Takeoff below landing minimums?

[drunkenbeagle]

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.

Though I've certainly seen it happen plenty of times part 91, for me, it depends entirely how close I would be to an airport I can actually land at.

Also, if it isn't safe enough for a bunch of cardboard boxes to depart, well, I would strongly consider how safe it was for me. I personally would spend the night in the hotel working on my resume.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm WS's old CP at his current gig.

There is no such thing as a Part 91 repo flight in this case. The customer in this case is paying for the trip on a daily basis (actually a monthly basis based on a daily rate, plus your applicable charter fees because of your particular route). Your customer pays for your flight from A-B even in the case of an empty reposition (just like in the AM if you don't have freight). Because of this, an empty leg doesn't constitute a 91 leg, despite what the company might tell you.

Think of it this way. Company A contracts Company B to fly a charter from Y to Z. They reposition from X to Y, pick up freight, and fly to Z. X to Y is without a doubt a 135 flight. This is no different. The customer is paying for you to fly from point A to B, whether there is freight on board or not.

The only legit 91 flights you do are for training or for example when you repo that thing for the engine swap. Those are fully paid for directly by the company, not a customer.

That may be 100% true, but from what I've seen, there are other 135 freight companies out there that will treat it as a 91 leg and send you on your merry way. Right, wrong, legal, illegal, it happens.

 

[Inverted]

I cannot speak for other companies, but at NetJets, we have 91, 91k and 135 flights. Now for the purpose operational regulations, we fly under those separate flight rules depending on the type of flight (91 repo, 91k owner flight, 135 card holder flight). For the purpose of duty, you cannot start 91 and not count duty or anything like that. But we have different visibility and ceiling requirements for takeoff and landing under 91, 91k and 135.

As far as personal minimums go, there have been times when the FAA throws a reckless and dangerous at you, even though you weren't breaking a reg. If you takeoff without the means to land, is it legal? Sure. Is it safe? No. Is it potentially dangerous? Yes. That being said, in a two engine jet I am hardly worried about it. In a PC-12 you bet your ass I am worried about it, so the situation differs.

At the end of the day, is it really worth departing in a potentially dangerous situation that can get yourself killed? When I would face scenarios like that and my previous companies, I used those instances to fuel my effort to GTFO. I have had several times when a captain said "see, the tire didn't blow, I guess you were wrong, I guess it wasn't too bald." And I just scratch my head and think to two very specific instances where people died because of a blown tire. The odds of something happening are low, but they aren't zero, and 999 times thinks go perfect, but a professional pilot, and a professional company should want to plan for that 1 time where is something happens, you don't make the 5 o'clock news. Bending rules, busting minimums, not planning a safety margin has absolutely been the cause of hundreds of deaths in aviation.

 

[Plata]

There are some really good responses in this thread, and many are thought provoking.

I'm convinced that the FARs are written in blood, meaning that there have been enough deaths in a given set of circumstances that the FAA said, in effect, "OK, you guys haven't been able to make good decisions on your own when presented with these conditions, so we are going to do it for you. Here are the minimum conditions for a given operation." And from that we've been given the parts of 91, 121, and 135 that tell us our minimums.

For me, the key word is "minimum." When I apply the FARs, the little voice in the back of my head tells me that I'm expected to look at the whole picture and apply good judgment, and if all the other parts of the picture look good, then it's OK to go with conditions as bad as, but no worse than, the minimums. But if some parts of the picture don't look good - maybe I've got a head cold, or one of the boots isn't working, or I know my plane is a beater and I don't have a lot of confidence in it, or the weather is changing rapidly and the conditions are ripe for getting worse - then I won't use the FARs' minimums, I'll use something more conservative.

When I think of the flights I've refused and the responses I've gotten from dispatchers, customer service agents, and passengers, the most common response boils down to "Man, you are really inconveniencing me!" Well, so be it. I can live with that. Better to be inconvienced than dead.

 

[A150K]

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

That's only if it's at or above legal takeoff mins, but below landing mins to get back in if something were to happen.

 

[A150K]

Piston twin things to think about:

Where is the closest emergency field and current conditions. Can I maintain adequate obstacle clearance single engine to make it to emergency divert field. If I had to can I still get back in to this airport using an ILS if I really really really needed to and also make sure that you clear the runway prior to departure as there will be no time to do anything if a deer migrates onto the runway in-front of me during the takeoff.

Twin turboprop..... Where's the closest airport I can get into but mostly where's my car parked? I've had to go down to less than 1000 RVR single pilot at ameriflight more than once and with proper planning and reviewing what options are available to you it becomes a low risk exercise.

I am interested to know where the language regarding an empty aircraft being re-positioned is still being considered a "135" leg.

I assume part 91, right?

 

[A150K]

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.

The company I work for only trains most pilots down to 1200 dual crew. Those in a couple of the larger types we have are authorized to go lower than that with sim training.

 

[spbrian]

Part 91 being that there was "no passengers or freight on board the aircraft being transported for compensation or hire."

