135.225/Is ceiling a factor for starting an approach

[CaSyndrm]

I used to have the old school answer of yes. Vis was the only controlling factor to go past the outer marker. Now however, It has been brought to my attention that the FAR's interpreted book and accompanying court cases and interpretations indicate NO, you must have visability and ceiling to press on past the marker. The Fed friends of mine agree with the NO answer.

 

[Prof. ATP]

Yep, Vis is the only legal restiction. Now, turn the page and lets try this. Lets do this VOR approach. Weather is reported at 300 and 1. You need 750 and 1 mile to do the approach. Can you do this approach? Yes, but is it realistic that you are gonna actually get in? No. You will still be 450ft in the clouds so its a good bet you aint gonna see the field.

There's another issue here about getting in, not about Op Specs: 91.175 requires that 14CFR135 operators have a descent rate that allows touchdown in the touchdown zone in order to descend below MDA. With a 750' ceiling, you'll need about 2.5 miles of flying in order to meet this requirement. This means 2.5 miles visibility (minus credit for approach lights) for straight-in, although it's possible to fly 2.5 miles while circling in lower visibility.

Just something to think about.

 

[100-1/2]

Apples And Oranges

Let us review the original question..."Is ceiling a factor for STARTING and approach?"

Now, read 135.225(a); 135.225(c); and 91.175.

The basis for the NTSB overturning the FAA case as referenced by LJ was a compilation of all three regs and refuted the specificity in the regulation alleged to have been violated. "Weather minimae for the approach used". As I pointed out earlier, in their own definition the FAA does not consider ceiling minimums for anything other than takeoff and listing an airport as an alternate. 91.175(b), (c), (d), (e); and 135.225 specify visibility. The only way for the violation to be legit is for the inspector to be in the cockpit at that time and verify either, 1) the pilot passes the FAF with visibility reporting less than the minimum prescribed for the approach; 2) the pilot descends below MDA/DH without acknowledging identification of necessary VISUAL cues to continue descent to 100' above TDZE for the approach; 3) passes below the 100' ATDZE limit without the next set of VISUAL cues required to continue for landing; 4) uses "excessive" maneuvering or descent rates to remain continuously in a position for descent and landing; OR 5) touches down "beyond" the TDZ.

1) No brainer.
2) Never been a CFI, Just because I don't call something out like "Approach Lights in Sight", doesn't mean I don't see them. Single-Pilot IFR cockpits are usually pretty quiet. No CVR or CRM to negotiate/CYOA.
3) Ditto 2)
2a/3a) Just because the "Reported Ceiling" is 200' lower than my MDA, doesn't automatically disqualify the use of 91.175(c), (d), (e) or 135.225's or make these parts inapplicable.
4) Perception/judgement/tolerances/Command of aircraft such that outcome of maneuver is never in doubt... tough to gage and varies with individual assessment by FAA as many may very well know.
5) A little lighter and faster...you float and land beyond TDZ...refer to 4). Probably a 50/50 bust.

Some airports are quirky, but usual common sense will prevail and keep you alive. There may be a 50 to 100' difference in elevation between where the equipment is eyeballing the sky and where your MAP/DH/VDP is. 200' difference in reported (solid) overcast and my MDA with good visibility underneath, I am going to conduct the approach and 'take a look'. I will also, compute VDP and get a good idea of my envelop to 'expect' normal maneuvers for landing should I gain sight of the airport. Breaks in OC will allow even greater margins to "CONSIDER". This is called ADM. Violating an FAR is often a product of a failure in Aeronautical Decision Making and misdiagnosed by rookie feds. Commonly misinterpreted regs applied to poor ADM (not neglegent) will often lead to cases like LJ's reference.

Circling around on a an 800' approach with a 200' hard deck is probably muy stupido at best. Again use your head and use the regs. They and your Ops Specs are there to help you, NOT BUST you!

regards,
100-1/2

 

[Chest Rockwell]

The vis is all there is.

Another "common sense" issue here is the fact that you do not have to be clear of a cloud to see outside of that cloud. Example: ILS approach withh 100 OVC and 1\2 mile visibility. Often you will acquire the approach lights and runway while still inside the clouds.

