Peter wrote:
Is this the same item?
Ah yes it is.
OK; threads merged. This shows how incredibly hard it is to keep track of the tens of thousands of pages of EASA regs. Almost nobody can…
I think 400m stays, but remember that unless there is official RVR reporting (which is the case only at bigger airports) this vis is pilot-interpreted i.e. unenforceable.
I have read through the EASA opinion, and don’t see the point that the approach ban will only appear if an RVR is available, and that visibility was no factor any longer. The EASA opinion reads on page 22
A new point (e) has been added. It ensures that the pilot does not need to convert the visibility in the normal case where VIS > minima. It does however ensure that an alleviation to the rule previously in AMC is upgraded at the implementing rule level, in the case where there is no RVR and the reported VIS < minima and CMV > minima.
As an approach ban will only occur when minima are touched, in reality there might be no amendment, or do I understand it wrong?
The text you quote is from CAT.OP.MPA.305
Here’s the GM you’re looking for (my bold)
GM1 NCO.OP.210 Commencement and continuation of approach — aeroplanes and helicopters
APPLICATION OF RVR REPORTS
(a) There is no prohibition on the commencement of an approach based on reported RVR. The restriction in NCO.OP.210 applies only if the RVR is reported and applies to the continuation of the approach past a point where the aircraft is 1 000 ft above the aerodrome elevation or into the final approach segment as
applicable.
(b) If a deterioration in RVR is reported once the aircraft is below 1 000 ft on in the final approach segment, as applicable, then there is no requirement for the approach to be discontinued. In this situation, the normal visual reference requirements would apply at DA/H.
UdoR wrote:
I have read through the EASA opinion, and don’t see the point that the approach ban will only appear if an RVR is available, and that visibility was no factor any longer.
It’s in the AMC to NCO.OP.210.
AMC2 NCO.OP.210 Commencement and continuation of approach – aeroplanes and helicopters
RVR MINIMA FOR CONTINUED APPROACH
(a) The controlling RVR should be the touchdown RVR.
(b) If the touchdown RVR is not reported, then the midpoint RVR should be the controlling RVR.
(c) If the neither touchdown RVR nor midpoint RVR is reported, then NCO.OP.210(a) is not applicable
The new NCO.OP.210(a) is the “approach ban” paragraph:
NCO.OP.210 Commencement and continuation of approach — aeroplanes and helicopters
(a) If the controlling RVR for the runway to be used for landing is less than 550 m (or any lower value established in accordance with an approval under SPA.LVO), then an instrument approach operation shall not be continued:
(1) past a point at which the aircraft is 1 000 ft above the aerodrome elevation; or
(2) into the final approach segment if the DH or MDH is higher than 1 000 ft
YakovD wrote:
So, what happened to those proposals? The March amendment has been published, but I can’t find any of the sweet stuff there.
The new rules (e.g. NCO.OP.210 above) have been published but do not take effect until October 30. EASA usually publish the associated AMC/GM well after the rules themselves have been published. I’ve asked bookworm (who has been involved in formulating the rules and AMC/GM) if he knows when they will be published.
