§91.175 Landing Under IFR - IN PLAIN ENGLISH

JaceTheAce

JaceTheAce

Well-Known Member
Okay now, I'm going to get this straight - I have deciphered the King James version of the FAR/AIM on instrument approach landing requirements.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I understand and interpret when reading §91.175(c)(3):
If you have the Approach Lighting System in sight, you may descend no more than 100 feet below MDA.

You may descend to land or descend below the 100 feet (described above) to land if you have the following in sight:
• Red terminating bars or red side row bars
• Threshold, threshold markings, threshold lights
• REILs
• VASI
• TDZ, TDZ markings, TDZ lights
• Runway, runway markings, runway lights

​
Did I get this right??? :bandit:
 
JaceTheAce said:
Okay now, I'm going to get this straight - I have deciphered the King James version of the FAR/AIM on instrument approach landing requirements.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I understand and interpret when reading §91.175(c)(3):
If you have the Approach Lighting System in sight, you may descend no more than 100 feet below MDA.

You may descend to land or descend below the 100 feet (described above) to land if you have the following in sight:
• Red terminating bars or red side row bars
• Threshold, threshold markings, threshold lights
• REILs
• VASI
• TDZ, TDZ markings, TDZ lights
• Runway, runway markings, runway lights

​
Did I get this right??? :bandit:
Click to expand...

Close. If you have the approach lights in sight, you can descend down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation.

You can go lower than that with your bulleted list.

You must have the required visibility to actually land.
 
Except for the part about MDA - it's actually 100' above TDZE as Ralgha said ...

YES Jace you got it right.

Add, you must have the required flight visibility and you must continuously be in a position to land in the touchdown zone using safe and normal maneuvers and a safe and normal rate of descent.

Touchdown zone is defined as first 3000' of the runway or first half, whichever is smaller.
 
Ralgha said:
Close. If you have the approach lights in sight, you can descend down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation.
Click to expand...

You bastages beat me to it!!!

How's that geek toy working out, John? Have you found the tons of software that you can put on it? :)

Whenever you're ready, I'll let you know some of the cool stuff!
 
I forgot to add the "continuous/stable position to land" and "flight vis requirements for the approach to be flown" parts... those are easy to understand :D

THANK YOU for the help so far :)
 
And be able to make a safe, normal approach and landing visually from that point.

Or as the FAA puts it, "The aircraft is continuously 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 for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;"
 
If it helps, I used to teach my students the FLY acronym:

F - Flight Visibility at least what is prescribed on the approach plate. ***

L - Landing environment in sight (not going to name them all).

Y - You must be in proper configuration for landing and be able to land using normal aircraft maneuvers.

*** remember that it is FLIGHT visibility and that can only be determined by the pilot in the cockpit NOT the FAA inspector on the ground questioning why you landed when the atis says 1/2 mile vis and the approach plate depicts a 1 sm vis...if your flight visibility is 1 mile than you're good to go...(the ATIS is not flight visibility)
 
NYer914 said:
*** remember that it is FLIGHT visibility and that can only be determined by the pilot in the cockpit NOT the FAA inspector on the ground questioning why you landed when the atis says 1/2 mile vis and the approach plate depicts a 1 sm vis...if your flight visibility is 1 mile than you're good to go...(the ATIS is not flight visibility)
Click to expand...

And I'm quite certain that the judge residing over the FAA enforcement action will take the word of a 600 hour pilot over that of the FAA inspector on the ground OR the ATIS . . . :sarcasm:

Technically, I agree with you. However, don't underestimate the FAA! ;)
 
mtsu_av8er said:
You bastages beat me to it!!!

