Part 91 RVR
Bob Johnson
minimum for the approach, as long as the flight visibility is above minimum?
For a part 91 operation
Jonathan Friedman
RVR has no bearing in relation to a Part 91 flight
Reported flight visibility actually means even less. If you can see the
required runway environment prior to passing the MAP, you've determined that
there is adequate visibility and it's ok to land.
Flight visibility varies from place to place, from minute to minute. What
you see thru your windshield is all that matters. What someone else sees
(or fails to see) is really not relevant.
Obviously, none of this applies to either Part 121 or 135 operations.
Jon Friedman CFI CFII
Bob Johnson <bobjoh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtqd6.40959$Tl3.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
macho...@nosoup4u.com
<j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yup.
>
>RVR has no bearing in relation to a Part 91 flight
>
>Reported flight visibility actually means even less. If you can see the
>required runway environment prior to passing the MAP, you've determined that
>there is adequate visibility and it's ok to land.
Not so.
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
>Can an instrument rated pilot land at an airport when the RVR is below the
>minimum for the approach, as long as the flight visibility is above minimum?
>For a part 91 operation
>
Yes, but ...
If the FAA decided to go after you for violation of 91.175, the burden of
proof would be on you to show you had the required flight visibility at and
below DH/MDA.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Jake Brodsky
<ronros...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:23:56 GMT, "Bob Johnson" <bobjoh...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Can an instrument rated pilot land at an airport when the RVR is below the
>>minimum for the approach, as long as the flight visibility is above minimum?
>>For a part 91 operation
>>
>
>Yes, but ...
>
>If the FAA decided to go after you for violation of 91.175, the burden of
>proof would be on you to show you had the required flight visibility at and
>below DH/MDA.
And how does one show "visibility" from the cockpit? I can envision
anything from radiation fog to spider webs which could cause the RVR
to go nuts. None of them are easily proven.
This has all the makings of yet another AvWeb story about ridiculous
legal actions on the part the FAA. The only reason we haven't seen it
is probably because they haven't found a high profile victim yet.
Jake Brodsky, mailto:fru...@erols.com
PP ASEL IA, Cessna Cardinal N30946, Based @ FME
Amateur Radio Station AB3A
macho...@nosoup4u.com
wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:51:16 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
><ronros...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:23:56 GMT, "Bob Johnson" <bobjoh...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Can an instrument rated pilot land at an airport when the RVR is below the
>>>minimum for the approach, as long as the flight visibility is above minimum?
>>>For a part 91 operation
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but ...
>>
>>If the FAA decided to go after you for violation of 91.175, the burden of
>>proof would be on you to show you had the required flight visibility at and
>>below DH/MDA.
>
>And how does one show "visibility" from the cockpit? I can envision
>anything from radiation fog to spider webs which could cause the RVR
>to go nuts. None of them are easily proven.
At one time, I believe that the local ATC folks kept records on
aircraft that called greater flight visibility than was reported, and
landed in conditions that were below reported minimums.
If someone had three occurences, they were invited by the FAA to
explain how it was they were so "lucky" as to regularly find a
visibility "hole" on short final.
Bradley Hackworth
Q: Can you land when the RVR is less than what the approach plate states?
A: No, you may shoot the approach, but you cannot land.
Q: So, if you can see for 3 miles out of the windscreen, you still cannot
land, if the RVR is less then prescribed?
A: No.
Q: Let me try again, if you see the runway, which is 3 miles, 2 miles, etc.
away, you still cannot land?
A: Ummm....
He said that as long as 'your' visibility(flight visibility) allows for you
to see the runway, you can land.
He was basically recalling FAR 91.175(d) which states:
Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the
United States, may land that aircraft when the flight visibility is less
than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure
being used.
Secondly, he also applied FAR 91.175(c)(1):
The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the
standard instrument approach being used...
