Secondary Minimums...

jsstevens

jsstevens

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,726
Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
After all the references here on POA (I searched) to "secondary minimums" being a Jerry Wagner thing, I had an interesting question from a quite newly minted CFI-I that is giving me an IPC. After having me brief the approach plates we were going to use on our IPC flight, he asked me "What are the secondary minimums?" I looked at him blankly for a few seconds then started to explain about differences in minimums if we had to use a neighboring airport's baro setting (raises minimums to 298'-ILS9L KSFB if you want to look it up). He said no, what happens if you can see to ALS but not the runway at the DH? He explained (and showed me the reg, 91.175.3.i) that if you can see the ALS but not the runway you can descend to 100 feet above TDZE. I knew this but had never heard it called "secondary minimums". Is this a new term?

John
 
jsstevens said:
After all the references here on POA (I searched) to "secondary minimums" being a Jerry Wagner thing, I had an interesting question from a quite newly minted CFI-I that is giving me an IPC. After having me brief the approach plates we were going to use on our IPC flight, he asked me "What are the secondary minimums?" I looked at him blankly for a few seconds then started to explain about differences in minimums if we had to use a neighboring airport's baro setting (raises minimums to 298'-ILS9L KSFB if you want to look it up). He said no, what happens if you can see to ALS but not the runway at the DH? He explained (and showed me the reg, 91.175.3.i) that if you can see the ALS but not the runway you can descend to 100 feet above TDZE. I knew this but had never heard it called "secondary minimums". Is this a new term?

John
Click to expand...
Define "term." Something that is in print as a rule or regulation? I don't think so. I don't think Jerry's Jerryism was about this situation. Wasn't that something like start with this line of minimums and then change to that line if something changes? But it looks like your CFI uses it as some ad hoc term. Ask him where he heard it.
 
Last edited:
The CFI is full of it. This is not a "secondary minimum" really, it's a qualification on the approach light being used as the reference for descending below the DA/MDA. Note that the flight visibility still needs to be within the range specified for the approach before descending below the "primary" DA/MDA. If you use the approach lights to go below DA, then you have 100 feet to get something else (including the red terminating bars).
 
I presume you meant 91.175 (c)(3)(i). Did you read 91.175 (c)? It essentially says "you cannot descend below the MDA or DA/DH unless you meet the following...(1), (2), and (3). Part (3) says "Except for Cat 2/3, which have different minimums, you can't descend unless you see one of the following". The criteria of (3)(i) is a limit on using the ALS, you cannot go all the way to runway based solely on the ALS, but you can do that with the other elements. (3)(i) is not a "secondary minimum".

Taking all of section (c), it's telling you how to legally make your continue/missed decision.
1) in a position to land normally
2) have the visibility for the approach
3) have a visual sight of at least one of the elements. (i) has the limit of not more than 100' over the TDZ, the others allow you to go all the way.

The really interesting question in this is in (2)
 
Nope, never heard that term used for that situation. People make stuff up all the time.
 
Yes I read all of it. As a practical matter if I’m deciding to go down to 100 feet above TDZE and I can’t see the runway, somethings really hit the fan.

i was more surprised by the term as a question.
 
jsstevens said:
Yes I read all of it. As a practical matter if I’m deciding to go down to 100 feet above TDZE and I can’t see the runway, somethings really hit the fan.

i was more surprised by the term as a question.
Click to expand...
The instructor is making up terms. There is no such thing as secondary minimums. He should have asked “what is required to descend below DH.”
 
I’ve flown with him 3 times. He’s much better than this isolated question would lead you to believe. In general he’s thorough, knowledgeable and helpful. And how many instructors have we discussed on here that would actually pull out the regs and show you where they got the info? Which he did.
 
jsstevens said:
I’ve flown with him 3 times. He’s much better than this isolated question would lead you to believe. In general he’s thorough, knowledgeable and helpful. And how many instructors have we discussed on here that would actually pull out the regs and show you where they got the info? Which he did.
Click to expand...
Didn’t say he was a bad instructor or that you should fire him. Just that in this case he’s making things more confusing because he made up a term rather than teaching the concept. Fire every lazy pilot and you’ll run out of pilots to fire.
 
