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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:16:52 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: For example, at night, the runway might be lit up like a christmas tree, but the hills might be invisible. If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it. But there can still be a hill below for you to descend into. Your eyeballs can still have clear line of sight to the runway lights while your landing gear is dragging through the treetops. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it.
There might be antennae. Jose -- Money: What you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... The rule is obviously designed to allow the pilot to descend for landing as soon as the requirements for a safe execution of the visual portion of the approach has been met.. I don't see why an intermediate segment altitude would override that, with the caveat that one needs to be absolutely certain that visual conditions will remain the rest of the way. After all, we have the runway environment in sight, don't forget, so we are probably talking at least 2-3 miles or more visibility, if we see the runway environment at a stepdown altitude. Yes, that strikes me as the best way to make sense of the rule's intention. Still, the rule doesn't actually say that, so I share the OP's sense of uncertainty as to the technicality. I wonder if any FSDOs have issued opinions on this question. --Gary |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: In this case, the suggestion is for a normal descent rate, rather than a steep approach. (Again, though, the regulation that specifies a normal descent rate is not pertinent here.) There is no difference because the only rule that governs descending below the minimum instrument altitude on an IAP is the 91.175 stuff pertaining to descent below MDA (forgetting DA/H) in this case. That applies whether he has reached the stepdown fix or not. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: wrote in message ... The rule is obviously designed to allow the pilot to descend for landing as soon as the requirements for a safe execution of the visual portion of the approach has been met.. I don't see why an intermediate segment altitude would override that, with the caveat that one needs to be absolutely certain that visual conditions will remain the rest of the way. After all, we have the runway environment in sight, don't forget, so we are probably talking at least 2-3 miles or more visibility, if we see the runway environment at a stepdown altitude. Yes, that strikes me as the best way to make sense of the rule's intention. Still, the rule doesn't actually say that, so I share the OP's sense of uncertainty as to the technicality. I wonder if any FSDOs have issued opinions on this question. What worth is a FSDO opinion? A legal interp from general counsel is fine, but not what some inspector thinks. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
wrote in message ... hsm wrote: Can I descent below minimums on an intermediate stepdown segment of an IFR approach if I have the runway enviroment in sight? On a very steep approach such as the backcourse loc-A to Santa Maria,CA, I would like to start descending below 1700 feet prior to reaching PATER, in order to facilitate a more comfortable decent in VMC. Legal or do I first need a visual approach clearance? Having the runway environment is sight is one of two requirements. The other is being in a position to make a normal descent for a normal landing. You're citing the rules for descending below an MDA or DA. But the question is about descending below an intermediate fix. A fix is a location defined by a point on the ground. Why would you want to descend underground in an airplane? :-) Matt |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote:
In article , wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:16:52 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: For example, at night, the runway might be lit up like a christmas tree, but the hills might be invisible. If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it. But there can still be a hill below for you to descend into. Your eyeballs can still have clear line of sight to the runway lights while your landing gear is dragging through the treetops. Or the runway could be in a valley with a high tension line across it... Matt |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
What worth is a FSDO opinion? A legal interp from general counsel is fine, but not what some inspector thinks. I'd guess that it would be difficult for the FAA to take punitive action against a pilot for doing something that the FSDO said in writing was ok to do, even if the FSDO's opinion is not otherwise legally binding. (Are there any documented instances of successful enforcement actions under such circumstances?) --Gary |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Gary Drescher wrote: You're citing the rules for descending below an MDA or DA. But the question is about descending below an intermediate fix. A fix is a location defined by a point on the ground. Why would you want to descend underground in an airplane? :-) Well, like the FAA, I don't always manage to say what I mean. :-) --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are pilots really good or just lucky??? | Icebound | Instrument Flight Rules | 68 | December 9th 04 01:53 PM |
Canadian departure minimums? | Derrick Early | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | August 9th 04 01:43 PM |
Can ATC assign an airway if filed direct? | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | March 4th 04 12:23 AM |
Minimum rate of climb or descent | Aaron Kahn | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | July 25th 03 03:22 PM |
CAT II Minimums on a CAT I Approach | Giwi | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | July 24th 03 07:46 AM |