IFR Approach legal without ceiling on AWOS?

[carusoam]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

Dammmmmmmnnn 

Suddenly... I remember who Jerry Wagner is...   

Is he still With us?

Thanks to everyone sharing the tech details, and comparing the other parts, with part 91....

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

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.

I think Jerry Wagner has a video out there showing his definition of “Y”. Then again, if he received too many “Why Jerry?” comments, he may have pulled it down.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[midlifeflyer]

9 hours ago, kortopates said:

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.

Love the post. Hate the acronym. Really? "Your"?  Just to create a mnemonic? 

 

[midlifeflyer]

9 hours ago, carusoam said:

Suddenly... I remember who Jerry Wagner is...   

Is he still With us?

-a-

You missed a beaut a week ago. Jerry in a Pilatus with his brother in law (Mike Mike Mike) as PIC. Two pilots manage to misread two charts in one video. A simple SID and an even simpler RNAV approach. The approach sequence is hysterical with them doing a completely unnecessary 360 on the extended final approach course to lose the altitude they thought was too high (it wasn't) because the Approach controller "screwed up" (she didn't). 
 

The comments and Jerry's usual defense got so bad, it has become one of the "lost episodes."

Edited November 24, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[cliffy]

I'm surprised he's still above ground and not 6 feet under. :-) Or on the beach with a suspension. 

Anyone wanna go below MDA/DH ?   Lets Limbo!  How low can you go -  on a CAT 1 approach? :-)

Hint? Without 9 of the 10 items mentioned above. 

I guess I should have asked if anyone remembers the "Limbo" 

[Brian E.]

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

Lets Limbo!  How low can you go -  on a CAT 1 approach? :-)

You can descend below the MDA/DA to 100 ft above the TDZE provided you have the approach lights in sight.  To go below 100 ft above the TDZE you need the other 9 listed visual references.

[Oldguy]

14 hours ago, M016576 said:

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.

None of the above.

ATC gave several IFR flights the choice of cancelling IFR or diverting as they would not let them start an approach.

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, Oldguy said:

ATC gave several IFR flights the choice of cancelling IFR or diverting as they would not let them start an approach

Are you sure they were Part 91 flights? There are lots of airports with approaches that don’t even have weather reporting capability. Part 91 flights can use them but commercial  flights cannot. Another possibility is that ATC was just reporting the status and giving pilots the option of going somewhere else. Offering the option to cancel makes no sense unless it was VMC. 

[M016576]

1 hour ago, Oldguy said:

None of the above.

ATC gave several IFR flights the choice of cancelling IFR or diverting as they would not let them start an approach.

Check out the notes on the approach plate- you can use Anniston’s ATIS for altimeter in place of the Awos altimeter.  I just checked the non-standard alternate notes and look at this gem.... my guess is that approach is using this note to close the approach.  I would think that note would only apply to the fields approaches to be used as an alternate though... otherwise I’d expect that it would be listed on the plate themselves, like most other major restrictions (like radar required, etc).

edit: I wonder if approach just decided to close the approaches because of that note in the alternate minimums... just to reduce risk.  It Isn’t a part 91 requirement to close the approaches... and reading the plate doesn’t seem to indicate that the approach should be closed for the Awos being out... if anything- it gives an option by using Anniston.

Edited November 24, 2019 by M016576

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Brian E. said:

You can descend below the MDA/DA to 100 ft above the TDZE provided you have the approach lights in sight.  To go below 100 ft above the TDZE you need the other 9 listed visual references.

...and the required visibility.

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, M016576 said:

my guess is that approach is using this note to close the approach.  I would think that note would only apply to the fields approaches to be used as an alternate though.

That note only means we cannot file Pell City as our legal alternate. It has nothing to do with flying an approach to it. If TRACIN "closed" the approach, it was for a different reason. If it was for that note (which ATC probably doesn't even see), the controller needs training,

[kortopates]

Check out the notes on the approach plate- you can use Anniston’s ATIS for altimeter in place of the Awos altimeter.  I just checked the non-standard alternate notes and look at this gem.... my guess is that approach is using this note to close the approach.  I would think that note would only apply to the fields approaches to be used as an alternate though... otherwise I’d expect that it would be listed on the plate themselves, like most other major restrictions (like radar required, etc).
edit: I wonder if approach just decided to close the approaches because of that note in the alternate minimums... just to reduce risk.  It Isn’t a part 91 requirement to close the approaches... and reading the plate doesn’t seem to indicate that the approach should be closed for the Awos being out... if anything- it gives an option by using Anniston.

