Visual Approach

[Way2Broke]

So I am am flying today, trying to pay the bills and ran into something bizarre. ATIS was reporting 1sm and approach was giving out the visual. You could easily see the first 1000ft of the runway, after that is was fogged in. I declined and requested the ILS. A couple of other 135s accepted and were told "tower reports you can see the approach end of your runway." Was I in the right or is there some bizarre exemption that I am not aware of? Thanks.

 

[minitour]

Did you have 3sm visibility?

If not, I'd say no visual approach. Probably could have gone with a contact approach, but you'd have to ask for it and not the other way around.

I'd probably have taken the ILS too but it's tough to say...

-mini

 

[Way2Broke]

In flight, yes. But only til the first 1000ft of the runway. I couldn't do the contact because of the cig. and our op specs.

 

[minitour]

In flight, yes. But only til the first 1000ft of the runway. I couldn't do the contact because of the cig. and our op specs.

Too questionable for me...I'd probably have taken the ILS too.

-mini

 

[Nolife]

ATC should not be clearing folks for visuals with less than 3SM vis. Contact approaches OK but not visuals... if they were doing this someone's going to get hurt, violated, or fired. You were right not to play along and take the ILS.

BTW... nothing worse for your pride than asking for a vis approach then losing the field and having to ask for an approach. So I've been told.

 

[igneousy2]

I've run into this before and the explanation I got was that the ATIS info was old. It's the current conditions at the field that dictate the legality, not what's on the ATIS which may be an hour old. I'd ask the tower what the visiblity at the field was currently, if he said 3+ i'd do the visual, if it was <3 I would have done the ILS to...sounds like you made a good call to me.

Later

 

[ReverseSensing]

I've run into this before and the explanation I got was that the ATIS info was old. It's the current conditions at the field that dictate the legality, not what's on the ATIS which may be an hour old. I'd ask the tower what the visiblity at the field was currently, if he said 3+ i'd do the visual, if it was <3 I would have done the ILS to...sounds like you made a good call to me.

Later

The problem is some towers (Bethel, AK) will consider old weather still valid just to "grease the skids" for all the VFR operators, even after the weather has gone completely down the crapper. Same thing would happen in the opposite direction, too. Not a cloud in the sky, but the airport is still IFR until the next weather posts.

I can't tell you how many times I heard, "The airport will be going IFR when the next weather is posted in 6 minutes." I always thought legal IFR/VFR distinctions were binary. Not in Alaska.

 

[A Squared]

The problem is some towers (Bethel, AK) will consider old weather still valid just to "grease the skids" for all the VFR operators, even after the weather has gone completely down the crapper. Same thing would happen in the opposite direction, too. Not a cloud in the sky, but the airport is still IFR until the next weather posts.

I can't tell you how many times I heard, "The airport will be going IFR when the next weather is posted in 6 minutes." I always thought legal IFR/VFR distinctions were binary. Not in Alaska.

It's not just Bethel. I've heard this in ANchorage ... came into Lake Hood in lowering conditions, as we were taxiing n, I heard the tower say that the next ATIS would be below basic VFR or words to that effect.

 

[Way2Broke]

There are a few places in the US that for some reason or another operate under there own set of rules.

 

[getonit]

just to play devil's advocate

I think you only need 3 miles vis to FLY an airplane, not taxi one. So if you have 3+ miles for the approach and can land and then go IMC on the ground, probably legal.