Ifr Question...
10-24-2006, 05:44 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 778
Part 91 does not require any takeoff mins under IFR. Legally you can take off in zero/zero. There is a line between being legal and common sense. As a good rule of thumb, if the ceiling and visibility are lower than the minimums published in an instrument approach back into your departure airport then it's probably not a good idea to take off right away. 91.175(f)
Part 135 says that you cannot takeoff under IFR from an airport where weather conditions are at or above takeoff minimums but are below authorized IFR landing minimums unless there is an alternate airport within 1 hour's flying time of the departure airport. 135.217
Part 135 says that you cannot takeoff under IFR from an airport where weather conditions are at or above takeoff minimums but are below authorized IFR landing minimums unless there is an alternate airport within 1 hour's flying time of the departure airport. 135.217
10-24-2006, 08:12 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Single-engine return
As I recall, our procedures required a takeoff alternate if the wx was below Cat I, allowing for the loss of an engine. (Single-engine coupled approaches weren't authorized.) That was a "gotcha" on almost every recurrent simulator check. Interestingly, an instructor said that the MD-88 was quite capable of such an approach, but Delta didn't "buy the certification" for it.
10-25-2006, 08:18 AM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by kerns bbo
Also remember that if you take off with very poor weather conditions (even 91) and were to say go off the side of the runway you can still get sited under 91.14 (reckless and careless).
10-25-2006, 02:21 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Furloughed
Posts: 275
Another Ifr Question
My CFII checkride is this Friday, no worries. This question came up yesterday when I was flying this approach in a Frasca 242 sim.
Why is there a "3200" and a "3300" listed for the glideslop intercept altitude? Which do you use, and why are their two altitudes listed here? It is the same on the Jeppesen approach plate I was using.
Thanks in advance
Here is the link: http://edj.net/cgi-bin/echoplate.pl?...ALW_i_lr20.gif
Why is there a "3200" and a "3300" listed for the glideslop intercept altitude? Which do you use, and why are their two altitudes listed here? It is the same on the Jeppesen approach plate I was using.
Thanks in advance
Here is the link: http://edj.net/cgi-bin/echoplate.pl?...ALW_i_lr20.gif
10-25-2006, 02:53 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by mistarose
Why is there a "3200" and a "3300" listed for the glideslop intercept altitude? Which do you use, and why are their two altitudes listed here? It is the same on the Jeppesen approach plate I was using.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
