in this kind of weather. And unless your minima are met, you either hold or divert. But they will not clear you for the approach.
Well, NCO.OP.210 is clear on it. You MAY start an approach but RVR has to be above minimums at 1000 ft AAL. Which clearly was not the case here.
NCO.OP.210 Commencement and continuation of approach — aeroplanes and helicopters
(a) The pilot-in-command may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported runway visual range / visibility (RVR/VIS).
(b) If the reported RVR/VIS is less than the applicable minimum, the approach shall not be continued:
(1) below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome; or
(2) into the final approach segment in the case where the decision altitude/height (DA/H) or minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) is more than 1 000 ft above the aerodrome.
I was aware that here they will not clear you unless you declare an emergency. I did not know that Germany is different.
what_next wrote:
Maybe even to the point that an approach ban for private flights will be introduced here as well
I do not understand. You are not allowed to start an ILS approach unless visibility is at or above minima, i.e. 800 m or 550 m with a working a/p. Isn’t that what is referred to as the approach ban?
I have met another guy who openly brags about having flown approaches to landing in 0/0 conditions using the a/p almost until touchdown, and he does not have nearly the same experience as this Mooney pilot.
Isn’t that what is referred to as the approach ban?
Yes. But that came about in Germany only very recently with the introduction of Part.NCO. Obviously neither pilots nor controllers respect it very much yet.
I have met another guy who openly brags about having flown approaches to landing in 0/0 conditions using the a/p almost until touchdown…
On this very forum a pilot has openly bragged that he flies 0/0 approaches and landings into a grass field using the synthetic vision provided by his avionics suite… As I wrote above, there are a lot of things that you can do 99 times. But the 100th time is not guaranteed.
The question is if that approach ban will be enforced by ATC. In some countries, ATC does it by refusing clearances, in some countries ATC doesn’t.
The question is if that approach ban will be enforced by ATC. In some countries, ATC does it by refusing clearances, in some countries ATC doesn’t.
It would suffice if they inform the airport about the fact that an aircraft is just approaching in conditions which are not typical for it’s category. The airport can then send out their ramp inspector to verify that the aircraft is equipped and approved for Cat I operations and the crew is qualified and current. After a couple of such inspections (which will soon make their rounds in the flying clubs and internet forums) this method of committing suicide will no longer exist.
what_next wrote:
As I wrote above, there are a lot of things that you can do 99 times. But the 100th time is not guaranteed.
Some people may be able to get away with it 99 times. Others may fail on the first or second try. I am appalled. The worst is that they may encourage others to try.
What a sad outcome…
This seem to be a clasical minima bust accident?
With 150m visibility you won’t be able to see the runway when at decision altitude.
I would expect the crash to be survivable when you just continue the ILS all the way down to the runway without visibility. But it wasn’t :-(
Some people may be able to get away with it 99 times. Others may fail on the first or second try.
Yes. And it is not even a matter of experience, just plain mathematics/statistics. One of 100 (*) approaches under these conditions which are continued below the minimum with aircraft and airports not equipped for it (EDDR is Cat I only!) will end in the approach lights or beside the runway or aigainst some building. Remember that crash of the Polish presidential plane in Smolensk 2010? Experienced military crew, 0/0 conditions. It’s a gamble, nothing else. Every single time.
And this approach ban is worthless as long as it is not enforced. Just as any other rule and regulation that you can break as often as you want and get away every time.
( * ) the number is arbitrary. We do not know how many pilots continue below minima without visual references, therefore there is no real statistics.
