Home Rules of Conduct
 Pilots of America Message Board not enough visibility?
 Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Cleared for the Approach IFR Pilots and IFR Students will find topics of special interest to them here!

April 10th, 2012, 06:51 AM
Posted in reply to roncachamp's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#101
iHenning
(User ID: Henning)
Banned

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL
Posts: 39,492
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by roncachamp And you can continue with less than the minimum required visibility, as long as your guess on the visibility is at least the minimum.

Exactly. The number represents a comfort scale to the pilot. 3 miles is minimum for VFR and 1 mile is minimum to need instruments, so the pilots comfort level should be above that required for when they switch to instruments and less than what they would have navigating pilotage. That level of comfort is what the pilot should use to make the determination.

April 10th, 2012, 07:24 AM
#102
En-Route

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami
Posts: 3,638
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron Levy One looks out the windshield and estimates the distance to the farthest object on the ground s/he can see.
Here is a method I saw somewhere and actually did on a club 172m.

With a friend sitting in the cockpit, measure the distance from asphalt to his eye level. Let us say it is 6 feet. Have him look directly down over the nose. Measure from beneath him to the closest point he can see on the asphalt. Let us say it is 49 feet.

Calculate the rough ratio. 49/6 = 12 (close enough). Remember 12. Flying along at 1000 feet, if you can see the ground directly over the nose, you have at least 2 nm vis; 1,000 x 12 = 12,000'.

One caveat. For best accuracy, you have check that the airplane on the ramp has the same sight picture to the horizon as cruise.

edit: Actually you should be the one sitting in the pilot's seat. My friend was the same height as me so I let him have the easy job You could even do this yourself at a bit more effort.
__________________
John
alfadog (as in Alfa Romeo + dog)
What I currently have the keys to:
1972 Piper Arrow II [KTMB] mine; OEM panel down for repair
1946 Luscombe Silvaire 8A [04FA] a friend's; no electric system parted out - sucks!
3 x 1975 Cessna 172M [KTMB] club; Garmin stack w/430W
1980 Cessna 182Q [KTMB] club; Garmin stack w/430W
And as of 9/2/2015, I are an A&P mechanic!

Last edited by alfadog; April 10th, 2012 at 07:32 AM.

 April 10th, 2012, 07:42 AM Posted in reply to olasek's post "not enough visibility?"   #103 iHenning (User ID: Henning) Banned     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ft Lauderdale FL Posts: 39,492 Re: not enough visibility? Another good one over flat terrain & water is horizon is 3 miles for every 6' height of eye and you judge by a percentage of their distance to the horizon.
April 10th, 2012, 07:44 AM
Posted in reply to Henning's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#104
Steven P McNicoll
(User ID: roncachamp)
Final Approach

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: De Pere, WI
Posts: 6,304
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Henning Exactly. The number represents a comfort scale to the pilot. 3 miles is minimum for VFR and 1 mile is minimum to need instruments, so the pilots comfort level should be above that required for when they switch to instruments and less than what they would have navigating pilotage. That level of comfort is what the pilot should use to make the determination.
And if the pilot's level of comfort is 1 1/2 miles he's okay to continue on the approach?
__________________
ineptocracy [in-ep-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural ineptocracies

1. a system of government where those least capable of leading are elected by those least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or to succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for with the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States is an ineptocracy.

April 10th, 2012, 08:22 AM
Posted in reply to roncachamp's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#105
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by roncachamp And you can continue with less than the minimum required visibility, as long as your guess on the visibility is at least the minimum.
Not true. Since the visibility required is "flight visibility" (not ground visibility as reported by a ground observer or ground-based device) and by definition flight visibility is measured from the cockpit, if you see that far, you do have the required minimum visibility per 91.175. This has been tested before the NTSB, and they agreed on this point -- see Administrator v. Pisarek.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4338.pdf
Of course, if the ground vis is 1/16 sm and you continue based on your own determination of 2 sm flight vis, and it ends badly, you may still, like Pisarek, be cooked for 91.13 careless/reckless, but that's a different issue.

Last edited by poadeleted20; April 10th, 2012 at 08:25 AM.

April 10th, 2012, 08:27 AM
Posted in reply to roncachamp's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#106
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by roncachamp And if the pilot's level of comfort is 1 1/2 miles he's okay to continue on the approach?
Sure -- if the pilot has the required flight vis, which in this case is 2 statute miles. The pilot's level of comfort is not a legal issue.

April 10th, 2012, 08:30 AM
Posted in reply to Henning's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#107
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Henning Exactly. The number represents a comfort scale to the pilot. 3 miles is minimum for VFR and 1 mile is minimum to need instruments, so the pilots comfort level should be above that required for when they switch to instruments and less than what they would have navigating pilotage. That level of comfort is what the pilot should use to make the determination.
I'm not sure how the FAA would like that as a way to determine whether or not you have 2 sm flight vis. I think they'd rather hear that you could see an object on the ground two miles ahead. How you determine that it is 2 sm is a bit more difficult, but I think alfadog's method is supportable.

