Okay, it's 900 OVC and 1 mile......

[2milefinal]

If you declare an emergency the approach ban is no longer in affect and u can do what you want. Thats the same with the old approach ban, if you declared an emergency the approach ban was no longer in affect.

So if you get to your alt and its below minimums. Declare an emergency, land, send a little report to your CP and let him deal with the rest. Not your problem.

Ya... you give that a try and get back to us ..... you really think your CP is going to take care of it for you?
You best have a good story ready for TSB/TC.

[The Other Kind]

If the approach ban f#$%ed you at your destination (or you missed) and you went to your alternate and got f$%^ed by the ban there too, I would consider that an emergency.

Of course, the TAF for your alternate had better be forecasting legal alternate minama for your expected arrival time before you departed or you're screwed.

[Doc]

Unless I'm refused an approach clearance, by ATC, I'm just going ahead and doing 'em......I ain't no good at this "new" math! "I'm sorry, was that .75 times 1.5 statute miles? What's that in furlongs per fortnight? I called 3 cables final, what more do you want?" I just hope somebody gets fired at TC before somebody looses their life trying to get in VFR!

[CD]

...or flying with contaminated wings...
...SEIFR...
...in the frozen north...

[Raybanman]

What I don't get is why a commercial operator with a crew that shoots a large number of approaches in a month, is more limited than some private pilot/general aviation pilot that has maybe shot an approach once or twice in a month (even assuming the 6-6-6 rule is followed). Unless I'm misunderstanding how it works, I don't understand the logic?

Cheers,
PP

[the_professor]

Unless I'm refused an approach clearance, by ATC, I'm just going ahead and doing 'em

You won't be refused the clearance. Most controllers who are not pilots [which is the vast majority of controllers] are unaware of the fact an approach ban exists (because it is neither relevant, nor our responsibility to enforce), and will never police it if they are. That I can guarantee you. It is viewed as one of the many things that are entirely the pilot's responsibility. If anyone is going to report you, it will be FSS, if the airport has that service.

If anything were to go wrong when someone was shooting an approach below limits, and they came back to ATC, the ATC response would be "Hey, he asked for the approach clearance, and I gave it to him. It's the pilot's responsibility to fly an approach within the limits, operate the engine within limits, extend the flaps within limits, etc, etc."

ATC's main concern is that you operate the aircraft in compliance with your clearance, which should keep you from hitting someone else that we've been charged with separating you from. If you hit the ground as a result of your own actions, well that's your problem. (That's meant in a nice way.)

[J Roc]

...You won't be refused the clearance. Most controllers who are not pilots [which is the vast majority of controllers] are unaware of the fact an approach ban exists (because it is neither relevant, nor our responsibility to enforce), and will never police it if they are....

Wow, that's interesting! So you would never ban an aircraft from shooting an ILS approach that was served by an RVR A, if let say the RVR was 800?

I'm not asking in a cynical tone either, I actually had no idea that this was the case.

[The Other Kind]

I've never heard a controller refuse to issue an approach clearance because of Wx. I have heard them pass the current Wx and ask the crew what their intentions were.

Be aware of the regs, it's not ATC's responsibilty to ensure that you operate your aircraft within the CAR's. You could be violated for flying an approach even though ATC issued the approach clearance to you.