135.225/Is ceiling a factor for starting an approach

[saviboy]

If vis is the only requirement, why is there a ceiling minimum on the chart?

 

[Singlecoil]

If vis is the only requirement, why is there a ceiling minimum on the chart?

For alternate requirements.

 

[LJDRVR]

This one is tricky. The FAA has attempted to violate pilots before on 135.225 for commencing an approach with a ceiling reported as lower than the MDA on a non-precision IAP. athough the administrative law judge concurred with the fuzz, the full NTSB overturned the decision. The board found that the terms MDA and HAA had meanings that are independant of the weather-related term ceiling. Seems pretty simple. Unfortunately, the most recent FAA Chief Counsel opinion dated March 21, 1991, is a bit more "lawyerly". It reads in part:

"FAR 135.225(a) and 135.225(a)(2) forbid a Part 135 pilot from begining an instrument approach unless reported weather conditions at the destination airport are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimumsfor that airport. So, even though the ceiling is not a criterion on the approach plates, it must be considered [empahsis added] by the pilot in his decision to initiate the approach, and in deciding whether the reported ceiling us above or below the decision height or minimum descent altitude for the appraoch."

So, as PIC, you're left to ponder the signifigance of the word "consider". Here's how I approached it: good old-fashioned common sense. If the reported ceiling was lower than the MDA, I'm not going to try. If the vertical visibility on an ILS runway is 100 feet, then I'll give it a shot. If the SA, Metar or whatever, read 100 foot overcast, I would probably divert. (At least during the day, at night with good approach lighting, I would condider it.) There are those here that will disagree with my reasoning, but my interpretation of this is that I have to consider whether or not the reported ceiling will allow me to safely and succesfully fly the approach. There are those that say "visibility only, dude!" and then go attempt to shoot an approach with ceiling reported as lower than that altitude from which they'll have to see the runway to continue. Legally one can get in, but I think that they are missing the point. This is my opinion, don't you freight dogs get your panties in wad.

One of the things about 121 operations I love, is that comparatively, everything is very clearly delineated. No gray areas, and no poorly written regulations that allow scumbag operators to take advantage of almost non-existent surveilance in the 135 community. (135.267 comes to mind.)

 

[capnflyright]

Vis is controlling, however you may want to look at Op Specs pages C053 and C054 to ensure that you are meeting the vis mins and regulations.

 

[JetBlast2000]

This one is tricky. ... Legally one can get in, but I think that they are missing the point.

I think you’re right on.



If one were to shoot that VOR approach with a 200ft ovc and make it in with no problem, no one would probably know. But if you DO have a problem… Get a good lawyer.

 

[iflyabeech]

No problem

We routinely and legally complete non-precision approaches with 500-700ft MDA's when the wx is 100-200OVC and 1 mile. ILS's with 100 OVC and 1/2 are cool too.

 

[TimsKeeper]

bunch of people just waiting to be violated. push on my good men (and women, hehe)

 

[C425Driver]

I don't have a FAR/AIM with me right now, but I believe that the Pilot/Controller Glossary defines straight-in landing minimums as a statement of visibility and MDA or DH. It does not make any reference to ceilings.


C425Driver

 

[Singlecoil]

bunch of people just waiting to be violated. push on my good men (and women, hehe)

Nope, just a bunch of people gettin' in while you're holding.

 

[Dangerkitty]

bunch of people just waiting to be violated. push on my good men (and women, hehe)

Getting violated for doing something perfectly legal? When did the FAA start doing that?