descent below minimums

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.

On 4 Jan 2005 10:02:48 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:

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.


In which case you should hear quite a racket, and an altitude change
would be advisable.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

"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