RVR below mins in side the FAF

[Jeff Helgeson]

It's all about OPS SPECc and the rules that apply to you.

Jeff,
I just got another instrument pilot thru the system and the DPE is a retired FAA inspector....and said if you land with the RVR below minimums..its a bust...then a friend blew a skywestinterveiw oral...because thats what was stated and the interveiwer stated flight vis was the most important requirement....ie landing lights....runway enviroment.....always equals the RVR plus 100 if the got something

That is tough question in an interview if you haven't flow 121 and know the ops specs. I would probably give the part 91 answer about inside the marker, you may continue with runway envirnment and preface this may not be the case in the 121 OPS SPECS for your particilar carrier.

As Bafanguy stated OPS SPECS are controlling. They don't make you excempt from the FARs, but they are consider as the same as FARs for the carrier.

Note: Legality to continue and appoach and legal to land may be two entirely different animals.

 

[Vector4fun]

I've never worked with an experienced Tower controller who would care whether you completed the approach in the situation you described. Don't crash, report clear of the runway, that's what they'll care about.

Now, that doesn't mean there isn't someone, a wannabe FSDO inquisitor, a sneaky competitor, a jilted lover, (who knows?) who's listening on freq or standing on the ramp, that wouldn't drop a dime. I've seen a few new controllers (former military) that would get the vapors, because that's not the way their Unit operated. You run into one of those guys here and there.

CYA is always the best policy.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

CAT IIIa in SLC

I flew out of SLC for many years. During the winter months, there's frequently a high pressure area camped out over the Wasatch Front. One of the "tricks" that the airline guys use to help each other get out during foggy conditions is to turn their airplanes so as to blow the hot engine exhaust at the RVR sensors. This frequently caused the RVR readings to improve enough to one or two aircraft out. It was also used as some coastal California airports.

'Sled

I was an F/O on the MD80 at TWA and had the opportunity to shoot a CAT3a to an auto land. We had to apply all the OPS Specs to make it work. It was foggy the last 3 minutes of a VFR flight in the winter. The touchdown and the mid were right at mins, but the rollout went down to zero as we touched down. It takes some faith in the equipment, a defodding of the spinkter from the seat cushion, and I was so glad I didn't have to taxi to the gate!

Jeff

 

[vclean]

This has been covered several times on this board. Review the following thread, especially the second page which lists a FAA Legal interpretation regarding the RVR/Flight Visibility question.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=39820

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

...It takes some faith in the equipment...

I'll say!! I've only had the opportunity (maybe misfortune is the proper word) to do this in the real world a couple of times and you could crack walnuts with my butt cheeks both times! I don't think this is something I'll ever get used to. It would be nice to have some sort of EVS... I'm jealous of the guys who have that onboard.

 

[bafanguy]

PC12,


It might be hard to find a copy, but reading amendment 121-166 ( circa Dec/'80) will give a detailed, but good overview of this viz thing. When this current FAR was revised in 1980, the amendment was a part of the FAR 121, change #41.

Referring to the use of the term "visibility" in the FAR as it relates to continuing descent below DA/MDA, the amendment says, "...(the intents in the new FAR) retain the concept of pilot determination of the specified visibility and clarify the frequently misunderstood point that the visibility referred to is FLIGHT VISIBILITY." I don't believe RVR is considered "flight visibility".

I am prepared to stand corrected, but I was taught that if you get to DA, and have the required visual references "distinctly visible and indentifiable to the pilot", you have the required "flight visibilty".

Why would FAR/ops specs allow a look-see in certain circumstances when ground viz is reported below published mins ( after you're inside FAF, for example ) except to acknowledge the fact that "flight" viz may be better/different than "ground" viz ( RVR, prevailing viz, etc. ) in many cases, allowing a safe continuation to landing ?

Someone better educated than I will jump in with a bet-the-rent-money answer.

I see that ASquared's letter from the Feds says it all.

 

[Andy Neill]

From CFR Part 91.175
"(d) Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, may land that aircraft when—

(1) For operations conducted under paragraph (l) of this section, the requirements of (l)(4) of this section are not met; or

(2) For all other part 91 operations and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135 operations, the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used."

Flight visibility is the distance from your eyeball to the most distant feature in the runway environment you can see. If you need 1800 RVR and the report is 1400, but you can actually see something 1800 feet away, you are legal to land. That being said, if you needed 1800 and the RVR were reporting 400, I would be hard pressed to convince anyone that I could actually see something 1800 feet away.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas All,

From the other thread from FAA Legal:

"Enforcement action would be taken only in those cases in which the pilot could not reasonably conclude that flight visibility was at or above approach minimums, but the pilot nevertheless proceeded to land or descent below DH or MDA"

Deciphered:

1) Don't do nuthin' dumb.

2) We aren't going to hassle you for 2-300 RVR

3) For anything else, we aren't going to bother you either unless something happens and/or if your company/operation sucks and we were already watching you or your ex is pissed at you and called 1-800-FLY-SAFE.

4) When in doubt, see rule 1

Nu

 

[flyinloki]

From what I know, the op specs at the airline I was at detailed that you could continue the approach if the RVR dropped below mins if you were inside the FAF but you could NOT start the approach if you were outside the FAF and it dropped below mins. Also from my own instruction over the years I've learned that there is no getting around RVR. If there is RVR on the runway and its indicating below mins and you land anyway the tower or or FAA can bust you on that because RVR is a very accurate and controlling measure of the mins and is more accurate than your standard AWOS/ASOS system. Now if you just have the AWOS/ASOS system and lets say the mins are 3/4 mile and its reporting 1/2 and you break out and you have at least a mile of vis cause you can see the end of the runway then thats fine because if anyone ever reports you on that then you can just say i had the requirements because those AWOS/ASOS systems aren't entirley accurate on visibility alot of the times. But RVR is extremley controlling and accurate and those no way to talk yourself out of that one if you go below RVR min.

 

[xjcaptain]

My opinion....Short and sweet.


Inside the FAF & RVR goes down....continue.
At DH/MAP..look up. If you see the required things...land. If not go around.
FLIGHT visibility is what counts at minimums. RVR/reported vis is what is required to begin the approach.

 

[j328driver]

One more thing to consider, flight visibility is transitory. It constantly changes.

It could be what you need in order to see the next identifiable object (approch lights, HIRL's, etc.) one minute - and then the next minute be 0/0.

If you get to DA(H) and you can see the approach lights, continue to 100'AGL.
If you get to 100'AGL and can see the red end row lights, threshold, etc. continue.
If you get to the threshold and you can still see enough enviroment to land, continue.
If there's an inspector on the ramp when you get in, it is incumbent on him to prove that you did not have what was described above.

BTW-Our CAT2/3 Briefing Guide actually has the PIC consider if continuing the approach will place the airplane on the runway without adequate visibility to taxi. It's interesting having to think about that when you're still 40-80 miles outside the FAF!

Cleared Weird.