Tried to shoot an approach with weather below mins and tower refused clearance?

[Anon]

I was flying and there was a very thin fog layer. I'm in a single engine LPV approach equipped airplane with autopilot but the only approach to the airport is a RNAV-A with mins 600 AGL and 1 SM. ATIS said 1/2 sm and Vertical Visibility 100 ft. Approaching the airport I could see through the fog to the ground, could see the lower floors of tall buildings in the distance, etc. and wanted to try the approach. Bing pt 91 I assumed this was legal.

Approach control clears me for the approach but when I check in with the tower they initially day "I can't allow you to enter the class D, visibility is less than 1 sm". I respond that I'd like to continue the approach if possible. They then respond that weather is below "our minimums here in the tower". Now I'm pretty confused and just say I'd like to continue the approach legally. Tower then says "this is a first for me, I guess continue". Then as I'm approaching 1000 AGL, not yet in the fog, a few miles from the airport tower calls a missed on me and says "fly published missed approach now". On the missed of course I see the runway clearly but I comply anyway, end up diverting. Weather gets worse and due to travel plans the airplane is stranded for days. I am fairly confident I could've had a successful approach if left alone and cleared to land.

Now, I realize that during the circle as I got into the fog I may have lost sight of the airport since the straight down vis is often much greater than the horizontal vis. I would've like to have been able to make that decision myself and gone missed if necessary.

Is there anything I should've done differently? Should I have been more assertive? When the tower said "weather is below minimums" I started to think there was some special rule for this airspace I didn't know about, especially since they initially just tried to deny me entry. In the end I think it was just a tower controlle who didn't understand the regs, but was I in the wrong here? I didn't really want to arguing with a controller while I'm flying in marginal weather so I just followed their instruction, even though I think it was wrong.

Thanks!

 

[luvflyin]

I was flying and there was a very thin fog layer. I'm in a single engine LPV approach equipped airplane with autopilot but the only approach to the airport is a RNAV-A with mins 600 AGL and 1 SM. ATIS said 1/2 sm and Vertical Visibility 100 ft. Approaching the airport I could see through the fog to the ground, could see the lower floors of tall buildings in the distance, etc. and wanted to try the approach. Bing pt 91 I assumed this was legal.

Approach control clears me for the approach but when I check in with the tower they initially day "I can't allow you to enter the class D, visibility is less than 1 sm". I respond that I'd like to continue the approach if possible. They then respond that weather is below "our minimums here in the tower". Now I'm pretty confused and just say I'd like to continue the approach legally. Tower then says "this is a first for me, I guess continue". Then as I'm approaching 1000 AGL, not yet in the fog, a few miles from the airport tower calls a missed on me and says "fly published missed approach now". On the missed of course I see the runway clearly but I comply anyway, end up diverting. Weather gets worse and due to travel plans the airplane is stranded for days. I am fairly confident I could've had a successful approach if left alone and cleared to land.

Now, I realize that during the circle as I got into the fog I may have lost sight of the airport since the straight down vis is often much greater than the horizontal vis. I would've like to have been able to make that decision myself and gone missed if necessary.

Is there anything I should've done differently? Should I have been more assertive? When the tower said "weather is below minimums" I started to think there was some special rule for this airspace I didn't know about, especially since they initially just tried to deny me entry. In the end I think it was just a tower controlle who didn't understand the regs, but was I in the wrong here? I didn't really want to arguing with a controller while I'm flying in marginal weather so I just followed their instruction, even though I think it was wrong.

Thanks!

The Tower was wrong. I would file an ASRS on this. Not that you need a get out of jail card. You don’t. You did nothing wrong. It is to identify a problem in the system. If you had had some kind of problem while missing, or on the way to your divert airport, and crashed, the FAA would be getting out the check book and writing lotsa numbers on it.

 

[dbahn]

"Call the tower" and tell them you'd like to discuss the procedure.

 

[luvflyin]

"Call the tower" and tell them you'd like to discuss the procedure.

Yeah. OP, do you know the number? If not, where was this? We can probably find it for you. If you get through to them, let us know how it goes.

 

[aftCG]

You needed to include the phrase "I can maintain 1 mile visibility from my current position", not "I'd like to continue the approach legally".

The tower has to go by what they can see and what their weather reporting equipment says. There are lots of times when you can see something they can't. Where I fly out of for work the tower could be in a fog bank but a few thousand feet of runway is severe clear.

