approach mins

[GravityHater]

DOH!
wheres the forehead slapping icon?
thanks for not tearing me a new one!

 

[CFIse]

Once you descend to the prescribed minimum, and you have the required visual references in sight, you land...REGARDLESS of reported ceiling.

Take a deep breath and go back and read the first post. The question isn't what can you do at minimums - the question is what do you need to commence the approach.

You may want to consider the possibility that the 2 things are different.

 

[Ralgha]

That letter of interpretation is the most wishy-washy piece of legal jargon I've ever seen. It doesn't say one way or the other what's required to start an approach.

That said, approach plates do not have a ceiling requirement on them. They have an MDA, or a DA, and a visibility required to descend below that MDA or DA and land. The MDA or DA has nothing to do with weather. It is only an altitude that you must stop at until meeting the visibility requirements.

 

[flx757]

The question isn't what can you do at minimums - the question is what do you need to commence the approach.

.

And the answer, in a plain and easy to understand one word answer, is visibility.

The previous poster put it very well. There is no "reported ceiling" minimum requirement listed on an approach plate. Only a visibility minimum. THIS is what is required to begin the approach.

This question (and answer) is one of the most basic of all.

 

[A Squared]

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"

121.651 (b) (2) At airports within the United States and its territories or at U.S. military airports, unless the latest weather report for that airport issued by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by that Service, or a source approved by the Administrator, reports the visibility to be equal to or more than the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure..............

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

§135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums.
(a) 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.

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.

 

[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.