IFR Approach legal without ceiling on AWOS?

[Oldguy]

Discussion at the airport today. Is it legal to shoot an approach when there is either no ceiling on the AWOS or it is NOTAM’ed out? Somewhat of a hot discussion. 

[gsengle]

Discussion at the airport today. Is it legal to shoot an approach when there is either no ceiling on the AWOS or it is NOTAM’ed out? Somewhat of a hot discussion. 

Just need visibility. And only if not part 91. Then you don’t need anything...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N201MKTurbo]

I thought you could shoot an approach any time you want, but you can’t land unless you have minimum visibility.

[gsengle]

I thought you could shoot an approach any time you want, but you can’t land unless you have minimum visibility.

Can’t start an approach without minimums (visibility) under part 135 or 121.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

part 91, do it. If you see the runway environment at minimums, land, if not go missed.

I landed at KOKC once when the big boys were holding, they didn't have enough RVR. It was fine for me and my little part 91 Mooney.

[Niko182]

part 91 - you can start an approach whenever you feel like it, even if the awos/ atis/ asos states the minimums are too low, that being both vis, and ceiling.

part 121 and 135 - you cant start unless you are at or above the minimum given in the approach.
 

This is at least what I understood when I was doing my IFR.

[tigers2007]

part 91, do it. If you see the runway environment at minimums, land, if not go missed.
I landed at KOKC once when the big boys were holding, they didn't have enough RVR. It was fine for me and my little part 91 Mooney.

Would that become a contact approach then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jerry 5TJ]

32 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I landed at KOKC once when the big boys were holding, they didn't have enough RVR. It was fine for me and my little part 91 Mooney.

The RVR for the several KOKC ILS approaches I just looked at have the same RVR for all categories straight in.  

[gsengle]

The RVR for the several KOKC ILS approaches I just looked at have the same RVR for all categories straight in.  

It’s not size of plane we are referring to, it’s the rules each flight was operating under.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jerry 5TJ]

Part 91.175 ops require adherence to minimum visibility requirements.  Just like the big boys doing 121 operations.    All categories of a typical ILS have the same min RVR, so speed of the approach is also not relevant.  

Maybe I’m being too oblique:  Landing (technically: continued descent below DA/DH) when the RVR is insufficient for airliners under 121 is generally illegal for Part 91 operations, too.  Even for Mooneys. 

[kortopates]

Part 91.175 ops require adherence to minimum visibility requirements.  Just like the big boys doing 121 operations.    All categories of a typical ILS have the same min RVR, so speed of the approach is also not relevant.  

Maybe I’m being too oblique:  Landing (technically: continued descent below DA/DH) when the RVR is insufficient for airliners under 121 is generally illegal for Part 91 operations, too.  Even for Mooneys. 

That's very true. But the only difference is us Part 91 operators can start the approach with visibility reported below required mins but we are just as obligated to go missed if our "flight visibility" from the cockpit is below the mins to complete the approach to a landing. The big boys (part 121 & 135) can't even start the approach if the reported vis is below min's.

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

3 minutes ago, kortopates said:

...but we are not as obligated....

That’s certainly not what 91.175 states. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I can recall a few times I was listening to approach and planes were just approaching the FAF on vectors and kept asking for the RVR and when they get to the FAF it magically went from 2000 to 2400....

[Jerry 5TJ]

“The visibility is often better at the approach end of the runway than between the RVR sensors”. 

[midlifeflyer]

Part 91? You need the altimeter setting. Everything else is informational.

[midlifeflyer]

32 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

That’s certainly not what 91.175 states. 

What does it say?

edit. Never mind. I reread his post.

@kortopates, reread what you wrote. You said we are not required to go missed when the flight visibility is below minimums. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[gsengle]

Only part 91 can START the approach and proceed past the FAF if wx below mins. Part 91 can always “go take a look”. Commercial carriers can’t. After that if you see the runway you land, flight visibility is controlling....

 

Commercial flights have to discontinue if they lose the mins prior to the FAF, after that we can proceed.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jim Peace]

5 hours ago, gsengle said:

Just need visibility. 

 

Many places in the world you need ceiling and visibility.....get caught violating it and you may end up in a foreign jail.....

[gsengle]

Many places in the world you need ceiling and visibility.....get caught violating it and you may end up in a foreign jail.....

 

I didn’t think I needed to stipulate USA

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

Only part 91 can START the approach and proceed past the FAF if wx below mins. Part 91 can always “go take a look”. Commercial carriers can’t. After that if you see the runway you land, flight visibility is controlling....

 

Commercial flights have to discontinue if they lose the mins prior to the FAF, after that we can proceed.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Winner for correct explanation in fewest words. 

[eman1200]

Ask Jerry Wagner, he’s got all the rules covered.

[jaylw314]

4 minutes ago, eman1200 said:

Ask Jerry Wagner, he’s got all the rules covered.

Dammmmmmmnnn 

[M016576]

5 hours ago, Oldguy said:

Discussion at the airport today. Is it legal to shoot an approach when there is either no ceiling on the AWOS or it is NOTAM’ed out? Somewhat of a hot discussion. 

I’m assuming you’re talking about commencing at an uncontrolled field (no atis, no tower, just Awos)...Yes under part 91 for “no ceiling on Awos” for the reasons covered above (can always shoot (start) an instrument approach under part 91.  It’s just whether or not you see the landing environment when you get to minimums that’s the question.

what do you mean “it is notam’ed out”?

the AWOS is NOTAM’d out?  If so, approach can pass the closest wx if you need it.  You can still always start the approach under part 91.

if you mean the “approach is notam’d out”... then you cannot legally start the approach under IFR with the intent to land(unless it’s an emergency situation).... you may be able to fly the approach ground track VFR if an approach is notam’d out.  Of course you’d need to be VMC for that, and possibly be required to break off the approach early..  That would be something to coordinate with approach control.

Edited November 24, 2019 by M016576

[kortopates]

That’s certainly not what 91.175 states. 

Sorry - corrected by typo - “just as obligated” !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

Flight visibility is certainly controlling, but there are actually three things you need to drop below DA/DH or MDA per 91.175 which I teach at the college as "FLY" to remember (Notice there is nothing on ceiling):

AT OR BEFORE MAP, YOU NEED TO BE "FLY"

• Flight visibility - As prescribed
• Landing Environment in Sight - Runway, TDZ, Threshold, lights & marks or ALS (i.e. any one of the ten items listed in 91.175)
• Your Normal Maneuvers to Land - You must continuously be 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 (commercial operators) allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway.

Edited November 24, 2019 by kortopates