April 10th, 2012, 10:05 AM
#108
aterpster
(User ID: aterpster)
Cleared for Takeoff

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,303
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by alfadog Yes, but my question is, if I know that I am flying there tomorrow and IFR is forecast, can I find out then if the restricted area will be active the next day?
I believe I recall that The giant TRACON (Joshua) that controls that vast area established a special telephone number a long time ago for pilots to call an ask about the status of the many restricted areas out there. Another option is to ask the first Joshua controller on hand off.

April 10th, 2012, 10:57 AM
#109
aterpster
(User ID: aterpster)
Cleared for Takeoff

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,303
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron Levy Not true. Since the visibility required is "flight visibility" (not ground visibility as reported by a ground observer or ground-based device) and by definition flight visibility is measured from the cockpit, if you see that far, you do have the required minimum visibility per 91.175. This has been tested before the NTSB, and they agreed on this point -- see Administrator v. Pisarek. http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4338.pdf Of course, if the ground vis is 1/16 sm and you continue based on your own determination of 2 sm flight vis, and it ends badly, you may still, like Pisarek, be cooked for 91.13 careless/reckless, but that's a different issue.
Flying for hire you need both flight and ground visibility.

April 10th, 2012, 11:00 AM
Posted in reply to aterpster's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#110
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aterpster Flying for hire you need both flight and ground visibility.
If you mean 135, 121, etc, yes, but there is for-hire flying (such as a corporate pilot) that doesn't fall under that rule. In any event, I thought we were looking at the basic Part 91 situation. Throw in those other Parts and the discussion changes.

April 10th, 2012, 12:00 PM
#111
aterpster
(User ID: aterpster)
Cleared for Takeoff

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,303
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron Levy If you mean 135, 121, etc, yes, but there is for-hire flying (such as a corporate pilot) that doesn't fall under that rule. In any event, I thought we were looking at the basic Part 91 situation. Throw in those other Parts and the discussion changes.
I don't think so. "Captain" was taking it to his training department early in the thread. The concept of "Fly visual to airport" applies the same to commercial and non-commercial operators.

As an aside these two IAPs were established to meet the requirements of a commuter carrier that served the airport at the time.

Edit: When the commuter operated there they had their own weather observer. The G/A guy is on his own at this airport, which is not insignificant when it is socked in with out of those unusual (but not rare) winter rainstorms.

Last edited by aterpster; April 10th, 2012 at 12:03 PM.

April 10th, 2012, 12:32 PM
Posted in reply to roncachamp's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#112
iHenning
(User ID: Henning)
Banned

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL
Posts: 39,492
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by roncachamp And if the pilot's level of comfort is 1 1/2 miles he's okay to continue on the approach?
The pilot calls it 2 miles and continues, that's the way it's set up still. Remember, the spirit of IFR lies with people named Doolittle and Jeppesen, not lawyers and bureaucrats. It's what the 'command' in pilot in command is about.

April 10th, 2012, 12:33 PM
Posted in reply to aterpster's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#113
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aterpster I don't think so. "Captain" was taking it to his training department early in the thread. The concept of "Fly visual to airport" applies the same to commercial and non-commercial operators.
Except it doesn't. Commercial operators must have both the requisite flight visibility and the ground visibility reported and above mins; the rest of us need only the requisite flight vis which we can determine for ourselves.

April 10th, 2012, 12:37 PM
#114
iHenning
(User ID: Henning)
Banned

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL
Posts: 39,492
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron Levy Except it doesn't. Commercial operators must have both the requisite flight visibility and the ground visibility reported and above mins; the rest of us need only the requisite flight vis which we can determine for ourselves.

Don't they also have to have the approach approved for use on their certificate? I remember way less tricky/risky approaches having pilot minimum attached to them at Express 1.

April 10th, 2012, 12:37 PM
#115
aterpster
(User ID: aterpster)
Cleared for Takeoff

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,303
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron Levy Except it doesn't. Commercial operators must have both the requisite flight visibility and the ground visibility reported and above mins; the rest of us need only the requisite flight vis which we can determine for ourselves.
Oh, Ron, please, the concept is identical for all operators.

April 10th, 2012, 12:40 PM
Posted in reply to aterpster's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#116
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aterpster Oh, Ron, please, the concept is identical for all operators.
Fine, but the context of that part of the discussion was Steven's questions about visibility minimums, and that part is different.

April 10th, 2012, 02:35 PM
#117
aterpster
(User ID: aterpster)
Cleared for Takeoff

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,303
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron Levy Fine, but the context of that part of the discussion was Steven's questions about visibility minimums, and that part is different. Thread creep -- bleah.
It crept early on.

April 10th, 2012, 02:39 PM
Posted in reply to Henning's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#118
aterpster
(User ID: aterpster)
Cleared for Takeoff

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,303
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Henning Don't they also have to have the approach approved for use on their certificate? I remember way less tricky/risky approaches having pilot minimum attached to them at Express 1.
For a Part 121 operator no doubt about it. They also would have to have an approved weather reporting source, typically a station agent at a place like this.

