Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

WX below mins/continuing when inside the faf

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Gas Man

I fly RJ's!
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Posts
73
I have been looking for this specifc reg. that allows us to continue an approach if the Wx falls below mins., we are inside the faf, and land if we have the runway environment, continuously in a position to land, yadayadayada. It is not under the most obvious 91.175 (takeoff and landing under IFR.
 
I have been looking for this specifc reg. that allows us to continue an approach if the Wx falls below mins., we are inside the faf, and land if we have the runway environment, continuously in a position to land, yadayadayada. It is not under the most obvious 91.175 (takeoff and landing under IFR.

I think you are looking at this backwards....there is no regulation that prohibits continuing beyond the final approach fix. Rather, there is only a regulation that says you can't descend below DH/DA/MDA.

91.175
 
I have been looking for this specifc reg. that allows us to continue an approach if the Wx falls below mins., we are inside the faf, and land if we have the runway environment, continuously in a position to land, yadayadayada. It is not under the most obvious 91.175 (takeoff and landing under IFR.

Regs never tell you what you CAN do, only what you CAN'T do. So if there's no reg saying you can't, then you can.
 
it is very specific for part 135 if you do not have the minimum visability or rvr by the time you reach the final approach fix then you CANNOT continue the approach. Part 91 allows you to continue to the missed approach fix
 
Sorry to beat a dead horse.

So you pass the FAF and the weather drops below mins. You elect to continue and at the MAP you see the approach lights. Can you land under pt. 91? 121?

I understand that 91.175(c)(2) has not been met (flight vis. not less than the vis. prescribed by the approach being used), but what would be the point of continuing if you are prohibited to land?
 
Sorry to beat a dead horse.

So you pass the FAF and the weather drops below mins. You elect to continue and at the MAP* you see the approach lights. Can you land under pt. 91? 121?
91- YES
121-YES

Inside the FAF you can continue the approach, regardless of 91 or 121.


BUT, you must descend to NO lower than 100' above the TDZE (if you have the lights), unless the other required items are insight.

If these 10 or so items are not insight, you must execute the MAP.

* If you're able to land from the MAP point/distance, that is.


I understand that 91.175(c)(2) has not been met (flight vis. not less than the vis. prescribed by the approach being used), but what would be the point of continuing if you are prohibited to land?

Not sure if I understand your question. Flight visibility is controlling (not reported ground) - so if your flight visibility is above mins., then you can land regardless of the reported visibility.

If you mean continuing when reported vis. drops below published mins., then yes you may continue as the flight visibility closer to the runway may be better than whats reported.

.......
 
Sorry to beat a dead horse.

So you pass the FAF and the weather drops below mins. You elect to continue and at the MAP you see the approach lights. Can you land under pt. 91? 121?

Yes.

I understand that 91.175(c)(2) has not been met (flight vis. not less than the vis. prescribed by the approach being used), but what would be the point of continuing if you are prohibited to land?

Flight visibility is not the same as ground (reported) visibility. You can often and easily have greater flight visibility on approach than what the AWOS is reporting.

Put another way, how can an ASI make a case against you that you didn't meet the flight visibility requirements of 91.175(c)(2) without having been in the airplane with you?
 
Last edited:
I have one question about this uber-dork discussion over flight/ground visibility, FARs, FAF, TDZE, etc etc....




"Where's my car parked?"

;)
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top