IFR Scenario

[NotarPilot]

Question, what would you do in this scenario, land or go missed?

 

 

You're doing an ILS approach to an uncontrolled airport in Class G airspace at night.  Minimums are 250 MSL (212 AGL) and 1800 feet visibility The "REPORTED" weather is 200 OVC and 1/2 mile visibility, fog.  You shoot the approach and see the runway lights below you right at DH (250 MSL) but 1800 feet of visibility is questionable.  

 

Aside from "Well, I wouldn't be comfortable, I don't fly IFR in a SE aircraft at night" or "It depends on the personal experience of the pilot" etc"  I'm looking for opinions of legality.

 

Can/do you still land or do you go missed?  

[Steve65E-NC]

My understanding is that if you have the airport thresh hold in site and can safely make the landing then you are no longer bound by IFR constraints.  That is why you have multiple aircraft in sequence attempting the approach at airports that are near IFR minimums.  The pilot makes the final decision.  

[Hank]

I really can't judge how far 1800' is at night, on short final in IMC.

 

From DH when I see the lights, can I land on the runway with room to stop? How long is the runway? Oh, wait, you said "ILS approach," so it's a long one [most fields with ILS are >5000', many are near double that]. At DH, lights in sight, land; if it's not that straightforward, divert to alternate. After reaching wherever I'm going [home, hotel, etc.], reevaluate my flight planning and weather prognostication skills and see if I really needed to be there at that time.

 

Yes, I fly IMC; yes, I fly at night; no, I have little experience flying IMC at night; and no, I have never shot an approach in actual to minimums, as I generally don't need to get there that bad and stay on the ground. I don't enjoy driving in fog, and certainly don't want to land in it. Once I hit a [short] fog bank during the flare at night, that I had not seen in the pattern, and it was not a fun experience. By the time my wife turned off the landing light at my request, the tires were chirping and I could see again. No thank you . . .

[midlifeflyer]

As a plain vanilla Part 91 operator, if you have the required flight visibility, one of the required visual references for the intended runway and are continuously in a position to descend at a normal rate of descent, you may land.

 

FLIGHT visibility, not GROUND visibility. 

 

What is 1800' flight visibility? Your guess is as good as mine but since an ILS runway has an aiming point marking 1,000' from the threshold and fixed distance markers every 500' you have some good clues.

[Cris]

Having the runway lights in sight is not the same as having the runway in sight. However with the lights in sight you may legally descend another 100' below DH to enable you to verify the runway ie edge lights in sight and land. Without the runway in sight which at night means the edge lights you would go missed.

[NotarPilot]

These are all great answers.  I never thought about it before but I realized you can see the runway (and runway lights) at DH and not have prescribed minimum flight visibility (maybe, hard to judge from inside the cockpit) which is why I posted the question.  

 

Yes, this happened to me recently on a flight back to my home airport.  I felt confident being that I had practiced recently down to 300 feet and had the needles centered during my previous practice approaches. I love shooting ILS approaches and do one every chance I get in IMC, which happen to usually be at night.  I realized how fast your IFR skills can deteriorate if you don't stay sharp.  Always nice and fun to practice and I think practice is what builds confidence.  But like Clint said "Man's got to know his limitations."

[Danb]

well as midlife says you need the req'r vis.1800 approx alittle more than 1/4 mile. problem seen is that you started an approach where the min. were reported below what is allowed on the plate by your own admission 212 vs 200 almost the same why argue, the approach light system in sight gives you 100 more feet to death, and if you see the runway based on the far's then you may under normal operating conditions of your aircraft i.e.. a continous descent to landing at a normal rate of descent using maneuvers for ops. under part 121 and 91..go for it..the real tale of this blog is if we will be reading about your future decisions!!

[M016576]

Question, what would you do in this scenario, land or go missed?

You're doing an ILS approach to an uncontrolled airport in Class G airspace at night. Minimums are 250 MSL (212 AGL) and 1800 feet visibility The "REPORTED" weather is 200 OVC and 1/2 mile visibility, fog. You shoot the approach and see the runway lights below you right at DH (250 MSL) but 1800 feet of visibility is questionable.

