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
|
|||
|
|||
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 ;-) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My Approach and takeoff Videos | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | April 16th 05 04:50 AM |
Why fly fast approaches? | EDR | Piloting | 54 | July 8th 04 01:20 AM |
FS2004 approaches, ATC etc | henri Arsenault | Simulators | 14 | September 27th 03 12:48 PM |