Authorized minimums as used in 121.613

[atldc9]

I was reading the last few legal interpretations sent out from the FAA, and they have another one that seems to be a significant change.

The interpretation, cited below, says that when dispatching under 12.613, you need to have both the ceiling and visibility. I was always taught you only needed to have the required visibility.

Thoughts?

U.S.Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
MAR ;9 2007
Ronald E. Bush
Director of Operations
Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc.
7100 TPC Drive
Suite 200
Orlando, Florida 32822
Dear Mr. Bush:
This letter responds to your request of November 10,2006 for a legal interpretation of 14
CFR §121.613.
Applicable Re!!ulation:
14 C.F.R. § 121.613 Dispatch or flight release under IFR or over the top.
Except as provided in §121.615, no person may dispatch or release an aircraft for operations
under IFR or over-the-top, unless appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any
combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized
minimums at the estimated time of arrival at the airport or airports to which dispatched or
released.
Question:
Your question is, "does 'authorized minimums' [in §121.613] mean that both the ceiling
(HAT) and visibility values 'will be at or above authorized minimums,' or mean that only
. the visibility values 'will be at or above authorized minimums, for the purpose of a Flight
Release to an airport under IFR or Over- The-Top?"
The FAA has determined that the phrase "authorized minimums" in §121.613 refers to both
the ceiling and visibility minimums. Although both ceiling and visibility are not specifically
stated in § 121.613, for flight planning purposes, the FAA requires both. In other FAA rules
involving flight planning, the FAA makes both ceiling and visibility minimums a specified
requirement. For example, when designating an IFR alternate, § 91. 169(c) states" ... at the
estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at that airport will
be at or above the following weather minima." In addition, § 121.611, "Dispatch or flight
release under VFR," states "[n]o person may dispatch or release an aircraft for VFR
operation unless the ceiling and visibility en route, as indicated by available weather reports
or forecasts, or any combination thereof, are and will remain at or above applicable VFR
minimums .... " The FAA believes requiring, for part 121 dispatch or flight release, that
2
both ceiling and visibility minimums be met at the destination airport adds a reasonable
level of safety for each part 121 scheduled flight.
In addition, the FAA has provided legal interpretations to assist operators when reviewing
weather forecast information and determining whether or not to dispatch or flight release an
aircraft. These interpretations include 1977-20; 1979-24; 1984-16; 1989-28; and 1990-6.
For your information and to assist you, attached are copies ofthe last two interpretations,
1989-28 and 1990-6.
We trust this interpretation has answered your questions. This was prepared by Bruce
Glendening, Attorney, reviewed by Joseph Conte, Manager, Operations Law Branch of the
Office of the Chief Counsel and coordinated with Flight Standards Service.
smc~ _ V~--
Rebecca B. MaCPhe;:!-
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division
Attachment: FAA Legal Interpretations 1989-28 and 1990-6.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Hmmmm. Interesting. I'm going to ground school next week, and I'll ask to see if they've heard anything.

 

[A Squared]

Hmmmmmm, veeeeerrrryyyy interesting indeed.

I'm not particularly surprised though. I've had discussions on this before. Everyone always says that it's visibility only for dispatch. Except me. I was never really convinced that's what the reg meant. Anytime I'd ever asked for an explanation for why it was ceiling only the answer is usually something like "that's the way it's always been done" which I don't find particularly compelling. The other explanation is that "ceiling isn't a "minimum", that the MDA or DA on an approach plate was a minimum altitude, not a ceiling. Nobody was ever able to point to something that suggest that the FAA officially agreed with that interpretation. If you read the regulation, it doesn't say that ceiling is a weather minimum It says the "weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums" and ceiling *is* a weather condition and MDA *is* an authorized minimum. It doesn't take much of a stretch to see that this is open to the interpretation that the weather conditions (including celiling) must be at or above the authorized mimimums (including MDA)

Anyway, the reason it seems to me that the dispatch requirements are not just ceiling is this:

In 121.651, the regulation which determines when you can continue past the final approach fix, "visibility minimums" is specified. Clearly, when the FAA *means* visibility, they are capable of *writing* visibility, and there's no ambiguity about what they ment...visibility" The question in my mind is that if in 121.613 the FAA *means* visibility, why don't they *write* visibility, like they did in 121.651? Without a reasonable answer, I'm inclined to conclude that they didn't *write* "visibility" in 121.613 because that's not what they meant. So what *did* they mean? What "weather conditions" are there other than visibility? Well, ceiling is one of the more obvious "weather conditions"

It will be interesting to see the reaction to this interpretation, as the belief that only visibility is required for dispatch is pretty deeply entrenched in the industry. If this interpretation was released in March, I'm surprised that we haven't already seen a howl of protest.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

How do FAA legal interpretations trickle down typically?

