Comments on: Approach Ban

By: Sacramento

Sacramento — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:21:10 +0000

What feed service is best to use for this blog’s feed?

By: George Morris

George Morris — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:53:58 +0000

Thanks for that. The regulation appears to be written in Martian, but I think I have the gist of it! Although there is no approach ban rule as such it seems that you cannot descend below DH or land unless the flight visibility is above minimum, so you haven’t gained much.I appreciate that there are subtle differences between reported visibility and in flight visibility, but where the minimum for the approach is defined as an RVR surely there can be no scope for continuing an approach below DH when the RVR is below minimum, can there?

By: david

david — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:04:44 +0000

Thanks for the comment, George. In the U.S., FAR 91.175 contains general regulations for IFR approaches, while FAR 135.225 contains additional regulations for charter and commuter flights. There is no approach ban in 91.175, while there is one in 135.225.

By: George Morris

George Morris — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:08:47 +0000

The approach ban rule also exists in Europe and applies to all aircraft including the military. At a well equipped airport the minimum RVR is usually about 600m for an ILS. You are not allowed to make an approach to land if the RVR is below this figure. If uyopu insist on flying the approach into a British cicil airport the controller will say: ‘The action you are taking appears to contravene current legislation – a report will be made’. They will not actually turn out the lights! The relevant minima are on the approach plates so if the VOLMET or ATIS says the RVR is 400m you know you will not be allowed to attempt the approach. There is not even a cheat where you say that you are making a training approach to go around and then, when you see the approach lights you cancel IFR and continue visually because the approach ban also applies to visual approaches. This is to cater for the shallow fog case where you can see the ground from high up but you lose references during the last part of the approach. Most JAR states have this rule but some others(eg Canada) exempt the military. I was, however, interested in your statement that the equivalent rule does not apply to private pilots in the US. I am not familiar with the various FAR Part numbers which define the different rule structures for private, commuter or public transport categories. As it happens, I am doing some research for the British military who are not sure which rules apply to them when flying into military airports in the US (or Iraq). Would you email me with what you perceive to be the relevant FAR Part numbers?

Thanks

George Morris
(private flying instructor and military simulator instructor, former military pilot)

By: david

david — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:23:13 +0000

They include the RVR on the ATIS once the visibility drops to a certain level — I’m not sure what that level is, though. You don’t hear it very often here, but I’ll be that you would in Halifax. I’ve never flown into an airport below 400 ft/1 SM, so I don’t know what happens if someone wants to do an approach when the weather’s down; I imagine that ATC would give you the clearance anyway (after dropping some heavy hints), since their job is just to separate traffic, not to police it.

When I left Ottawa for a Hope Air flight last month, two jets went missed to Mirabel, but that was because of low ceiling rather than visibility so the RVR wasn’t governing and the approach ban wasn’t in effect.

By: Paul Tomblin

Paul Tomblin — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:01:22 +0000

Since there are such hard and fast rules about these approach bans, do they announce it on the ATIS or refuse to grant approach clearances when they are in effect?