Sign in to follow this  
Driver170

Rvr/vis and ils cat1

Recommended Posts

The fact that you were arguing against Kevin's assertion that ceiling is part of the minimums (it is - that's a fact) only serves to add confusion to anyone trying to get a grasp of this.

Again, if you want to be meticulous about posting correct info here, it is not a fact. The only minima are RVR (or converted VIS) and DA. The fact that you might not get visual reference at your DA because cloudbase/ceiling is below 200ft does not make the cloudbase/ceiling a minima. It will be a cause for not getting visual reference at DA, but that again does not make it a minima. I've yet to come across the JAR/EU-OPS/EASA regulation that specifies you must have a cloudbase of 200ft to shoot an approach, perhaps there is an FAA one...

 

It is a minima for planning alternates and that kind of stuff, but it is NOT a minima for a CAT1 ILS approach.

 

So, recap for anyone reading this thread later:

 

CAT1 ILS approach minima in layman's terms:

  • 550m RVR TDZ or higher as specified on the approach chart.
  • Lowest DA of 200ft AAL (note, decision altitude, not height, so flown on barometric pressure, not radar altimeter).
  • Visual reference to the approach lights or runway required at DA. A faint glow in the clouds does not constitute visual reference.
  • Cloudbase or ceiling may be reported below 200ft AAL (eg. VV001 or OVC001), it does not stop you from making the approach as long as you have visual reference at DA.
  • When to switch to CAT2 or CAT3? When RVR drops or is below 550m or when you couldn't get visual reference at CAT1 minima. If cloudbase is reported to be below 200ft and you are CAT2/3 able, it might be wise to go for one of those from the start.
I believe that's it all neatly summarized?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Again, if you want to be meticulous about posting correct info here, it is not a fact. The only minima are RVR (or converted VIS) and DA. The fact that you might not get visual reference at your DA because cloudbase/ceiling is below 200ft does not make the cloudbase/ceiling a minima. It will be a cause for not getting visual reference at DA, but that again does not make it a minima. I've yet to come across the JAR/EU-OPS/EASA regulation that specifies you must have a cloudbase of 200ft to shoot an approach, perhaps there is an FAA one...It is a minima for planning alternates and that kind of stuff, but it is NOT a minima for a CAT1 ILS approach.So, recap for anyone reading this thread later:CAT1 ILS approach minima in layman's terms:

  • 550m RVR TDZ or higher as specified on the approach chart.
  • Lowest DA of 200ft AAL (note, decision altitude, not height, so flown on barometric pressure, not radar altimeter).
  • Visual reference to the approach lights or runway required at DA. A faint glow in the clouds does not constitute visual reference.
  • Cloudbase or ceiling may be reported below 200ft AAL (eg. VV001 or OVC001), it does not stop you from making the approach as long as you have visual reference at DA.
  • When to switch to CAT2 or CAT3? When RVR drops or is below 550m or when you couldn't get visual reference at CAT1 minima. If cloudbase is reported to be below 200ft and you are CAT2/3 able, it might be wise to go for one of those from the start.
I believe that's it all neatly summarized?

You speak the final chapter! Thanks that clears everything up.

 

Hello Vernon,

 

the JAR OPS what you just postet is the commencement and continuation of any type of approach. Lastly the decision rest with the commander in regards to this rules.

 

BTW if you shoot a CAT I approach then you have to dial in the MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude at least it is an SOP in my company and it is also stated on the approach plates) In case of an CAT II/III Appr a decision height will be dialed in.

 

concerning the question "how a pilot know when to fly a CAT I,II,III ABC approach" This will be stated in the current ATIS of a given airport. For ex Munich Int EDDM is a well known airport for LVO as it was built into a swamp  :unsure: The whole world can have CAVOK but EDDM reports RVR all parts 250m on both RWYs. 

 

So the ATIS is the first source of information about the LVO status. A CAT I procedure is rarely reported only LVO will be explicit reported.