If litigation were to come of it, then I think the FAA would have an equally
hard time of saying the pilot 'didn't' have the visibility, seeing as how
they 'let' the pilot decide what the current flight visibility is. I "live"
on a field with 2 FAR Part 141 schools. The FAA is pretty much always here
for one reason or another and, at one point questioned a pilot(Asst. Chief
CFI) for landing when the ground vis. was less than prescribed. He said
that a hole was there, and they(FAA) left it at that. However, if a pilot
were to crash in this type of situation, the story may be different.
My opinion,
Brad
PP-ASEL-IA
"Bob Johnson" <bobjoh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtqd6.40959$Tl3.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Rick Cremer
legal interpretations and the NTSB has upheld that operating practice in a
number of cases. In addition this issue was discussed in the Federal Register
Notices mentioned in the NTSB cases. The bottom line is that even if the RVRs
are reporting below minimums visibility it's still the pilot's determination
of flight visibility that is the final determinant.
Note that the rule changed from 91.116 to 91.175 a number of years ago. I am
providing you and the newsgroup with a legal interpretation and some words
from 2 NTSB cases. I think that the interp pretty well says it all. The NTSB
cases pre-date the interpretation.
Best
Rick Cremer
FAA
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________
FAA Legal Interpretation
March 10, 1986
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This is in response to your letter of February 6 requesting an interpretation
of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 91, Section 91.116.
Specifically, you request clarification of the term "flight visibility" in
connection with the requirement in FAR 91.116(c) that an aircraft not be
operated below a published decision height or minimum descent altitude if the
flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard
instrument approach procedure being used. The question arises as to whether
descent below the DH or MDA can be made when the runway visual range (RVR) is
reported at less than the published minimum RVR for the approach but the
flight visibility is greater than that minimum.
The flight visibility is controlling. If the flight visibility exceeds the
published minimum for the approach, then the pilot may proceed as long as the
other requirements of paragraph 91.116(c) are met regardless of the reported
RVR. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has upheld this
interpretation in several enforcement cases. However, the pilot's judgment
of flight visibility is not necessarily conclusive if there is a question as
to the actual flight visibility conditions at the time of the approach.
Reported visibility and other evidence of record may be considered by the
Federal Aviation Administration and the NTSB in determining the actual flight
visibility.
Enforcement action would be taken only in those cases in which the pilot
could not reasonably conclude that flight visibility was at or above approach
minimums, but the pilot nevertheless proceeded to land or descend below DH or
MDA.
Sincerely,
David L. Bennett Manager, Airspace & Air Traffic Law Branch Regulations &
Enforcement Division
NTSB NUMBER: Order EA-1531; Docket SE-4242
Tt is obvious that the FAA itself considers that the controlling visibility
is not ground visibility, as reflected by the RVR values, but rather flight
visibility, as measured from the cockpit of the aircraft. n9 It is also
apparent from the discussion in the NPRM; namely, that "Indications that
there [*8] have been misinterpretations of the current rules make this
necessary", that the FAA view is not merely prospective (i.e., to be made
effective by the proposed rule) but rather is the official FAA interpretation
of the current rule.
Section 1.1 of the FAR defines flight visibility as "the average forward
horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which
prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent
lighted objects may be seen and identified by night."
Under the above circumstances, and based on the FAA's interpretation of its
own rule, the Board is constrained to find that the violation of section
91.116(b) (and the consequent violation of section 91.9) has not been
established. The record, as currently constituted, does not permit us to
overturn the pilot's determination that the flight visibility from the
aircraft was at or above the landing minimum of 2400 feet. We do not read the
law judge's decision to reject, as a matter of credibility, respondent's
testimony [*9] that he saw the runway environment from a distance of 1/2
mile. Moreover, the difference between respondent's determination of
visibility (1/2 mile or 2400 feet) and the final RVR figure of 2200 feet is
not so great as to make his testimony inherently incredible. n10
We hasten to add that the law judge is not bound by the pilot's estimate of
visibility. See, e.g., Administrator v. Black, 2 N.T.S.B. 1606 (1975) where
both the law judge and the Board, in considering a violation of section
91.116(b), found that the pilot's claim that the visibility was above the
1-mile minimum was outweighed by the other evidence of record, which included
an official visibility report of 1/16 mile and a statement made by the pilot,
shortly after the incident, that the visibility at touchdown was 500 feet.
