WX below mins/continuing when inside the faf

[bizjet800]

I have one question about this uber-dork discussion over flight/ground visibility, FARs, FAF, TDZE, etc etc....




"Where's my car parked?"

That's funny right there!!

 

[bizjet800]

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 know you're looking at this from a regulatory standpoint, but has anyone ever crossed the FAF and then the weather went below mins? I am sure it happens, but I have never heard of it.

 

[XTW]

I know you're looking at this from a regulatory standpoint, but has anyone ever crossed the FAF and then the weather went below mins? I am sure it happens, but I have never heard of it.

Yes I have.

 

[jet2work]

I know you're looking at this from a regulatory standpoint, but has anyone ever crossed the FAF and then the weather went below mins? I am sure it happens, but I have never heard of it.

Happened to me twice in the last three months. The first time, guessing by the way the controller mentioned it, I think that he waited till we were inside the FAF (not that it made a difference to us PT91 - but how was he to know). It turned out that the weather was lousy where the tower was, but a mile and a half away at the approch end, things were OK (not great). The second time, saw the lights and continued to 100 and the touchdown zone was fine, rollout however was C R A P. Taxied to the FBO and there were plenty of stares. I actually felt obligated to tell everyone how good the touchdown zone was (and it was).

 

[ackattacker]

Yes I have.

It's happened to me at least a dozen times in my career.

Of course there is always the effect that Hugh Johnson was alluding to. Tower controllers know what you need. So let's say you check in with the tower. Tower doesn't say squat about the WX (last you heard it was legal) but tells you to report the FAF.

Soon as you report the FAF inbound tower comes back with "Rwy XX RVR 1400.... clear to land!"

 

[HawkerF/O]

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?

Don't make it more complicated than it is. Pt91, you can, if you elect to, always go down and have a look-see. YOu just have to be reasonalbe about it and use common sense. If it's socked in and nobody has gotten in in 3 hours and it's just getting worse, then when you happen upon it only to find the magical 45 seconds where the vis requirements are met, land, and you taxi into the FBO, I suspect someone will want to have a chat with you.

 

[tomgoodman]

Avoiding a hassle

Good point Hawker. While the question "am I legal?" is always important, one should also consider the question "will anyone believe I was legal?". That one could bite you, fairly or not.

 

[BoilerUP]

Good point Hawker. While the question "am I legal?" is always important, one should also consider the question "will anyone believe I was legal?". That one could bite you, fairly or not.

With a good lawyer then asking the question "Can the Administrator prove my client wasn't legal?"

Kinda hard to definitely prove flight visibility...and I think that language is purposefully ambiguous for that reason.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

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

hence why I commonly ask the crew if they want the RVR after they pass the LOM