It's not a new or an old term. You should ask him where he got it. Maybe he's a Jerry fan. I don't really have an issue with Jerry's use of the term. It actually sounds like your CFII's use.

That is not a flame if your CFII. The only thing I can fault him for is asking, "What are the secondary minimums?" as though it was some official term you should know rather than something he or someone else made up. He should know the difference.
 
flyingron said:
The CFI is full of it. This is not a "secondary minimum" really, it's a qualification on the approach light being used as the reference for descending below the DA/MDA. Note that the flight visibility still needs to be within the range specified for the approach before descending below the "primary" DA/MDA. If you use the approach lights to go below DA, then you have 100 feet to get something else (including the red terminating bars).
Click to expand...
Emphasis added.

The bolded phrase would be correct if all mins. were 200' above TDZE. But this rule says that using the defined approach light reference you may descend to 100' above TDZE. In fact, even if the runway just has REIL you can descend to 100' above TDZE.

Example: KPNE RNAV ((GPS) 33: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2111/00528R33.PDF

LPV mins are TDZE = 108' LPV DA = 380' The DA is more than 200' above the TDZE, but if you have the REIL in sight you can continue to land even if the runway itself may not be in sight. Does this happen in real life? Yes, yes it does. Fog, heavy rain, snow can all obscure the runway surface (therefore runway not in sight) but not the REIL which are quite bright.

This is why it is important on all low vis. approaches to be sure that the runway and approach lights are turned on and at max even during the day.
 
Arnold said:
Emphasis added.

The bolded phrase would be correct if all mins. were 200' above TDZE. But this rule says that using the defined approach light reference you may descend to 100' above TDZE. In fact, even if the runway just has REIL you can descend to 100' above TDZE.

Example: KPNE RNAV ((GPS) 33: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2111/00528R33.PDF

LPV mins are TDZE = 108' LPV DA = 380' The DA is more than 200' above the TDZE, but if you have the REIL in sight you can continue to land even if the runway itself may not be in sight. Does this happen in real life? Yes, yes it does. Fog, heavy rain, snow can all obscure the runway surface (therefore runway not in sight) but not the REIL which are quite bright.

This is why it is important on all low vis. approaches to be sure that the runway and approach lights are turned on and at max even during the day.
Click to expand...
Especially when you’re flying an approach where the MDH is disproportionately high when compared to the visibility minimum. Continuing below MDA when the approach lights are in sight can mean the difference between stabilized and unstabilized.
 
Arnold said:
The bolded phrase would be correct if all mins. were 200' above TDZE. But this rule says that using the defined approach light reference you may descend to 100' above TDZE. In fact, even if the runway just has REIL you can descend to 100' above TDZE.
=.
Click to expand...

Huh? If you have the REIL you can descend to the ground, not just 100'. The REIL is one of the unqualified items that allow you to descend below the MDA/DH.
 
flyingron said:
Huh? If you have the REIL you can descend to the ground, not just 100'. The REIL is one of the unqualified items that allow you to descend below the MDA/DH.
Click to expand...

Understood, just making the distinction between approach lights and REIL.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Those are the ones at the airport you go to when you go missed after applying the secondary minimums and you still can't get in.
Click to expand...
But that airport would have minimums to. And secondaries, so tertiary is out. This has to run with even numbers. Quatratiary??? I didn't know what tertiary meant until a minute ago btw
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Anyone have tertiary minimums? ;-)
Click to expand...
Tertiary minimums are when you get to the ILS minimums and can't see anything, but you're in class G airspace so you cancel IFR and keep looking for the runway.
 
luvflyin said:
But that airport would have minimums to. And secondaries, so tertiary is out. This has to run with even numbers. Quatratiary??? I didn't know what tertiary meant until a minute ago btw
Click to expand...
I disagree. No need to limit it to even numbers. Secondary necessarily implies there is a primary. But OK. I'll buy that all the minimums have to be associated with the same approach.
 
iamtheari said:
Tertiary minimums are when you get to the ILS minimums and can't see anything, but you're in class G airspace so you cancel IFR and keep looking for the runway.
Click to expand...
I think you've nailed it!
 