Our disposition of this case is based on the FAA's own interpretation of
section 91.116(b) and should not be taken as an expression of agreement on
our part with the safety implications of that interpretation. [*10] It
could be argued that construing the rule in terms of flight visibility
derogates the significance of measured ground visibility (such as RVR) in the
decision-making process of the pilot and encourages him to attempt the
landing based on a subjective assessment of the visibility from the aircraft.
NTSB NUMBER: Order EA-1581; Docket SE-4242
The Administrator goes on to assert that while RVR can be "measured" from the
cockpit only when the aircraft reaches the touchdown zone area, RVR can be
"perceived" or "determined" from the aircraft during the approach; that a
pilot's assertion that he could see the end of a runway at decision height
does not, even if true, rebut an RVR report; and that IFR landing minimums
expressed as RVR values are mandatory.
The above position of the Administrator attempts to reconcile two concepts
which are inherently incompatible, flight visibility and RVR. Flight
visibility is defined as "the average forward horizontal distance, from a
cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be
seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and
identified at night". n1 RVR "means runway visual range as measured in the
touchdown zone area". n2 Moreover, RVR is "measured" by a transmissometer, a
device which measures the transmissivity of light between two instruments
located alongside the runway. Thus, even when the aircraft reaches the
touchdown area, the pilot's determination of flight visibility is made by
different means than that by which RVR is measured.
It is our further view that any confusion created by the juxtaposition of
these two concepts (flight visibility and RVR) is attributable not to the
Board's decision but rather to the regulatory provision itself. Section
91.116, as amended effective May 8, 1981, provides that, in order to operate
below MDA or DH, and to touchdown on the runway, the flight visibility must
not be less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument
approach procedure. When the latter is expressed in terms of RVR, the
regulation is, in effect, perpetuating the incompatibility of concepts
discussed above.
At the conclusion of the decision in Order EA-1531, we expressed our concern
that the emphasis in the rule on flight visibility derogates the significance
of measured ground visibility (such as RVR) in the decision-making process of
the pilot and encourages him to attempt the landing based on a subjective
assessment of visibility from the aircraft. In this connection, we note that
the FAA, in its preamble to the final rule, stated that the wording of
section 91.116 "is not an encouragement for pilots to deliberately
misestimate visibility to land in unsafe conditions with ground reported
prevailing visibility or RVR reported below minimums", that the "FAA intends
to closely review the circumstances related to any landings made when weather
is reported below minimums", and, finally, "[s]hould evidence of a poor
safety record continue or there be evidence of deliberate disregard of the
visual reference provisions of section 91.116 . . . the FAA will reconsider
both the applicability and precedence of ground-reported visibility and RVR.
. . ."
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________
"Bob Johnson" <bobjoh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtqd6.40959$Tl3.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Jonathan Friedman
The answer to your question is no, you cannot legally land.
For approaches that have RVR minima specified; the RVR is controlling.
Whereas it's pretty tough for anyone to effectively challenge your estimate
of flight visibilty, RVR is a matter of record. I'd hate to have to argue
the issue in court.
Jon Friedman CFI CFII
Bob Johnson <bobjoh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtqd6.40959$Tl3.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Bob Moore
>A correction to my previous response.
>The answer to your question is no, you cannot legally land.
>For approaches that have RVR minima specified; the RVR is controlling.
>Whereas it's pretty tough for anyone to effectively challenge your estimate
>of flight visibilty, RVR is a matter of record. I'd hate to have to argue
>the issue in court.
>Jon Friedman CFI CFII
It behoves one who puts letters after his name to be absolutely-positively
correct. :-) Check Rick Cremer's post!
