Not really. The minimums don't change. He is suggesting a radalt
technique, one which I do not concur with. His suggestion does comply with
the regs, but adds complexity to an already complex situation (ceiling right
at decision height and actual viz right at mins, possibly lower).

Despite all the yelling about landing below the measured mins, if the pilot
sees the lights he can continue below the DH, and below 100'AGL with the
necessary visual cues. Those visual cues might not be there in the daytime,
but may be there at night because of a bigl approach light system.

The FAA would have a hard time busting a pilot who says he saw the required
items no matter what the RVR machine was saying. The pilot's inflight
visibility should be controlling (not that the Feds haven't tried to make
their power known in this case).


"Tim" wrote in message
nk.net...
Paul Lynch wrote:
One addition to other posters comments on going below DH. You can go
below DH without having the runway in sight if you have the runway
environment (approach lighting system) is sight. You are authorized (91
and 135) to 100 feet. At 100 feet you must have the runway (which can
mean only the end lights of the runway) in sight.

Our FSDO operations inspector wants us to set 100 feet on the radar
altimeter because that is the absolute lowest you can go on a typical
approach. Many pilots prefer the DH AGL altitude set on the radalt.

Alas, so many FSDO inspectors do not really understand the regulations and
they refuse to use FAA headquarters resources that are there to "assist."

If your inspector went to AFS-410 (All-weather ops branch) and told them
what he is recommending, they would tell him that he is, in effect,
creating a second DA, which is contrary to the minimums in the SIAP.