Note that I'm not encouraging anyone to lie and fly an approach in 1/4 mile vis, just clarifying that you can accept the responsibility when the tower can't.

 

[PaulS]

You probably would have had to go missed anyway for the reason you figured out. But the tower shouldn't be flying the airplane for you. I'd call them up and talk to them about it.

 

[flyingron]

You needed to include the phrase "I can maintain 1 mile visibility from my current position", not "I'd like to continue the approach legally".

You don't even need that. The only time visibility matters is flight visibility at the time you wish to go below the MDA. Commercial operators have other requirements, Part 91 does not.

 

[Velocity173]

Yep, been over this before. Call the tower.

 

[TrueCourse]

You needed to include the phrase "I can maintain 1 mile visibility from my current position", not "I'd like to continue the approach legally".

The tower has to go by what they can see and what their weather reporting equipment says. There are lots of times when you can see something they can't. Where I fly out of for work the tower could be in a fog bank but a few thousand feet of runway is severe clear.

Note that I'm not encouraging anyone to lie and fly an approach in 1/4 mile vis, just clarifying that you can accept the responsibility when the tower can't.

This might local practice where you fly, but this is not necessary. The tower should have simply reported the weather and asked the pilot to report missed or report when landed (in case he can’t see them). This is something the pilot flying Part 91 is allowed to do no matter how uncomfortable it makes the controller feel. Tower can say “be advised” all he wants, but doesn’t make the decision of terminating an approach for the pilot that is simply following an available procedure.

 

[Velocity173]

This might local practice where you fly, but this is not necessary. The tower should have simply reported the weather and asked the pilot to report missed or report when landed (in case he can’t see them). This is something the pilot flying Part 91 is allowed to do no matter how uncomfortable it makes the controller feel. Tower can say “be advised” all he wants, but doesn’t make the decision of terminating an approach for the pilot that is simply following an available procedure.

Thats something that every pilot is allowed to do, even a military pilot who has vis / ceiling mins prior to executing the approach. ATC has no authority to step in and tell them they can’t do an approach because it’s below tower mins or even service mins.

 

[flyingron]

There's no such thing as a ceiling minimum on a part 91 approach. If you can see the runway (with the appropriate visibility) you can land no matter what the ceiling is. The MDA is just the lowest you can go without having the necessary runway-area landmarks in site with the required flight visibility (or the DA is the point where barring those things you must go missed).

 

[mandm]

You’re allowed to shoot an approach, end of story.

 

[Velocity173]

There's no such thing as a ceiling minimum on a part 91 approach. If you can see the runway (with the appropriate visibility) you can land no matter what the ceiling is. The MDA is just the lowest you can go without having the necessary runway-area landmarks in site with the required flight visibility (or the DA is the point where barring those things you must go missed).

Who said there’s a ceiling requirement for a Part91 approach?

 

[Brad W]

Did this happen in the USA?

 

[dans2992]

“Possible controller deviation, let me know when you’re ready to copy my cell number…”

 

[dans2992]

Seriously though, this controller’s boss needs to hear the tapes.

 

[iamtheari]

The Tower was wrong. I would file an ASRS on this. Not that you need a get out of jail card. You don’t. You did nothing wrong. It is to identify a problem in the system. If you had had some kind of problem while missing, or on the way to your divert airport, and crashed, the FAA would be getting out the check book and writing lotsa numbers on it.

This. It’s a common misconception that the ASRS/NASA reporting system is there for pilots to get out of jail free. That’s only a side effect of its real purpose, which is for everyone involved in aviation to report safety issues without fear of reprisal so that the issues can be fixed before they get reported at the NTSB level. If you search the ASRS database, you’ll find reports ranging from equipment problems to unsafe baggage cart drivers. Here’s a synopsis from a random example: “Air carrier flight crew reported reflective poles nearby an island separating taxiways caused confusion regarding where to taxi at SFO at night and recommended a note should be added to the chart.”

So file an ASRS. Maybe it will lead to better training for controllers that will benefit all of us. And, if you like, also call the tower and discuss what happened. You could have handled the situation differently, but it’s natural to question yourself rather than to question ATC when they tell you to do something.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You needed to include the phrase "I can maintain 1 mile visibility from my current position", not "I'd like to continue the approach legally".

