Fists super low ILS

well stevec,
i aprreciate you not second guessing me, I like healty debate, i'm not pissed and I am not getting into a pissing match with anyone, I just think it funny how people get mad when i didn't break any rules. There is not argument about that, but i will debate pushing the rules to the limit. According to the FARs. i didn't break any rules. Having said that, in response to you, it is correct that you can't start an approach under 135 or 121 when the reported minimums are less than the approach plate ( i was part 91) but my question to you is, once you have started the approach and the minimums drop below, do you have to abort? No! You may continue the approach because the faa allows you the chance to go to the bottom of the hill and see what is there, if not it would be mandatory to go missed. Well why continue if you and everyone else in here knows they are not going to land, thats where you are free to make whatever decision you want. But it is perfectly legal to continue the approach and at DH if you have the runway environment in sight and the "FLIGHT VISIBILITY"as determined by you (not by the faa or anyone else on this site) you are allowed to descend below DH right? In now way or manner did I break any FARs i just went as far as they would let me go, no further. I dont know why everyone thought i got to DH, didn't see anything and continued the approach, I did state that i saw the rabbit which legally allows me to go down 100 feet of so and kept flying till i saw the reils, and then i was on the ground, again, perfectly legal.
 
Hopefully Steve will take the time (as he is a better man than I) to inform you of how many inaccuracies there are in your above post, cause I don't care to. Man, you don't even know the regs!:confused:
 
jonnyb said:
Well, the above just comfirmed my assumptions. I won't waste my time on someone who's got it all figured out.:banghead:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much with jonnyb on this one. BUT I gotta say one last thing: flying "one dot on the rabbit at a time...until the tires touched" isn't characteristic of 1/2 mile flight vis, my friend.

Good luck, fly safe, I'm out!
 
Last I checked as the PIC of the aircraft I am free to make my own decisions.
True

Secondly, I was empty that leg therefore part 91 so I can start any approach I want.
Actually if the company was requiring you to be there even if empty your 135. Going to pick up freight..empty...still 135. Unless the company said yah just take the airplane back whenever and give us a call its 135. The weight in the back doesn't matter its how its operated.

Thirdly its obvious you folks aren't to familiar with the rules, visibility as stated on the approach plate is predicated as "flight visiblity" which can only be determined by the pilot.

Thats true..our opspecs say RVR is controlling...what do yours say?

FAA wrote it. If they pulled me over they would have to prove that I couldn't see 1/2 mile out of my own eyes.
Actually in the court of the FAA its up to you to prove innocence not them to prove guilt. You would have to prove it was 1/2 mile or better somehow.

I enjoy challenging myself thats just me, I was very familiar with the airpport, runway, approach, and the airplane.
Challenging yourself is great its the only way to get better. But you have to set limits on things for personal safety. I like paintball but I probably wouldn't play it with real guns just to make it more challengin.


In closing...though I don't know you I don't like seeing people die in airplanes. I have had friends die in them before and if you can prevent it you should.

After all...if the weathers to bad to go..you get the day off.

Fly Safe.
 
"91.175(c) Operation below DH or MDA (heavily editied)

...no pilot may operate an aircraft...below the authorized DH unless—

(1) 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...

(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and

(3)...at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable....

(v) The runway end identifier lights.

I think if we were to ask JSB172 if he had the red terminating bars in sight and a half a mile vis, he'd say yes. To keep the terminology straight, he should be saying approach light system rather than "rabbits". Also, he isn't legal to continue below 100 AGL cause he see's the REIL's. Seeing the REIL's allow you to descend from DH but only seeing the "approach light system" allows you to go below DH.

Therefore, based on what JSB172 has said so far, and not mentioned the red side row bars or red terminating bars, I'd say he was illegal.

Can you even see the red side row bars with 1000 RVR if your on the glideslope? That's what the FSDO would be asking if you had a pissy tower controller that turned you in.

JSB, you saw the red terminating/side row bars, right?
 
"Thats true..our opspecs say RVR is controlling...what do yours say?"

That's an interesting point. Just because it's a 91 leg can you still ignore the company FAA approved flight manuals? Obviously, Joe pilot in his own 172 has no ops specs, but that may be different than flying a 91 leg in a 135 operation.
 