Bob Moore
ATP ASMEL
CFI Airplane SE, Instrument Airplane
rm...@my-deja.com
As long as you can see the required distance from your seat in the
cockpit, you are legal for CAT I part 91. The FAA could never
successfully challenge what you saw out the window. I've many times
landed at an airport reporting 1/4 mile visibility because the visibily
off the end of the runway was better than the tower could see out the
cab.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jonathan Friedman
My mistake was in re-reading the reg and allowing the literal language to
overrule my gut and experience.
That's what happens when the regs don't really mean what they say and then
demand "legal interpretation". This stuff really doesn't have to be so
convoluted!
JF (no letters this time <G>)
Bob Moore <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6rDd6.66922$8V6.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
terpster
Bob Moore wrote:
>
>
> It behoves one who puts letters after his name to be absolutely-positively
> correct. :-) Check Rick Cremer's post!
Rick Cremer cites case law for non-commercial operations. RVR clearly controls
for commercial operations. Further, there have been instances of informal
challenges by FSDOs for non-commercial operators landing when RVR is below
limits, but they don't usually go very far. Nonetheless, they can have quite a
chilling effect.
The regulation itself is absurd, at least for air carrier operations, because
flight visibility and RVR are incompatbile values, particularly at night. The
air carrier operations handbook has a lot of material about RVR, making it clear
to *air carrier* inspectors that RVR is not a measurement of visibility; rather,
a measurement of "sighting conditions." When the RVR is 2,400 in pitch black
conditions, no one, but no one, can assess flight visibility.
In Europe, the regulations for commercial operations in the arena of RVR are
more rational and, hopefully, some more sanity will arrive on this side of the
Atlantic when FAA harminzation with the Joint Aviation Regulations of Europe is
complete.
Ron Rosenfeld
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:51:16 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
><ronros...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>And how does one show "visibility" from the cockpit? I can envision
>anything from radiation fog to spider webs which could cause the RVR
>to go nuts. None of them are easily proven.
>
I think if you show an understanding of the construction of the runway
lights for the particular ALS, including items such as distance between
lights, significance of the decision bar; it's distance from the runway
threshold, etc., that you could come up with an acceptable description of
what you saw and where you were when you saw it, that would be convincing.
Best,
Rick Cremer
See my complete answer to the original message. The answer is yes. If Flight
Visibility, as determined by the pilot, is above minimums then the pilot can
continue the approach and landing even if the RVR(s) are reporting less than
minimums.
Rick
"Jonathan Friedman" <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:956t2d$6ld$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
macho...@nosoup4u.com
<j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>A correction to my previous response.
>
>The answer to your question is no, you cannot legally land.
>
>For approaches that have RVR minima specified; the RVR is controlling.
>Whereas it's pretty tough for anyone to effectively challenge your estimate
>of flight visibilty, RVR is a matter of record. I'd hate to have to argue
>the issue in court.
>
>Jon Friedman CFI CFII
Wrong again. Flight visibility prevails for Part 91.'
Bob Moore
>That's what happens when the regs don't really mean what they say and then
>demand "legal interpretation". This stuff really doesn't have to be so
>convoluted!
As I have pointed out to Rick in previous posts, but then......... where would
all of those Harvard Law School graduates find work if the government didn't
make it for them?
Bob Moore
Richie Chapman
terpster <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A771A95...@hotmail.com...
>
> In Europe, the regulations for commercial operations in the arena of RVR
are
> more rational and, hopefully, some more sanity will arrive on this side of
the
> Atlantic when FAA harminzation with the Joint Aviation Regulations of
Europe is
> complete.
>
Be careful what you wish for. In general, you 100% positively do not want
anything slightly related to the JARs to be taken up by the FAA.
Jonathan Friedman
Yes, that was my first opinion.....until I made the mistake of re-reading
the reg (which as you know, actually states just the opposite).
