Minimums?

On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.

Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
layer.

Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
look no mater what the WX is reporting.
Frank

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:31:08 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum"
wrote:

On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.

Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
layer.

Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
look no mater what the WX is reporting.

Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:33:32 -0500, Peter Clark
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:31:08 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum"
wrote:

On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.

Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
layer.

Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
look no mater what the WX is reporting.

Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?

Oops, correction, part 135.

On Jan 10, 2:33*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:

Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?

I think the 200 is just denoting the HAT or HAA for a non precision
approach.

"F. Baum" wrote in news:7a1f4dfd-626e-4cb5-a7fb-
:

On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.

Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
layer.

Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
look no mater what the WX is reporting.

Been ages since I did a 91 approach, but unless they've changed it you are
allowed to initiarte an approach in any wx you like and if you see what's
required at the MDA or DH you can land from it.
As opposed to our restriction of having to hve in excess of vis minima
prior to reaching the FAF or OM as the case may be. Once past that, you can
continue to DH if the reported vis is below minimums.
Ceiling is only factored for diversion unless I'm mistaken..

Bertie

In article
,
says...


On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian wrote:
While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).

From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.


Hmmm - I'm wondering if maybe that didn't come out they way you meant it.
The only thing special about Part 91 is that you can initiate the
approach without being sure of having minimum requirements at the end of
it. But when you do get down to DA or DH, you need more than in-flight
visibility - you must continuously see one of the items on that list and
be in a position to land normally - otherwise you go missed.

On Jan 11, 9:12*pm, Airbus wrote:

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.

Hmmm - I'm wondering if maybe that didn't come out they way you meant it.
The only thing special about Part 91 is that you can initiate the
approach without being sure of having minimum requirements at the end of
it. But when you do get down to DA or DH, you need more than in-flight
visibility - you must continuously see one of the items on that list and
be in a position to land normally - otherwise you go missed.- Hide quoted text -

Hmmmm- Thats exactly the way I meant it. There are plenty of
differences between 91 and 121 and in the context of the original
post, this is what I was trying to point out.
Frank

On Jan 9, 5:01*pm, Brian wrote:
While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

Opps, sent a blank message.

Someone may have already pointed this out, if so, sorry for the
duplication, Brian, if one is flying a precision instrument approach,
like an ILS, that has a glideslope, when one arrives at 'minimums' the
runway environement must be is sight if the landing is to be
continued. It would not be uncommon for ILS minimum altitude to be
200 feet above ground, so there aren't too many seconds left to decend
that last 200 feet. See the runway or fly the missed approach.


There are other kinds of approaches, called non precision approaches.
These take you you to the vicinity of the airport for circling
approaches, or near the approach end of the runway, but do not give
altitude information. What happens with these is the airplane passes
over a final approach fix, which is some form of radio derived point,
and then the approach documentation permits the airplane to decend to
a fixed altitude. At that point it will have reached minimiums, but
the pilot in general will depend on a clock and airspeed estimates to
tell when (s)he should be over the airport. (S)he does NOT have fly
the missed approach when the airplane reaches the minimum altitude
permitted by the approach, but when the estimated position is close to
the airport. Think of a small airport in a flat region near the coast.
If the approach is from the water siide it might be reasonable for the
airplane to go down to 500 feet two NM from the airport, then continue
flying toward it for another minute (if speed over the bottom is120
kts), before flying the miss.

Sorry if this is all redundant.


While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

In article
,
says...


Opps, sent a blank message.

Someone may have already pointed this out, if so, sorry for the
duplication, Brian, if one is flying a precision instrument approach,
like an ILS, that has a glideslope, when one arrives at 'minimums' the
runway environement must be is sight if the landing is to be
continued. It would not be uncommon for ILS minimum altitude to be
200 feet above ground, so there aren't too many seconds left to decend
that last 200 feet. See the runway or fly the missed approach.


There are other kinds of approaches, called non precision approaches.
These take you you to the vicinity of the airport for circling
approaches, or near the approach end of the runway, but do not give
altitude information. What happens with these is the airplane passes
over a final approach fix, which is some form of radio derived point,
and then the approach documentation permits the airplane to decend to
a fixed altitude. At that point it will have reached minimiums, but
the pilot in general will depend on a clock and airspeed estimates to
tell when (s)he should be over the airport. (S)he does NOT have fly
the missed approach when the airplane reaches the minimum altitude
permitted by the approach, but when the estimated position is close to
the airport. Think of a small airport in a flat region near the coast.
If the approach is from the water siide it might be reasonable for the
airplane to go down to 500 feet two NM from the airport, then continue
flying toward it for another minute (if speed over the bottom is120
kts), before flying the miss.

Sorry if this is all redundant.


Not necessarily redundant, but somewhat incorrect.
No obligation that the MDA and the MAP be close to each other, as you
suggest. Some pilots do try to descend progressively to arrive at the MDA
at or near the MAP, but others "dive and drive" losing altitude first,
then driving forward to the MAP. At the MAP, if one of the visual items
on the list is not in continuous view, (s)he MUST initiate the missed
approach. The missed approach may be initiated in advance by climbing
straight ahead, but no turns may be initiated until reaching the MAP.