![]() ![]() That’s because the FAA wants to be sure you have a solid out if the weather tanks. ![]() When it comes to alternates, however, ceilings are required. In this way, visibility is controlling for all operators with respect to an actual landing. In any case, any pilot who reaches the Decision Altitude (DA) or MDA without having the necessary visual references (e.g., runway, runway markings, runway lights) must go missed. However, if visibility drops and is reported after the pilot has passed the FAF, the approach may continue. If the visibility is above minimums and the Part 121 pilot learns that the visibility has dropped below minimums before crossing the FAF, the approach must be aborted. Indeed, they can’t even launch for the destination if the visibility is below the minimum specified for that approach. They don’t need the ceiling, but they must have the controlling visibility to begin an approach. Part 91 pilots can attempt an approach with both ceiling and visibility below minimums, but Part 121 flights are held to a higher standard. How was this done? Every instrument pilot is familiar with 14 CFR Part 91.175(c) (2), which reads, “No pilot may operate an aircraft below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used.” So, ceiling isn’t even mentioned, just visibility. This conceptual change eliminated the ceiling requirement by introducing a DH.” These changes were finalized by the publication of U.S. A major change in the method of specifying the operating minimums for approaches with vertical guidance evolved with the introduction of the DH and Runway Visual Range (RVR) concepts. 1 reads: “Specifying the Operating Minimums. But with improvements in the technology of navigational aids, the FAA removed ceiling requirements in 1966 and replaced them with Decision Height (DH) and Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA). Many years ago, the FAA did set operating minimums of ceilings and visibility. As it turns out that wasn’t necessary not even if we had been an airline! We thought that was required for the airlines so we figured we’d emulate them. If the reported ceiling was below the published approach minimums we’d cancel the flight or go somewhere else. In the past when contemplating an IFR flight my husband and I would pull out the approach plates and compare them to the METAR or TAF. In this case my misunderstanding came from creating personal minimums to match regulations that didn’t exist. It’s surprising when you suddenly discover you had the wrong idea about something all along. Know the Rules, then Set Your Limits by Crista Videriksen Worthy ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |