descent below minimums

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Gary Drescher wrote:

You're citing the rules for descending below an MDA or DA. But the
question is about descending below an intermediate fix.

A fix is a location defined by a point on the ground. Why would you want
to descend underground in an airplane? :-)


Well, like the FAA, I don't always manage to say what I mean. :-)

--Gary



The real question is: do you mean what you say? :-)


Matt

Since the "MDA rule" only refers to MDA, and the MDA only exists on
the final segment, I think that if you were operating below an
altitude specified for some other segment, and had some kind of
problem as a result, a case could be made against you if there were
an enforcement action of some kind.

I'm 80% of the way through my IFR so I must be right. ;-)
From my understanding is that this is correct. Think about it
this way, if you were 30 miles out and you had the runway environment
in sight, a normal descent rate can be made and flight visibility was
met, can you descend below MEA/MDA? of course not. The MDA rule
is for after the FAF so you can land otherwise you can simply
choose your altitude at any point of the approach claiming all
3 items were met.

the other big thing people are missing is the approach is not only
to keep you safe but also the controller will expect you to be
along the published route. A controller can certainly vector a VFR or
IFR plane below you.....published minimum for one of the step downs is
say 3000 AGL giving enough clearance. If you are lower, something
bad could happen. This is similar to what happened to the actor (?)
a few weeks ago (If I recall correctly). In that case I believe
the actor misunderstood or incorrectly determined he was cleared
lower when he was not.


Gerald

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:09:11 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:16:52 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:


For example, at night, the runway might be lit up like
a christmas tree, but the hills might be invisible.


If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it.


But there can still be a hill below for you to descend into. Your
eyeballs can still have clear line of sight to the runway lights while
your landing gear is dragging through the treetops.

Or the runway could be in a valley with a high tension line across it...


Matt


Like I said.

If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it.

Well, like the FAA, I don't always manage to say what I mean. :-)
--Gary
The real question is: do you mean what you say? :-)
Matt

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

No, you cannot, unless you first...
- cancel IFR, or
- get a visual approach clearance, or
- get a contact approach clearance

You might get away with it, though, if you just call in to ATC, "runway
in sight" before descending.

Agreed.

I think the answer is simple.

Aren't Part 97 instrument approach procedures required fy FARs? In
which case, all minimum altitudes depicted on approach plates must be
obeyed. 91.175 allows descent below MDA or dh when certain
paramenters are met. But not descent below other minimum altitudes on
the app procedure

Stan

On 4 Jan 2005 23:19:26 -0800, wrote:

No, you cannot, unless you first...
- cancel IFR, or
- get a visual approach clearance, or
- get a contact approach clearance

You might get away with it, though, if you just call in to ATC, "runway
in sight" before descending.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:09:47 GMT, wrote:

Since the "MDA rule" only refers to MDA, and the MDA only exists on
the final segment, I think that if you were operating below an
altitude specified for some other segment, and had some kind of
problem as a result, a case could be made against you if there were
an enforcement action of some kind.

Assuming that statement is true, PATER is within the final segment, so the
MDA rule would still apply.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:59:56 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
wrote:


I'm 80% of the way through my IFR so I must be right. ;-)
From my understanding is that this is correct. Think about it
this way, if you were 30 miles out and you had the runway environment
in sight, a normal descent rate can be made and flight visibility was
met, can you descend below MEA/MDA? of course not. The MDA rule
is for after the FAF so you can land otherwise you can simply
choose your altitude at any point of the approach claiming all
3 items were met.

Although we've gotten a bit afield, in the OP's example he was considering
descent at a point within the final segment (i.e. between the FAF and the
MAP).



the other big thing people are missing is the approach is not only
to keep you safe but also the controller will expect you to be
along the published route. A controller can certainly vector a VFR or
IFR plane below you.....published minimum for one of the step downs is
say 3000 AGL giving enough clearance. If you are lower, something
bad could happen. This is similar to what happened to the actor (?)
a few weeks ago (If I recall correctly). In that case I believe
the actor misunderstood or incorrectly determined he was cleared
lower when he was not.


Clearly bad things can happen if you are below the charted altitude for a
segment of the approach. However, the controller will not vector an
aircraft below you once you have been cleared for the approach and are past
the IAF.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

wrote:

This was my first thought as well.

However, on reflection, the published altitudes for each of the
segments are minimum altitudes.

Since the "MDA rule" only refers to MDA, and the MDA only exists on
the final segment, I think that if you were operating below an
altitude specified for some other segment, and had some kind of
problem as a result, a case could be made against you if there were
an enforcement action of some kind.

How many angels on the head of a pin?

If in doubt, don't ignore the descent fix even if all the landing requirements of
91.175 are satisfied. Trying to make FARs black and white, absent some kind of case
law, is like arguing with your mother-in-law.

"G. Sylvester" wrote:

Since the "MDA rule" only refers to MDA, and the MDA only exists on
the final segment, I think that if you were operating below an
altitude specified for some other segment, and had some kind of
problem as a result, a case could be made against you if there were
an enforcement action of some kind.

I'm 80% of the way through my IFR so I must be right. ;-)
From my understanding is that this is correct. Think about it
this way, if you were 30 miles out and you had the runway environment
in sight, a normal descent rate can be made and flight visibility was
met, can you descend below MEA/MDA? of course not. The MDA rule
is for after the FAF so you can land otherwise you can simply
choose your altitude at any point of the approach claiming all
3 items were met.

the other big thing people are missing is the approach is not only
to keep you safe but also the controller will expect you to be
along the published route. A controller can certainly vector a VFR or
IFR plane below you.....published minimum for one of the step downs is
say 3000 AGL giving enough clearance. If you are lower, something
bad could happen. This is similar to what happened to the actor (?)
a few weeks ago (If I recall correctly). In that case I believe
the actor misunderstood or incorrectly determined he was cleared
lower when he was not.

Gerald

The controller cannot vector someone below you unless they are at, or
above, the MVA. This was about a stepdown fix two miles from the runway.
30 miles out is an entirely different matter.