Regards,
Jon
Rick Cremer <rcr...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:9575hg$lmo$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Rick Cremer
demand "legal interpretation".<<
The reg (91.175) means exactly what it says. "No pilot operating an aircraft,
except a military aircraft of the United States, may land that aircraft when
the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in the standard
instrument approach procedure being used." It's just that simple. The
interpretation was written to an individual who, evidently, wanted
clarification of a reg that the rest of us understood.
"Jonathan Friedman" <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9572lf$fgg$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Marcelo Pacheco
Judging specific RVRs or flight visibilities when you're concentrated on the
approach for me isn't very usefull. The RVRs/required flight visibilities
translate into how far you'll be from the required visual elements at the
required altitudes.
What that really translates into is:
At DH you can see the rabbit, VASI or some lighting component of the approach
system.
At 100ft AGL you can see the runway.
If that's true, you had the required flight visibility to complete the approach.
Take for example approaches that allow for 1800RVR for a CAT I approach (3/8
mile instead of 1/2 mile). That's probably a runway with CAT III lighting witch
extends quite a bit out. At 200ft AGL on the glideslope, you should be able to
see the CAT II lighting 1800ft away, hence the 1800ft RVR. At 100 ft you should
see the runway. Approaches with 2400ft RVR still have longer than normal CAT I
lighting.
The reason for the wording of the reg is to be able to take certificate action.
If you can follow the practical rule, then you're fine.
Marcelo
Michael
> Judging specific RVRs or flight visibilities when you're concentrated on
the
> approach for me isn't very usefull. The RVRs/required flight visibilities
> translate into how far you'll be from the required visual elements at the
> required altitudes.
No, that would make way too much sense.
For example, Sugarland (KSGR) has minima of 250 AGL and 3/4 sm on the
ILS Rwy 35. On a 3.00 degree glideslope (as published), that gives you a
visual slant range of 4777 ft to the touchdown point on the glideslope. Rwy
35 is 8000 ft long, but landing on 35 the available distance is only 6016
ft.
That means that as a minimum, the projected touchdown point is 1984 ft
down the runway. There is also a rabbit.
Ignoring the rabbit for a moment, the slant visual range from the MAP to
the physical runway threshold is 2804 ft. It will be less to the rabbit.
In other words, you can shoot the approach in half mile visibility or less
and see everything you are supposed to see, but the mins are 3/4 sm.
> What that really translates into is:
> At DH you can see the rabbit, VASI or some lighting component of the
approach
> system.
On that approach, you will see the rabbit at DH even if the vis is under
1/2 mile.
> At 100ft AGL you can see the runway.
At 100 ft, you are 1911 ft from the touchdown point on a 3.00 degree
glideslope. That puts the runway end BEHIND you. You will see the
runway even if the visibility is 1000 ft.
> If that's true, you had the required flight visibility to complete the
approach.
I think I've just demonstrated that this is not the case.
> The reason for the wording of the reg is to be able to take certificate
action.
> If you can follow the practical rule, then you're fine.
I think that from a flight safety point of view, you are right. However,
from an
enforcement point of view, you are not.
Coming back to my example, KSGR has a tower and weather reporting.
Suppose there is fog and mist which reduces the ground visibility to
a quarter mile (not unheard of in Houston). The field is officially IFR and
below minimums. You file IFR and shoot the approach. As you descend
to DH, you can pick out the rabbit. You continue the descent, and by the
time you get to 100 ft you can see the runway markings below you. You
pull the power back, flare, and land.
What was your in-flight visibility? You don't even know. If it was really
3/4 mile or better, you would have seen the runway (and not just the
runway end) at DH. If all you saw was the rabbit, you did not have
the required flight visibility to descend below DH. Even if you DID
see the runway, you don't know if you had the required flight visibility
unless you saw some object that you can confidently place as being more
than 3/4 mile away.
In a twisted kind of way, the rules even make sense. If you are flying a
big, heavy, fast airplane, the situation I am describing might be unsafe.