 

Besides all that in a multi crew environment both pilots have to be LVO rated. In my case down to a DH of 50´(CAT IIIA) as well as the FO has to be CAT IIIA rated otherwise the flight will be limited to CAT I only.

 

Another general info, for a precision approach only a RVR is required. Ceiling and visibility is only required for non precision approaches.

 

CAT I approaches can be flown manually or with the autopilot, CAT II/IIIA approaches have to be autoland or flown manually with an single/dual HUGS equipped airplane.

 

Thankw mikey much appreciated for the input. So in the flight sim world you will get to decide when LVO are in force then :) i better read up more about the regs ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, if you want to be meticulous about posting correct info here, it is not a fact.

 

I'll concede that, but you'll note that I wasn't speaking to the requirement for the legal ability to fly the approach. Rather, I was speaking generically. The only part that would prevent you from flying the approach in a legal sense would be visibility (unless you're flying Part 135, which is relevant to the NGX and requires both, see below text from an FAA FSDO). Both ceiling and visibility, however, are factors in continuing past the published minimums. Both can inhibit seeing the airport environment. One could have visibility of infinity, but if the ceiling was reported as overcast right at 200' AGL (assuming a standard ILS here), then no matter how legal your attempt to shoot the approach is, you're not going to have the proper mins to land. So, congratulations on your legal flying of said approach, but that ceiling is still a factor in actually landing.

 

So, unless you have a solution to running out of fuel, I'd suggest people look at ceiling as a minimum value. Sure, try the approach out, but I wouldn't be dismissing a low ceiling, which is what many here are doing.

 

Are both ceiling and visibility required in order for an FAR Part 135 air carrier pilot to initiate an instrument approach?

 

FAR 135.225(a) and 135.225(a)(2) forbid a Part 135 pilot from beginning an instrument approach unless reported weather conditions at the destination airport are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport. So, even though ceiling is not a criterion on the approach plates, it must be considered by the pilot in his decision to initiate the approach, and in deciding whether the reported ceiling is above or below the decision height or minimum descent altitude for the approach. Similarly, FAR 135.225(b) forbids initiation of a final approach segment unless reported conditions are at or above minimums. Again, the pilot must know the reported ceiling and visibility before deciding whether that approach segment can legally be initiated.

 

This interpretation has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service. We hope that this satisfactorily answers your question.

 

 

 

It is a minima for planning alternates and that kind of stuff, but it is NOT a minima for a CAT1 ILS approach.

 

See above. It's not a minimum for flying the approach, but it surely is a minimum for your ability to see the field and land at it.

 

And sign your posts per the forum requirements:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/245586-you-must-sign-your-full-real-name-to-posts-to-use-this-forum-posts-without-names-will-be-deleted/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you have it, some FAA Part-135 regulation. So basically anything else only requires suitable visibility. The rest is just debating over semantics. I regard minima/minimums as the published minimums you require for the approach, otherwise a whole load of factors can be called minimums.

 

In my experience it often no problem to establish the required visual reference, even with OVC002 or VV001. Therefore, to regard ceiling or cloudbase as a minimum or deciding not to try an approach because of it (if you're not CAT2/3 capable), is not the smartest course of action (outside of Part-135). But that's just my point of view.

 

I think we can agree that the listed steps and limitations for a CAT1 approach are appropriate otherwise (unless flying Part-135)?

 

 

 

-John Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The rest is just debating over semantics.

 

A debate that wouldn't have happened if this thread hadn't been brought up. As has been referenced in many other threads like this, these supposed "helpful info" threads end up bringing more confusion to the table. If someone who had a full grasp on the information was bringing this over and explaining it, it would be one thing, but that's not the case.

 

 

 


Therefore, to regard ceiling or cloudbase as a minimum or deciding not to try an approach because of it (if you're not CAT2/3 capable), is not the smartest course of action (outside of Part-135). But that's just my point of view.

 

As I've said several times now, I don't regard it (ceiling) as a minimum for attempting the approach (except as outlined for Part 135). I regard it as a factor that could cause an issue with completing the approach. If the ceiling prohibits me from seeing the field at my MDA/DH, then it's certainly an issue of minimums: the ceiling forced me to abandon the approach AoA the minimums (in this case, minimum altitudes).

