Standard Approach Minimums
 

Go purchase Everything Explaned. It's like an pilot bible for 121/135.

A bit older, but probably still applicable: http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jun95.pdf

The Instrument Procedures Handbook had a lot of great stuff as far as that. It explains how certain types of approaches give you 300 foot obstacle clearance, depending on if the nav source is on field (Like a VOR or NDB) or off field (Like a LOM used as an NDB approach), what the protected airspace dimensions are and secondary areas are.

It's pretty complicated and saves having to find the now hidden TERPs manual. I think it even goes into MLS, ASR, and PAR approaches.

I believe you can find it by searching Flight Standards Information System (FSIMS).

I have a question that sort've pertains to this and the link that X rated posted sort've answers my question. When getting the reported RVR and deciding to shoot the approach anyway, is this illegal? In that link it says that if a not-for-hire pilot decides to shoot the approach anyway and lands, then he/she has a difficult task in proving that that RVR was inaccurate. However, it does not say that the shooting of the approach down to minimums and going missed is illegal.

I recently decided to shoot an approach even though the reported RVR was 1000 and the minimum for the approach was 2400, though I went missed and didn't land cause I couldn't see anything at all. The controller kept reminding me that the RVR was 1000, and I knew I wasn't going to land, just wanted to see what stuff looked like down there. I am just wondering if this is considered illegal?? Doesn't seem to be if you're not-for-hire.

For part 91, you can shoot an approach with 0 RVR. The tower was probably just making sure you were not attempting to actually land. They don't know if you are just practicing, or a doctor who wants to get home no matter what. What the article was getting at is if you decide to land when the RVR is below minimums, it will be hard to prove that the RVR equipment was not accurate. As long as you don't go below minimums, you can shoot an approach no matter what the weather is for part 91.

From my experience, tower does not really care what a part 91 aircraft does. A few years ago, I did an approach back into my home airport. The ATIS was still reporting minimums, but the weather was changing quickly. While on the approach, tower kept telling me he could not even see the runway due to fog. I broke out right before minimums and I could see the first 1500 feet of the runway clearly, but the rest of the airport was covered by a curtain of fog. The tower asked me what the flight visibility was and I told him ¾ at the approach end. He just laughed and said “as long as you can see”.

Yeah as we were starting the approach, ATC gave us a phone number to call when we were on the ground, which is never a good sign. Im sure that was because if we did land.. we were going to get a hashing.

Never knew how terrifying getting to DH and not seeing anything can be! Though now I want to try it again...haha.

This was obviously the Tracon facility giving you their number, and you were shooting an approach to an uncontrolled field????(Or tower was closed???)

That is just a way to expedite communications so that you can get your IFR cancelled in a timely manner, cutting out the middleman(FSS) to cancel your clearance. I'm willing to bet that this was the case, not a number to call because you were already in trouble.

Remember, to continue to land, you need the runway environment/lights to continue an additional 100', and then you must have the runway itself to descend the remaining distance to the runway to land. If you don't have any of those qualifiers, then you must go missed. Even if XXX is reporting whatever weather, you can still get around those if actual flight visibility works. If you are operating Part 91, and didn't bend any metal, you're going to be ok. Now any 135 operators are going to have a hard time explaining starting the approach with it already below min's.

Only One Source
 

If you're referring to an FAR Part 121 operation, you have to adhere to the Ops Specs issued to that carrier by the FAA. A Part 135 carrier is also limited by the specifications issued to that carrier. I only mention it because the answer to your question may vary from airline to airline and operation to operation.

For a "plain vanilla" approach minimums (for whatever that's worth) try the Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8261-1A)

G'Luck Mate:)

It is very important that a pilot fully understand the minimum requirements in order to be "legal" to land from an instrument approach. What has not been said here is:

Visibility is CONTROLLING and must be equal to or above the authorized landing minimum (governed by Ops Specs etc). IF RVR is reported, it has a higher priority than prevailing visibility and is controlling. (Reported RVR trumps visibility every time)

A reported ceiling (i.e. 200, 250 etc) IS NOT CONTROLLING. If Tower advises ceiling 100 and visibility 1/2 mile, if you are shooting a "normal" CAT I ILS (200 & 1/2) then you are legal to shoot the approach.

In Summary, Ceiling is advisory and VISIBILITY is controlling.

Hope this helps!

I Agree With One Comment
 

Perfinit is absolutely correct and I'll add one comment. You are "legal" to shoot the approach in the example cited above. I would hope that everyone knows, despite the reported ceiling, one cannot descend below the published minimums without either the runway or the applicable "runway environment", as defined by FAR, in sight.

I thought that would be obvious; however, I've seen a couple of posts that make me think the obvious should be stated. Also, remember, your OpsSpecs are your "bible" when deciding what you can and cannot do.

Fly Safely Mates:)

What if we are 7nm final on a Cat 1 ILS Part 121, prior to crossing FAF (I know this is not a VOR), and tower reports viz less than published mins. Would we be legal if we did not acknowledge report, continued and landed safely having RWY insight?

Not completely correct. You can continue and land if: you are in a position to land, you have the required flight visibility, and one of the elements of the runway environment are in sight.

The only time that continuing an "additional 100 feet" comes into play is when using the approach lighting system as the only reference for the runway environment. If this is the case, then you are allowed to make a descent to 100 feet above TDZE. If you are shooting a standard Cat I ILS with mins of 200-1/2, then continuing an additional 100 feet below DA puts you at the same altitude as 100 feet above TDZE; but we can also use this part of the regulation for approaches other than an ILS.

My real life example goes like this: Rwy TDZE is 100 feet MSL, Wx is 200 OVC/1SM in FG, in the dark of night, lowest approach mins are 400-1 for a straight-in LOC. We configure for landing, and slow to Vref+5 as the aircraft descends down to the LOC MDA of 500 MSL (400 AGL). We level off at 500 feet, and drive towards the runway on the LOC at Vref+5. About 30 seconds later the FO reports the moving glow of the SFL in the clouds below and ahead of us. Now, using only the approach lights as a reference I can descend 300 more feet (not 100 feet) down to 200 MSL which is also equivalent to 100 feet above the TDZE. At 200 MSL, we're now below the cloud deck, the threshold lights are identified (not the runway itself), and I can legally land as long as we're still in a position to land and we have the required flight visibility.

When ever you consider pursuing such course of action, and it's not an emergency, ask yourself these three questions;

1) What if something goes wrong after I've made my decision?

2) What am I going to tell them in the hearing?

3) Will they believe what I tell them in the hearing?

NO, you DON'T have to answer here, just sayin'