Rvr/vis and ils cat1

[Driver170 42]

A debate that wouldn't have happened if this thread hadn't been brought up. As has been referenced in many other threads like this, these supposed "helpful info" threads end up bringing more confusion to the table. If someone who had a full grasp on the information was bringing this over and explaining it, it would be one thing, but that's not the case.

 

Honest if your going to talk like that atleast mention me. I don't see any big deal except with you that keeps mentioning it and bringing it up with something regarding ceiling mins which i only mentioned from a source on PPRUNE! Big deal? It was a correct source. I was only stating it.

 

If you ain't happy with it button out look away.

 

What confusion is actually here? You just like to chip in.

 

Why can't you just give answers like mikeyj and propane

[Driver170 42]

Check this out CAT 1 landing

 

Approaching minimums and still in low level cloud and then you see the HIAL and breaks through the cloud at 200

 

So even in cloud at around 200 you defo see the high intensity lights beaming through the cloud.

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

If you ain't happy with it button out look away.

 

Ignoring threads for a mod would be risky business, would it not? I suggest that you avoid telling me what to do in the future.

 

 

 

What confusion is actually here? You just like to chip in.

 

I do like to chip in and make corrections, where necessary, and to be honest, with you, it's rather frequently. This isn't the first thread that has drawn the attention of actual pilots here in the forum who have had to step in and either correct information, or note that whatever obscure bit of information being investigated is the wrong part to get concentrating on.

 

 

 

Why can't you just give answers like mikeyj and propane

 

I do. It seems that just don't like them. That doesn't mean they're incorrect, however. Kevin also posted some helpful information, and you've similarly left him off for what I'm guessing also similar reasons.

 

I'll summarize my responses this way:

Say you aren't certed for CAT II or III ops. The METAR reports the ceiling at 50 feet. CAT I requires 200 feet for your standard ILS approach. In other words, the charted minimum altitude is about 200 feet above an airport reference point. Sure, you can legally shoot that approach all day, but after all day you can run out of fuel, too. Tell me how ceiling doesn't play into that equation of minimums.

 

...and this is where actual experience instead of book knowledge brings added value. Sure, on a rainy summer day like in your video there, the clouds tend to be broken enough to give it one shot. In the fall and winter in my area, there's literally no chance you're going to get through if the weather is right on the charted mins (to clarify, the charted minimum altitude you are allowed to descend to, and not the minimum requirement to shoot the approach).

 

 

 

As I've said for months:

I get that you have an intense interest in understanding the minutia of aviation here, but please, stop and concentrate on one topic and come to an understanding of it before moving on to another topic. Your posts here can and do affect readers. If the information is not clear, or conveyed properly, it might lead them astray. I don't think you truly understand that.

 

Think about it:

You do a lot of hunting online for information? What happens if those people who are writing those posts don't fully understand what they're talking about? How are you to know they do or don't? You really don't unless you know the subject in detail, or they cite sources, so you might be learning bad information. Simply repeating the information here could result in other people coming across bad information and, similarly, repeating it and affecting others.

 

How do you think the 250/10 rule misunderstanding came about?

 

 

 

Check this out CAT 1 landing

 

CAT I approach.

[Driver170 42]

This isn't the first thread that has drawn the attention of actual pilots here in the forum who have had to step in and either correct information, or note that whatever obscure bit of information being investigated is the wrong part to get concentrating on.

 

Now you're making out that every single post i have made in the past i have copyed and paste info from over sources. Infact my previous posts have been questions on SOPs and other procedures and then other pilots have commented on it. Its not like i'm throwing out info to confuse others.

 

On this thread i have only quoted JAR OPS thats all and found info on ceilings so i mentioned it for discussion and other pilots views.

 

I did thank you for your first post and i appreciated that. Its like your making this a bigger deal than it is kyle.

[Propane 16]

As I've said several times now, I don't regard it (ceiling) as a minimum for attempting the approach (except as outlined for Part 135). I regard it as a factor that could cause an issue with completing the approach. If the ceiling prohibits me from seeing the field at my MDA/DH, then it's certainly an issue of minimums: the ceiling forced me to abandon the approach AoA the minimums (in this case, minimum altitudes).