Aside from "Well, I wouldn't be comfortable, I don't fly IFR in a SE aircraft at night" or "It depends on the personal experience of the pilot" etc" I'm looking for opinions of legality.

Can/do you still land or do you go missed?

You can land legally under part 91 if you believe the visibility is at or greater than the min required vis.

The REIL count as the "runway environment" and allow you to descend past DH legally.

If you can see further than the min visability (your judgement call as the PIC), then you are legal to land.

You can shoot approaches all day long (fuel permitting) to a zero-zero runway under part 91 legally... To land legally you must have the "runway environment" in sight (typically that ends up being the REIL), and minimum visability as discerned by you, the pic.

Example: ATIS is calling 100-1/4. The mins are 200-1/2. You get to DH and break out at 200' and can see 2 miles all the way to the other end of the runway- you are legal to land.

Conversely- if you get to 200' and can only see the rabbit lights directly below your aircraft, you are not legal to land.

Under part 91- you can always shoot the approach legally (whether or not it's a good idea is left to you, the PIC).

Part 121/135, you must have minimums in order to commence the approach unless you do not intend to land (ie, it's strictly an approach for training).

[NotarPilot]

Well said, and like I said, "Man's got to know his limitations."

 

I actually was going to go missed and made that decision right as the runway lights, environment, etc, came into view, so I continued the approach and landed.  Had my hand been shaking after I landed then I would probably felt I went in over my head.  Trust me, I have had that feeling in my life as a pilot, more than once, and it's not a feeling I care not to revisit.  The circumstances were, had I gone missed I would have had to climb through a few hundred feet of fog and back into VMC.  Those were circumstances I am comfortable with.  Climbing through 2000 or 3000 feet of clouds, probably not as much.

[Bob - S50]

I would say, if it is the runway lights [see (3)(x) below] you see, land if you feel comfortable.

 

1.  1800 RVR is less than 1/2 mile (its just barely over 1/4 mile according to the chart in the AIM page 5-4-49).  On a 3 degree GS, 1/2 mile would be about 150' AGL.  If you see the runway at 200' then visibility must be over 1800 RVR or you wouldn't see them.  And remember, who can prove that flight visibility was not high enough at that point in time?

 

2.  The limitation of not descending below 100' is if you only see the approach lighting [see (3)(i) below].  If you see just about any other lighting that you can identify as being on or at the runway then you can go below 100' and land.

 

I have personally used this in a DC9 at Green Bay.  We held until they reported the visibility was high enough for us to legally begin the approach.  At minimums all we saw were the approach lights (not runway lights) so we continued toward 100'.  At just above 100' we saw the runway and landed (runway 6).

 

Once the legal requirements are met it comes down to your comfort and judgement as to whether the landing can be made safely.

 

Bob

 

Below is a quote from part 91:

 

§91.175   Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

 

( b ) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when the approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of a DA/DH or MDA, the authorized DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the following:

  (1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure.

  (2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command.

  (3) The DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment available and used during the approach.

 

( c ) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—

  (1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

  (2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and

  (3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

    (i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

    (ii) The threshold.

    (iii) The threshold markings.

    (iv) The threshold lights.

    (v) The runway end identifier lights.

    (vi) The visual approach slope indicator.

    (vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.

    (viii) The touchdown zone lights.

    (ix) The runway or runway markings.

    (x) The runway lights.

[FlyDave]

Steve,

 

What I was taught as requirements for landing on an approach are one of the following:

• Paint, pavement or lights for the threshold, touchdown zone or runway (9 options)
• REILS or VASI (2 more options)

You must have one of these 11 items in sight to continue below DA/MDA on an approach to land. Or, on and ILS if you don't have one of these when you reach DA but you have the ALS in sight you can descent an additional 100' to get one in sight. But at 100' I would not want to have the airplane in a configuration that would hinder an immediate climb.

 

Dave

[N201MKTurbo]

Was that RW 30 at KLGB? a lot of room for error on that monster. You could be three dots off the localizer and still hit pavement.

