121 wx to shoot approach prior to final fix

[Lindy]

Sometimes ceiling is controlling as well as visibility -- pursuant to OPS SPECS and a High Mins Captain.


However, I believe your question was presuming that the Captain had the requisite 100 Hours in make/model.

 

[bafanguy]

COEX-FO,


One has to be careful about these approach legalities. If I'm reading the question correctly,the original question said the approach "required" 1/2 viz. This means it's a CAT 1 ILS. So 1/4 mile reported viz is no-go. CAT 2 is a separate animal legality-wise and there are a bunch more hoops to jump to be legal...CAT 3 is even more so. It's a fun subject to kick around.

 

[Eric]

Thanks guys. I was told a couple of things. I'm glad to see that I interpreted the regulation correctly. I was told by someone that on an ILS all you needed was vis but on a non-precision you needed both ceiling and vis to start the approach.

 

[Singlecoil]

All you need is vis period. On a non-precision you know you may not break out, but there are plenty of times when the ceiling is broken or the clouds are right over the AWOS, but not the runway where you will see enough to land.

 

[bafanguy]

Typhoonpilot's Question....

TP,

Good question about a ceiling requirement for a non-presision approach. All I found was the statement in the Jeps Intro, " In some parts of the world..." but nothing more than that. Couldn't find any reason why so I looked in TERPS, but couldn't find an answer cuz I was immediately overtaken by uncontrollable drowziness and couldn't go on.

My guess is that "...some parts of the world..." have antiquated criteria, or there are cases of obstacle clearance problems in the final segment that can't be worked around any other way and still have a doable approach. The latter is most likely.

I looked in my old Jeps but couldn't find an example but then if you just go back and forth to BNA, you don't run into such problems !! Some sharpshooter on here will have the scientific answer...

 

[profile]

Other parts of the world have different procedures, some include ceiling requirements at some airfields. They are hardly "antiquated", in fact, in many respects, it is the U.S. that needs to catch up in both facilities and procedures.

 

[bafanguy]

Well, Profile, you're right..."antiquated" is not the right word. The US did, at one time, require ceilings if I remember correctly but changed to the visibility criterion so long ago I'd have to dig for the date. You caught me in an unconscious display Amerocentrism ( just made that up, pretty good, huh ? ).


As for going back to ceiling requirements in the US, don't know...I think our current system gives the crew more say-so. For example, if the required viz for the approach is OK, but you know the ceiling is so low there's no chance ( or in your judgement as PIC there's no chance ) of seeing enough to land, you just don't make the approach. If, though, due to irregular cloud bases, transient precip, fill in your own reasons, you think that even though the ceiling is lower than MDA/DA you feel there's a reasonable chance of making a safe approach and seeing something anyway, you have the legal option of trying the approach ( how's that for a runon sentence ? ). Being stuck with a ceiling requirement removes the exercise of your judgement and experience as PIC.

Just a thought.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I agree with everything said here. Visibility is the only limiting factor. But regarding the ceiling on nonprecision approaches, every time I've gone missed approach was when the visibility was met but the ceiling was below the MDA. I tried to get in but couldn't. In the future I will still continue to try to get in when the visibility allows but from my experience when the ceiling is below the MDA I have never gotten in. Something to consider.

 

[bafanguy]

Skywest,

I'm not surprised at your experience with ceilings below MDA, but at least you had the option to shoot/not shoot the approaches. Your "front line" feel/judgement for a situation is probably better than some FAA lawyer who writes FAR's.

 

[profile]

I would say that the "vis only" requirement was pushed more by the operators than the pilots. I doubt it was ALPA that pushed for that, I would guess it was ATA driven, with the associated implications. It might be true that it gives the PIC more options, but also means that the Capt is put in a position of explaining his/her actions if he/she decides not to fly the approach when all the weather is ok except the ceiling.