 

Sure, semantics, but had this thread been brought in with the appropriate background knowledge instead of regurgitated from PPRuNe or similar sites, the discussion could have avoided that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A debate that wouldn't have happened if this thread hadn't been brought up. As has been referenced in many other threads like this, these supposed "helpful info" threads end up bringing more confusion to the table. If someone who had a full grasp on the information was bringing this over and explaining it, it would be one thing, but that's not the case.

 

Honest if your going to talk like that atleast mention me. I don't see any big deal except with you that keeps mentioning it and bringing it up with something regarding ceiling mins which i only mentioned from a source on PPRUNE! Big deal? It was a correct source. I was only stating it.

 

If you ain't happy with it button out look away.

 

What confusion is actually here? You just like to chip in.

 

Why can't you just give answers like mikeyj and propane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out CAT 1 landing

 

Approaching minimums and still in low level cloud and then you see the HIAL and breaks through the cloud at 200 :)

 

So even in cloud at around 200 you defo see the high intensity lights beaming through the cloud.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If you ain't happy with it button out look away.

 

Ignoring threads for a mod would be risky business, would it not? I suggest that you avoid telling me what to do in the future.

 

 

 


What confusion is actually here? You just like to chip in.

 

I do like to chip in and make corrections, where necessary, and to be honest, with you, it's rather frequently. This isn't the first thread that has drawn the attention of actual pilots here in the forum who have had to step in and either correct information, or note that whatever obscure bit of information being investigated is the wrong part to get concentrating on.

 

 

 


Why can't you just give answers like mikeyj and propane

 

I do. It seems that just don't like them. That doesn't mean they're incorrect, however. Kevin also posted some helpful information, and you've similarly left him off for what I'm guessing also similar reasons.

 

I'll summarize my responses this way:

Say you aren't certed for CAT II or III ops. The METAR reports the ceiling at 50 feet. CAT I requires 200 feet for your standard ILS approach. In other words, the charted minimum altitude is about 200 feet above an airport reference point. Sure, you can legally shoot that approach all day, but after all day you can run out of fuel, too. Tell me how ceiling doesn't play into that equation of minimums.

 

...and this is where actual experience instead of book knowledge brings added value. Sure, on a rainy summer day like in your video there, the clouds tend to be broken enough to give it one shot. In the fall and winter in my area, there's literally no chance you're going to get through if the weather is right on the charted mins (to clarify, the charted minimum altitude you are allowed to descend to, and not the minimum requirement to shoot the approach).

 

 

 

As I've said for months:

I get that you have an intense interest in understanding the minutia of aviation here, but please, stop and concentrate on one topic and come to an understanding of it before moving on to another topic. Your posts here can and do affect readers. If the information is not clear, or conveyed properly, it might lead them astray. I don't think you truly understand that.

 

Think about it:

You do a lot of hunting online for information? What happens if those people who are writing those posts don't fully understand what they're talking about? How are you to know they do or don't? You really don't unless you know the subject in detail, or they cite sources, so you might be learning bad information. Simply repeating the information here could result in other people coming across bad information and, similarly, repeating it and affecting others.

 

How do you think the 250/10 rule misunderstanding came about?

 

 

 


Check this out CAT 1 landing

 

CAT I approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the first thread that has drawn the attention of actual pilots here in the forum who have had to step in and either correct information, or note that whatever obscure bit of information being investigated is the wrong part to get concentrating on.

 

Now you're making out that every single post i have made in the past i have copyed and paste info from over sources. Infact my previous posts have been questions on SOPs and other procedures and then other pilots have commented on it. Its not like i'm throwing out info to confuse others.

 

On this thread i have only quoted JAR OPS thats all and found info on ceilings so i mentioned it for discussion and other pilots views.