The tower has to go by what they can see and what their weather reporting equipment says.

Are you aware of anything in the 7110.65 that authorizes a controller to deny an instrument approach or IFR landing clearance based on what the controller sees or what their equipment reports about the weather?

And is that "I can maintain" thing you "need" to say mentioned somewhere in the AIM or another FAA publication as standard phraseology?

 

[RussR]

To answer the poll question, it is not reckless to fly an approach with the weather below minimums. I've done it for training many times. Usually results in a real missed approach, which is great training.

It IS reckless to try to LAND from an approach with the weather below minimums.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To answer the poll question, it is not reckless to fly an approach with the weather below minimums. I've done it for training many times. Usually results in a real missed approach, which is great training.

It IS reckless to try to LAND from an approach with the weather below minimums.

...not to mention a deviation even aside from 91.13

 

[ahmad]

This is really weird. I don't understand how the tower declares the missed approach for op.

 

[luvflyin]

Seriously though, this controller’s boss needs to hear the tapes.

May end up having to go further than that. To his boss’s boss. I’ve seen the ignorance of this issue go pretty far up the food chain in the FAA.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Truth is, it sounds like an inexperienced controller who made a mistake, not an experienced one with an attitude.

So, anon, do you have a time and place so we can perhaps find the audio on LiveATC?

 

[Palmpilot]

To answer the poll question, it is not reckless to fly an approach with the weather below minimums. I've done it for training many times. Usually results in a real missed approach, which is great training.

I did this on the Monterey ILS on the day after my instrument checkride in 1992. I had just barely squeaked through the checkride due to checkride nerves. I knew I could do a better job without a DPE sitting next to me, and I felt that I needed to do it to restore my confidence. It worked.

It IS reckless to try to LAND from an approach with the weather below minimums.

Amen, unless it fits within the 91.3(b) exception.

 

[Anon]

Here is a verbatim transcript of the exchange on frequency with XXX in place of my callsign.

Me: XXX 3 miles west of (final approach fix name) on the RNAV-A

Tower: XXX, tower WE HAVE LESS THAN 1 mile visibility I CANNOT ALLOW YOU TO ENTER THE AIRSPACE TODAY!

Me: uhhh, I’m on an IFR flight plan, I can’t try and shoot the approach?

Tower: Standby

Tower: XXX, uhhh all right, proceed inbound, report (FAF)

Me: Report (FAF), XXX

Tower: Airport 4 and Airport 6, report off the runway just in case.

Tower: XXX, umm, we’re, umm, we’re just, uh, double checking our minimums for OUR, um, rules, and right now the circling minimums don’t meet our criteria to try it.

Me: XXX, roger, (FAF) now, let me know if I can proceed legally, but I’d like to try it if possible.

Tower: XXX, yeah at this point it looks like our minimums are under 1000, uhhhmm, and we’re well below that, I don’t know what to do with you at this point, I don’t know if you’re going to be able to come in and land. We have 1/4 mile visibility.

Me: OK, um, I’m almost to the minimums anyway, I’ll just go to the missed approach point, and if I don’t see the airport, ill fly the published missed approach in coordination with approach which is kind of our plan already.

Tower: XXX I’m just going to ask for the published missed approach at this time. (I’m still a few hundred feet above minimums and a few miles from the airport when she says this).

Me: Fly published missed approach, XXX

I would prefer not to share the tape because it reveals my callsign and defeats the point of doing this anonymously. I am also not trying to get the controller in trouble, although she does have a habit of berating pilots and I have had her do very non-standard things and lose her composure in the past. I don’t even fly at this airport more than maybe twice a week. Some of her berating rants on frequency are justified but some are not. I have filed an ASRS form about her before due to a time when she issued me an instruction to cross a runway then later claimed she didn’t (verified on tape), then berated me for it, but nothing happened to my knowledge, she still gets free reign by herself in the tower quite often. In the above case she issued me a last second hold short instruction which I was luckily able to comply with before incurring into the runway.

 

[Plano Pilot]

"Tower: XXX I’m just going to ask for the published missed approach at this time."

Knowing the rules, I would have continued and taken this to mean to fly the published missed, if needed. Were you cleared to land? If you were, did she cancel the clearance to land?

The other problem might be that "Tower: Airport 4 and Airport 6, report off the runway just in case." never reported off the runway.