When I got to jumpseat on a 747, I think the crew started the flare at
about 150 ft. Without autoland and all it implies (RADAR altimeters
and RADAR altimeter minima) landing in a situation where you can't
see the runway except for the part directly below you is probably
unsafe in that kind of aircraft. On the other hand, in a light fixed gear
single I just don't see the problem. Yet the visibility minima are the same
for Category A-D.
Michael
Steven H. Weintraub
>
> Judging specific RVRs or flight visibilities when you're concentrated on the
> approach for me isn't very usefull. The RVRs/required flight visibilities
> translate into how far you'll be from the required visual elements at the
> required altitudes.
>
> What that really translates into is:
>
> At DH you can see the rabbit, VASI or some lighting component of the approach
> system.
> At 100ft AGL you can see the runway.
> If that's true, you had the required flight visibility to complete the approach.
>
As several people in this thread (though not everybody) have pointed out,
the pilot is the judge of whether (s)he has the required visibility, not the
reported visibility or RVR. However, your rules for what visibilities
"really translate into" are not right.
1. The best way to pick up the rabbit is not to peer far forward into
the gloom, but to look just forward of the nose of your plane (so as
to minimize the distance to the ground). Thus you can pick up the
rabbit in conditions where forward visibility is little better than nil.
2. At a typical 3 degree glideslope, i.e., 20-1 ratio, at 100 AGL you
are 2000 feet from the ILS transmitter, which is typically located
1000 feet from the end of the runway. Thus being able to see the
runway at 100 AGL merely implies that the visibility is at least
1000 feet, not the typical required flight visibility for an ILS
(1/2 mile, 2400 RVR, or even 1600 RVR).
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Prof. Steven H. Weintraub | Phone: (225)-388-1569 |
| Dept. of Mathematics | Fax: (225)-388-4276 |
| Louisiana State University | mailto:wei...@math.lsu.edu |
| Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4918 USA | http://www.math.lsu.edu/~weintr |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Nelson
see out the windscreen. And only you can determine that. RVR on the
otherhand, is a very accurate measurement of runway visibity. It is my
understanding that RVR when it is available, Rules. I do have my own thoughts
as everyone else, but am still caught like you. By the way, are your personal
minimums low enough to make this a valid question? When flying a Cheyenne with
a qualified co-pilot, I do have to worry about this. When flying a Cherokee, I
wouldn't be up in that.
William R. Nelson ATP (SEL, MEL).
Designated Pilot Examiner Philadelphia FSDO
terpster
Richie Chapman wrote:
The overall concept of harminzation isn't my idea. Since it is an on-going
process we have to make the best of it we can. I was only commenting that their
RVR rules are more rational than our's.
Marcelo Pacheco
You're right, I forgot about cases when visibility/DH is raised. When
visibility/DH is raised its due to obstructions on the missed approach segment.
I can't remember of any other exceptions.
I have NOS plates for ILS 35 SGR version AL-5537 (timestamp 98337) its old, but
that doesn't show the rabbit, but it does show obstructions as tall as 403ft
less than 1/2 mile to the side of the runway, and a 119ft tower just to the left
of short final. If there's no rabbit, then standard minima is 3/4 and 250ft,
which I believe matches then distance at slant range (191ft slant range plus
50ft to let you actually see some of the runway before landing).
Oh and airnav shows only REIL lighting.
But yes, you do have a point even though it looks like this example was mistaken
(or the rabbit was added so recently the approach haven't been changed yet).
Marcelo Pacheco
Timothy M. Metzinger
Nelson) writes:
> It is my
>understanding that RVR when it is available, Rules.
For part 121 and 135 operators, it does. For part 91 operations, it does not.
Timothy Metzinger
Commercial Pilot - ASMEL - IA AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
'98 M20J - N1067W
Pipers, Cessnas, Tampicos, Tobagos, and Trinidads at FDK
RBC
>
> The overall concept of harminzation isn't my idea. Since it is an
on-going
> process we have to make the best of it we can. I was only commenting that
their
> RVR rules are more rational than our's.
