weather beyond FAF?

[F16fixer]

I'm studying for an interview right now and finding myself looking deeper into regs than normal. You know how that can be.
My question is where in the regs does it say you can continue the approach if the visiblity drops after you cross the FAF? I am looking at 91.175 frontwards, backwards and every other way and can't seem to figure this one out. I see that (c) 2 says that the flight visibilty cannot be less than prescribed in part 97 for the approach to continue down below DH. Nowhere does it say that you can become a human Atis and decide what the visiblity is yourself.

I've always heard people say that if the weather goes below req'd vis before the final app. you can't continue under certain operations, but if it goes bad after the FAF you can continue and determine yourself.

Any clarification would be appreaciated.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Under Part 91, I don't know of anything that prevents you from beginning an approach if you do not have the weather to land. You can not land, however, unless you meet the requirements of 91.175.

The people that are telling you that you can't continue past the FAF with out the landing minimums are referring to Part 135 or 121 operations. Those can be found under 135.225 and 121.651.

Now, 91.175 states that part of the requirements for landing is that FLIGHT VISIBILITY be above minimums. You can not determine FLIGHT VISIBILITY from any where other than the cockpit. Therefore it is the judgment of the flight crew that will determine FLIGHT VISIBILITY.

Here is the rub though....91.13....Careless and Reckless Operation of an Aircraft. If you continue, and land WITH an incident or accident of some form, you will have a hard time proving that Flight Visibility was greater than the observed visibility. So don't screw up. Because if they don't get you for making an illegal landing, they'll gig ya for 91.13.

 

[F16fixer]

Hey, thanks for the answer to that. I'm glad you clarified it. I posted it on the other forum after this one because more people use that one.

Take care,

fixer

 

[lawfly]

An additional caveat: When the minimum viz is expressed in terms of RVR and RVR is reported for the runway, be wary of landing if the RVR is reported below published RVR mins, as the approach viz is then predicated on Runway Visual Range and not flight viz or prevailing viz per se. Of course, if you're Part 91 and you really can see things better than reported, then...

 

[H.Agenda]

Hey, thanks for the answer to that. I'm glad you clarified it. I posted it on the other forum after this one because more people use that one.

Take care,

fixer

What's the other forum?

 

[A Squared]

What's the other forum?

He posted the question on this website in hte general aviation discussion forum. If you're interested in the subject, you might look up the subject as there was a little more extensive discussion on hte subject.