[NotarPilot]

Was that RW 30 at KLGB? a lot of room for error on that monster. You could be three dots off the localizer and still hit pavement.

 

Yeah, about 10,000 feet of it.  Pretty hard to miss and like you said, lots of room for error.

[chrisk]

Since this is a legal question, not a what would I do:  Once you hit class G, could you have canceled your IFR flight plan?  At that point, I assume you could legally fly what ever approach minimums you wanted.   --Having said that, I'm sure there is FAR about reckless operation that could be used.

 

And my favorite quote about the FAA:  "Nothing happens until something happens"

[John Pleisse]

There is an existing MS thread on the same, exact scenario. I would never know. My mins have been 1000/1, no night and no circle to land for over a decade. Go missed.

[Super Dave]

Since this is a legal question, not a what would I do: Once you hit class G, could you have canceled your IFR flight plan? At that point, I assume you could legally fly what ever approach minimums you wanted. --Having said that, I'm sure there is FAR about reckless operation that could be used.

And my favorite quote about the FAA: "Nothing happens until something happens"

While not expressly forbidden, careless and reckless has been applied to similar scenarios in the past. And even if it was not considered careless and reckless, canceling a clearance does not relieve you of any other IFR regulations.

[midlifeflyer]

Since this is a legal question, not a what would I do:  Once you hit class G, could you have canceled your IFR flight plan?  At that point, I assume you could legally fly what ever approach minimums you wanted.   --Having said that, I'm sure there is FAR about reckless operation that could be used.

 

And my favorite quote about the FAA:  "Nothing happens until something happens"

 

 

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

 

Then follow all the limitations on when you can descend, etc.

 

Note that unlike some other FAR 91.175 does not limit itself to IFR "in controlled airspace." It applies to both. The FAA already knows there are instrument approaches that terminate or have minimums in Class G.

[Awful_Charlie]

My esteemed colleague Vasa wrote this paper (albeit a few years ago)  From that, and for the OPs question, I would continue, but would have to pick up more lights or the runway before descending through 100'AGL

[Mooneymite]

Land.

[chrisk]

 

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

 

Then follow all the limitations on when you can descend, etc.

 

Note that unlike some other FAR 91.175 does not limit itself to IFR "in controlled airspace." It applies to both. The FAA already knows there are instrument approaches that terminate or have minimums in Class G.

 

I stand corrected. 

[jlunseth]

From a legal standpoint you must have the required 1800 ft. of flight visibility to land.  Flight visibility can be different from what is reported from an ASOS, and frequently is, because they are measures of different things.  But the practical answer is to go another 100' lower and see what the visibility is.  Typically, horizontal visibility is not great right where you break out, because cloud bottoms are rarely even and the bottoms ahead of you may be lower than where you are, obscuring flight visibility.  100' lower and that issue may go away, flight visibility may be quite good.  Not at all unusual to have low ceilings, but very good horizontal visibility at the surface.

[M016576]

From a legality standpoint, you're not going to get flight violated if you land successfully and you believe the visibility is a tweener.

If you think it's a tweener, and end up landing in a walmart parking lot, though, you'll be violated and then some.

Under part 91, you have to be a big boy about it: that's really the answer. If you hit mins and can't land, you go around. If you can land, like piper painter said, you land. If you land and want to self report because you feel like what you did was unsafe, or not in keeping with the FAR's: I recommend a NASA safety report. If for some random reason you do get violated- filing one of those goes along ways towards proving to the FAA that you recognized your own errors and will strive to be safer in the future. Contrary to popular belief, though, the NASA safety report is not a "get out of jail free" card.

[fluffysheap]

I'd like to add something the examiner who did my IFR checkride told me.  If the airport you are landing at has RVR measurement equipment, treat it as gospel and don't land unless it is above minimums, no matter what you can see.  Visibility requirement is air visibility, not ground, meaning you get the benefit of the doubt - UNLESS there is RVR equipment, and then you don't.

 

In the specific case given in the question, I'd land assuming I'm able to see the runway/REIL within 100' of DH.  Actually seeing the runway is the most important thing, and the reported visibility has you covered from a legal/technical standpoint.