Does ATC report to the FSDO landings when reported vis below min?

[Robert M. Gary]

This is from my FIRC study guide....

"It is still true, however, that ATC is required to report to an FAA
district office as an incident, any landing that is made when the
visibility is being reported as less than one- half mile, or the RVR
is less than the published minimums. And the pilot may be asked to
explain to the FAA the circumstances of the landing."

Sounds wrong to me.

-Robert

[john smith]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> This is from my FIRC study guide....
> "It is still true, however, that ATC is required to report to an FAA
> district office as an incident, any landing that is made when the
> visibility is being reported as less than one- half mile, or the RVR
> is less than the published minimums. And the pilot may be asked to
> explain to the FAA the circumstances of the landing."
> Sounds wrong to me.

I was taught that it is the pilot's visibility that matters.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> This is from my FIRC study guide....
>
> "It is still true, however, that ATC is required to report to an FAA
> district office as an incident, any landing that is made when the
> visibility is being reported as less than one- half mile, or the RVR
> is less than the published minimums. And the pilot may be asked to
> explain to the FAA the circumstances of the landing."
>
> Sounds wrong to me.
>

It should. It's wrong.

[BT]

This has been discussed during various IFR courses and refreshers.. I'm
running on old memory here.
For a Part 91 operation it is not enforceable. The tower has no way of
knowing what the pilots in-flight visibility is at the approach end of the
runway.
I have seen pure VFR on one end for 2,000ft of a 10,000 ft runway.. with the
other parts of the airport the fog so thick you could not see the lines to
taxi.

For Part 135 and other operations, the pilot cannot even begin the approach
for a "look see" if the visibility and ceiling are reported as less than
that required for the approach.

Now whether ATC reports it or not?

BT

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> This is from my FIRC study guide....
>
> "It is still true, however, that ATC is required to report to an FAA
> district office as an incident, any landing that is made when the
> visibility is being reported as less than one- half mile, or the RVR
> is less than the published minimums. And the pilot may be asked to
> explain to the FAA the circumstances of the landing."
>
> Sounds wrong to me.
>
> -Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 22, 7:04*pm, "BT" > wrote:
> This has been discussed during various IFR courses and refreshers.. I'm
> running on old memory here.
> For a Part 91 operation it is not enforceable. The tower has no way of
> knowing what the pilots in-flight visibility is at the approach end of the
> runway.
> I have seen pure VFR on one end for 2,000ft of a 10,000 ft runway.. with the
> other parts of the airport the fog so thick you could not see the lines to
> taaxi.

Me too. Althought I believe if RVR is reported, that is enforceable.
Otherwise, my understanding is the same as yours. Only those in the
cockpit know flight vis.

> For Part 135 and other operations, the pilot cannot even begin the approach
> for a "look see" if the visibility and ceiling are reported as less than
> that required for the approach.

Yes, but if the reported wx degrades after crossing the FAF they can
continue the approach. So perhaps if they land with reported vis below
mins they could be busted? That doesn't sound right either.

-Robert

[Mike[_22_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 7:04 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> > This has been discussed during various IFR courses and refreshers.. I'm
> > running on old memory here.
> > For a Part 91 operation it is not enforceable. The tower has no way of
> > knowing what the pilots in-flight visibility is at the approach end of
> > the
> > runway.
> > I have seen pure VFR on one end for 2,000ft of a 10,000 ft runway.. with
> > the
> > other parts of the airport the fog so thick you could not see the lines
> > to
> > taaxi.
>
> Me too. Althought I believe if RVR is reported, that is enforceable.
> Otherwise, my understanding is the same as yours. Only those in the
> cockpit know flight vis.

Not even then, really. RVR vis data is not archived for one thing so all
you really have to go on is a controller's memory to begin with. For
another, if it's a Cat I RVR, there's only one sensor located at center
field. That means it could be as far away as a mile or more on a long
runway.

> > For Part 135 and other operations, the pilot cannot even begin the
> > approach
> > for a "look see" if the visibility and ceiling are reported as less than
> > that required for the approach.
>
> Yes, but if the reported wx degrades after crossing the FAF they can
> continue the approach. So perhaps if they land with reported vis below
> mins they could be busted? That doesn't sound right either.

One thing you have to understand is there are a few controllers who enjoy
busting pilots, but they are in the minority. The vast majority will give
the pilot the benefit of the doubt to the extent they are able. However
this discretion is being slowly removed at many facilities due to a
nationwide crackdown.

[BT]

Yes, but if the reported wx degrades after crossing the FAF they can
continue the approach. So perhaps if they land with reported vis below
mins they could be busted? That doesn't sound right either.

-Robert

Yes.. once the approach has passed the FAF and the weather degrades, they
can continue to MDA or MAP. If it goes down, it could come back up before
they get to the MDA/MAP/

As stated by another.. not all RVR readings on an airport are at the
approach end.

BT

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jul 22, 7:04*pm, "BT" > wrote:
>> This has been discussed during various IFR courses and refreshers..
>> I'm running on old memory here.
>> For a Part 91 operation it is not enforceable. The tower has no way
>> of knowing what the pilots in-flight visibility is at the approach
>> end of th
> e
>> runway.
>> I have seen pure VFR on one end for 2,000ft of a 10,000 ft runway..
>> with
> the
>> other parts of the airport the fog so thick you could not see the
>> lines t
> o
>> taaxi.
>
> Me too. Althought I believe if RVR is reported, that is enforceable.
> Otherwise, my understanding is the same as yours. Only those in the
> cockpit know flight vis.
>
>> For Part 135 and other operations, the pilot cannot even begin the
>> approa
> ch
>> for a "look see" if the visibility and ceiling are reported as less
>> than that required for the approach.
>
> Yes, but if the reported wx degrades after crossing the FAF they can
> continue the approach. So perhaps if they land with reported vis below
> mins they could be busted? That doesn't sound right either.


It isn't. If we continue in that scenario and see what we need at DH we
can land.
I doubt the FAA would or even could prosecute for the first circustance,
but if it were an obvious fouting of th erues they might have a go at
careless or reckless operation...


Bertie