WX below mins/continuing when inside the faf

[Gas Man]

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.

 

[2000Easyguy]

Just commercial operators. Pt. 91 operators not under this reg.

 

[XTW]

135.225c


x

 

[ksu_aviator]

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

 

[Kingairrick]

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.

 

[ruhroa]

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

 

[Gas Man]

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?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

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.

.......

 

[BoilerUP]

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?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

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




"Where's my car parked?"

 

[Amish RakeFight]

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




"Where's my car parked?"

You mean the hooptie with scratches all along the side? Oh wait, thats my car and why the heck does it have long horizontal scratches across the sides... does someone not like me or something?


True story. My car has been vandalized.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

You mean the hooptie with scratches all along the side? Oh wait, thats my car and why the heck does it have long horizontal scratches across the sides... does someone not like me or something?


True story. My car has been vandalized.

That sucks! Always park it in the hangar, and stay the hell out of da hood....or be like some anal corp pilots and park your shiny hyundai (with the Gulfstream license plate holder) way off in the corner so nobody gets near it!

Thats what I do.

 

[ksu_aviator]

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?

Maybe...it depends. Under 91, you have to have the flight visibility...having the lights in sight does not guarantee you have flight visibility.

Under 121, you can continue to 100' lower (check ops specs) and then land if you get one of the magic objects in sight (the list of things you can see and declare runway insight).

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?

Well, your first assumption is wrong. Reported weather (whether observed by the tower or measured by a machine) is not flight visibility. Therefore, you can continue until you determine the flight visibility at the DA/DH/MAP. Then, 91 and 121 split as I talked about above.

The point of continuing is that a safe landing may still be possible. I landed somewhere in the midwest (can't remember where now) but I do remember getting the runway in sight, having great visibility, touching down, deploying the TR's and just as we came to a stop...WE COULDN'T SEE NUTTIN. It was like someone threw a blanket over the windscreen. That is how variable visibility can be. Continue the approach, recognize that a missed approach is highly likely and be happy if you get to land.

But....but....if you are approaching a field that is 0/0 and no one has been getting in, then ya, you might consider foregoing the approach.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You mean the hooptie with scratches all along the side? Oh wait, thats my car and why the heck does it have long horizontal scratches across the sides... does someone not like me or something?


True story. My car has been vandalized.

Did they use a rake?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Used to fly into JFK with Eagle. When vis was low, big line on the approach, it was, "What is the RVR?", tower reply, "What do you need?"

 

[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!"