The approach ban is such a good common sense protection, and for single crew the Cat 1 minima is practically 800 m, as with an approved A/P isn’t the DA increased by 25%, so in practice you might not actually avail yourself of the 550m dispensation for single crew?
Very sad outcome and condolences to this pilot’s family – we don’t know all the facts, so best to wait for the formal report. As with the recent Metroliner accident you might initially think its a classic Vmc event, but @w_n also pointed out the type has form on asymmetric flap retraction.
The approach ban is such a good common sense protection…
Unfortunately it didn’t exist in Germany until a couple of months ago (only for commercial operations). So pilots have got used to do “look and see” approaches together with “the minimum is where I can see the runway”. This is still the mindset of a lot of pilots around here. I don’t think this will change on it’s own but only if ATC stops issuing approach clearances in below-minimum conditions. Which will of course not prevent some guys of cancelling IFR and flying the forbidden approach “visually”.
RobertL18C wrote:
and for single crew the Cat 1 minima is practically 800 m, as with an approved A/P isn’t the DA increased by 25%, so in practice you might not actually avail yourself of the 550m dispensation for single crew?
Where do you see this?
What do you mean by approach ban ? NCO does not provide anything in that regard as this is for pilots operation.
So if you decide to not respect it you’re not legal but in this context it does not talk about ATCO (which is in another Annex)
Also, I don’t recall the details but read recently in the GM or AMC to Part NCO (probably close to NCO.OP.210) the guidelines on how the weather should be assessed (like degrading or improving BECMG, degrading or improving TEMPO, etc…)
Also I don’t know its recent status but the ILS of EDDR has been regularly U/S and I would not try any other approach there with such low minima (VOR or NDB)
JasonC this comes from memory of the KAP140 supplement which has a minimum of 250’AGL on approach, despite being approved to CAT 1 – although when I checked on the internet for the DA42, I only found the restriction at a Vref of more than 130 KIAS.
You are correct that this must be A/P and Type specific.
PapaPapa wrote:
What do you mean by approach ban ? NCO does not provide anything in that regard as this is for pilots operation.
Part-NCO wrote:
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:
- below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome; or
- 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.
(c) Where the RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility.
(d) If, after passing 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the reported RVR/VIS falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
(e) The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the visual reference adequate for the type of approach operation and for the intended runway is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
(f) The touchdown zone RVR shall always be controlling.
The approach ban under Part-NCO is a bit more subtle. The limitations on RVR minima are:
NCO.OP.110 Aerodrome operating minima — aeroplanes and helicopters
(a) For instrument flight rules (IFR) flights, the pilot-in-command shall select and use aerodrome operating minima for each departure, destination and alternate aerodrome. Such minima shall:
(1) not be lower than those established by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State; and
(2) when undertaking low visibility operations, be approved by the competent authority in accordance with Annex V (Part-SPA), Subpart E to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.
For states like Germany and the UK where no explicit RVR minima are published, NCO.OP.110(a)(2) effectively makes the absolute minimum RVR 550 m. The big tables in the AMC/GM are not mandatory. NCO.OP.210 then requires the minimum RVR at 1000 ft aal.
Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense. The big complex tables at higher DHs, the formula for the autopilot, the single pilot stuff… all of these are very inexact science. But landing an aeroplane when the transmissometers beside the runway are giving 225 m (is and probably should be) unlawful unless there are LVO capabilities.
JasonC wrote:
[the need to increase DH by 25% when using an autopilot in single-pilot operations]
Where do you see this?
This would be in the guidance material – GM4 NCO.OP.110; it applies to helictopters, but not to fixed wing. I seem to remember that it was there for fixed wing once in the dim and distant past, but might be wrong.
In any case – decision height is a red herring. The big killer is low visibility; the approach ban is tied to visibility alone for that reason, and because it tends to be a lot more uniform than cloud base.
A “let’s have a look” approach with a 250ft minimum and reported BKN002 or even OVC002 can easily end up with the approach lights clearly visible at minimum; ceilometers are not very precise and how much of the lowest cloud layer you can see through can vary a lot.
An approach with 400m reported RVR – highly unlikely you see anything useful; in this sort of weather you probably don’t even have a well defined ceiling, probably VV/// and continuous murk.
It is always worth remembering that when you come out at 200ft, you are 1200m from the touch down zone and 900m from the threshold. Any significantly lower visibility is MUCH harder.
RobertL18C wrote:
JasonC this comes from memory of the KAP140 supplement which has a minimum of 250’AGL on approach, despite being approved to CAT 1 – although when I checked on the internet for the DA42, I only found the restriction at a Vref of more than 130 KIAS.It must be because of the a combination of A/P and A/C. The Cessna 172S / KAP140 combination has 200 ft AGL as minimum altitude for A/P operation on approach.You are correct that this must be A/P and Type specific.
Ah, this sounds like the Pressure Error Correction (PEC) figure of 50ft that many apply to DA. There’s much discussion about the folklore of the 50ft PEC but the bottom line is that any correction should be prescribed in the AFM. The AFMs for the DA42 and DA62 I fly assume no error for the altimeter, hence no PEC.
