not enough visibility?

[Captain]

Well, I'm back with an update,

I spoke with the training department and they in turn spoke with the chief pilots office and the DO. The final verdict is that technically it is legal for us to fly it (part 91 and 135), however all agree that if the airport or at least lights are not seen at the MAP then it would be wholly appropriate to exacute the missed.

I'm told slides are going to be developed to be inserted to the recurrent ground school cirriculum to cover this.

I think it's one of those things where if it works out then you're good to go, but if there's a problem you're going to be in a tight spot. Of course that rule of thumb applies to just about everything.

 

[aterpster]

Well, I'm back with an update,

I spoke with the training department and they in turn spoke with the chief pilots office and the DO. The final verdict is that technically it is legal for us to fly it (part 91 and 135), however all agree that if the airport or at least lights are not seen at the MAP then it would be wholly appropriate to excite the missed.

They apparently don't understand the waiver that is provided by this provision. It's the carrier's choice, of course, to not apply the waiver. But the local FAA should be able to fully explain to them what it's all about.

 

[Captain]

Uh? They don't understand?

What do you think I said? Ya might want to re read that quote of mine you posted...

 

[aterpster]

Uh? They don't understand?

What do you think I said? Ya might want to re read that quote of mine you posted...

I did. They don't think it is appropriate is what you said. To me, that means they don't understand the waiver set forth by Flight Standards. If they had said it is appropriate to apply the waiver, but they choose not to because they would rather you have one of the 91.195 visual items in sight at the MAP, then I wouldn't have stated that they don't seem to understand the waiver.

They can't make the waiver go away, but they can certainly choose not to exercise it.

 

[Henning]

I did. They don't think it is appropriate is what you said. To me, that means they don't understand the waiver set forth by Flight Standards. If they had said it is appropriate to apply the waiver, but they choose not to because they would rather you have one of the 91.195 visual items in sight at the MAP, then I wouldn't have stated that they don't seem to understand the waiver.

They can't make the waiver go away, but they can certainly choose not to exercise it.

I think that's what they meant when they said 'inappropriate' rather than 'illegal'. "You can do it, but it's risky enough you shouldn't" is how I read that.

 

[aterpster]

I think that's what they meant when they said 'inappropriate' rather than 'illegal'. "You can do it, but it's risky enough you shouldn't" is how I read that.

Agree.

 

[Captain]

I did. They don't think it is appropriate is what you said. To me, that means they don't understand the waiver set forth by Flight Standards. If they had said it is appropriate to apply the waiver, but they choose not to because they would rather you have one of the 91.195 visual items in sight at the MAP, then I wouldn't have stated that they don't seem to understand the waiver.

They can't make the waiver go away, but they can certainly choose not to exercise it.

Wholly appropriate to go around at the MAP is not the same as "don't think it is appropriate". This whole thread has been about going around at the MAP. Yes, you can legally continue. My company agrees. But, it makes a ton of sense to go missed when you have 3 miles of Vis and you're 5 miles away.

Did you miss the part where they said it would be legal?

 

[Henning]

Wholly appropriate to go around at the MAP is not the same as "don't think it is appropriate". This whole thread has been about going around at the MAP. Yes, you can legally continue. My company agrees. But, it makes a ton of sense to go missed when you have 3 miles of Vis and you're 5 miles away.

Did you miss the part where they said it would be legal?

Right, they just said they wouldn't hold it against you if you bailed out at the MAP into the missed if couldn't see the airport...

 

[Captain]

Exactly. Yes ou can...but none of management would do it. Me, if I don't see something to land on I'm out at the MAP. If a fellow crew decide to continue past the MAP then that's fine...but they better land or there will be hell to pay.

 

[Henning]

Exactly. Yes ou can...but none of management would do it. Me, if I don't see something to land on I'm out at the MAP. If a fellow crew decide to continue past the MAP then that's fine...but they better land or there will be hell to pay.

That's where local knowledge makes the difference. If you know it's up there and exactly how to find it, because you've been there a bunch of times before, it's no big deal.

 

[aterpster]

That's where local knowledge makes the difference. If you know it's up there and exactly how to find it, because you've been there a bunch of times before, it's no big deal.

Then there are places where "fly visual to airport" is a big deal. Look at these two charts for Butte, Montana. The ILS Y Rwy 15 doesn't have "fly visual to airport" so the visibility minimum is 4 miles, the distance from the DA Point to the threshold. The RNAV Z Rwy 15 has its DA point at almost the same point as the ILS, but its visibility minimum is 2 miles with "fly visual to airport." (The RNAV Z is CAT A and B only because of the path angle.) Plus, unlike Inyokern, Butte has a whole lot of lousy weather in more months than it has good weather.

When this RNAV procedure is next revised it will be required to have at least 3 miles visibility and then only with Flight Standards approval.

Finally, I've included Google Earth screen shots of both Inyokern and Butte, which are a handy tool for assessment.

 

[Henning]

Then there are places where "fly visual to airport" is a big deal. Look at these two charts for Butte, Montana. The ILS Y Rwy 15 doesn't have "fly visual to airport" so the visibility minimum is 4 miles, the distance from the DA Point to the threshold. The RNAV Z Rwy 15 has its DA point at almost the same point as the ILS, but its visibility minimum is 2 miles with "fly visual to airport." (The RNAV Z is CAT A and B only because of the path angle.) Plus, unlike Inyokern, Butte has a whole lot of lousy weather in more months than it has good weather.

When this RNAV procedure is next revised it will be required to have at least 3 miles visibility and then only with Flight Standards approval.

Finally, I've included Google Earth screen shots of both Inyokern and Butte, which are a handy tool for assessment.

Good on the pics. I didn't mean to indicate that 'fly visual' isn't a big deal, just that with local knowledge and having done it enough times before is gets to be less of a big deal to that individual.

 

[aterpster]

Wholly appropriate to go around at the MAP is not the same as "don't think it is appropriate". This whole thread has been about going around at the MAP. Yes, you can legally continue. My company agrees. But, it makes a ton of sense to go missed when you have 3 miles of Vis and you're 5 miles away.

Did you miss the part where they said it would be legal?

I must have. My bad.

 

[olasek]

But, it makes a ton of sense to go missed when you have 3 miles of Vis and you're 5 miles away

Frankly if I had 3 miles visibility I would not be even executing this approach, I would fly strictly VFR, overfly the airport, enter the pattern and land. I could be guided to the airport by a handheld GPS receiver.