 

[Brad Z]

Here is a verbatim transcript of the exchange on frequency with XXX in place of my callsign.

Me: XXX 3 miles west of (final approach fix name) on the RNAV-A

Tower: XXX, tower WE HAVE LESS THAN 1 mile visibility I CANNOT ALLOW YOU TO ENTER THE AIRSPACE TODAY!

Me: uhhh, I’m on an IFR flight plan, I can’t try and shoot the approach?

Tower: Standby

Tower: XXX, uhhh all right, proceed inbound, report (FAF)

Me: Report (FAF), XXX

Tower: Airport 4 and Airport 6, report off the runway just in case.

Tower: XXX, umm, we’re, umm, we’re just, uh, double checking our minimums for OUR, um, rules, and right now the circling minimums don’t meet our criteria to try it.

Me: XXX, roger, (FAF) now, let me know if I can proceed legally, but I’d like to try it if possible.

Tower: XXX, yeah at this point it looks like our minimums are under 1000, uhhhmm, and we’re well below that, I don’t know what to do with you at this point, I don’t know if you’re going to be able to come in and land. We have 1/4 mile visibility.

Me: OK, um, I’m almost to the minimums anyway, I’ll just go to the missed approach point, and if I don’t see the airport, ill fly the published missed approach in coordination with approach which is kind of our plan already.

Tower: XXX I’m just going to ask for the published missed approach at this time. (I’m still a few hundred feet above minimums and a few miles from the airport when she says this).

Me: Fly published missed approach, XXX

I would prefer not to share the tape because it reveals my callsign and defeats the point of doing this anonymously. I am also not trying to get the controller in trouble, although she does have a habit of berating pilots and I have had her do very non-standard things and lose her composure in the past. I don’t even fly at this airport more than maybe twice a week. Some of her berating rants on frequency are justified but some are not. I have filed an ASRS form about her before due to a time when she issued me an instruction to cross a runway then later claimed she didn’t (verified on tape), then berated me for it, but nothing happened to my knowledge, she still gets free reign by herself in the tower quite often. In the above case she issued me a last second hold short instruction which I was luckily able to comply with before incurring into the runway.

Wow. Sounds like a former PVD controller retired and is now working a non-fed delta tower. [/sarcasm]

The only thing I might have done differently in that in that exchange is perhaps set the tower controller's expectations that it was a training flight and I was planning on going missed (we're always planning on going missed, right?) and perhaps negotiated a low approach only. Yes you were in the right, but clearly she didn't want to issue you a landing clearance. Sounds like airport ops was out doing something in the field as well.

 

[Anon]

Airport 4 & 6 did report clear, I didn't put that in there since I only included tower's and my own transmissions.

She never cleared me to land at any point.

 

[dans2992]

I wouldn’t worry about getting them in trouble. They need to be “educated” on proper procedures.
Also, the non standard phraseology is going to cause an accident at some point.

 

[Velocity173]

A student. Probably one of those towers that’s used for controller training. @Timbeck2 whadda ya think?

 

[Anon]

A student. Probably one of those towers that’s used for controller training. @Timbeck2 whadda ya think?

She has worked in this same tower for at least 3 years, ever since I’ve been flying in there. The hold short incident I had with her was in 2019 or early 2020.

 

[Velocity173]

She has worked in this same tower for at least 3 years, ever since I’ve been flying in there. The hold short incident I had with her was in 2019 or early 2020.

Yeah I know. Little inside joke with Tim.

We had a thread maybe 5 years ago with a female controller who jumped on a pilot for turning base with a “continue” instruction on downwind. With the non-standard stuff and the berating you speak of, kinda wonder if it’s the same airport.

 

[iamtheari]

Tower: XXX I’m just going to ask for the published missed approach at this time. (I’m still a few hundred feet above minimums and a few miles from the airport when she says this).

Me: Fly published missed approach, XXX

I don’t take what Tower said here to be a wave-off instruction, so I might have responded along the lines of “We will plan the missed approach as published, continuing inbound, XXX” or just “say again, XXX.” Of course, I wasn’t in IMC trying to find a runway and figure out what the heck Tower meant with their strange dialect of aviation English.

