Old 06-30-2012, 03:11 PM   #21
snydersnapshots
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 197
Default

OK...real-world example time here. A bunch of years ago I was flying a Jetstream and cleared for the ILS 16R at Seattle. Conditions were such that there was a fog bank right over the approach end of the runway--and the arrival end transmissometer.

The rules say that to be legal to start the approach we have to have landing minimums at the final approach fix--in this case a runway visual range of 1800 feet. IF the weather goes below minimums AFTER we cross the final approach fix, we can continue to decision height and IF we have the minimum visibility when we get there, we can land.

So, back to the Jetstream: We were cleared for the approach and halfway down the ILS, the airplane behind us was told the RVR was 1600, thus below landing minimums. The kicker was, the fog bank extended less than 1/4 of the way down the runway and I had the last 3/4 of the runway in sight for the entire approach. So, I landed. Had to go slightly above the glideslope to avoid going into the fog, but I was able to touch down safely. As a CYA move, I told the tower as we were turning off the runway that we had visual on the runway the entire way down the approach.

So, was this legal? Probably technically not, since the touchdown zone transmissometer was supposedly below minimums when I got there. Was it safe? Yes--the fog bank only extended 1500 or 2000 feet down the runway and I had 8000 or 8500 feet visible; I'd made hundreds of approaches to runways much shorter than that, so I knew I had adequate runway available.

BTW--in reference to the comment in the first post here about the Jetstream pilots. We hand flew everything. Six or eight approaches to minimums a day hand flown through the turbulence and ice and clouds were just another day at work. Unfortunately I'll never be the instrument pilot I was back then.
__________________
The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
snydersnapshots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 05:10 PM   #22
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,388
Default

So, no one wants to touch the bigger question...

What good are minimums when the Russians adjust the navigation signals and move trees around?
__________________
Cessnasevenonehotelexpeditetaximidfieldtrafficoverthethresholdgroundpointsevenwhenclear
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 05:21 PM   #23
3WE
Senior Member
 
3WE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snydersnapshots View Post
...Jetstream...legal?...safe?
VOR-DME Approach.

You see the airport.

But, because you are tired and because of a black-hole effect, you mismanage your descent and do CFITrees?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...es_Flight_5966

Sounds "moderately legal" and very unsafe (ok, maybe only legal up to the point of impact)...

Though the Wiki article suggests that the pilots had not really identified enough stuff to descend below the MDA and had not made some required call outs.
__________________
Cessnasevenonehotelexpeditetaximidfieldtrafficoverthethresholdgroundpointsevenwhenclear
3WE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright JetPhotos.Net 2003-2011