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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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. I don't agree with that at all. As you mentioned above, slant visibility is not at all the same as ground visibility. If it were, I would agree. However, in my experience slant visibility is almost always much worse than ground visibility (RVR) with the sole exception being ground fog. At Pensacola, the minimum RVR is 2400 ft. I've seen it as low as 1800 ft for Cat I approaches. From 200' and assuming no displaced threshold and a typical TCH of 50 ft (as is the case for PNS) it's just under 2900 ft from airplane at DH (200 ft) to threshold. So of course if you can see the threshold, you have vis - but if you can't, that doesn't necessarily mean you don't. If you see just a few lights from 200 ft, that can mean different things. Sometimes it means that ground visibility is below mins, and then you do need to miss. However, more often (at least in my experience) it means that the VERTICAL visibility is poor - meaning you can see fine from 100 ft or so, but can't see much of anything from 200. I've personally experienced approaches where at 200 ft I could see just a few lights, but at 100 ft I could see halfway down that (6000+ ft) runway. Granted most of my IFR experience is limited to the Gulf Coast, but on the Gulf Coast this situation is VERY common - and very short lived. Give it an hour, and it almost always clears to VFR. Michael |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ask for 6 mile legs.
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Roy Smith" wrote: I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book." Single-pilot IFR is all about task prioritization. Take care of the important stuff, and don't waste time on the **** that doesn't matter. As long as you stay in the protected airspace, nobody cares what your holds look like, or how perfectly timed the legs are. Save the mental effort for important things like making sure your fuel planning is right, getting a good picture of the weather from flight watch so you know when to divert (and where), and briefing the approach you're about to fly. Good points, I know, but after 20 minutes of holding you've done all that and you'e really in need of something else to do! The PNS controller was doing a good job of updating aircraft on the freq. about conditions at nearby airports, but calling FW would have been a good idea. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
... "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. Yup. Also, a ragged ceiling at 200' might block your view past the approach lights. But when you get completely below the clouds, the visibility might be fine. I've had approaches like that. --Gary -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
In article , Scott D. wrote: What made matters worst, was the fact that we had around a 42 knot tail wind on the outbound leg, which made for a 15 second outbound just for a 1 min inbound. Talk about work! In a situation like that, you can make life easier on yourself by asking for longer legs. You know, honestly that never really occurred to me. That was about the first real hold that I ever had to do in about 5 years of flying so my first thought was, am I actually doing this correctly But that is something to think about if I ever had to do that again. Today, I was stuck at SAF waiting for the fog to burn off because we had some avionic/electrical issues on the plane I was flying and I told my boss that I was not going to fly out of their IFR with some known issues and that we were going to wait till it went VFR, but in the mean time, We were out on the flight line when we heard a jet going missed, we could hear him but could not see him. Then about an hour later here he came and went again. I knew his pain and felt sorry for him. Then about another hour later, the fog had lifted enough and he was able to set it on the ground. It was a Challenger. I talked to the pilot and asked him how long he had held and he said that was the longest 2 hours he had ever lived. He said he had enough fuel for 1 more hour but he didn't thing that "HE" would have made it. Scott D. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote
Yup. Also, a ragged ceiling at 200' might block your view past the approach lights. But when you get completely below the clouds, the visibility might be fine. I've had approaches like that. I have too - but never on an ILS. Just out of curiosity - where have you seen ragged but defined sub-200 ft ceilings? I'm not questioning your observation, merely wondering whether there is a part of the country where they are more common. My experience more closely parallels Dan's - but given that we both fly on the Gulf Coast, no surprise there. I wonder if anyone has ever made a study of low altitude weather. It would sure be useful to the beginning instrument pilot, especially given how few training approaches are typically flown to actual mins. I find if I can get a student 3 actual approaches to near-mins over the course of training, that's pretty good. A good text explaining what to expect would sure be a good supplement. Michael |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug" wrote in message
om... Ask for 6 mile legs. You wouldn't need a plane if you had 6 mile legs. Paul |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message
m... "Gary Drescher" wrote Yup. Also, a ragged ceiling at 200' might block your view past the approach lights. But when you get completely below the clouds, the visibility might be fine. I've had approaches like that. I have too - but never on an ILS. Just out of curiosity - where have you seen ragged but defined sub-200 ft ceilings? I'm not questioning your observation, merely wondering whether there is a part of the country where they are more common. I encountered those conditions one day at FRG (Long Island, NY; 250' DH). The weather was quite unusual though, with lots of low-level turbulence and windshear. On my first try, I had to go missed--the only time I've done that (other than for practice) in my 25 IMC approaches so far. --Gary |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
As you mentioned above, slant visibility is not at all the same as
ground visibility. If it were, I would agree. However, in my experience slant visibility is almost always much worse than ground visibility (RVR) with the sole exception being ground fog. If you see just a few lights from 200 ft, that can mean different things. Sometimes it means that ground visibility is below mins, and then you do need to miss. However, more often (at least in my experience) it means that the VERTICAL visibility is poor - meaning you can see fine from 100 ft or so, but can't see much of anything from 200. I've personally experienced approaches where at 200 ft I could see just a few lights, but at 100 ft I could see halfway down that (6000+ ft) runway. 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. 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? In the case you describe, you almost certainly do not have the required forward visibility at all points along your path. One exception I can think of would be near the edge of a sloping cloud, but this must be rare. |
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 |