All excellent points, but if I was@oldguy i.e. if this happened to me, I'd be on the phone to the TRACON or Center after being on the ground to ask why? ATC aren't suppose to be enforcers of the rules anyway. I once had a TRACON controller tell me my requested GPS was unavailable because of a GPS testing NOTAM saying that only GPS may be unreliable or lost. But I was getting a good annunciation of LNAV (or better) min's and told the controller. A quick conversation entailed and I got cleared for the approach. That was in the early days of GPS and they no longer do that. Maybe it's not too late to call and ask them why? It sure has my curiosity piqued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M016576]

25 minutes ago, kortopates said:

All excellent points, but if I was@oldguy i.e. if this happened to me, I'd be on the phone to the TRACON or Center after being on the ground to ask why? ATC aren't suppose to be enforcers of the rules anyway. I once had a TRACON controller tell me my requested GPS was unavailable because of a GPS testing NOTAM saying that only GPS may be unreliable or lost. But I was getting a good annunciation of LNAV (or better) min's and told the controller. A quick conversation entailed and I got cleared for the approach. That was in the early days of GPS and they no longer do that. Maybe it's not too late to call and ask them why? It sure has my curiosity piqued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I 100% agree with you here-  it seems like a 1-off action by approach with no clear regulation that’s driving the approaches closed.  I’d want to know why, too.

[M016576]

42 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

That note only means we cannot file Pell City as our legal alternate. It has nothing to do with flying an approach to it. If TRACIN "closed" the approach, it was for a different reason. If it was for that note (which ATC probably doesn't even see), the controller needs training,

I get it- and I understand that the Non-standard alternate instructions have absolutely no bearing on whether or not one can shoot the approach.... I’m just saying that based on the limited information we have, that appears to be related to the reason why the approaches were closed (even though they shouldn’t have been based on just that Awos notam).  It’s a mystery still, for sure!

[midlifeflyer]

@Oldguy, what time was it? Might be tempting to check LiveATC and listen in.

[Oldguy]

19 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

@Oldguy, what time was it? Might be tempting to check LiveATC and listen in.

I will have to see if I can find out. It was not me, but sure was a hot topic.

[GeeBee]

Guys, if you are part 91 it does not matter what they are reporting, you can start the approach. IF you arrive at DA or MDA and have the runway or its environment in sight, you can land, don't care what they are reporting. You see this often in areas near the sea where fog banks roll in and roll out. This is because at DA or DH you are still on "flight based visibility" which means it is your determination. 

You have to separate "flight visibility" and  "reported visibility" . Reported visibility must be by an accredited observer and is valid for THAT LOCATION ONLY. Now someone quoted 91.175.. What visibility is required in para C (2)? Flight visibility. Who determines flight visibility? Answer. PIC. If you read Ops specs issued to 121 and 135 carriers, you cannot begin the approach unless "reported visibility" is greater than the prescribed minimums. However once you pass the FAF or on the Final Segment, para d (2)  governs which says what? FLIGHT VISIBILITY. Now it should come as no surprise that approaches are designed so that at DA or DH the required elements are in view IF the flight visibility is at or above minimums. However you cannot determine flight visibility except from the cockpit which is why the rules and procedures are the way they are. The observation point for "reported visibility is often several thousand feet or even miles from the MAP.

This is why if for instance you get a Special VFR clearance you can declare "VFR" the moment the wheels leave the ground. (If you want to be nice to the guy behind you waiting for clearance.) Equally so a very common condition is a small uncontrolled airport within a few miles of a controlled airport with Class D and E airspace. Say the controlled field is reporting 2 miles visibility. Do you need a special VFR to operate from the uncontrolled field. NO. The REPORTED visibility is valid only for the field for which it is reported. You can make your own visibility determination for the purpose of takeoff. Once your wheels leave the ground the entire need for a clearance is based upon FLIGHT visibility. Used to see that all the time when Sacramento Sky Ranch was next door to KSAC and the valley fog would move in.

