The reporter landed runway 05L ind with an RVR of 1200 ft. Being part 91 he believes he is legal to land if at decision ht he unilaterally as PIC determines his 'flight visibility' is one half mi. The reporter is concerned that he may be wrong as others say the RVR on the runway de facto is determining and was 1200 ft while the RVR minimum is 1800 ft. Was the reporter in violation?

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	329767
Time
Date	199602
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ind
State Reference	IN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 200
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : ind tower : ind
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Rockwell Aero Commander Twin Turboprop Undifferentiated or Other
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 1900 flight time type : 30
ASRS Report	329767
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	observation : passenger
Qualification	pilot : private
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified cockpit
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Weather
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

The question is was I legal in landing or not. My understanding is that part 91 can make an approach under any ceiling or visibility. We clearly saw the lights at minimums and landed uneventfully. Some tell me the RVR was too low to attempt the approach, others say I did nothing wrong. Who's right? Was I wrong? I did have a second pilot on board for 'eyes' and we conferred before the approach and agreed together that it was ok to proceed. Did I violate part 91.175D?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE RPTR LANDED RWY 05L IND WITH AN RVR OF 1200 FT. BEING PART 91 HE BELIEVES HE IS LEGAL TO LAND IF AT DECISION HT HE UNILATERALLY AS PIC DETERMINES HIS 'FLT VISIBILITY' IS ONE HALF MI. THE RPTR IS CONCERNED THAT HE MAY BE WRONG AS OTHERS SAY THE RVR ON THE RWY DE FACTO IS DETERMINING AND WAS 1200 FT WHILE THE RVR MINIMUM IS 1800 FT. WAS THE RPTR IN VIOLATION?

Narrative: THE QUESTION IS WAS I LEGAL IN LNDG OR NOT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PART 91 CAN MAKE AN APCH UNDER ANY CEILING OR VISIBILITY. WE CLRLY SAW THE LIGHTS AT MINIMUMS AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. SOME TELL ME THE RVR WAS TOO LOW TO ATTEMPT THE APCH, OTHERS SAY I DID NOTHING WRONG. WHO'S RIGHT? WAS I WRONG? I DID HAVE A SECOND PLT ON BOARD FOR 'EYES' AND WE CONFERRED BEFORE THE APCH AND AGREED TOGETHER THAT IT WAS OK TO PROCEED. DID I VIOLATE PART 91.175D?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.