 

I did thank you for your first post and i appreciated that. Its like your making this a bigger deal than it is kyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said several times now, I don't regard it (ceiling) as a minimum for attempting the approach (except as outlined for Part 135). I regard it as a factor that could cause an issue with completing the approach. If the ceiling prohibits me from seeing the field at my MDA/DH, then it's certainly an issue of minimums: the ceiling forced me to abandon the approach AoA the minimums (in this case, minimum altitudes).

 

Sure, semantics, but had this thread been brought in with the appropriate background knowledge instead of regurgitated from PPRuNe or similar sites, the discussion could have avoided that issue.

The goal of the thread was to find the requirements for CAT1 and when to switch to other CATs. That was answered already before someone thought it necessary to throw ceiling in the mix as a requirement/minimum.

 

I don't think it's the problem of the OP looking up valid info and posting it here. It is with others not understanding the difference between actual minimums (published minimums) and random environmental variables. Those are the people possibly creating debate and confusion. The ceiling is in no part of the CAT1 approach an actual minimum, not for commencement, not for continuation and not for landing. Yes, if you are in clouds at 200 with no visual reference, you can't land. That does not make the ceiling a minimum!

 

Either way, I'm done. The questions were answered and I don't see the point in discussing further :). Since I've made the above points several times in this thread but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, I'm done. The questions were answered and I don't see the point in discussing further :)

 

I'll second that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


That was answered already before someone thought it necessary to throw ceiling in the mix as a requirement/minimum.

 

The DA/DH gets lower across CATs I, II, and III. Ceiling is clearly relevant here. Sure, again, ceiling is not stated as a regulatory minimum (Part 121, for attempting the approach), but I feel like you're ignoring it simply to make an argument in favor of your viewpoint. The whole reason CATs II and III were created was to get aircraft lower, and closer. Lower is accomplished by having lower charted altitudes (because we needed to get below lower ceilings), and closer is accomplished by lower vis mins, but that we agree upon.

 

Again:

The METAR reports adequate visibility to execute the approach, but the ceiling is reported as and is in actuality, 50 feet overcast. Say it's only a CAT I approach. You can legally fly that approach all day long if you want, but given the overcast with a base that's 150 feet below the DA, you're never going to pick your way through that. If you cannot get a visual reference of the runway environment, you must execute a go around at the DA (which is a minimum altitude). You can certainly infer that, if an overcast ceiling exists below the minimum altitude on the chart that the ceiling is, in effect, a minimum.

 

So, you're absolutely right: ceiling is not a minimum listed on a chart like visibility, but to say it's not a factor as it seems you're implying is just outright false. I'll gladly sit in a simulator with you with the above-listed weather all day for you to prove your point if you'd like.

 

 

 

Another reminder:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/245586-you-must-sign-your-full-real-name-to-posts-to-use-this-forum-posts-without-names-will-be-deleted/

 

You can configure your account to add this automatically for you by clicking on your user name at the top right, and then selecting My Settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest if your going to talk like that atleast mention me. I don't see any big deal except with you that keeps mentioning it and bringing it up with something regarding ceiling mins which i only mentioned from a source on PPRUNE! Big deal? It was a correct source. I was only stating it.

 

If you ain't happy with it button out look away.

 

What confusion is actually here? You just like to chip in.

 

Why can't you just give answers like mikeyj and propane

Vernon

 

You might want to remember that Kyle Rogers is not only a member Avsim but a moderator for PMDG. You are wasting your time trying to argue with a moderator. I did it once back in the spring and was banned for awhile. Banning means not only can you not post, you can't even view the Avsim  forums. Be careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vernon

 

You might want to remember that Kyle Rogers is not only a member Avsim but a moderator for PMDG. You are wasting your time trying to argue with a moderator. I did it once back in the spring and was banned for awhile. Banning means not only can you not post, you can't even view the Avsim  forums. Be careful.

Yeh you prob got banned for a very good reason. I suggest you go and read this thread and see i only quoted a paragraph from JAR OPS whats the problem with that? Don't go and try get browny points now be a man and speak your mind and defend yourself. I have done nothing wrong here it was others that misunderstood here. Ok?