 

[z987k]

Part 91 being that there was "no passengers or freight on board the aircraft being transported for compensation or hire."

And being owned by the party paying for the operation. At least it would stand to reason. I've seen no guidance on this though.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Part 91 being that there was "no passengers or freight on board the aircraft being transported for compensation or hire."

I believe if the customer is paying for the repo, it can be considered 135, but I guess it's up to the poi. I probably would go in this scenario.

 

[z987k]

I believe if the customer is paying for the repo, it can be considered 135, but I guess it's up to the poi. I probably would go in this scenario.

I have no idea how it would be up to the POI.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

I have no idea how it would be up to the POI.

Then you have a limited understanding of how the real 135 works.

 

[BajtheJino]

It has always been my understanding that if you reposition a flight for the purpose of revenue then the flight would be 135 or 121. I did not come up with this on my own but was hammered into my head by multiple training departments. But I'm sure the same companies that think you can do 24/7 standby and then consider days you didn't get called to be rest days will argue this.
I believe there's a letter of interpretation on this out there but as I have to go out into the real world right now I don't have time to retrieve it. Adios.

 

[spbrian]

Then you have a limited understanding of how the real 135 works.

True that the POI can force or allow quite a few things that may not be regulatory but provides increased safety for the operator. But as far as utilizing part 91 weather requirements when no person or property are being carried (aka, legally taking off below landing minimums), that is allowed per the regs.

 

[z987k]

Then you have a limited understanding of how the real 135 works.

Oh, I'm aware, but that's the POI overstepping his job by a significant margin, further one he's not trained to do. That would be like your local police interpreting the law. They don't do that.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Oh, I'm aware, but that's the POI overstepping his job by a significant margin, further one he's not trained to do. That would be like your local police interpreting the law. They don't do that.

In theory, yes. In practice, that isn't how it works. That's why we still have 24 hour on call.

 

[Sol Rosenburg]

repositioning for furtherance of revenue flights is what you are doing

You are not part 91 ing to the hub to sit 5-6 hours and then blast out with boxes. Part 91 ing (empty) to the end/beginning of the route so you can start a full "rest period" is another thing.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

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)?

How's your maintenance? Know the Mx? If good, Get that Pepsi to Koyuk, boyo!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Is the airplane legal? Sure
Is the pilot legal? Sure
Is the airport legal? Maybe… maybe not.

That's why we pull out that chart, AMARITE?

"Do you remember your takeoff minima?"
"Standard, or lower than standard, if authorized, and lemme just pull out this 10-9A here, and possibly my FOM if I'm really unsure, and I also know that with everything working, we're authorized to 6-6-6."

 

[flyboy6585]

In a single piston I would depart below mins assuming that you are comfortable departing at 200 and 1/2. Departing at 200 and 1/2 and losing an engine will probably kill you...departing at 100 and 1/4 will probably kill you also. Realistically, flying a single piston in anything lower than 500' and 1 miles will probably result in you dying if the fan stops. You could get luck...or you could find a hill/tower that cuts your cloud clearance to 10', and that is in the plains, in mountainous terrain good luck.

If you are are flying a piston twin I would depart. I would require a takeoff alternate somewhere close (read ~15 minutes of flying) so that if something happened I could land reasonably quickly. Realize that even getting vectors back to the field you took off of will take 7ish minutes and that is tight tight vectors with ATC on their game. So whats the difference? Rotating at 1/4 mile looks a lot like rotating at a 1/2 mile. Less than a 1/4 mile looks a lot like rotating at 1/2 mile with rain or snow.

Turbine, rotate - gear up (unless you fly a caravan then just keep praying the fan keeps turning - reference above single piston departure but reduce the probability of engine failure by 99%) and climb. I would still have a takeoff alternate, but I will be more willing to bump this out to the limits of whatever reg/OpSpec is applicable to your operation. If none apply 50 or 75 miles assuming you are in something that is going to cruise around 200kts.

600 RVR gives you 3 centerline stripes that you can see in front of you...it isn't like instrument training when your instructor made you put the hood on before pushing the throttle up. You should be able to see the runway centerline easily enough until you rotate, then you will be on instruments.

As long as you have a reasonable amount of runway visible in front of you, push them up and take off. If you can't see crap, be it rain/snow/fog whatever...sit there. I have had them call 1/2 mile in snow...and I couldn't see crap at rotation. I have had an airfield calling -1/4....but it was sunny and the fog was at one corner of the airfield.

Bottom line, it is a risk management decision. You are paid to make these decisions. Legal is the first consideration, if it isn't legal then don't do it. Second consideration is that legal does not equal safe. Third look at the actual weather, alternates, aircraft type, maintenance, your proficiency, single pilot vs crew (I believe that a proficient single pilot can do all the above very safely as long as they are proficient but YMMV), and any other factors that might be a player. If it is 100 and 1/4 with an international airport with 4 ILS's all above minimums 10 minutes away, that is a different scenario than 10' 200RVR blowing snow rain with a thunderstorm overhead.