mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Mr_Creepy said:ATIS is not controlling, nor is RVR - the regulation clearly states flight visibility.
Not in my OPSEPCS . . .
Mr_Creepy said:ATIS is not controlling, nor is RVR - the regulation clearly states flight visibility.
Mr_Creepy said:I wish I could get it to load my Yahoo calendar. It won't load anything but today's page.
mtsu_av8er said:Not in my OPSEPCS . . .
johns13b said:FAR says vasi. Is that meant as VASI? I mean...I fly in and out of airports with a PAPI all the time. I realize it isnt usually the first thing you see (i.e. rabbits), but this has caused me to believe a vasi is used as a generic term (including PAPI). If they actually capitalized the letters, then it would be more specific towards the actual approach light system. Does any of this make sense? I mean, PAPI counts, yes?
johns13b said:FAR says vasi. Is that meant as VASI? I mean...I fly in and out of airports with a PAPI all the time. I realize it isnt usually the first thing you see (i.e. rabbits), but this has caused me to believe a vasi is used as a generic term (including PAPI). If they actually capitalized the letters, then it would be more specific towards the actual approach light system. Does any of this make sense? I mean, PAPI counts, yes?
Lloyd, your opspecs refer to INITIATING the approach (RVR is controlling.) For 91.175 (continuing flight below DH or MDA) it is flight visibility.mtsu_av8er said:Not in my OPSEPCS . . .
That's true. Reason unknown.JaceTheAce said:One flight instructor actually told me that PAPI's don't count for the 91.175 reg. Only VASIs count. Weird huh? Anyone care to elaborate?
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."
bluelake said:MTSU- While I agree with you 100% in a practical day-to-day sense, I think if you go to the AIM you will see that VASI is not generic ( not even understanding the breadth of the 'incredibly' adjective) and PAPI "while similar to" is not a TYPE of PAPI. If you accept the organization of the AIM, then PAPI is PAPI and VASI is VASI
Had a few of those approaches myself. Did the miss on all but one. The one scared me spitless!B767Driver said:I've been five hundred AGL with clear skies and a full view of the runway. Eight feet above the runway I settled into a 1/16th mile visibility layer in fog. The slant range view from decision height is much different from the forward prevailing visibility on the ground. Obviously, this ground fog scenario is extreme and rare...but it highlights that vis may change below DH.
The only gotchya in this situation is...at anytime the flight vis goes below the prescribed vis...you must execute a missed approach. So if the flight vis is good at 200' and is good at 100' but goes to nil at 50'...you must execute the missed approach.
Could an Inspector in a vehicle near the touchdown zone testify that the flight visibility was below mins? I guess a judge would have to decide. I could see how this scenario might go against the pilot.
MikeD said:91.175....easy to understand.
"....except a military aqircraft of the United States...."
Easily interperted for me, sounds plain english enough. lol