descent below minimums

Gary Drescher wrote:

wrote in message
...
The rule is obviously designed to allow the pilot to descend for
landing as soon as the requirements for a safe execution of the visual
portion of the approach has been met..

I don't see why an intermediate segment altitude would override that,
with the caveat that one needs to be absolutely certain that visual
conditions will remain the rest of the way.

After all, we have the runway environment in sight, don't forget, so
we are probably talking at least 2-3 miles or more visibility, if we
see the runway environment at a stepdown altitude.

Yes, that strikes me as the best way to make sense of the rule's intention.
Still, the rule doesn't actually say that, so I share the OP's sense of
uncertainty as to the technicality. I wonder if any FSDOs have issued
opinions on this question.


What worth is a FSDO opinion? A legal interp from general counsel is fine, but
not what some inspector thinks.

wrote in message ...
What worth is a FSDO opinion? A legal interp from general counsel is
fine, but
not what some inspector thinks.

I'd guess that it would be difficult for the FAA to take punitive action
against a pilot for doing something that the FSDO said in writing was ok to
do, even if the FSDO's opinion is not otherwise legally binding. (Are there
any documented instances of successful enforcement actions under such
circumstances?)

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:


I'd guess that it would be difficult for the FAA to take punitive action
against a pilot for doing something that the FSDO said in writing was ok to
do, even if the FSDO's opinion is not otherwise legally binding

Don't count on it. It might count for something with that particular
inspector, but each FSDO is a fiefdom unto itself.