approach mins

[JetBlast2000]

For those who think only vis is required I have often wondered why they include ceiling on all the approaches. Ie if no one uses or needs it... why's it there?
Thanks

[font=&quot]It can be confusing, but the “ceiling requirement” on the approach plate is actually a MDA/DH. In other words its not referring to weather, it simply telling you at what alt. you can descend to safely. At least that’s the way I understand it.[/font]

 

[Yank McCobb]

but to state categorically that all you need is vis is simplistic, and not supported by either the text of the reg (like it is in 121) or the interpretation.

No. It's very simplistic. And correct.

But I bet if someone said the sun rises everyday, someone else on flightinfo will argue that it doesn't.

Be it "weather conditions" or whatever, the only MINIMUMS listed on any approach are based on VISIBILITY.

How hard is that to grasp? And it doesn't matter what "Part" you want to argue. Minimums are based on visibility.

However, this most simple of concepts can get clouded by all the "experts" here on flightinfo.

Dam good thing you guys are up on it. Otherwise, there is no way I could have kept my certificates until retirement Which, by the way, is in 25 days.

So, I'm off to contemplate that, and not to argue semantics and "interpretations" with those who will try and convice me that the sun isn't rising tomorrow. GMAFB.

 

[Dangerkitty]

.....................

 

[Ralgha]

But I bet if someone said the sun rises everyday, someone else on flightinfo will argue that it doesn't.

Actually it doesn't rise, the earth rotates giving the illusion that it rises. The sun stays put (relative to our solar system).

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

Actually it doesn't rise, the earth rotates giving the illusion that it rises. The sun stays put (relative to our solar system).

Gawd, I frickin' LOVE this place!!

 

[labbats]

In the 135 class I had they specifically mentioned that visibility alone was required to begin the approach. I may not know much about 135 regs, but I'm certain Flight Express does.

 

[777_Jackpot]

So having considered it - you ignore it. That should be hilarious at the investigation.

Sorry - you may not LIKE it, you may not agree with it, but the FAA's legal counsel has said you need ceiling and visibility to commence the approach Part 135. If you don't have it, and something happens, these are the people, and this is their interpretation that will hang you.

First of all it doesn't matter whether or not you considered it nor how many times you considered it, for considering is all you need to do with the ceilings being published at the field. As far as your "If you don't have it, and something happens" statement - your right I will concede that you may have certificate action taken against you, but it won't because you initiated an approach without the required minimums. I would call or write, or whatever it is you do to get those interpretations and asked them for a yes or no answer on the subject, because you are getting lost in the verbiage of the letter.

777

 

[nosehair]

Not that it's relevant, but all of my Air Force flying required ceiling and visibility.




.

Oh, yeah, those guys. The military. (in peacetime in U.S. airspace)
"...What!?..the anti-skid material on the door step is gettin' worn down??...CANCEL!! Write it up!!...Let's hit the club!"

 

[bafanguy]

First off, let's not mix 91,121 and 135.

Part 91 has no requirements for begining an approach, under Part 91, you can begin any approach you want, with whatever weather you have. Obviously what somone may or may not have done under Part 91 is completely irrelevant to what is legal under Part 135.

Part 121 is equally irrelevant. The relevant Part 121 regulation specifies "visibility" to start the approach, not "weather"




It's pretty clear that under part 121 it's visibility and visibility only. But, under Part135, the reg specifies "weather conditions", not visibility





Obviously, dragging Part 121 into the discussion is also compleely irrelevant.

One of the principals of legal construction is that if regulations are worded differently, thier meanings are different (seems obvious when you say it) So, if the FAA says "visibility" when they mean "visibility" it stands to reason that when they say "weather conditions" they don't mean visibility. SO what exactly does "weather conditions" mean? I don't know. the interpretaiton does not make it any clearer, but it certainly raise the possibility that ceiling cannot be ignored completely.