 

Sure, semantics, but had this thread been brought in with the appropriate background knowledge instead of regurgitated from PPRuNe or similar sites, the discussion could have avoided that issue.

The goal of the thread was to find the requirements for CAT1 and when to switch to other CATs. That was answered already before someone thought it necessary to throw ceiling in the mix as a requirement/minimum.

 

I don't think it's the problem of the OP looking up valid info and posting it here. It is with others not understanding the difference between actual minimums (published minimums) and random environmental variables. Those are the people possibly creating debate and confusion. The ceiling is in no part of the CAT1 approach an actual minimum, not for commencement, not for continuation and not for landing. Yes, if you are in clouds at 200 with no visual reference, you can't land. That does not make the ceiling a minimum!

 

Either way, I'm done. The questions were answered and I don't see the point in discussing further . Since I've made the above points several times in this thread but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

[Driver170 42]

Either way, I'm done. The questions were answered and I don't see the point in discussing further

 

I'll second that

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

That was answered already before someone thought it necessary to throw ceiling in the mix as a requirement/minimum.

 

The DA/DH gets lower across CATs I, II, and III. Ceiling is clearly relevant here. Sure, again, ceiling is not stated as a regulatory minimum (Part 121, for attempting the approach), but I feel like you're ignoring it simply to make an argument in favor of your viewpoint. The whole reason CATs II and III were created was to get aircraft lower, and closer. Lower is accomplished by having lower charted altitudes (because we needed to get below lower ceilings), and closer is accomplished by lower vis mins, but that we agree upon.

 

Again:

The METAR reports adequate visibility to execute the approach, but the ceiling is reported as and is in actuality, 50 feet overcast. Say it's only a CAT I approach. You can legally fly that approach all day long if you want, but given the overcast with a base that's 150 feet below the DA, you're never going to pick your way through that. If you cannot get a visual reference of the runway environment, you must execute a go around at the DA (which is a minimum altitude). You can certainly infer that, if an overcast ceiling exists below the minimum altitude on the chart that the ceiling is, in effect, a minimum.

 

So, you're absolutely right: ceiling is not a minimum listed on a chart like visibility, but to say it's not a factor as it seems you're implying is just outright false. I'll gladly sit in a simulator with you with the above-listed weather all day for you to prove your point if you'd like.

 

 

 

Another reminder:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/245586-you-must-sign-your-full-real-name-to-posts-to-use-this-forum-posts-without-names-will-be-deleted/

 

You can configure your account to add this automatically for you by clicking on your user name at the top right, and then selecting My Settings.

[pcubine 143]

Honest if your going to talk like that atleast mention me. I don't see any big deal except with you that keeps mentioning it and bringing it up with something regarding ceiling mins which i only mentioned from a source on PPRUNE! Big deal? It was a correct source. I was only stating it.

 

If you ain't happy with it button out look away.

 

What confusion is actually here? You just like to chip in.

 

Why can't you just give answers like mikeyj and propane

Vernon

 

You might want to remember that Kyle Rogers is not only a member Avsim but a moderator for PMDG. You are wasting your time trying to argue with a moderator. I did it once back in the spring and was banned for awhile. Banning means not only can you not post, you can't even view the Avsim  forums. Be careful.

[Driver170 42]

Vernon

 

You might want to remember that Kyle Rogers is not only a member Avsim but a moderator for PMDG. You are wasting your time trying to argue with a moderator. I did it once back in the spring and was banned for awhile. Banning means not only can you not post, you can't even view the Avsim  forums. Be careful.

Yeh you prob got banned for a very good reason. I suggest you go and read this thread and see i only quoted a paragraph from JAR OPS whats the problem with that? Don't go and try get browny points now be a man and speak your mind and defend yourself. I have done nothing wrong here it was others that misunderstood here. Ok?

