On Jan 16, 8:16*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...
On Jan 16, 5:17 am, "Jim Carter" wrote:





"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
...

...

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert

The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
following:

ILS or LOC RWY 22L Cat A 500 - 1/2
RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L Cat A 300 - 1/2
VOR/DME RWY 22L Cat A 700 - 1/2

I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with
all
equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
minimums by quite a bit?

1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
flight visibility.
2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower
reports.

-Robert

You are correct that I sited flight visibility, however on those same
approach plates a required visibility is listed in RVR terms making it a
ground based observation. Additionally, 001OVC does not indicate smoke,
haze, or fog. It is 100' overcast which represents a ceiling doesn't it?

There is no requirement for a minimum reported overcast or ceiling
under part 91. I've landed with an overcast reported at 50 feet by on
field FSS. As long as I can see the rabbit at 200 feet and the runway
environment at 100 feet I'm legal with regard to ceilings. Fog is a
way of life around here so its not that odd to us.

I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were below
minimums.

No, several planes did land.

-Robert