[index] [month] [prev] [next] [thead-prev] [thread-next]

rmg1@my-deja.com wrote in <9304id$p3i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>:

>Last time I landed at Arcata I got priority in the approach because
>the observer was reporting 50 foot overcast and all the 121
>guys can't legally start an approach without minimums observed
>(unless they are already past the FAF).

This applies to visibility only. Ceiling has nothing to do with it.

>I got down to 200 feet, saw nothing, started pushing the throttle
>open and saw the big numbers of the runway coming up under me.
>I was able to land with pretty much mimiums. If I'd thought to
>turn on the approach lights I could have followed them in at 100 feet
>though( next time I'll remember to turn on the approach lights so if
>I catch them I can take the lower minimums).

Not lower minimums, but you can descend to 100' above TDZE if you have the
approach lights in sight, & land if you have the runway environment in
sight. Always a good idea to turn on the approach lights, but if there is
Part 121 traffic there, I'm surprised they weren't already on.

>They get a fair amount of 121 traffic there, I wonder if the observer
>affects any of their minimums (can 121 use AWOS as approved weather?)

Yes.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: Easy question, Stan Gosnell
Next message: Re: x-plane, Billy Verreynne
Next message in thread: Re: Bye bye arcata ?, Email address hidden
Previous message in thread: Re: Bye bye arcata ?, Email address hidden