approach mins

[Lrjtcaptain]

As a controller this comes into play alot with the 135 drivers. What I typically do just to give them a chance at it is report the RVR once they are inside the OM. If they ask ahead of time I'll read it to them but if they don't ask, i give it inside the OM. We are required to report RVR when we have a reported vis of less the 1sm. Inside the marker, um....RVR 1800. Your established, you can give it a try....would you 135 driver prefer it earlier or do you want a chance???

 

[fly4free]

This is one the most common debates among 121 and 135 pilots. it is very clear in 121 but not 135. and you can't just say that because it is this way in 121, they must have ment it that way for 135.

You also can't say "I've been doing it this way for 40 f'ing years. I am right." I can't wait for all you guys to retire and get out of the way of progress. Just because a pilot (or an industry) does it a certain way for a very long time doesn't make it right or impervious to revision.

I read a letter from the FAA about this recently...can't seem to locate it. It said that the (135) pilot must consider the most probable outcome of the approach to be executed. The letter indicated that a probable missed approach was to be considered a more unsafe outcome than an approach that probably would end with a safe landing outcome.

If you have a ceiling reported well below the MDA..."probably" not going to see the landing surface with unlimited visibility from this procedure.

However, ceiling could be as little as 5/8 of the sky leaving the approach path wide open...conversly visibility (not RVR) is also prevailing (more than half the sky) and you could have reported visibility of 2 miles and still not be able to see the landing surface from your approach direction.

I add to this discussion with hesitance because there really is no concrete answer. There are sound "legal" arguments for both sides. It is true that the FAA believes "ceiling" is required to be above MDA before commencing the procedure. They have stated it in their chief council decisions and they have tried to violate people for it.

With all of our certificates comes the responsibility of sound, logical judgment that will keep ourselves and the trusting, paying public safe.

 

[ackattacker]

I'll say this... "the FAA considers..." is always a dangerous statement to make. The FAA has 64,000 employees or so and they don't always agree. However, this discussion usually comes up with people who don't really shoot approaches to mins very often. An RVR 1800 approach is legal if you have the center line lights and so on, but how often do you think you'll see RVR 1800 with a 200' ceiling? Answer: almost never. It'll be VV001 or something similar. And Cessna 402's will be dropping into Nantucket with amazing regularity, and have been doing so ever since the 1980's. The "FAA" is perfectly aware of this and hasn't prosecuted anybody yet. So I wouldn't worry about it. If "they" really thought ceiling was required they'd have no shortage of cases to try.

 

[A Squared]

The "FAA" is perfectly aware of this and hasn't prosecuted anybody yet.

No, that is not true. THe FAA has in fact prosecuted at least one pilot for exactly that. Several references to that have already been made in this thread. Now the FAA didn't prevail in that case, but they tried. Since that time they have:

1) issued an legal interpretation which though badly written, raises the possibility that ceiling may be required.

2) Appealed the actions of the NTSB in an unrelated case, in which the DC circuit court of appeals fopund that the NTSB is boud to accept the FAA's interpretation of hte regulation, even though that interpretation is presented for the first time during litigation
Garvey, FAA v. NTSB and Richard Lee Merrell, (FAA v. Merrell), 190 F. 3rd 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
In FAA v Merrell the Court said: The FAA is not required to promulgate interpretations through rule making or the issuance of policy guidelines, but may instead do so through litigation before the NTSB .... The fact that this mode of regulatory interpretation necessarily is advanced through the litigation statements of counsel does not relieve the NTSB of its statutory obligation to accorded due deference.

Now, if that ruling had existed at the time that the FAA was prosecuting a 135 pilot for begining an approach when hte ceiling was below the MDA, the FAA would almost certainly have prevailed.

Do you want to be the Guniea Pig when they try it again? this time with a federal court ruling and an interpretation both of which strengthen thier position on the issue?

 

[ackattacker]

No, that is not true. THe FAA has in fact prosecuted at least one pilot for exactly that.

I've read the case discussed. The pilot in question crashed doing a badly performed missed approach. The FAA attempted to throw the book at him, charging him with careless and reckless, operation below MDA, failure to immediately exectute the missed approach when required, and (strangely) operation below 2000' in mountainous terrain under IFR when not required for takeoff or landing. Then, almost as an afterthought, and right before the trial apparently, they added the 135.225(a) beginning the approach when the weather was reported below minimums. As noted before, the "mins" were 3100' but the weather was reported as 900'.

The NTSB judge ripped the FAA apart for the 135.225(a) charge. He noted that even the FAA counsel seemed "far less than certain about the landing requirements for Part 135 Carriers". His clear implication was that the FAA counsel and Law Judge didn't know what they were talking about, couldn't point out where the ceiling requirement was on the approach chart, and couldn't back it up with any precedent. The FAA still "got their man" since the careless and reckless charge stuck.

Then we have this FAA interpretation issued as a result. The FAA, having painted itself into a corner, tries to wiggle out by saying that a pilot has to "consider" the reported ceiling. I'd say there was probably some argument at the FAA, otherwise they would have come out with something clearer. My guess is that some FAA lawyer, having put himself way out over the line with the 135.225(a) charge, was looking for some support and this was the best they could come up with. Then they quietly let it drop. Unless you can come up with something else in the 10+ years that have elapsed, I'd say the FAA probably wants to forget about the whole thing.

Now, if you do something like this bozo and recklessly crash your aircraft, maybe some overzeoulous FAA lawyer will try the same nonsense. But if you don't plan to crash then I still say "don't worry about it".

If some inspector with a stiffy for my certificate ever tried to question me about it, I'd say I "considered" the ceiling and, based upon prior experience, had reason to expect a successful outcome from the approach.

 

[Donsa320]

I have no dog in the weather minimums fight for 135 operations but let me ask this then. Since MDA's are published based on the Terps required obstacle clearance (ROC) and THEN rounded up or down to the nearest 20ft value do you then round up to the next reportable ceiling in hundreds of feet? If so, then a 320 ft MDA would require a 400 ft ceilng putting us back to the old ANC days where minimums WERE based on ceiling. That is called OCL...Obstacle Clearance Limits rules, still used in some parts of the world. That, however, was not the intent when Terps was established as the law of the land. Visibility value was supposed to be the only requirement as far as weather minimums were concerned.

I was on the ALPA Terps committee for many years and that is what the intent was. If some how the rules for 135 ops have departed from that then I guess a good court challenge is the only solution.
~DC

 

[igneousy2]

If ceiling was required under the regulations it wouldn't make sense...

91 -- no weather needed
135 -- ceiling and visibility
121 -- just visibility

This goes against the general principal that 121 operators have more strict rules than 135 operators. Not that it matters much anymore, however I belive that the original writers did not even intend VISIBILITY to be limiting to 135 operators. As another poster has previously pointed out, the visibility value is the prevailing (>50%) at a specific point at the airport (generally the tower). This point may be miles away from the runway in use. I believe they intended 135 operators to be able to use both values in concert with neither being a solid limitation for starting the approach.

Unfortunately, everyone in charge of making, interpreting and enforcing the rules rarely have any need or experience with living with the rules.

The notion that Ceiling is controling to start an approach is absurd. Even a report of overcast still allows for 10% of the sky to be cloud free. If that 10% is over the right spot it could at least allow you to see the approach lights and continue.

I think it was intended to be...

91 -- no weather needed
135 -- all available weather data indicates a sucessful approach would be possible considering all factors. i.e. runway in use, circle vs straight in, terrain/obstructions, individual aircraft performance and instrumentation.
121 -- prevailing visibility at or above approach minimums.

Too bad it's left up to a bunch of lawyers & inspectors with little or no aviation experience.

Later

 

[fly4free]

in my opinion

This goes against the general principal that 121 operators have more strict rules than 135 operators.

I'm not sure that 121 is generally more strict...I think they have more leanient dutie rules (although much more clearly defined) etc. allowing visibility only for 121 approach criteria would be less restrictive and this would be allowed because 121 has more training, more professional pilots (laugh), and more FAA oversight.

requiring the 135 pilot to have more criteria for the approach makes sense to me...wide variety of aircraft, less standardization, more diverse pilot work force.

IMO it makes sense for 135 to be more restrictive, not less.

E

 

[blimpguy]

A Referenced Answer

Good day to all. I've been reading these forums for a while, but this is my first post.

I believe I have the correct answer to the "weather minimums" question in the reference below. This is the second paragraph on page 5-5 of the FAA's new Instrument Procedures Handbook (2004), FAA-H-8261-1. I qouted the entire paragraph for context, but you can skip down to the all-capitalized sentence. It seems to be very black and white and is very recent. I'd toss a copy of that handbook to my attorney at the hearing.

PART 135 OPERATORS
"Another very important difference between Part 91 and Part 135 operations is the Part 135 requirement for airports of intedned landing to meet specific weather criteria once the flight has been initiated. For Part 135, not only is the weather required to be forecast at or above IFR landing minimums for planning a departure, but it also must be above minimums for initiation of an instrument approach and, once the approach is initiated, to begin the final approach segment of an approach. Part 135.225 states that pilots may not begin an instrument approach of the final approach segment of an IAP to an airport unless the latest weather report indicates that the weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that porcedure. This means that Part 135 operators are restricted from passing the initial approach fix (IAF) and the final approach fix (FAF) if the weather is reported below minimums. Part 135.225 also provides relief from this rule if the aircraft has already passed the FAF when the weather report is received. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CONTROLLING FACTOR FOR DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE AIRCRAFT CAN PROCEED BEYOND THE IAF OR FAF IS REPORTED VISIBILITY. The runway visibility value (RVV), reported in statute miles (SM), takes precedence over prevailing visibility. There is no required timeframe for receiving current weather prior to initiating the approach."


Well, I hope that clears things up. Feel free to lambast me if I missed the point.

blimpguy
ATP AMEL
ASEL, ASES
Heli
Airship

 

[vnyflyer]

This is how it goes down. The Faa interpretation of the regs say that you must CONSIDER the ceiling, but visibility is controlling. Such as if the weather was ovc 100-1/2, and the minimums were 200-1/2 you cannot legally shoot the approach. However if it was broken at 100 feet, then you could. Because you have considered the ceiling and there is a decent chance of seeing the runway. Also if you decide to shoot it with the overcast at 100 feet, then you could possibly face violation of Part 91.13, careless or reckless operation of aircraft. Thats never a good idea. Hope this all made sense.
Jake