I always thought the touch down zone elevation was secondary. You go lower than that really bad things happen.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I disagree. No need to limit it to even numbers. Secondary necessarily implies there is a primary. But OK. I'll buy that all the minimums have to be associated with the same approach.
Click to expand...
I disagree with me to. I forgot to put some :goofy::rofl::devil:'s there. I was just clownin' around. Like if you was buyin' the secondary minimums thang to begin with, then you'd wanna do it at the alternate also. Two per approach, a primary and a secondary. Anyway, I learned a new word, tertiary. Thanks @MooneyDriver78
 
If, and only if, we define primary minimums as the published plate, secondary minimums are 100 feet above TDZE and tertiary minimums are the TDZE. You ain’t goin’ any lower…
 
luvflyin said:
Like if you was buyin' the secondary minimums thang to begin with
Click to expand...
It's funny. It's become a bit of a joke because of Jerry. And, IMO, the joke is as much by Jerry as on Jerry. He loves getting people riled up by saying it. Woe be unto them who use the term to describe anything!

But whether Jerry or the CFII mentioned in this thread, "secondary minimums" is really just an unofficial term being used by someone to describe something real. Jerry's is about briefing both the circling and straight in minimums at AUN. Winds favor 25 but they are light enough for a tailwind landing. So he briefs the circling minimums but just in case he doesn't break out, he also briefs the "secondary" straight in minimums. That's all he means by it. Crazy!

But is it really? Take the old common discussion about what to do if you lose the glideslope while on an ILS. Go missed or continue using the LOC-only minimums? Without rehashing the pros and cons, if you are one of those who says they will switch, hopefully you briefed the "secondary" LOC minimums Plan B before you began the approach.
 
iamtheari said:
Tertiary minimums are when you get to the ILS minimums and can't see anything, but you're in class G airspace so you cancel IFR and keep looking for the runway.
Click to expand...
A former chief pilot told me about a 135 airplane that arrived that way out in the stix…there was no weather reporting so he couldn’t fly the instrument approach, so he canceled IFR and circled down through the clouds.

At least, that was what he told my chief pilot.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's funny. It's become a bit of a joke because of Jerry. And, IMO, the joke is as much by Jerry as on Jerry. He loves getting people riled up by saying it. Woe be unto them who use the term to describe anything!

But whether Jerry or the CFII mentioned in this thread, "secondary minimums" is really just an unofficial term being used by someone to describe something real. Jerry's is about briefing both the circling and straight in minimums at AUN. Winds favor 25 but they are light enough for a tailwind landing. So he briefs the circling minimums but just in case he doesn't break out, he also briefs the "secondary" straight in minimums. That's all he means by it. Crazy!

But is it really? Take the old common discussion about what to do if you lose the glideslope while on an ILS. Go missed or continue using the LOC-only minimums? Without rehashing the pros and cons, if you are one of those who says they will switch, hopefully you briefed the "secondary" LOC minimums Plan B before you began the approach.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I get that. What I said up in post #2. Knowing both the DH and the no Glideslope MDA is something I do always before beginning an ILS. If the Glidesope goes bye bye while on final it is a non event for me. I simply continue to MDA instead of DH. No fuss, no muss, don't gotta look anything up, I already have. I also always know the geopraphic location of the Missed Approach Point before beginning the approach. I don't have some kind of pet name for it. I just do it.
I was doing an ILS once. The Controller got behind and hung me high waiting for the approach clearance. When he got around to it I decided the Approach was still salvageable and took the clearance. I said to the guy in the right seat "I'm doing the Localizer only, MDA is ###." I got down to the Glideslope from above and stabilized on it. I said to the guy in the right seat "DH is ###" and continued the approach. The guy in the right seat was the DPE on my IR checkride.
If someone wants to give it a 'name', fine. People give their airplanes pet names. But ya don't say it's a Blue Beast or whatever when a Controller asks for type airplane. And I don't think a CFI should describe that, or the 100footapproachlightterminatingbarTDZE thang as "secondary minimums" to a student as if it is some kind of defined term in regulations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top