approach mins

[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.

 

[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.