Approaches and takeoff mins.

It says that I can go below 100' on the approach lights only, if I
have either the red terminating bars or red side row bars visible.
The 100' limit is not applicable if I have any of the items (ii)
thru (x) in sight, ie, I can descend below DH with only the VASI
in sight or...the REILS for that matter.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI
PanAm (retired)


And don't forget 91.175(c)(2) which says that in order to operate below DH,
you ALSO need to have "the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument
approach being used".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

The approach light aspect of the rule presumes you will acquire at least
one other of the runway visual cues prior to crossing the threshold
because you will be unable to see the ALS by that point (unless you have
a rear view mirror ;-)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:59:19 GMT, Tim wrote:


It says that I can go below 100' on the approach lights only, if I
have either the red terminating bars or red side row bars visible.
The 100' limit is not applicable if I have any of the items (ii)
thru (x) in sight, ie, I can descend below DH with only the VASI
in sight or...the REILS for that matter.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI
PanAm (retired)


And don't forget 91.175(c)(2) which says that in order to operate below DH,
you ALSO need to have "the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument
approach being used".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

The approach light aspect of the rule presumes you will acquire at least
one other of the runway visual cues prior to crossing the threshold
because you will be unable to see the ALS by that point (unless you have
a rear view mirror ;-)

You still need the flight visibility specified in the approach, if you are
below DH/MDA, don't you?

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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.

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.

Paul Lynch wrote:
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).

"Not really" is the operative phrase. Does it or does it not modify
minimums. It can be argued both ways. And, the use of a radar
altitmeter at such a critically low height without an "RA" survey
further muddies the waters.

First, I am not defending the technique, only trying to explain the POI's
position.

Second, the minumums don't change. No need to get lawerly on me.

Third, the FAA muddies the waters by creating a situation where you can go
below DH to 100' above the touchdown zone without actually having the runway
insight. How you manage that is clearly technique, and not something I
would even think of attempting in a single pilot aircraft. Even with two
pilots, the technique must be briefed and coordinated or it is likely to be
more dangerous than just going missed.


wrote in message
ink.net...
Paul Lynch wrote:
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).

"Not really" is the operative phrase. Does it or does it not modify
minimums. It can be argued both ways. And, the use of a radar altitmeter
at such a critically low height without an "RA" survey further muddies the
waters.

"jamin3508" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

just wondering about this, dont get me wrong, I would NEVER attempt a
approach thats below mins. Just courious if its stated somewhere in
the FARS (I couldnt find it) about the approach to landing with below
mins WX.....thanks for the imput!

Part 135 and Part 121 takeoff and landing minima are given in the
operations specifications of each certificate holder. Generally the
approach minima are whatever is published, but it can vary. Our ops
specs permit flying an ILS with 1/4 mile vis (in helicopters) and
takeoffs with 'adequate visibility reference' from a runway, meaning with
whatever visibility allows seeing the runway during the takeoff. It's
generally higher for airplanes. We can take off with 1/2 mile vis from
offshore platforms, and fly the approach with 3/4 mile vis. We also
cannot fly an approach to any airport that does not have official weather
reporting, regardless of the weather.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin