descent below minimums

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

That can occur on any approach with not less than one mile visibility. The
visual segment has a 34:1 clearance criteria and a 20:1 clearance criteria.
But, either or both can be violated. If the 20:1 is violated and the
approach was updated in the past few years, the minimums (and sometimes the
entire IAP itself) will be "NA" at night.

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.

Roy Smith wrote:

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.

If the lights ever go out, CLIMB!

"hsm" wrote in message
ps.com...
Can I descent below minimums on an intermediate stepdown segment of an
IFR approach if I have the runway enviroment in sight?
On a very steep approach such as the backcourse loc-A to Santa
Maria,CA, I would like to start descending below 1700 feet prior to
reaching PATER, in order to facilitate a more comfortable decent in
VMC. Legal or do I first need a visual approach clearance?


I would first get the visual approach clearance.

I would also add a note about night, even though you did not ask: many
pilots have been killed descending below minimums at night when they thought
they had the runway in sight. In fact, there have been several notable
accidents like that during the day; the recent one in Texas where a jet on
the way to pick up former President Bush, Sr., crashed may be one such.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
If you can see the runway, there ain't no hill between you and it.

There might be antennae.

Yes, and these are not always depicted on approach plates.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:23:51 -0800, wrote:

Trying to make FARs black and white, absent some kind of case
law, is like arguing with your mother-in-law.

or wrestling with a pig.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

The minimum altitude prior to reaching the stepdown fix is also the MDA
unless and until the stepdown fix is received.

JPH

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
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 16:05:08 -0600, J Haggerty
wrote:

The minimum altitude prior to reaching the stepdown fix is also the MDA
unless and until the stepdown fix is received.

You must be looking at a different P/C glossary than I am:

MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE- The lowest altitude, expressed in feet above mean
sea level, to which descent is authorized on final approach or during
circle-to-land maneuvering in execution of a standard instrument approach
procedure where no electronic glideslope is provided.


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

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:05:08 -0600, J Haggerty
wrote:

The minimum altitude prior to reaching the stepdown fix is also the MDA
unless and until the stepdown fix is received.

I should add that on the approach in question, there is no published
alternate MDA to be used if the last stepdown fix is not identified.


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

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:05:08 -0600, J Haggerty
wrote:

The minimum altitude prior to reaching the stepdown fix is also the MDA
unless and until the stepdown fix is received.

It'd be nice if I could get all my thoughts together for one message. And
it'd also be nice if I did not always respond as if a positive comment were
argumentative :-(

Your statement is supportive of the idea that it is OK to descend below the
stepdown fix, provided the requirements of 91.175 for operating below the
MDA are met.


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