In other words, I don’t fault you for your conservative decision to head elsewhere, but if ATC gives nonstandard, ambiguous, or downright confusing instructions, the best course of action is to ask what they mean rather than making an assumption about it and acting on the assumption.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Trainee. Let's clarify the important item.

me: am I cleared to land?
ATC: no
Me: get your supervisor.

I'm not going to land without a landing clearance. Nothing else in that transcript matters that much to me,

 

[Timbeck2]

A student. Probably one of those towers that’s used for controller training. @Timbeck2 whadda ya think?

I’ve never heard the weather was below “our” minimums, referencing the tower. Never. You clear aircraft to land, if they can’t and go missed, then that’s how the system is designed.

This controller needs to have a controller eval done on her and the tower as a whole needs to brush up on the fact that controllers aren’t the ILS police.

 

[s35pilot]

The nanny state mentality is taking over. We know what’s best for you. Wear your helmet, install your smoke detector, no riders in the bed of your truck, can’t buy alcohol here, keep that gun in a locked case, and for gawds sake if we don’t think the approach is safe you can’t fly it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The nanny state mentality is taking over. We know what’s best for you. Wear your helmet, install your smoke detector, no riders in the bed of your truck, can’t buy alcohol here, keep that gun in a locked case, and for gawds sake if we don’t think the approach is safe you can’t fly it.

"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah I think this is just a case where the controller doesn’t know any better. Probably taught the wx mins section in the approach plate as a requirement for clearing an aircraft. Law of primacy. Do kinda wonder how this could go on for so long without being corrected. The OP can’t be the only one who has attempted an approach with tower vis below 1 mile.

Kinda reminds of something my brother said about his facility years ago. He noticed some of the controllers broadcasting that the field was marginal VFR when in actuality, it was greater than 3000/5. They were under the belief that there wasn’t an actual weather condition to be MVFR. It was something that was a controller interpretation. Law of primacy.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah I think this is just a case where the controller doesn’t know any better. Probably taught the wx mins section in the approach plate as a requirement for clearing an aircraft. Law of primacy. Do kinda wonder how this could go on for so long without being corrected. The OP can’t be the only one who has attempted an approach with tower vis below 1 mile.

Picked it up somewhere. Interestingly, the "Point 65" actually talks about the opposite at the beginning of the chapter on approach clearances.

Approach clearances are issued based on known traffic. The receipt of an approach clearance does not relieve the pilot of his/her responsibility to comply with applicable Parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the notations on instrument approach charts which levy on the pilot the responsibility to comply with or act on an instruction; for example, “Straight-in minima not authorized at night,” “Procedure not authorized when glideslope/glidepath not used,” “Use of procedure limited to aircraft authorized to use airport,” or “Procedure not authorized at night….” [Order 7110.65Z, Note 2 to ¶4-8-1.a.]​

Basically, controllers are supposed to issue clearances based on traffic considerations and are not responsible for pilot compliance with approach limitations and restrictions. That said, controllers have been known to deny approach clearances, particularly in "approach not authorized" situations. When I did my "NA at Night" article for IFR in 2021, I asked a umber of controllers about their practice and it varied.

 

[Velocity173]

Picked it up somewhere. Interestingly, the "Point 65" actually talks about the opposite at the beginning of the chapter on approach clearances.

Approach clearances are issued based on known traffic. The receipt of an approach clearance does not relieve the pilot of his/her responsibility to comply with applicable Parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the notations on instrument approach charts which levy on the pilot the responsibility to comply with or act on an instruction; for example, “Straight-in minima not authorized at night,” “Procedure not authorized when glideslope/glidepath not used,” “Use of procedure limited to aircraft authorized to use airport,” or “Procedure not authorized at night….” [Order 7110.65Z, Note 2 to ¶4-8-1.a.]​

Basically, controllers are supposed to issue clearances based on traffic considerations and are not responsible for pilot compliance with approach limitations and restrictions. That said, controllers have been known to deny approach clearances, particularly in "approach not authorized" situations. When I did my "NA at Night" article for IFR in 2021, I asked an umber of controllers about their practice and it varied.

Correct but in this case it’s pretty black and white. This is right out of the .65. It’s the pilots job to determine wx mins. Whether that’s a military pilot who has ceiling / vis mins or in this case, a Part 91 pilot who only has a flight vis min (along with visual cues at DA/MDA).

Edit: Minus an approach that can be denied for wx (contact/visual), this is the procedure to be followed.