Does it come down to individual POIs? I have a feeling my company's POI can't read English at a 5th grade level, let alone make sense of this stuff.

I suppose 121.613 might get a rewrite sometime. . .

 

[DrewBlows]

The original thread is very difficult to read due to poor formatting. Perhaps atldc9 could edit it for easier reading.

I'm not convinced this interpretation says the ceiling at the destination at the ETA has to be above the DA or MDA (as applicable). It gives and example of a VFR dispatch and says that the ceiling and visibility have to be above minimums. It doesn't give a specific example of an IFR dispatch and doesn't really address the question. Remember that, though rare, it is possible to dispatch VFR. In that case "weather minimums" would include both ceiling and visibility since those are both defined in the definition of "VFR". I have been taught that visibility is a minimum and have never seen a ceiling minimum listed for an instrument approach procedure. When the FAA starts listing ceiling minimums or changes the regulation my thinking will change.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I showed this to some higher-ups in training. A man much smarter and well connected than I just about flipped his lid. He's part of some FAA Op Specs working group something-or-other. He seemed think this interpretation was "crazy," but also that it applied to to 121 IFR flights. Sounds like he was going to take a look into it.

 

[slider]

What kind of nonsense is this… first of all, why even ask the question? Anyway, since its now an issue, if the FAA interprets authorized minimums as ALWAYS requiring ceiling, then why would there be a need to SPECIFICALLY state “CEILING REQUIRED” on some approach plates? Other than the operational need for requiring a ceiling –such as mountainous terrain- the reason it is stated on some plates is due to the manner in which the regulation was written. Unless otherwise specified, ceiling is NOT part of authorized minimums, visibility is controlling!
This is simply a case where some nose in the book, non-operational type person/position looked at other regulations and came up with what she thought made sense! I’d like to see the FAA try to violate someone using this reasoning… it’d stick about as well as cat ******************** on a hot tin roof in a rain storm!

 

[igneousy2]

This is from the FAA's own instrument procedures Handbook.

FAA-H-8261-1 Chapter 5 (Approaches), Page 5-5

"It should be noted that the controlling factor for
determining whether or not the aircraft can proceed
is reported visibility."

They contradict their own books. Yet another reason to hate the FAA.

Later​

 

[A Squared]

This is from the FAA's own instrument procedures Handbook.

FAA-H-8261-1 Chapter 5 (Approaches), Page 5-5

"It should be noted that the controlling factor for
determining whether or not the aircraft can proceed
is reported visibility."

They contradict their own books. Yet another reason to hate the FAA.

Later​

I don't think that's a contradiction. I don't have the same book in front of me, but from what you posted it looks like they're discussing begining or continuing an approach, which is a completely different scenario than dispatching, in fact under 121 the regulations addressing those two situations are completely different.

 

[A Squared]

What kind of nonsense is this… first of all, why even ask the question? Anyway, since its now an issue, if the FAA interprets authorized minimums as ALWAYS requiring ceiling, then why would there be a need to SPECIFICALLY state “CEILING REQUIRED” on some approach plates? Other than the operational need for requiring a ceiling –such as mountainous terrain- the reason it is stated on some plates is due to the manner in which the regulation was written. Unless otherwise specified, ceiling is NOT part of authorized minimums, visibility is controlling!
This is simply a case where some nose in the book, non-operational type person/position looked at other regulations and came up with what she thought made sense!]

well, we're not talking about flying an approach, we're talking about dispatching a flight. Why would some plates specify a minimum ceiling? One reason might be to give notice to 121 crews that they need ceiling above a minimum to proceed past the FAF on that approach, which otherwise they clearly would only need vis. Remember the regulation doesn't say that ceiling is a minimum, it says "weather conditions" of which ceiling is one, must be above "authorized minimums" and DA/MDA are authorized minimums, ergo Ceiling must be above MDA/DH. That is certainly one way the words of the reg can be interpreted, and still be within their plain english meanings. You may not like this interpretation, and may prefer a different interpretation, but that's different that demonstration that it's incorrect, which you have not done.

[I’d like to see the FAA try to violate someone using this reasoning… it’d stick about as well as cat ******************** on a hot tin roof in a rain storm!

If you don't think the FAA can make this stick, you have anotherthink coming. It may indicate a shift in application of the regulations, but this *is* an official legal interpretaiton from the chief counsel's office. You better believe that the FAA can now make this stick in an enforcement proceeding. If you think differently, you need to study up on the ins and outs of administrative law generally and the status of chief counsel interpretations specifically.