Approaches and takeoff mins.

First, I am not defending the technique, only trying to explain the POI's
position.

Second, the minumums don't change. No need to get lawerly on me.

Third, the FAA muddies the waters by creating a situation where you can go
below DH to 100' above the touchdown zone without actually having the runway
insight. How you manage that is clearly technique, and not something I
would even think of attempting in a single pilot aircraft. Even with two
pilots, the technique must be briefed and coordinated or it is likely to be
more dangerous than just going missed.


wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

Paul Lynch wrote:
First, I am not defending the technique, only trying to explain the POI's
position.

Second, the minumums don't change. No need to get lawerly on me.

Well, this issue was raised and put to bed on my airline quite a few
years ago. So, you see it one way at your carrier, my carrier saw it
differently. ALPA's All-Weather Flying Committee viewed it at the time
as a second DA, and FAA Washington agreed at the time.

Third, the FAA muddies the waters by creating a situation where you can go
below DH to 100' above the touchdown zone without actually having the runway
insight. How you manage that is clearly technique, and not something I
would even think of attempting in a single pilot aircraft. Even with two
pilots, the technique must be briefed and coordinated or it is likely to be
more dangerous than just going missed.

I wouldn't even know how to apply it on a Cat I ILS or NPA.

And that is why we are politely ignoring the POI. He has other crazy ideas
at times too.


wrote in message
k.net...
Paul Lynch wrote:
First, I am not defending the technique, only trying to explain the POI's
position.

Second, the minumums don't change. No need to get lawerly on me.

Well, this issue was raised and put to bed on my airline quite a few years
ago. So, you see it one way at your carrier, my carrier saw it
differently. ALPA's All-Weather Flying Committee viewed it at the time as
a second DA, and FAA Washington agreed at the time.

Third, the FAA muddies the waters by creating a situation where you can
go below DH to 100' above the touchdown zone without actually having the
runway insight. How you manage that is clearly technique, and not
something I would even think of attempting in a single pilot aircraft.
Even with two pilots, the technique must be briefed and coordinated or it
is likely to be more dangerous than just going missed.

I wouldn't even know how to apply it on a Cat I ILS or NPA.