"BUT I gotta say one last thing: flying "one dot on the rabbit at a time...until the tires touched" isn't characteristic of 1/2 mile flight vis, my friend."

What you say can and will be used agaisnt you in a court of law...
 
I guess that depends on you consider a 91 leg. My point of view is that if the company tells you to be someplace at a specific time...its a 135 empty leg. Not 91.

I think the only way to have a true 91 leg would be to do it when your dutied off and its your choice not the companies. I've heard of fracs guys doing it quite a bit. After thier duty day on the last day of the trip. They'll fly the plane back to thier home base on thier own time and schedule.
 
Texasspilot said:
I guess that depends on you consider a 91 leg. My point of view is that if the company tells you to be someplace at a specific time...its a 135 empty leg. Not 91.
Click to expand...

Interesting point of view. I thought the determining factor was if there were "persons or property for hire" in the back. Telling you to be somewhere, IMO, doesn't make it a 135 flight. The company was paying for you to repo that aircraft, not anyone else. Otherwise, corporate operations around the globe would be illegal :confused:...

You were simply 'ferrying' the aircraft. All part 91 in my book.

And as far as the orginal poster goes, I would ask doug to purge this thread from the anals of the MySQL database if I were you. Get your story straight and make it legal, recite it, and memorize it. That way if the feds come knocking you'll atleast be able to semi-defend yourself!

~wheelsup
 
TonyC said:
I'm going to assume that jsb172 failed to accurately describe the scenario, that's all. We all know that an RVR of 1000' and an in-flight visibility of 1/2 mile just don't jive, so that must have been a typo or something. In fact, we should be able to surmise that the RVR was not 1,000' or he would not have even begun the approach.

Some people mistake stupidity for bravery - - but we're not those people, right?


Fly safely. Live long.
Click to expand...

I don't usually quote myself, but I don't usually answer e-mails here either.

Now, jsb172, would you be so kind as to explain to me what exactly you were referring to when you said, in your e-mail to me, referring to the above post, "what [ I ] posted was completely inaccurate"? This doesn't have to get personal, you know.



.
 
Ahh, the wonderful world of night freight. The companies I used to work for had a whole different view of the regs than the passenger airlines. Instead of looking at the regs for "what you can't do"...they looked at the regs for "what you can do". Not much FAA oversight either. Pass your 135 ride, and you're out there doing your own thing. Of course, after you bend metal..they'll ask why you're not following the rules.
 
HA -------> Antidote

Anti-Authority -------> Follow the rules. They are usually right.

Macho -------> Taking chances is foolish.
 
"HA -------> Antidote"

Let me guess, you have recently taken the FOI or have a CFI checkride scheduled?
 
From talking with the local Feds in my neck of the woods, I understand that they generally won't be able to violate someone from a BB post. That could be considered heresay. It would take a lot of government time and legal considerations to chase down one thread. However, that doesn't mean someone can't look into who the poster is and coincidently cross paths with them out in the system.

In my experience, if the FAA hasn't caught you doing something or doesn't have evidence of a violation, they will tend to show up more often if they notice trends. I have a friend who we can say was questionable when he used to fly. Great stick, but very outspoken about what the regs allow you to do and that didn't please some of the local inspectors. So the Inspectors visited more often. My friend had a near miss in the TP one time and though he wasn't required to file paperwork about it, the FSDO was relentless in trying to get my friend to file a NASA form. Never known a specific near miss to get so much attention from an Inspector. For the record, my friend wasn't violating anything at the moment. I think there was confusion among everyone about the positions of both the aircraft.

Whew, another long message.
Travis
 
DE727UPS said:
"HA -------> Antidote"

Let me guess, you have recently taken the FOI or have a CFI checkride scheduled?
Click to expand...

Good guess. I posted that the night before my CFII initial oral. Passed the ride with FSDO today.
 
falconvalley said:
Congrats, Brett! Looks like you get to be in the "First Try Club". :rawk:
Click to expand...

I didn't know there was such a club. Well now that I know, I need my application to the "First Try Club' approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top