Takeoff below landing minimums?

[WS]

I'm hoping to get some insight on what YOU would do in this situation.

It's night, you have a very light load of freight, and the fog has rolled in earlier than anticipated. Everything points to it getting worse and lasting all night. You need 1800 RVR to take-off legally with freight on board. Since the visibility is well below part 135 takeoff minimums, your company wants you to leave the freight behind and blast off under part 91 rules to re-position for the morning departure on the other end.

The field is currently 1200 RVR with a 200' indefinite ceiling and is deteriorating rapidly, while you need 1800 RVR and 200' to get back in on the ILS. The nearest field that has any hope of being above landing minimums is at least 50 miles away, while 65 miles should get you to widespread stable VFR conditions.

Would you stay on the ground in a crappy hotel and put up with grief from your company, or would you depart?

Would it matter if you were flying a single or a twin, piston(s) or turbine(s)?

 

[derg]

What does your OpsSpecs and FOM say about part 91 flights?

 

[WS]

It would be legal to depart with those conditions if it's not a revenue flight.

 

[esa17]

What's your goal in this? Are you trying to stay legal or comfortable?

 

[mikecweb]

What does your OpsSpecs and FOM say about part 91 flights?

It would be legal to depart with those conditions if it's not a revenue flight.

I think you just answered your own question.
This is a very common scenario in 135 freight.

 

[WS]

I am mostly interested in everyone's personal minimums on this. So, assuming you aren't breaking any laws, would you depart knowing that if you have any kind of issue immediately after takeoff, that going back is not an option.

CFIs always tell students this is a bad idea, however the decision is always much more difficult once you leave the flight training environment and enter the real world.

 

[mikecweb]

I am mostly interested in everyone's personal minimums on this. So, assuming you aren't breaking any laws, would you depart knowing that if you have any kind of issue immediately after takeoff, that going back is not an option.

CFIs always tell students this is a bad idea, however the decision is always much more difficult once you leave the flight training environment and enter the real world.

Personal minimums are a slippery slope and really have no place in professional aviation. You are trained to a standard you should be able to fly that standard.

 

[WS]

Fair enough, however why is it that it could be considered safe enough for the pilot alone but not the cargo?

 

[Cptnchia]

I am mostly interested in everyone's personal minimums on this. So, assuming you aren't breaking any laws, would you depart knowing that if you have any kind of issue immediately after takeoff, that going back is not an option.

CFIs always tell students this is a bad idea, however the decision is always much more difficult once you leave the flight training environment and enter the real world.

You're not a student pilot. You're a professional pilot. If it's at or above legal minimums, that you're been trained to fly to, (part 135 hopefully,) then you are GTG.

 

[mikecweb]

Fair enough, however why is it that it could be considered safe enough for the pilot alone but not the cargo?

Why is it safe for cargo pilots to carry li-ion batteries but not on passenger aircraft?

 

[WS]

You're not a student pilot. You're a professional pilot. If it's at or above legal minimums, that you're been trained to fly to, (part 135 hopefully,) then you are GTG.

That's my point, its below part 135 minimums. That's why it would need to be done without freight on board, in which case it becomes part 91, and you could legally take off without being able to see the nose of the aircraft.

 

[alaskadrifter]

You're not a student pilot. You're a professional pilot. If it's at or above legal minimums, that you're been trained to fly to, (part 135 hopefully,) then you are GTG.

True, but if there is a little voice in the back of your head saying "this is a bad idea" one might stop and take stock. Don't be a hero.

 

[Cptnchia]

That's my point, its below part 135 minimums. That's why it would need to be done without freight on board, in which case it becomes part 91, and you could legally take off without being able to see the nose of the aircraft.

What type of plane are you in. SE or ME?

 

[Cptnchia]

True, but if there is a little voice in the back of your head saying "this is a bad idea" one might stop and take stock. Don't be a hero.

True. He's talking a 0/0 takeoff almost.

 

[derg]

Why is it safe for cargo pilots to carry li-ion batteries but not on passenger aircraft?

Sadly, regulations require mass amounts of spilled blood and, well, UPS dropped an Airbus in Alabama and there was barely a whimper in the national media and people were probably more baffled when some of their eBay crap and Amazon Precious Moments figurines didn't show on time.

A 737 hits moderate and it's two weeks of back-to-back coverage, selfies and well, what do you know, Chuck Schumer is demanding an investigation while Scary Mary Schiavo cranks up the PR machine.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that I've eaten too much kimchee and need to poo.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Wouldn't you need to file a takeoff alternate to fly it 135?

 

[Roger Roger]

Multi turbine? I'd probably blast off. Single engine piston? Hell naw. Multi piston or single turbine? Maybe. Depends on how confident I am in that airplane, that day.

 

[Itchy]

That's my point, its below part 135 minimums. That's why it would need to be done without freight on board, in which case it becomes part 91, and you could legally take off without being able to see the nose of the aircraft.

Why are you discussing 135? Not relevant here.

Do you fly over hostile terrain on dark, foggy nights? How would that be essential different? You go down, it is not going to be pretty in either scenario.

 

[z987k]

I'm hoping to get some insight on what YOU would do in this situation.

It's night, you have a very light load of freight, and the fog has rolled in earlier than anticipated. Everything points to it getting worse and lasting all night. You need 1800 RVR to take-off legally with freight on board. Since the visibility is well below part 135 takeoff minimums, your company wants you to leave the freight behind and blast off under part 91 rules to re-position for the morning departure on the other end.

The field is currently 1200 RVR with a 200' indefinite ceiling and is deteriorating rapidly, while you need 1800 RVR and 200' to get back in on the ILS. The nearest field that has any hope of being above landing minimums is at least 50 miles away, while 65 miles should get you to widespread stable VFR conditions.

Would you stay on the ground in a crappy hotel and put up with grief from your company, or would you depart?

Would it matter if you were flying a single or a twin, piston(s) or turbine(s)?

Most op specs authorize down to 5 or 600rvr with 2 pilots. You should have trained to that standard(where the FO likely sits there and does nothing), so I really don't see how 1200rvr on your own is that big of a deal.

That said, what you are describing is very standard practice.

 

[Cptnchia]

Most op specs authorize down to 5 or 600rvr with 2 pilots. You should have trained to that standard(where the FO likely sits there and does nothing), so I really don't see how 1200rvr on your own is that big of a deal.

That said, what you are describing is very standard practice.

500/600 RVR is a CATIII approach. Full auto land. I doubt that many 135 operators spend the money to certify their pilots and planes to that minimum, so no, he most likely hasn't been trained to that standard.