Minimums?

In article
,
says...


On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian wrote:
While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).

From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.


Hmmm - I'm wondering if maybe that didn't come out they way you meant it.
The only thing special about Part 91 is that you can initiate the
approach without being sure of having minimum requirements at the end of
it. But when you do get down to DA or DH, you need more than in-flight
visibility - you must continuously see one of the items on that list and
be in a position to land normally - otherwise you go missed.

On Jan 11, 9:12*pm, Airbus wrote:

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.

Hmmm - I'm wondering if maybe that didn't come out they way you meant it.
The only thing special about Part 91 is that you can initiate the
approach without being sure of having minimum requirements at the end of
it. But when you do get down to DA or DH, you need more than in-flight
visibility - you must continuously see one of the items on that list and
be in a position to land normally - otherwise you go missed.- Hide quoted text -

Hmmmm- Thats exactly the way I meant it. There are plenty of
differences between 91 and 121 and in the context of the original
post, this is what I was trying to point out.
Frank