135 operations task the PIC with more challenges than any other part of commercial aviation. You are often, if not always, on your own. You guys be careful out there.

 

[capt_zman]

They have been flying airplanes into Nantucket for many, many years. If you've ever experienced a typical summer there, almost everyday (am and pm), the weather is 100 and 1/2 due to fog. All day, everyday, all the local 135, 121 and 91 operators are starting approaches due to the 1/2 vis requirement. Not all make it in, but they all at least start the approach.

So to answer your question, vis is the only variable needed to start an approach.

 

[Rick1128]

135.225

Vis is it. Over the years, I have taken many checkrides from the Feds and as a check airman I have given many observed checkrides. And I have never been told I was wrong with that answer.

But, be careful, if your POI got real cute and issued your company an OpSpec stating ceiling was also a controlling item, or it is in your Ops Manual, then you are stuck.

One of the reasons for this is that the weather is taken from one or a few areas around the airport. This is especially true of small airports. Just because the observation is 100 OVC and 1 doesn't mean it that at the approach end. It could be better or it could be worst. But here is where the PIC earns his pay. Judgement. If everyone is missing the lowest approach to the airport, or everyone is holding, why bother? If the weather well below the ceiling I would think long and hard about trying it, most likely not worth the effort.

 

[deadstick]

§ 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums.
(a) Except to the extent permitted by paragraph (b) of this section, no pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure to an airport unless—...
(2) The latest weather report issued by that weather reporting facility indicates that weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport.


§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(d) Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, may land that aircraft when—
...
(2) For all other part 91 operations and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135 operations, the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used.


Vis only...

 

[Dinger]

Also consider that a broken layer is considered a ceiling. We have all been in a broken layer and been able to maintain VMC a lot of the time.

 

[Dr Pokenhiemer]

What makes a simple question like this turn into a huge discussion about getting violated? As long as the VIS is at or above minimums, you can start your approach. If the VIS is reported to go BELOW minimums BEFORE you get to the marker, you cannot continue the approach. However, if you are inside the marker when the VIS report is updated, you may continue the approach to the MAP and go missed.

 

[pilot1704]

Show me the regs about vis is only that matters

Show me the Regs number about Vis only that matters!



Grazypilot

 

[deadstick]

Grazypilot,

135.225..."authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport."

The closest mention of "landing minimums" that I could find is in 91.175 (which applies to 135) which states "No pilot...may land that aircraft when...the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used."

If you have other references, please share.

 

[Dinger]

Around and around we go. Check post #10 by 100-1/2. Obviously, some research has been done by him. A little experience in a training dept/check airman shows as well. So I say.......what he said, and will add the following..........The jepps show vis.....but no ceiling. It simply shows a DH(DA) or MDA(H).

I have worked for two different 121 carriers. Both of them trained that VIS is all there IS. I have flown under part 135 for a couple of companies in the capacity of check airman. If I am wrong, then I guess I got it coming and will spend some time in the penalty box while some brilliant FED hangs on to my certs.

I have shot soooooo many ILS approaches to MAJOR airports with other Major airliners........all legally shooting and getting in with VV100 but RVR right at 1800. You would think out of a such a large group of obviously novice pilots, one of us would know what the hell we were doing.

If The tide is turning on this, I have heard nothing

 

[eddie]

This was discussed long and hard under FARs last winter. Someone actually posted a letter from a FSDO that said ceilings are limiting. I think that's stupid, I used to always go on vis. I guess if I go back to 135 I'll have to ask my local FAA guy!

For the guy who posted above me, Part 121 reads very different here than 135.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Ask your FSDO....the ACY FSDO says vis is limiting, the BNA FSDO says ceiling and vis is limiting. I go by vis even though our DO and CP say otherwise. Hell, I had the FAA in ACY mad at me because I didn't start an approach when it was 100 over with 5 miles vis. Call your FSDO and see what they say, that is the only answer that is worth knowing.

 

[canadflyau]

look on the approach plate

Out here in the mountains you will occasionally come across a plate that says "ceiling required" on it... For those approaches ceiling and vis are controlling.. and I can't say that I have come across a plate like that in quite some time.