IFR question

[hyper]

OK avbug. You sound agitated, but my intent wasn't to dispute your post and I don't think it reflects that. I simply wanted to share an opinion of the FAA that I happened to have due to a discussion about this years ago.

"......... but the pilot may be called into question on how he obtained the necessary visual references if the ceiling was below DH/DA/MDA."

Exactly my point. So while VIS is controlling (we all agree on that) the ceiling needs to be considered in the event that our friend is on the ramp in the muck and wants an explanation about your landing in VV001.

Be prepared.

 

[MetroSheriff]

OK avbug. You sound agitated, but my intent wasn't to dispute your post and I don't think it reflects that. I simply wanted to share an opinion of the FAA that I happened to have due to a discussion about this years ago.

"......... but the pilot may be called into question on how he obtained the necessary visual references if the ceiling was below DH/DA/MDA."

Exactly my point. So while VIS is controlling (we all agree on that) the ceiling needs to be considered in the event that our friend is on the ramp in the muck and wants an explanation about your landing in VV001.

Be prepared.

I don't think he is agitated. It is pretty straightforward. 91.175 tells us what we need to know. Vis makes it legal. Of course prudence dictates that other factors (ceilings and VV) should be considered.

If you crash you've got some explaining to do, and they'll probably get ya with the good ol' "careless and reckless operation".

If you you land sucessfully, and a hypothetical fed wants an explanation beyond "I reached MDA and continued IAW the criteria listed in 91.175", just refer him to a good aviation lawyer who could explain to him that if he has a time machine, a helicopter, and a really long tape measure, it would be nice if he could prove that the ceiling was indeed below MDA, since it is well known that indefinite ceiling reports are often misleading due to the inherent inaccuracies of ground reporting equipment, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention, that if VV was really 001, more than likely the VIS is going to be below a 1/2 rendering the whole discussion moot.

This is all hypothetical of course. If the weather was that bad, there would be no fed on the ramp in all the yucky fog and rain. They'll be at home next to the fire with a mug of warm cocoa and a good book (like the 8400-10), especially if it happens to be Friday. Saturday, or Sunday.

All in good fun....

 

[hyper]

"Not to mention, that if VV was really 001, more than likely the VIS is going to be below a 1/2 rendering the whole discussion moot. "

Actually I've gone into JAX with VV001 and RVR1800 on many occasion. Approach is still legal.


"I don't think he is agitated. It is pretty straightforward. 91.175 tells us what we need to know. Vis makes it legal. Of course prudence dictates that other factors (ceilings and VV) should be considered. "

Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

[MetroSheriff]

That's why I use qualifying statements.

Actually I've gone into JAX with VV001 and RVR1800 on many occasion. Approach is still legal.

No doubt it occurs at JAX, and a host of other places. It happens, but not often enough to sweat it. Hence the use of the term "more than likely..."

I agree, it's quite legal, but, how'd ya explain that one to the Feds??? (TIC)

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Yep, sure is. I agree and was reiterating the point you made so well.

 

[hyper]

Ah, understood.

I never meant to come off argumentative about it, if it appears that way.

cheers

 

[MetroSheriff]

No worries...I think were on the same page.

 

[avbug]

Just to set the record straight, I'm not agitated. It's just that my shorts keep riding up...

 

[MetroSheriff]

I think it's referred to as "gettin' a little 'bunchy'" lol.

 

[V-1]

As CVSfly wrote, "landing minimums", not "approach minimums" are controlling. What are the minimum requirements for landing from an instrument approach?

Landing minimums are addressed in 91.175 (d):

Landing: No pilot operating an aircraft, except a militart aircraft of the United States, may land that aircraft when the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used.

Furthermore, 121.651 (b) spells it out even more clearly:

Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no pilot may continue an approach past the final approach fix, or where a final approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure -

(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 minimums prescribed by that procedure...

(c) If a pilot has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section and after that receives a later weather report indicating below-minimum conditions, the pilot may continue the approach to DH or MDA. Upon reaching DH or at MDA, and at any time before the missed approach point, the pilot may continue the approach below DH or MDA and touch down if -

(Paraphrased) The aircraft is continuously in a position to land in the touchdown zone using normal descent rates and maneuvers and the flight visibility is no less than the visibility prescribed for the approach.

From my freight experience, the ceiling is much less important than the visibility, particularly when shooting ILS approaches with sequenced flashing lights. I can't count the number of times I've gotten in easily with the weather 100&10, 100&3, 100& 1, etc. Remember, all you have to see at DH is those powerful strobe lights, then you can descend to 100 feet above TDZE. Looking down through a 100-200 foot thick cloud is much easier than looking through 1/4 mile-visibility fog that stretches for miles.

There is confusion at the FAA level though. I once did a 135 oral with the GRR FSDO. After completing it, I asked the Examiner this same question. He said he'd issue a violation immediately for flying an approach with ceiling below (approach) minimums. After he left, I went and found our P.O.I. at the FSDO and asked him the same question. He said the other examiner was wrong.

Hope this helps.

 

[MetroSheriff]

There is confusion at the FAA level though.

A truism. Out of context, I know, but a truism all the same...