>
>
I live in the UK - if I was the big boss I'd kick the CAA/JAA out and let
the FAA take over. If they can handle an offshore place like Hawaii they
can do the same to England. Then its only a quick hop across the English
Channel to take out the rest of Europe and world domination would come soon
after. GA would flourish and I'd be able to fly from London to Rome on the
airlines with a better chance of arriving on time. Yeh Baby, go FAA, the
yankee dollar, mispelt words and that stupid game where they wear helmets!!!
Bob Moore
>I live in the UK - if I was the big boss I'd kick the CAA/JAA out and let
>the FAA take over. If they can handle an offshore place like Hawaii they
>can do the same to England. Then its only a quick hop across the English
>Channel to take out the rest of Europe and world domination would come soon
>after. GA would flourish and I'd be able to fly from London to Rome on the
>airlines with a better chance of arriving on time. Yeh Baby, go FAA, the
>yankee dollar, mispelt words and that stupid game where they wear helmets!!!
Haven't got over 1776 yet have you?
Should talk to PM Churchill about the USofA.
Bob Moore
RBC
"Bob Moore" <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:q%de6.51354
>
> Haven't got over 1776 yet have you?
> Should talk to PM Churchill about the USofA.
>
> Bob Moore
Uh, Uh,
Sorry to break the news but nobody here cares about 1776, this is something
most Americans don't understand but its true. Now when we lost India after
WW2 that was a sad day, we used to call India the 'Jewel in the Crown'.
Churchill had a job to do i.e. suck up to the Americans so we got
preferential treatment after the war. Good for him but he never actually
liked the place. He was nasty old fart who considered himself culturally
superior to 95% of the Brits, so what chance do you think the Americans
stood :). Thatcher was the same, as is Blair.
BUT to aviation...
It would still be cool if the UK was to become another FAA region. Things
would work SO much better aviation wise! The CAA is/was bad but JAA is just
nuts!
PS I actually like America, in fact I think its a great place, but I am
fully aquainted with the good and bad (of which there is a lot of both).
Michael
> But yes, you do have a point even though it looks like this example was
mistaken
> (or the rabbit was added so recently the approach haven't been changed
yet).
The rabbit was there last time I flew the approach but it's not on the
current
approach plate either - damned if I know what the deal with that is. Maybe
it
doesn't meet some requirement for charting - I know that airport had
problems of that sort before (like stuff too close to the runway so they
could
not get Class D, that sort of thing).
My argument still holds - at 250 ft the REIL's are 2800 ft away. The minima
are 250 and 3/4, which is 3960 ft. So at 250 ft you see the REILS, descend
to 100, see the runway below you, land safely - and bust minimums.
Michael
Bob Johnson
So... just to get it clear, flight visibility for a 91 operation is
determining factor. And the PILOT is the only one who can determine flight
visibility? How is the visibility on the ATIS determined? Are there certain
landmarks around the airport that if the controller can see, has a certain
amount of visibility?
So if the tower is quite far away from the approach end of an ILS equipped
runway, it is perfectable reasonable to be able to land if you see the
runway at DH.. even if the visibility and RVR provided by the tower are both
below minimums?
Thanks again for your help
Steven H. Weintraub
> Thanks to all who responded...
>
> So... just to get it clear, flight visibility for a 91 operation is
> determining factor. And the PILOT is the only one who can determine flight
> visibility? How is the visibility on the ATIS determined? Are there certain
> landmarks around the airport that if the controller can see, has a certain
> amount of visibility?
>
Around here (BTR) we have an ASOS and the ATIS normally reflects
the visibility as reported by the ASOS. There are rules about when a
human observer can override the ASOS values, but I don't know them.
The controllers in the tower have a list of prominent landmarks and
their distances from the tower, so can determine visibility by what
they can see. The ATIS sometimes has " ... visibility XXX, ..., tower
visibility YYY" (but that is usually in case of low visibility conditions).