If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Barry" wrote
But as I replied to Dan Luke, neither the visibility at 100' nor the ground visibility can replace the requirement for flight visibility to continue the approach below DH. But there is no flight visibility requirement for the ILS at PNS for civil aircraft unless RVR is not reported. (Note that military minimums DO specify flight visibility, but military aircraft are excluded from the requirements of 91.175(c)) The minimums for the approach are 321 MSL (DH) and 2400ft RVR. RVR is not the same thing as flight visibility, and in fact every book of approach plates gives a table for conversion from RVR minima to meteorological visibility, to be used when RVR is not reported. I've always interpreted 91.175(c)(2) to mean that you must have the required visibility at all times below DH. Is there a reference that contradicts this? First, I'm not convinced this interpretation is correct. I'm aware of no reference that contradicts OR supports it, but it is certainly not in line with normal operating practice, even at the prefessional level where scrutiny is high. Second, even if it is correct, it would certainly apply only to those approaches where minimum visibility, rather than minimum RVR, is given. The fact that a conversion table is given (and the fact that the numbers DO NOT convert directly - 2400 ft RVR becomes 1/2 sm visibility, which is 2640 ft) certainly indicates that the terms are not interchangeable. Michael |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Barry"wrote: A lot of pilots don't understand that the rule about going down to 100' on the approach lights doesn't remove the visibility requirement. If you see only a few approach lights at DH, you almost certainly do not have the required visibility, and should go missed. Well, maybe you don't have it at 200', but you might at 100'. In my experience, horizontal visibility can vary a great deal with the last couple hundred feet of altitude. That certainly is true when a ground fog is lifting, as was the case at PNS last Sunday. OK, but 91.175(c)(2) says you must have the required flight (horizontal) visibility to coninue the approach below DH, not just at 100' or at landing. Yes, but who says what the flight visibility is? I do, that's who, and if I see the threshold lights when I reach DH, it's a pretty good bet I have a half mile of flight vis. That gives me 100 more feet to get down and see the actual runway and land. I don't know why the RVR was reporting so low, but the vis. was certainly good enough for me (and probably the 208 ahead of me) to complete the approach without fudging. -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
... Yes, but who says what the flight visibility is? I do, that's who, and if I see the threshold lights when I reach DH, it's a pretty good bet I have a half mile of flight vis. That gives me 100 more feet to get down and see the actual runway and land. If you see the threshold lights, you can descend below 100' AGL on that basis alone. There's no requirement to see the actual runway. --Gary |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote: Yes, but who says what the flight visibility is? I do, that's who, and if I see the threshold lights when I reach DH, it's a pretty good bet I have a half mile of flight vis. That gives me 100 more feet to get down and see the actual runway and land. If you see the threshold lights, you can descend below 100' AGL on that basis alone. That's not the way I read the reg.: see below. There's no requirement to see the actual runway. Didn't mean to say there was - but Barry's question is one of having the required *flight* visibility to go below DH. According to the reg. cited, just seeing the lights is not sufficient to allow that extra 100'; you must also have the flight vis. required on the plate. From 91.175: (c) Operation below DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, at any airport below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DH unless- [snip] (2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; **and** [snip] The RVR-to-vis. chart notwithstanding, the pilot is the judge of flight visibility, but it's still a *requirement* in addition to seeing the lights. -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
... "Gary Drescher" wrote: Yes, but who says what the flight visibility is? I do, that's who, and if I see the threshold lights when I reach DH, it's a pretty good bet I have a half mile of flight vis. That gives me 100 more feet to get down and see the actual runway and land. If you see the threshold lights, you can descend below 100' AGL on that basis alone. [snip] The RVR-to-vis. chart notwithstanding, the pilot is the judge of flight visibility, but it's still a *requirement* in addition to seeing the lights. Sorry, I was unclear. I agree that there's still a flight-visibility requirement. My point was just that there's no specific requirement to see the runway at 100' AGL. In practice, though, if you don't see the runway at 100', you probably don't have the required visibility. So we're in agreement. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Checkride bust (long) | Wizard of Draws | Instrument Flight Rules | 9 | July 14th 04 12:53 AM |
Flight test update - long | nauga | Home Built | 1 | June 5th 04 03:09 AM |
SWRFI Pirep.. (long) | Dave S | Home Built | 20 | May 21st 04 03:02 PM |
IFR Long X/C and the Specter of Expectations | David B. Cole | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | February 24th 04 07:51 PM |
Hold "as published"? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 83 | November 13th 03 03:19 PM |