Bear in mind that this interpretation came out in about the same time frame that they were trying to violate a pilot for exctly that: starting an approach under 135 with the vis but not the ceiling.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4002.PDF

They couldn't make it stick then, but now they have this rather ambiguous interpretation, which they didn't have back then. If you read the NTSB decision, the board does not say that ceiling is or is not required, just that the FAA has failed to show that it is required.

You want to bet your certificate that they won't try again? You want to bet that they won't be able to meet the burden of proof again?

It's a pretty ambiguous area, and I don't know the answer, but to state categorically that all you need is vis is simplistic, and not supported by either the text of the reg (like it is in 121) or the interpretation.

AxA,

You point out the small, but maybe significant difference in the wording of 135 vs 121. I've never done anything but 121 and so never had to wonder about "stuff" like this; in 121 it is very clear...end of discussion.

However, as others have pointed out, the FAA guy who wrote this "interpretation" did nothing to clear up the question. Gotta love it !!

 

[Godvek]

However, as others have pointed out, the FAA guy who wrote this "interpretation" did nothing to clear up the question. Gotta love it !!

He was lucky to even have gotten a response besides something like...Your inquiry is being further investigated...we will notify you on the status in 120 days.

 

[dtfl]

Not that it's relevant, but all of my Air Force flying required ceiling and visibility.

It did????? I see 135s - Maybe SAC/ACC was different. AFSOC - vis is controlling..but you can't go below 200' DH on a PAR. Need ceiling on a circling app also.

 

[Stryker]

The following is an actual ruling in a case defended by Jackson and Wade. It’s a little long so I apologize but it might clear up some confusion.
Case
The FAA was unable to establish that the ceiling is part of the 135.225 landing minimums. The pilot believed, because he had in excess of the minimum visibility specified on the approach plate, that he was entitled to begin the approach and descend to the minimum descent altitude (MDA) where, if he had the requisite visual references of the airport at a point allowing a normal descent to the runway, he could continue to land. The FAA won the case before the administrative law judge, BUT the Board reversed the decision. The FAA counsel and the administrative law judge below apparently concluded that the MDA or its derivate, Height about the airport (HAA), both of which are specified on the approach plate, result in the specification of a minimum ceiling. Had that been the case, then approach was commenced unlawfully, as reported ceiling was 900 feet, while the MDA was 10,840 feet would permit the aircraft no lower than 3025 HAA, as the airport elevation is 7815 feet above sea level. BUT the Board found that the establishment of MDA’s is made necessary to account for all navigational problems that an aircraft may encounter on an instrument approach. These include, but are definitely not limited to, low ceilings. Hence, the terms MDA and HAA have meanings that are independent of the weather-related term “ceiling.” Further, ceilings will be called whenever more that half the sky is obscured. Thus, concluding that a Part 135 aircraft is not permitted to commence an approach when the ceiling is lower that the MDA will have obvious operational consequences. The Board stated that “If it is intended that Part 135.225 (a)(2) be read to specify that MDA’s or HAA’s are minimum ceilings, FAA has a variety of procedures available to it which would better serve to inform the aviation community of the Administrator’s interpretation. Administrator v. Krachum, EA-4002 (1993)

FAR’s Explained
Kent S. Jackson

I believe the board made it very clear that if the FAA wants to prosecute, then they need to re-word there FAR. Although I personally don’t practice shooting approaches when the ceilings are below the approach plate mins. It seems to me a waste of my time, take them to the alternate and get them a limo, or just go tomorrow when the weather isn’t so shaty.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

If you'd like to read the entire order, you can find it here. The gist of it is that the FAA brought enforcement action against a pilot for beginning the approach when the ceiling was below MDA and won the judgement. The NTSB overturned the ALJ's ruling. Thing is all the NTSB determined was that the FAA did meet it's burden of proof. They, the NTSB, didn't rule that a ceiling isn't required but they didn't rule that it is either. So that still leaves it open to interpretation and I'd hate to be the one to test it in front of a law judge.

cc

 

[Stryker]

Thats the thing, can you imagine what his lawyer bills were. I am not about to be the one to spend my life savings defending this one. Take the principle some place the weather is good

 

[A Squared]

I believe the board made it very clear that if the FAA wants to prosecute, then they need to re-word there FAR.

