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)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


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


Absolutely, and continuously until touching down.

In article t,
Tim wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


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


Absolutely, and continuously until touching down.

Let's say the required vis is 2 miles. Reported weather is 3 miles, and
sure enough, you spot the field 3 miles away. By the time you're on 1/2
mile final, it starts to rain and the visibility goes down to 1 mile, but
you can still see the runway clearly. Are you really required to go missed
at that point?

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:41:28 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

In article t,
Tim wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


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


Absolutely, and continuously until touching down.

Let's say the required vis is 2 miles. Reported weather is 3 miles, and
sure enough, you spot the field 3 miles away. By the time you're on 1/2
mile final, it starts to rain and the visibility goes down to 1 mile, but
you can still see the runway clearly. Are you really required to go missed
at that point?

Yes, but *MY* flight visibility was 2 miles at that point. *I* could see
past the far end of the runway. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it).




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

Roy Smith wrote:
In article t,
Tim wrote:


Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


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



Absolutely, and continuously until touching down.


Let's say the required vis is 2 miles. Reported weather is 3 miles, and
sure enough, you spot the field 3 miles away. By the time you're on 1/2
mile final, it starts to rain and the visibility goes down to 1 mile, but
you can still see the runway clearly. Are you really required to go missed
at that point?

Legally, yes. But, with high minimums like those you cite, most pilots
would land. The regulation is written with the typical minimums in
mind; i.e. 3/4 or 1 mile (and lower with ALS).

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:

I guess I miss your point Bob. I don't think I said anything that conflicts
with 91.175. I am ready to be educated, for me that process is painfully
endless.

Bob is making a distinction that has no practical effect. If you're on
G/S and much below 100 feet you can't see any part of the ALS system
because it is directly below you rapidly passing behind you. Thus, you
will have to see one of the other runway cues or begin the miss approach.

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.