[AlanM]

In the above instance (the OP) he saw the runway, was obviously very familiar with surrounding terrain and obstacles and went for it. No one was hurt I believe.

Yep. All’s well that ends well. I wonder why my EasyJet wasn’t allowed to use that as a reason to COMMENCE an approach below minima.

[johnm]

The issue is all about sensible rules. In this case usable alternates were available and I have experience of this kind of situation. I have done the LVP approach into Alderney in drifting fog and commenced the approach with an acceptable RVR, had to throw it away as the fog closed in half way down and got in during a gap on the next go.

I was asked my intentions before the second go which was divert to Guernsey which was well above minima.

If there were no practical alternates in the Jersey situation then the magic word Mayday is needed.

[defcribed]

In these situations the view from the tower could be significantly different to the view from the cockpit. What happened to the captain’s right to do whatever necessary for the safety of a flight?

Well, he'd have been able to argue that point if he'd pleaded not guilty. If people are going to plead guilty to stuff like this then I'm really not sure why they hire representation. The tried and tested method to getting off as lightly as possible when pleading guilty is to adopt a very humble approach and say you're very sorry and you've learnt from it and you won't do it again. Suggesting that it shouldn't be an offence (i.e. I have the right to do what I deem necessary) is just going to get the book thrown at you on a guilty plea, especially with a judge who probably knows very little about aviation. They will presumably have taken into account the maximum sentence for the offence (no idea what it is) when deciding to plead guilty.

From a pilot's perspective the case has two major questions to consider:

1. The legality/wisdom of commencing an approach when the conditions are reported as below minimums.

2. Assuming the decision has been made to commence, for whatever reason and placing the rights and wrongs of that to one side, the decision to continue to land on a runway with conditions below minima.

I offer no answer to question 1, but to question 2 I can say that if presented with a runway I can (barely) see then I would probably land on it rather than going back up and risking never seeing a runway again.

[2Donkeys]

So here are the METARs for Bournemouth for the day in question (I don't know what time incident took place). This was the pilot's destination, which he rejected because the weather was too bad...

METAR EGHH 161850Z 08006KT 3000 BR OVC002 10/10 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161820Z 09007KT 3000 BR OVC002 10/10 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161750Z 09008KT 4000 BR OVC003 10/10 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161720Z 10008KT 5000 BR OVC003 11/10 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161650Z 10009KT 5000 BR OVC003 11/10 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161620Z 10008KT 2500 BR OVC003 11/11 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161550Z 10007KT 2500 BR OVC003 12/11 Q1023=
METAR EGHH 161520Z 11008KT 5000 BR OVC003 12/11 Q1023=
METAR EGHH 161450Z 11007KT 4500 BR OVC004 12/11 Q1023=
METAR EGHH 161420Z 10007KT 5000 BR OVC004 12/11 Q1023=
METAR EGHH 161350Z 12008KT 5000 BR OVC004 12/11 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161320Z 12008KT 5000 HZ BKN006 13/11 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161250Z 11009KT 5000 HZ BKN007 13/11 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161220Z 11007KT 5000 HZ BKN007 13/11 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161150Z 12008KT 5000 BR BKN007 13/12 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161120Z 12007KT 4500 BR BKN007 13/12 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161050Z 10007KT 4500 BR BKN007 13/12 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 161020Z 11006KT 4500 BR BKN006 13/12 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 160950Z 08003KT 4500 BR BKN006 13/12 Q1024=
METAR EGHH 160920Z VRB01KT 4500 BR BKN006 13/12 Q1024=

And here are the METARs for Jersey, which the pilot returned to having rejected Bournemouth

METAR EGJJ 161850Z 10010KT 0300 R08/0375 FG BKN000 11/11
Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161820Z 11010KT 0300 R08/0450 FG BKN000 11/11
Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161750Z 11011KT 0300 R08/0400 FG BKN000 11/11
Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161720Z 11010KT 0500 R08/0600 FG BKN000 11/11
Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161650Z 11012KT 0600 R08/1000 FG BKN000 11/11
Q1021=
METAR EGJJ 161620Z 11010KT 1500 1100NE R08/P2000 BR VCFG
SCT000 BKN002 11/11 Q1021=
METAR EGJJ 161550Z 10009KT 0700 R08/1900 FG BKN000 12/12
Q1021=
METAR EGJJ 161520Z 11009KT 0600 R08/0550 FG BKN000 12/11
Q1021=
METAR EGJJ 161450Z 11009KT 0400 R08/0300 FG BKN000 12/11
Q1021=
METAR EGJJ 161420Z 11008KT 0500 R08/0650 FG BKN000 12/11
Q1021=
METAR EGJJ 161350Z 11009KT 0300 R08/0500 FG BKN000 13/11
Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161320Z 13007KT 7000 3000SW VCFG FEW000 14/13
Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161250Z 12009KT 7000 FEW003 14/13 Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161220Z 11012KT 6000 FEW003 13/13 Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161150Z 11013KT 9000 FEW002 14/13 Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161120Z 10012KT 7000 FEW002 13/13 Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161050Z 10012KT 4500 VCFG FEW001 SCT002 12/12
Q1022=
METAR EGJJ 161020Z 10013KT 0700 FG FEW000 SCT001 BKN002 11/11
Q1023=
METAR EGJJ 160950Z 11012KT 0100 FG OVC000 11/11 Q1023=
METAR EGJJ 160920Z 11010KT 0100 FG OVC000 11/11 Q1023=

Very curious decision making to reject an airfield where the vis is at all times above that required by an IR(R) holder, in favour of a destination which was much poorer and occasionally below Cat I minima.

