Far 91.175
11-18-2012 | 05:21 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
From: CFII
Yes it does.
Can we stop splitting hairs over 1800 rvr and 1799 rvr and think about the intent of everything discussed?
Ever hit mins on a cat I ILS, seen the approach lights, and had the other pilot say "go around, I estimate less than the required visibility"? Me either.
Ever hit mins on an approach that has 2500' AGL mins and 7 miles vis and ONLY seen the rabbit? Me either.
The intent is- if you can see it, you can land it. If you can't, go missed. It is that simple.
Can we stop splitting hairs over 1800 rvr and 1799 rvr and think about the intent of everything discussed?
Ever hit mins on a cat I ILS, seen the approach lights, and had the other pilot say "go around, I estimate less than the required visibility"? Me either.
Ever hit mins on an approach that has 2500' AGL mins and 7 miles vis and ONLY seen the rabbit? Me either.
The intent is- if you can see it, you can land it. If you can't, go missed. It is that simple.
Answer to second question is also no.
And I realize this is a pretty detailed analysis of a common regulation, most of you guys/gals are pretty familiar with.
I would also not disagree with the intent of regulation as you stated.
I just think its clear the reg says u need a half mile fv to descend below da, and I don't think it's unreasonable for a student to ask how do I know I have a half mile visibility at da.
If the realistic answer is no good way to tell but if u see fuzzy white lights we will just 'estimate' that as a half mile (pretty poor estimate) and go down another 100 and if we see runway land, that is fine , I just want to be clear on the grey area so I can explain it accurately to a student. Even if the student is me .....haha.
Last edited by sellener; 11-18-2012 at 05:23 AM. Reason: Fix something
11-18-2012 | 09:14 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Maybe some of the posters here who would like a 100% clear and sustainable document should submit their ideas to the FAA for further consideration 
Make sure that it fits EVERY possible scenario imaginable in a fluid and dynamic setting.
Also - make sure that you write it in such a way as to be 100% defensive-able in court because it will surely be challenged by the lawyers.
Then post it on APC for a *peer review*, because we all know that the best advice comes from internet forums
USMCFLYR
Make sure that it fits EVERY possible scenario imaginable in a fluid and dynamic setting.
Also - make sure that you write it in such a way as to be 100% defensive-able in court because it will surely be challenged by the lawyers.
Then post it on APC for a *peer review*, because we all know that the best advice comes from internet forums
USMCFLYR
11-18-2012 | 02:45 PM
#33
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Lunar Lander Commander
I believe the TERPS guys design this stuff so that the visibility is always jacked dependent upon where the airplane is at DH/MDA. Also, being further away at higher MDA/DH's with higher visibility, and with measuring it out I think we can safely assume that if we see the lights we have the flight visibility. So required visual reference = required visibility. That works for me, I am done over thinking it.
Where the visibility becomes specific is inside of DH where you are closer to these visual references like 100 feet with red side rows or less with the runway. It becomes foolish to keep going if you do not have the required visibility to land the aircraft. In other words when over the runway, you can't say well I have the pavement out my left window and can only see the stripe in front of me. In this case you have reference but not visibility so you may not go any further, you must go missed. Otherwise you are in violation of being below DH/MDA w/o the minimum required flight visibility.
Where the visibility becomes specific is inside of DH where you are closer to these visual references like 100 feet with red side rows or less with the runway. It becomes foolish to keep going if you do not have the required visibility to land the aircraft. In other words when over the runway, you can't say well I have the pavement out my left window and can only see the stripe in front of me. In this case you have reference but not visibility so you may not go any further, you must go missed. Otherwise you are in violation of being below DH/MDA w/o the minimum required flight visibility.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
