Training Approaches in Approach Ban

what_next wrote:

I can’t see how it would apply intrument approches below minimum RVR.

I would expect an IFR school to have an exemption for IFR approaches; but that would be an exemption from SERA (which does allow such an exemption), and not help with OPS.

More likely – neither the schools, nor the regulator, airports nor ATC actually realise that technically practice IFR approaches below 1,000ft are illegal…

Cobalt wrote:

I would expect an IFR school to have an exemption for IFR approaches…

On the contrary. Our training manual states, that 2x legal minima apply, i.w. 1100m RVR instead of 550m and 400ft instead of 200. The only legal way we can train approaches to minima is the FNPT.

Timothy wrote:

what_next wrote:

For IFR it would be higher by an order of magnitude – so even more restricting.

No, I don’t think so.

This was referring to the enroute minimum which for IFR is the MORA. There are not many spots around here with a MORA below 4000ft.

Timothy wrote:

Which would be the DA for the approach, wouldn’t it?

That’s now kind of a circular reference. I’m not allowed to fly the approach because RVR is below minimum. So it has to be some kind of enroute exercise with no intent to land. Enroute, my minimum is 500ft VFR or MORA IFR….

I am really glad I never even gave a single thought to such finesses and just flew with my students no matter what the conditions were. Nobody ever reported me for anything.

Please quote the rest:

or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:

(1) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest obstacle
located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located
within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.

Unless there are state minima, the approach minima are selected under part OPS and for private ops, as you quote much earlier, by the PIC…. so that doesn’t count.

The UK CAA has issued an exemption from these minimum height rules (note – not specified state minimum flight altitudes!) to make these approaches legal again, because they realised the problems caused by this.

Just for fun, I read the old German LuftVO and according to that, unless an exemption was issued, IFR training approaches were illegal in Germany…

Cobalt wrote:

Just for fun, I read the old German LuftVO and according to that, unless an exemption was issued, IFR training approaches were illegal in Germany…

Most probably yes – unless a landing was done from every approach.

@what_next wrote:

On the contrary. Our training manual states, that 2x legal minima apply, i.w. 1100m RVR instead of 550m and 400ft instead of 200. The only legal way we can train approaches to minima is the FNPT.

Out of curiosity – are these weather minima, or are these minima to which the approach is flown in VMC? I have seen the former in our school manual to ensure training safety (and return to base…), but not the latter.

400ft minima? Do the students also get to use that in the exam?
Other than that, seems very high. When training some schools add 50ft but I tend to ask if we can just fly to the actual minima, especially since down there is where all the interesting bits happen

Cobalt wrote:

Out of curiosity – are these weather minima, or are these minima to which the approach is flown in VMC?

These are weather minima. Approaches are flown to published minima.

Cobalt wrote:

Arne wrote:
for the casual private IFR pilot I would argue even going around at 500ft is good training. Further down the ground is only closer, but from a procedural standpoint most of it is higher.
Practicing the going around – sure, but not for practicing keeping the needles in the middle down to 200ft. Once a pilot has mastered controlling and maintaining a descent rate and heading well enough, going down to 500 or even 400ft tends not to be a problem.

The bulk of the workload, is flying the approach, intercepting and establishing on the GP. You should be established at 1000ft, you can continue to 500ft if you want to get higher needle deflection, but flying down to 200ft does not bring a whole lot more. Also mentally, if you know you are going around at DA, you could stare at the panel and not even train looking out for the approach lights, or the opposite try to look for them when the RVR does not allow it and lose track of your panel, which is dangerous. I guess you could easily train bad habits with such procedures.

It seems we should all have been flying in Canada, and we would have missed this fun conversation:

Approach Ban
• CAR 602.129
• (4) Where the RVR is reported to be less than the minimum RVR set out in
subsection (2) or (3), as applicable, no person shall continue an instrument
approach in an IFR aircraft unless
– (b) the aircraft is on a training flight where a landing is not intended
and the appropriate air traffic control unit is informed that a missed
approach procedure will be initiated at or above the decision height
or minimum descent altitude, as appropriate; …