Below mins? looked good to me.
Minimums are based on visibility, not ceiling.
I can see how newer pilots can make that mistake. Fact is, the published DA is a decision altitude, not a ceiling requirement. You may ask if the ceiling is 100 feet, how would I ever get in? Fact is I've landed cat 1 many times with ceiling at 0 feet. If the rabbit (sfl) can penetrate the cloud (fog) enough for cat 1 vis (usually 1800 rvr) than you are a-okay.
If you have problems on takeoff, that's an emergency and you do what you need to do. They're not going to say "oh, nope, we're below minimums so you have to crash into the trees."
Absolutely, positively, incorrect.
You both are right. For all practical purposes and how I would normally concieve of the minimums for the approach, Warthog1984 is on the same page. What Kritchlow is trying to explain is that there are ways to go below the DA/DH if certain criteria are met. It very well may have been met that morning had I needed to come back in on the approach. I found this article which may be helpful. http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/2014/05/ils-approach-da-dh/ , I also want to say something about my decision to depart with what ended up being 127' ceiling. The awos reported 400 and 300 foot ceilings which is above the posted DA. My personal rule is to not depart when they report lower than the approach minimums. Unfortunitely this is the second time this has happened and i have shared both experiences. I do think it is a fun and neat experience, but ofcourse i would feel much better knowing i could return to my departure airport on an approach if nessessary.
That seems way too strong a statement. I agree with Bravo, you are both right. To go below DA, you need (a) the runway environment in sight and (b) the required flight visibility. You can go lower than DA with the runway environment in sight. But if you were planning to get back in to the departure airport, and the ceiling was below the DA, would you take off? The point is you have no assurance of seeing the rabbit at DA (even though you certainly might), and if the bases are 100 feet below DA, what are your chances of having the required flight visibility? I'd expect to MAYBE see the rabbit, and MAYBE be getting glimpses of the ground directly below if the bases are ragged. I'd also expect forward visibility to be basically zero. In that circumstance, 91.175 is clear: you have to go missed.
In my view, what people are missing is that, in a single, you're not going to get back into the departure airport if you lose an engine and it's IMC, unless you are low enough to have not entered the clouds, but not too low to do the impossible turn. No way you are going to do the instrument approach. Does it matter if you lose the engine climbing out in the clouds at 200' or 500'? If you have some other kind of emergency or engine problem that gives you reduced power then maybe you should plan for a takeoff alternate like the 135 and 121 folks do when they take off below landing minimums..
No argument there, and I was thinking of making that point as well. But that's true of ANY departure into IFR conditions in a single, even if conditions are somewhat above minimums. If we're talking about getting back into the departure field for reasons other than an emergency, then whether you could get back in on an approach becomes relevant.