Propane, on 15 Dec 2014 - 8:50 PM, said:

Either way, I'm done. The questions were answered and I don't see the point in discussing further :)

 

I'll second that :)

 

 

Once again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I feel like you're ignoring it simply to make an argument in favor of your viewpoint

Right, since you feel the need to continue to confuse the situation...

 

I think you are getting it the wrong way around... The entire point of the thread was to find minima and limitations for a CAT1 approach. Cloudbase simply isn't a (legal/published/operational) minimum during any point in the approach and neither is it for landing.

 

I responded ontopic with a correct answer, you seem to be twisting everything to suit your incorrect interpretation of "minimum(s)". Yes, as I admitted several times before, cloudbase will be a factor in making a landing or not. But it is simply not a minimum. By your definition/interpretation any factor that causes a go around at decision altitude can be considered a minimum. I have landed often with OVC001 reported and seeing the lights at 250-300ft.

 

By not thinking of it as minimum, the worst that could happen is you have to go around and divert, the best is that you land and everyone is happy. It is simply a factor that you take into consideration and include in the decision making process. I've never implied nor stated that it is not a factor, in fact I've implied or stated in that it is. But it is not a minimum.

 

And the OP actually found all relevant information, posted it for others if they needed it and then get's an earful for not taking someone's word for it when they state cloudbase is a minimum/part of the minima.

 

You know what really grinds my gears... This kind of stuff :P.

 

 

- John Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I can't even keep up with this thread.

 

My version, loosely based on FAA:

 

What do you need to start the approach? Req'd RVR

The bottom? DA(H) - put this in the EFIS panel "minumums"

What do you need to land? Visual environment, in a position to land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I responded ontopic with a correct answer, you seem to be twisting everything to suit your incorrect interpretation of "minimum(s)". Yes, as I admitted several times before, cloudbase will be a factor in making a landing or not. But it is simply not a minimum. By your definition/interpretation any factor that causes a go around at decision altitude can be considered a minimum. I have landed often with OVC001 reported and seeing the lights at 250-300ft.

 

It's only incorrect if you're not looking at this holistically.

 

I get the impression that you're  assuming that I'm using "minimum" as a metric for beginning the approach. I have stated multiple times that it is not a minimum for executing the approach. Rather, it's a minimum to complete it (observed - not reported). If there's nothing preventing me from shooting an approach, legally (which as I've admitted several times, the metric is lateral vis only for 121), then I'll give it a shot. As you've noted (and I've alluded to with my inclusion of the comment "but the ceiling is reported as and is in actuality"), the reported conditions aren't always the actual conditions, which might actually allow you to get in.

 

I absolutely understand, as well, that the lateral minimum is a requirement based on the reported weather. The vertical minimum is not, specifically for the reasons you mentioned (vertical visibility often varies between reported and actual; this is not as much of the case with lateral visibility).

 

That's all I'm getting at. There is a lateral minimum (on a direct legal level - a minimum for beginning the approach), and a vertical minimum (on an indirect legal level - a minimum for completing the approach - FAR 91.175). Since an actual ceiling lower than the DA (assuming CAT I) would prevent you from meeting the requirements of 91.175, a ceiling could be considered a minimum - not for executing the approach, but for completing it.

 

I somewhat apologize for addressing this on a different level, but perhaps it's my past TERPS experience that's distorting my view here. The entire reason we develop CAT II and CAT III approaches is because we realize that the ceiling for a particular airport is not above the minimum height necessary to complete a CAT I approach. Sure, ceiling isn't set up as a legal requirement in the FARs, but we certainly design the approaches as if it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I can't even keep up with this thread.

 

My version, loosely based on FAA:

 

What do you need to start the approach? Req'd RVR

The bottom? DA(H) - put this in the EFIS panel "minumums"

What do you need to land? Visual environment, in a position to land

Matt keeping is simple... KISS. Love it!!

 

For all NB to IFR flight here is an excellent reference... should be required reading:  http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-8083-15B.pdf  FAA Instrument Flying Handbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this