Approach Ban Poll

[Stearman]

What I don't get is why don't we just follow the approach limits on the chart.

They seem to not really mean anything, except to use them for the approach ban figures.

Why even have recommended visibilties if they don't mean anything.

Well I guess I'll be doing more contact approaches.

[AuxBatOn]

From my understanding, the recommended vis are what your most likely will need to carry out a succesful approach. How many times have you been visual even though the vis was lower than the recommended vis?

The approach ban gives you the option (again, it you want to use your judgement and decide that if the weather is below the recommended vis, you don't shoot the approach, fill your boots) to shoot the approach in lower than the recommended vis conditions.

[Spokes]

The approach ban gives you the option (again, it you want to use your judgement and decide that if the weather is below the recommended vis, you don't shoot the approach, fill your boots) to shoot the approach in lower than the recommended vis conditions.

It seems to me that it removes the option.

[AuxBatOn]

The approach ban gives you the option (again, it you want to use your judgement and decide that if the weather is below the recommended vis, you don't shoot the approach, fill your boots) to shoot the approach in lower than the recommended vis conditions.

It seems to me that it removes the option.

No. If you look at a standard ILS (200 1/2), approach ban dictates you can shoot the approach in 1/4 SM, RVR or Rwy Vis 1 200 feet. (for a 703/704/705 operator). So, yes you can shoot the approach in lower than recommended minimums.

[AuxBatOn]

My issue with the ban is the lack of decent vis reporting. Won't even discuss auto stations as they are virtually useless. But even manned stations, went to yxs a while back and they were calling it RVR 1000. We picked up the runway visual descending through about 12,000 and 30 miles back. There was traffic holding at the FAF hoping for them to release a weather report that actually reflected what everyone in the air was actually seeing.

That's called a Localized Phenomenon and is accounted for in the CARs. From the AIM:

9.19.2.7 Localized Phenomenon

CAR 700.10 recognizes that certain localized meteorological conditions can reduce the reported ground visibility, thus imposing an approach ban when the flight visibility appears to be much greater. An example would be a localized fog bank that is covering the ground observer’s observation point, resulting in a reported ground visibility of one-quarter statute mile at an aerodrome south of 60ºN latitude, while the flight visibility along the approach to the runway and on the runway itself (as observed by the pilot-in-command), is greater than 15 SM. In this case, the pilot can declare a localized phenomenon, and override an approach ban imposed by a ground visibility report. A pilot cannot use localized phenomena to override an RVR or a runway visibility report that imposes an approach ban. To legally continue the approach past the FAF inbound, the flight visibility on the approach path and along the runway must be equal to or greater than the advisory visibility published in the CAP, for the procedure flown, and the pilot-in-command must immediately report the conditions observed to ATS.

CAUTION: Pilots are reminded of the insidious hazard that thin ground-based layers, such as shallow fog, ice fog, or blowing snow can present. Such conditions may allow a pilot-in-command to override an approach ban based on what appears to be a localized phenomenon, when in fact extensive and very poor visibility will be encountered at low altitude during the later stages of the approach, landing and roll-out. The pilot-in-command should take all possible information into account before overriding an approach ban, based on what appears to be a localized phenomenon, in order to avoid conducting an approach during these hazardous conditions.

As for the reported vis, if there is no RVR, then a pilot at the button of the runway can report vis for you. From the AIM again :

9.19.2.6 Runway Visibility

CAR 602.131 specifies the concept of runway visibility as defined in
CAR 101.01(1). The purpose of runway visibility is to determine and report a visibility at the TDZ of a runway that is not equipped with or is not reporting an RVR. An instrument-rated pilot or a qualified person (under CAR 804) can assess runway visibility when RVR sensor detection equipment is not available. In effect, a person is permitted to assess runway visibility from approximately the same position as an RVR “A” sensor installation.
CAR Standard 622.131 (for pilots) and CAR Standard 824.25 (for qualified persons) describe how to assess and report runway visibility.

Runway visibility is assessed at or adjacent to the runway threshold, in the direction of the runway, based on runway lights or landmarks that can be seen and recognized. The assessment is made in feet based on a 200-ft runway edge light spacing, or using landmarks found on the applicable CAP aerodrome chart. A report of runway visibility should be reported immediately to ATS in the following format:

“RUNWAY VISIBILITY, RUNWAY [runway number] ASSESSED AS [distance assessed] FEET AT [time] UTC,” to the nearest 100-ft increment.

A runway visibility report is valid for a period of 20 min after it is assessed. If the runway visibility varies during the assessment, the lowest value is reported. The lowest value that is reported is 200 ft, with lower values reported as “… LESS THAN 200 FEET…” The highest value that is reported is 6 000 ft, with higher values reported as “…GREATER THAN 6 000 FEET…”