Propane, on 15 Dec 2014 - 8:50 PM, said:

Either way, I'm done. The questions were answered and I don't see the point in discussing further

 

I'll second that

 

 

Once again

[Propane 16]

but I feel like you're ignoring it simply to make an argument in favor of your viewpoint

Right, since you feel the need to continue to confuse the situation...

 

I think you are getting it the wrong way around... The entire point of the thread was to find minima and limitations for a CAT1 approach. Cloudbase simply isn't a (legal/published/operational) minimum during any point in the approach and neither is it for landing.

 

I responded ontopic with a correct answer, you seem to be twisting everything to suit your incorrect interpretation of "minimum(s)". Yes, as I admitted several times before, cloudbase will be a factor in making a landing or not. But it is simply not a minimum. By your definition/interpretation any factor that causes a go around at decision altitude can be considered a minimum. I have landed often with OVC001 reported and seeing the lights at 250-300ft.

 

By not thinking of it as minimum, the worst that could happen is you have to go around and divert, the best is that you land and everyone is happy. It is simply a factor that you take into consideration and include in the decision making process. I've never implied nor stated that it is not a factor, in fact I've implied or stated in that it is. But it is not a minimum.

 

And the OP actually found all relevant information, posted it for others if they needed it and then get's an earful for not taking someone's word for it when they state cloudbase is a minimum/part of the minima.

 

You know what really grinds my gears... This kind of stuff .

 

 

- John Smith

[pcubine 143]

Ok?

Vernon

 

It's ok with me but you have been warned.

[Spin737 102]

Wow. I can't even keep up with this thread.

 

My version, loosely based on FAA:

 

What do you need to start the approach? Req'd RVR

The bottom? DA(H) - put this in the EFIS panel "minumums"

What do you need to land? Visual environment, in a position to land

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I responded ontopic with a correct answer, you seem to be twisting everything to suit your incorrect interpretation of "minimum(s)". Yes, as I admitted several times before, cloudbase will be a factor in making a landing or not. But it is simply not a minimum. By your definition/interpretation any factor that causes a go around at decision altitude can be considered a minimum. I have landed often with OVC001 reported and seeing the lights at 250-300ft.

 

It's only incorrect if you're not looking at this holistically.

 

I get the impression that you're  assuming that I'm using "minimum" as a metric for beginning the approach. I have stated multiple times that it is not a minimum for executing the approach. Rather, it's a minimum to complete it (observed - not reported). If there's nothing preventing me from shooting an approach, legally (which as I've admitted several times, the metric is lateral vis only for 121), then I'll give it a shot. As you've noted (and I've alluded to with my inclusion of the comment "but the ceiling is reported as and is in actuality"), the reported conditions aren't always the actual conditions, which might actually allow you to get in.

 

I absolutely understand, as well, that the lateral minimum is a requirement based on the reported weather. The vertical minimum is not, specifically for the reasons you mentioned (vertical visibility often varies between reported and actual; this is not as much of the case with lateral visibility).

 

That's all I'm getting at. There is a lateral minimum (on a direct legal level - a minimum for beginning the approach), and a vertical minimum (on an indirect legal level - a minimum for completing the approach - FAR 91.175). Since an actual ceiling lower than the DA (assuming CAT I) would prevent you from meeting the requirements of 91.175, a ceiling could be considered a minimum - not for executing the approach, but for completing it.

 

I somewhat apologize for addressing this on a different level, but perhaps it's my past TERPS experience that's distorting my view here. The entire reason we develop CAT II and CAT III approaches is because we realize that the ceiling for a particular airport is not above the minimum height necessary to complete a CAT I approach. Sure, ceiling isn't set up as a legal requirement in the FARs, but we certainly design the approaches as if it were.

[downscc 1,327]

Wow. I can't even keep up with this thread.

 

My version, loosely based on FAA:

 

What do you need to start the approach? Req'd RVR

The bottom? DA(H) - put this in the EFIS panel "minumums"

What do you need to land? Visual environment, in a position to land

Matt keeping is simple... KISS. Love it!!

 

For all NB to IFR flight here is an excellent reference... should be required reading:  http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-8083-15B.pdf  FAA Instrument Flying Handbook.