Worth also noting that the TAFs for Northern France, the Channel Islands and the UK that day were absolutely jam-packed with fog and low vis predictions. Not a day that many would have chosen for such a flight.

[AlanM]

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2019/05/21/private-aircraft-pilot-under-investigation-for-dangerous-flying-incident/

If this was the case, here were the allegations;

The pilot is being investigated for five alleged breaches of the Air Navigation (Jersey) Law 2014.

These comprise:

Endangering the safety of aircraft. This article states that ‘a person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in the aircraft’.

‘Endangering safety of any person or property’, which states that ‘a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property’.

Failing to comply with directions or instructions

Conducting an approach and landing when the visibility or relevant runway visual range is less than that specified for a Category 1 operation (a precision approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200 feet and with either a visibility not less than 800 metres or a runway visual range not less than 550 metres)

Descending from a height of 1,000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1,000 feet above the aerodrome if the reported visibility or relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.

[Lockhaven]

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2019/05/21/private-aircraft-pilot-under-investigation-for-dangerous-flying-incident/

If this was the case, here were the allegations;

The pilot is being investigated for five alleged breaches of the Air Navigation (Jersey) Law 2014.

These comprise:

Endangering the safety of aircraft. This article states that ‘a person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in the aircraft’.

‘Endangering safety of any person or property’, which states that ‘a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property’.

Those first two charges if proven guilty will almost guarantee loss of licence and possible jail time.

[Human Factor]

Descending from a height of 1,000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1,000 feet above the aerodrome if the reported visibility or relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.

This is a term referred to as an "Approach Ban". It is specifically there to prevent people trying it on to their MDA/DA minima if the RVR is below limits. The calculation of MDA/DA and the associated RVR are directly connected.

[defcribed]

Yes, but it's five different charges that can all technically be applied to the one action.

It's not like he did five separate things wrong and is being charged with something different for each of those actions. As soon as you break any safety-related rule you can always be charged with the 'endangering' bits as well as breaking that specific rule.

Either:

(a) someone has decided that this guy needs the book thrown at him and an example needs to be made, or;

(b) the whole thing is on shaky ground and they're charging him with as many things as possible in the hope that the court will take a balanced view and find him guilty of at least one of them.

[Paul_Sengupta]

This is a term referred to as an "Approach Ban". It is specifically there to prevent people trying it on to their MDA/DA minima if the RVR is below limits. The calculation of MDA/DA and the associated RVR are directly connected.

What's the situation if there's drifting patchy fog, as has been mentioned above? (not saying there was drifting patchy fog on the day in question!)

[IMCR]

Possibly dangerously I think this one is relatively straight forward on the basis of the facts we know. To continue in these circumstances is rather more than an oversight. If there were good reasons to do so then declare a Pan or Mayday, and if it had been to France you go, in the same way, had the weather been outisde license priviliges, then declare accordingly. I think we are all capable of getting caught out, and it is probably always going to be better to put hands up and declare accordingly. I think everyone understands if all else fails and the only way of getting the aircraft on the ground is to be outside your license priviliges, then sure as hell one way or another the aircraft will "land" so under a Pan the rules dont matter too much.

[Irv Lee]

If enough fuel, always divert to Scillies.

[Lockhaven]

This is a term referred to as an "Approach Ban". It is specifically there to prevent people trying it on to their MDA/DA minima if the RVR is below limits. The calculation of MDA/DA and the associated RVR are directly connected.

What's the situation if there's drifting patchy fog, as has been mentioned above? (not saying there was drifting patchy fog on the day in question!)

It doesn't matter if the fog is drifting in patches, you have to take the RVR values reported during the approach by ATC.

1. If you are above 1000ft and the reported RVR values drop below the required minima for the approach you have to go around.

2. If you have passed below 1000ft and the reported RVR values drop below the required minima for the approach you may continue the approach to your minimums, at minimums if you do not have the required visual reference you must go around.

[Cub]

It also transpired during Mr Bouchet’s approach that when he confirmed to ATC that he was heading for the runway, he was in fact heading towards Corbière Lighthouse because he didn’t realise that the instrument on his plane which assists with landing was faulty.

I suspect there is a lot more to this incident than first appears.

[IMCR]

From that quote that seems a very reasonable position to take. Certainly more to it given Corbiere's relative position to the approach, and this almost always being the VFR arrival RP.

[Lefty]

They weather in the Channel Islands is unlike anywhere on the UK mainland. You can frequently have three islands only 20nm apart - with totally different weather. In this instance, Alderney was CAVOK, and I really can’t understand flying past a nice clear runway in CAVOK, to one that was as bad as shown in the METAR’s.

Not relevant to this incident, but another peculiarity of the CI weather is how localised the low cloud and fog can be.
You can be at 3-4,000 ft at 10nm out - and you can see the runway clearly. However as you descend with the procedure, you fly into cloud and / fog that has a tendency to sit on finals at around 1-4 nm from the threshold. This happens so often that I’ve sometimes thought I might stay at (say) 1500’ above the cloud, then drop it onto the runway once clear of the fog bank.
Alderney in particular, can often have a line of fog sitting about 1nm from the threshold, when the runway itself is totally clear. You can see the runway from 10 nm out, then loose it in the last mile.