Not exactly, they didn't say the FAA should reword the regulation, they said:

“If it is intended that Part 135.225 (a)(2) be read to specify that MDA’s or HAA’s are minimum ceilings, FAA has a variety of procedures available to it which would better serve to inform the aviation community of the Administrator’s interpretation. "

One procedure for informing pilots (out of the aforementioned " variety of procedures available) is a validly adopted interpretation. It doesn't require re-wording the regulation. SInce that NTSB ruling, there was a decision in the federal court of appeals which established that an interepretation formulated in the course of a proscecution is in fact a validly adopted interpretation. In light of this, if administrator vs Krachum were tried today it is probable that the FAA would have prevailed, not Krachum.


OH...and Yank, you may not like semantics and interpretations, and I certanly can't blame you, but that is exactly what the law turns on, like it or not.

 

[bafanguy]

However, this most simple of concepts can get clouded by all the "experts" here on flightinfo.

Dam good thing you guys are up on it. Otherwise, there is no way I could have kept my certificates until retirement Which, by the way, is in 25 days.

So, I'm off to contemplate that, and not to argue semantics and "interpretations" with those who will try and convice me that the sun isn't rising tomorrow. GMAFB.

Yank,

I hear ya, but this is a pretty good example of the problem with FAR's. We've all seen this type of confusion arise. They should be written clearly enough that people don't have to get their "interpretations" from some FAA lawyer or NTSB judge.

With the edition of FAR's that come from the GPO, there is a "preamble" section with amendments where changes are discussed in detail. In the 91 and 121 versions of this particular FAR concept, the amendments did a pretty good job of covering the intent of/thinking behind the FAR itself. It helped a lot when we transitioned to this new concept after 1980. I don't know how many people actually get their FAR's from the GPO these days with the FARAIM books available. I'd be curious to see the particular amendment relating to this specific 135 issue.

Regardless, the people who have to live under these FAR's shouldn't have to deal with poorly-written regs considering they're the ones who swing for any missteps, but we both know this will never change.

I'm hesitant to be too hard on those who are confused having been one myself many times.

 

[flyboyzii]

My company changed our operation specifications to read that we have to have both ceiling and vis before we can initiate an approach. Don't have both and your fired...period

 

[CaSyndrm]

Most pilots including myself that have experience that goes back more than a few years automatically answer visibality. This letter is a interpretation that came along in 1991 and the book that has FAR's interpreted including court cases might even have more current interpretations. If you go by the old rule and bend a plane you will be held accountable for the decision to start or continue an approach that had a ceiling below minimums.

 

[100LL... Again!]

First of all, CEILING is not listed on the plate. We all know that.

Second, the visibility is a WEATHER minimum. I.E. you must have at least this vis to land.

The DA/DH is a DESCENT minimum. You may not desend below this altitude without having the required visual references.

This is probably a classic case of one highly technical nerd division of the FAA not being in tune with decades of operational policy.

Care to name even one airline that operates according to this 'policy'?

 

[100LL... Again!]

Here's a little test for all you 135 experts out there.

Go look up the most recent version of 135.225. ( the one where they added the 'eligible operator language).

If you read it carefully, you will see where they really messed up the rewrite. It makes no sense whatsoever. Obviously a bad cut-and paste job at the FAA typing department. I've seen it in many versions as well.

Star with sec B. It starts with language about eligible operators.
Then, sec C talks about commencing an approach under sec B. Then, sec D talks bout commencing an approach under sec C.

Therefore, all language from sec B onward apply only to 'eligible' on-demand operators. (Read the definition to understand why many 135 operators are excluded from this).

There is also another serious mess-up. See if you can find it. It is in (I think), sec C.