I'll give you another a classic "reported visibility" vs flight visibility. About three years ago I approached Amsterdam with a reported RVR of 1300. I wanted to set up for CAT III but the airport was unprepared to go to CATIII. So we bugged up at CAT II with minimums of 1000 RVR. Now we have to couple the autopilot for the approach, but at or above RVR 1200 we can disconnect and land manually. Ops specifications say if the "reported visibility is below 1200 we must auto land.We begin the approach at RVR 1300. At around 1000' agl the tower reports RVR less than 300. Can we continue? Yes, we are on the final approach segment and we are on a CATII. We arrive at DH, actually about 50' above DH we get the runway environment insight. Can we land? Yes, at or before DH we can see the runway which means the FLIGHT VISIBILITY is at or above minimums. Can we disconnect and land manually? NO! The "REPORTED visibility" is below RVR 1200 even though the flight visibility at DH clearly demonstrated that was not the case. Now the kicker. If we had bugged up for a CAT III we would have been obligated to go around because CAT III minimum are RVR 300 but operations specifications do not allow a "look see" under CAT III so when the reported visibility goes below minimums on a CAT III even on the Final segment you must go around. So the CAT II made it possible to land. I do not want to confuse it with touch down vs mid field vs roll out RVR but the story was designed to point out the differences between "reported" vs "flight" visibility.

I have to thank Patricia "Mother" Malone for a lot of my ops spec education. She was so well versed even the FAA consulted her. No matter what conundrum I threw at her, she knew the answer, as we called it "The Pat Answer".  Google "Pat Malone Ops specs" if you want to learn more about her.  

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

IF you arrive at DA or MDA and have the runway or its environment in sight, you can land, don't care what they are reporting.

True, except that you also need the flight visibility (not the reported visibility) required for the approach. If the minimums are 1/2 mile and when you get to 100 AGL (based in the approach lights) and you see the runway but it's only 1/4 mile, you are not authorized to land.

Edited November 26, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[EricJ]

51 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

True, except that you also need the flight visibility (not the reported visibility) required for the approach. If the minimums are 1/2 mile and when you get to 100 AGL (based in the approach lights) and you see the runway but it's only 1/4 mile, you are not authorized to land.

I think his point is that if you have the required runway environment features in sight at DA/DH or MDA, you have flight visibility more or less by definition.   It doesn't make sense to force a go-around when the visibility is available at the approach end of the runway (as determined by the crew) but not wherever the RVR or whatever other sensor is used is located.

 

[GeeBee]

Do you think you would see anything at 1/4 mile? Believe me, I'v shot enough 1/4 mile CAT II's and III's to know what you will see and when. If you are shooting a 200 and 1/2 approach and you arrive at 1/4 mile flight visibility, you will not see anything at 200 HAT.  Here is the thing. These minimums are visibility based because they have calculated at the DH with the lights full on what you will see if the visibility is right at minimums. Indeed even RVR is calculated based upon "lights on view out the window" conditions. Notice that as the DH increases in HAT, the visibility minimum usually goes up.  You don't see any approaches with say a 500' HAT and a RVR 1800 minimum. IOW, if you are at minimums and you have the required elements in sight, you have the flight visibility, it's baked in the cake.

I would suggest a look at Chapter 3 of TERPS paying particular attention to table 3-3-1 and that will demonstrate the correlation of minimum HAT vs visibility.

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, EricJ said:

I think his point is that if you have the required runway environment features in sight at DA/DH or MDA, you have flight visibility more or less by definition.   It doesn't make sense to force a go-around when the visibility is available at the approach end of the runway (as determined by the crew) but not wherever the RVR or whatever other sensor is used is located.

 

Good point. That would be interesting to explore.

[gsxrpilot]

Flight visibility is in the eye of the beholder... as they say 

At least for part 91 

[alextstone]

Back in the 80's and 90's, my Dad flew his Baron to work from KLUL to KGPT on Wednesday mornings.  KGPT is a regional airport on the MS Gulf Coast.  As such, in the fall, advection fog would often be a factor in the visibility at the airport, often causing the Part 121 Airliner of the day to be in a holding pattern as Dad was cleared for the approach as was and still is legal under Part 91 rules.  If Dad was able to complete the approach (at or above minimums as observed on the approach of course), he would immediately relay a PIREP, thus overriding the automated weather reporting and allowing the airliner to attempt the approach.  PIREPS are valuable tools for many reasons.

[GeeBee]

Uh, no. That is not how it works for Part 121. A PIREP does not override an official observation. If that were true, every airliner in the world would ignore RVR meters when some Part 91 aircraft lands. FAR 121.651 b (2) is clear that the source of weather must be an approved source and PIREPS do not meet that criteria. If crews were ignoring an approved source in favor of a PIREP, that is a violation.

 

[alextstone]

 OK,  I just remember it happening that way.  Could it be that the regulations changed since the 80's - early 90's?  And to put it into further context, I was about 16 years old at the time and my Dad could have told me that he was teleported into the cockpit of the airliner to land for them and  I would have believed him :-).