How's that geek toy working out, John? Have you found the tons of software that you can put on it? :)

Whenever you're ready, I'll let you know some of the cool stuff!
Click to expand...
I wish I could get it to load my Yahoo calendar. It won't load anything but today's page.
 
mtsu_av8er said:
And I'm quite certain that the judge residing over the FAA enforcement action will take the word of a 600 hour pilot over that of the FAA inspector on the ground OR the ATIS . . . :sarcasm:

Technically, I agree with you. However, don't underestimate the FAA! ;)
Click to expand...
As long as you have your argument ready the judge has to take your word. I suggest something along the lines of:

"Your honor, I was at one end of the rabbit and I could see the terminating bars at the other end. As this graphic depiction can show, that's 3000 feet! I had a half mile so I was legal to proceed."
 
Mr_Creepy said:
As long as you have your argument ready the judge has to take your word. I suggest something along the lines of:

"Your honor, I was at one end of the rabbit and I could see the terminating bars at the other end. As this graphic depiction can show, that's 3000 feet! I had a half mile so I was legal to proceed."
Click to expand...
"However, the FAA inspector, who was in a clear position to observe the visibility conditions on the runway at the time, testified that visibility was less than 1/4 mile, which corresponds to the ATIS observations at that time. I find that the FAA inspector's observations are credible and contemporaneous. The Airman's testimony, on the other hand, is obviously self-serving, and I do not find him to be credible. Consequently, the court credits the testimony of the FAA inspector that visibility at the time was below the minimums required for landing, and the Administrator's certificate action is sustained."


:) The judge doesn't have "have" to do anything.
 
Minnesota_Flyer said:
"However, the FAA inspector, who was in a clear position to observe the visibility conditions on the runway at the time, testified that visibility was less than 1/4 mile, which corresponds to the ATIS observations at that time. I find that the FAA inspector's observations are credible and contemporaneous. The Airman's testimony, on the other hand, is obviously self-serving, and I do not find him to be credible. Consequently, the court credits the testimony of the FAA inspector that visibility at the time was below the minimums required for landing, and the Administrator's certificate action is sustained."


What do the law say about entraptment ? What's that inspector doing out there when it's hard IFR ? Maybe, he is suicidal. :)
Click to expand...
 
Also, how do I do the "quote" thingy with the nice blue box ?Also, quoteing parts of a post ?

I tried searching before, but no luck.

HS
 
Holding Short said:
Also, how do I do the "quote" thingy with the nice blue box ?Also, quoteing parts of a post ?

I tried searching before, but no luck.

HS
Click to expand...

You have to put a [/QUOTE] at the end of the quote, then it should work. You did the first part correctly.

As for the topic, I had a question. I've heard that ATC is required to report to the FAA or at least make record whenever an aircraft lands on a low visibility approach or something like that to at least notify the FAA in case the FAA wants to look into it. Is this true?
 
PanJet said:
As for the topic, I had a question. I've heard that ATC is required to report to the FAA or at least make record whenever an aircraft lands on a low visibility approach or something like that to at least notify the FAA in case the FAA wants to look into it. Is this true?
Click to expand...

FAA is out to get you! MUah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
evil2.gif
 
Minnesota_Flyer said:
"However, the FAA inspector, who was in a clear position to observe the visibility conditions on the runway at the time, testified that visibility was less than 1/4 mile, which corresponds to the ATIS observations at that time. I find that the FAA inspector's observations are credible and contemporaneous. The Airman's testimony, on the other hand, is obviously self-serving, and I do not find him to be credible. Consequently, the court credits the testimony of the FAA inspector that visibility at the time was below the minimums required for landing, and the Administrator's certificate action is sustained."


:) The judge doesn't have "have" to do anything.
Click to expand...
I would blow a hole in that argument SO wide. "You were in a position to observe Mr. Inspector? You mean you were 200 ft in the air?

The very fact that I am HERE today talking to you illustrates that I had enough visibility to land safely. Mr. Inspector, per the regulations, 91.3, the authority of the pilot in command, I AM THE JUDGE OF INFLIGHT VISIBILITY - NOT YOU!"


ATIS is not controlling, nor is RVR - the regulation clearly states flight visibility.

I'd love to know the extenuating circumstances behind that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top