Required Landing Visibility Using RVR

[Andy Neill]

GCD,

I've read the pertinent parts of C-074a. I support Snoopy58's stand and agree with his use of 121.651 as a reference.

Let's say I need 1800 RVR to shoot an approach and it goes below that inside the marker. When I break out, I would continue for a landing with the cited features in sight AND with flight visibility at or greater than the required vis. For instance, if I know that the distance between the threshhold and a runway intersection is 1/2 mile and I see that crossing at 100' over the apporach lights, I will land knowing I had the required flight visibility to land legally.

 

[JayDub]

GCD,

Only touchdown reported. All ok per the notes in our GRH. I would prefer not to elaborate for fear of releasing restricted material. I will say, however, this scenario is pretty much covered in the appropriate materials from our company. I am a little restricted on time. Maybe EagleFlip or someone can chime in for me.

Thanks for bending the ol' brain cells. Great discussion.

Respectfully,

JayDub

 

[JayDub]

This has been a busy week for me, but I finally got a little time to myself. Let me explain what I've said.

First, I apologized only for just scanning your posts. I wish I had time to read them closer. I, too , appreciate good, constructive disagreement and yearn for a little more civility at times.

Second, there are times equipment malfunctions. My approach into IAD is a clear example. Not all situations are clear and this AC, I believe, alows you the latitude to do what is safe. This leads me into my next point.

Third, if you shoot a CAT I to 200' and see lights, you may go down another 100'. Same position as DH on a CATII. The main thrust of this ruling is safety. If you get to 100' and see what you can identify as a runway, it is a whole lot safer to land than to go-around. Chances are good you'll touch the runway any how on a go-around, if you have some good sized engines that take a while to spool-up. This basically allows a person to land if it is the safest thing to do.

Lastly, in my upgrade ground school, we went over most of the critical parts of the QRH with the Director of Standards. This particular peocedure was discussed at length. In fact, this very scenario was brought up. He said it was at his insistance the paragraph that dictated exactly what constituted grounds for a go-around was included in the QRH. He was told we should already know that, so why included it? He convinced the powers-that-be and it was included. Now, if there is an issue, the company will pay for a lawyer for me, and that lawyer will argue that the POI signed off on it, so it is law. I believe he'd be successful, too.

Then again, I've been proven wrong before.

Respectfully,

JayDub

 

[climbhappy]

rvr controlling

I'm amazed that since rvr is controlling, how it miraculously it changes when things are backed so the airlines can operate.

for departures, many needing a 1/4 in ops specs etc.

for arrivals, by the time it takes them to create a new atis and broadcast it , should it go below mins for rvr, yet runway evn in sight, YOU'D BE ON THE GROUND!

 

[Snoopy58]

Climbhappy,

You're right, RVR changes too quickly for the ATIS. Generally tower broadcasts it, so you're getting it real time.

I double-checked our FOM, and it's perfectly clear. Once you're on the Final Approach Segment, if a controlling RVR goes below mins, you are allowed to continue the approach, and if you see what you need to see at the DH, you can land. Period.

On the other hand, if a controlling RVR goes inop, you MUST initiate a missed approach, even in side the marker. Wierd, huh?

Of course, if it's an RVR readout that is advisory, rather than controlling, that goes inop, that's a different story.

Cheers,

Snoopy

 

[niteflyr]

Visibility Variations

There are many different visibility reports out there - RVR, Tower Visibility, Flight Visibility. Bottom line is if you call the visibility adequate and land, you just have to be able to explain it to the feds if they come asking. If you have specific items you could see from a 1/2 mile final then you had the flight visibility required. RVR is horizontal visibility along the ground, often the worst visibility. If you get to DH and the angle you have looking at the runway gives you the vis, then land. No point in living in paranoia about the feds, they were all like us at one time....I just wish they would quit following me.........

 

[GCD]

OK guys, some of you are assuming that I agree with the mindset that a landing may not be made. Yo're not reading closely enough. I simply threw this out for discussion, and a good discussion it has been.

Let me give you the "unofficial" opinion of a room full of FAA Inspectors. It wasn't a pretty discussion, at first, but the overall concesus was that: if you are past the final approach fix, tower clears you to land, and you had the visibility to commence the approach, you may continue and land, provided you could comply with 121.651, and have the flight visibility. Now, this is where the FAA guys I know say it is tricky. The PIC's judgement of required flight visibility is used. This could be why the B727 crew was violated. I have only seen the FAA Case, but I have not seen if there has been an appeal. I am certain there has been.

The reason I even started this discussion is because there are rooms full of checkairmen, instructors, even inspectors who argue back-n-forth on this exact subject. At 150+- knots at 100' above the touchdown zone, you need to aleady have your mind made up about what you are going to do.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[pilot00]

The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used

What is the definition of flight visibility per FAR part 1?

Flight visibility means the average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

I believe it is the foward horizontal distance to the unlighted object that I see from the cockpit. That is how I read it. So that means if it looks like the vis required to shoot the aproach from my eye's at the DH, I would continue and land.