The interesting question: Does the on-demand 135 operator need some sort of FSDO approval to fly into this airport? The airport is important to the town of Ridgecrest. In fact, I am surprised it doesn't have automated weather by this time.

April 10th, 2012, 02:41 PM
Posted in reply to aterpster's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#119
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aterpster The interesting question: Does the on-demand 135 operator need some sort of FSDO approval to fly into this airport? The airport is important to the town of Ridgecrest. In fact, I am surprised it doesn't have automated weather by this time.
There is no general regulatory requirement for by-location approval for on-demand 135 operations. Any such requirement would be in their individual ops specs, although I've never heard of such.

April 10th, 2012, 03:18 PM
Posted in reply to aterpster's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#120
Jason
(User ID: HPNPilot1200)
En-Route

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 2,707
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aterpster The interesting question: Does the on-demand 135 operator need some sort of FSDO approval to fly into this airport? The airport is important to the town of Ridgecrest. In fact, I am surprised it doesn't have automated weather by this time.
As far as I know, OpSpec approval for authorized airports is only required for commuter part 135 under OpSpec C070. Our OpSpecs authorizes us to dispatch to an airport under IFR that does not have weather reporting as long as an alternate airport is available with approved weather reporting that is forecast to be at or above IFR landing minimums.
__________________
Jason
CFI, CFII, MEI
CE-525B, CE-550/560, CE-510, SR22

April 10th, 2012, 03:22 PM
Posted in reply to aterpster's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#121
iHenning
(User ID: Henning)
Banned

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL
Posts: 39,492
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aterpster For a Part 121 operator no doubt about it. They also would have to have an approved weather reporting source, typically a station agent at a place like this. The interesting question: Does the on-demand 135 operator need some sort of FSDO approval to fly into this airport? The airport is important to the town of Ridgecrest. In fact, I am surprised it doesn't have automated weather by this time.
We were in Jetsteams under a 135 certificate at the time still. Don't know if it would be different unscheduled.

April 10th, 2012, 04:42 PM
#122
aterpster
(User ID: aterpster)
Cleared for Takeoff

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,303
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron Levy There is no general regulatory requirement for by-location approval for on-demand 135 operations. Any such requirement would be in their individual ops specs, although I've never heard of such.
Interesting that a weather report comes up for the airport in Foreflight.

 April 10th, 2012, 05:01 PM Posted in reply to olasek's post "not enough visibility?"   #123 First Officer (User ID: Captain) Final Approach     Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: NOYB Posts: 7,886 Re: not enough visibility? OpSpecs give areas of operations. Like "authorized to operate in North America excluding the magnetic anoylomy zone in Canada" I've never seen specific airport authorized but I suppose some could be excluded. Plus requirement like paved runway, or IAP served could be attached. Each OpSpec has a section of "Approved Operations" and "Not Approved Operations" also. That's where it list types of approaches authorized and not authorized. __________________ BPITW To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
April 10th, 2012, 05:24 PM
Posted in reply to aterpster's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#124
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aterpster Interesting that a weather report comes up for the airport in Foreflight.
Well, then -- I guess the on-demand 135 folks are good to go there.

April 10th, 2012, 05:25 PM
Posted in reply to Captain's post "Re: not enough visibility?"
#125
Deleted

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,266
Re: not enough visibility?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Captain OpSpecs give areas of operations. Like "authorized to operate in North America excluding the magnetic anoylomy zone in Canada" I've never seen specific airport authorized but I suppose some could be excluded. Plus requirement like paved runway, or IAP served could be attached. Each OpSpec has a section of "Approved Operations" and "Not Approved Operations" also. That's where it list types of approaches authorized and not authorized.
I think that's typical of on-demand 135 operators. The scheduled carriers (121 or 135 commuter ops) get controlled more tightly.

 Home Register New Posts Today's Posts
 Pilots of America Message Board not enough visibility?

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home News and Management     News     Site Feedback and Support Controlled Airspace     Flight Following     Pilot Training     Cleared for the Approach     Maintenance Bay     Aerobatics     Cool Places to Fly         Air Venture         Annual Gaston's Fly-In         Annual Wings Fly B Q         AOPA Open House         Six Yankee Niner Fly In         Sun'n'Fun         Windwood Fly-In         Non-Aviation Gatherings     Home Builders and Sport Pilots Confidential Subjects     Lessons Learned     Medical Topics Pilot's Lounge     Hangar Talk         The Book Club     Technical Corner     The Classifieds     Pilot Communities     The Sports Section Podcasts     Mile High Flyers     The Pilotcast     Pilots Journey Podcast     The Pilot's Flight PodLog     Airspeed

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post NoHeat Cleared for the Approach 2 January 7th, 2012 02:54 PM 150man Flight Following 27 September 29th, 2010 02:58 AM skidoo Flight Following 36 August 8th, 2010 07:01 PM GaryO Hangar Talk 3 July 14th, 2008 08:39 PM inav8r Flight Following 11 April 22nd, 2007 04:06 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 AM.

 -- Standard - Horizontal -- Standard - Vertical Contact Us - Pilots of America - Archive - Top