I'll bet this has been asked before

[eddie]

I just came over to part 135 from part 121. The other day a captain told me we couldn't depart for our destination because they were reporting and forcasting a cieling of 100 and 1/2 mile vis. (the ils mins were 200 &1/2)

Isn't visibility and not cieling controlling for dispatch? I told him that and he thought I was insane. I can't find the portion of the regs that backs up my view. Any thoughts?

 

[Singlecoil]

You are right, he's wrong. I'm not sure of a reg reference, but that is pretty basic. I bet your captain won't shoot the approach if the prevailing vis was below mins, but the RVR was good.

 

[varicam]

Visibility is controlling in Part 135 the same as Part 121. However, a reported ceiling of 100' is usually pretty accurate as low ceilings are easy to measure accurately.

 

[Andy Neill]

Did your captain consider the provisions of 135.217 which allow you to take off when the departure point is below minimums IF you list a takeoff alternate within one hour of the departure point? Were there no such point above alternate mins that close?

I agree that the departure was not below mins BUT, I would have listed a takeoff alternate if one were available. If one was not available, I PROBABLY would not want to take off. The decision would not be because I wasn't LEGAL to takeoff but that in my JUDGEMENT, I would not have a safe out if something went bad on takeoff.

 

[Singlecoil]

I think he is purely talking about destination weather, Andy. Wait, now I reread and see it could be read either way. I think your plan is a sound one for departures. There are some airplanes out there that can do a single engine Cat III, so I guess they would seldom need a takeoff alternate. Wouldn't that be fun?

 

[eddie]

Andy,

Sorry about the vague explanation in my first post. I meant the destination weather was 100 and 1/2.

Thanks for all the replies.

 

[stillaboo]

The rules

forcasting a cieling of 100 and 1/2 mile vis. (the ils mins were 200 &1/2)

Ok, for my 121 ops it would go something like this:

1. Is an alternate required? (1,2,3 rule)
-YES

2. Derive the alternate. (1 nav rule - add 400 & 1 to the lowest approach minimums, 2 nav rule - add 200 & 1/2 to the higher of each)
-(assuming the '1 nav rule' here) the derived alt. mins are 200 + 400 and 1/2 + 1, AKA, 600' and 1.5 miles.

3. Can we use exemption 3585? (short and sweet review ['cause we all know this one like the back of our hand ] - 1st alternate main body forcast is above derived, Remarks section visibility is at least 1/2 derived vis. 2nd alternate both main and remarks are above required vis and ceiling)
-Don't have alt. weather, so don't know

4. Is the 1st alternate above marginal? (add 500-1 to minimums for both destination and 1st alternate, compare to main & remarks forcasts. If any one is above, no 2nd alt. needed)
-(assuming 3585 wasn't used already and there were no remarks for the destination) main is less than marginal mins of 700 & 1.5, don't know alternate mins

I've never run into a sitation where I couldn't be dispatched b/c there was no airport that met these criteria within my fuel load, even at max T/O weight.

if these are not relevant to 135, sorry

 

[B190Captain]

I just came over to part 135 from part 121. The other day a captain told me we couldn't depart for our destination because they were reporting and forcasting a cieling of 100 and 1/2 mile vis. (the ils mins were 200 &1/2)

Isn't visibility and not cieling controlling for dispatch? I told him that and he thought I was insane. I can't find the portion of the regs that backs up my view. Any thoughts?

Sec. 135.219 - IFR: Destination airport weather minimums.

No person may take off an aircraft under IFR or begin an IFR or over-the-top operation unless the latest weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that weather conditions at the estimated time of arrival at the next airport of intended landing will be at or above authorized IFR landing minimums.

Maybe that is what your captain is referring to. It states nothing about an alternate.

As for requirements for dispatch is mainly 121. You don't even need a release in 135.

Maybe this will help.

 

[AVI8V1]

When they say visibility is controlling, is that for a legal departure to that 100 & 1/2 destination or can you also shoot the ILS (let's say 200 & 1/2) approach if the ceiling is vv100 and like 2400 RVR? Just a bit conofused now. Where is this visibility controlling rule written in the regulations? Thanks.

 

[A Squared]

The discussions about alternate requirements miss the actual question. Here's the actual question:

Isn't visibility and not cieling (at destination) controlling for dispatch? I told him that and he thought I was insane. I can't find the portion of the regs that backs up my view. Any thoughts?

Ok, ignoring the question of "dispatch", the question is: is ceiling a controlling factor for Part 135 operations, or is only visibility controlling?

Singlecoil says it is only visibility which is controlling for Part 135. I disagree. Here's why:

I can only find one NTSB ruling which addresses this issue.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4002.PDF

In this case, a pilot is charged with a violation of 135.225 because he began an approach when the ceiling was reported to be below the MDA of the approach. An NTSB Administrative Law Judge agreed with the FAA, The pilot appealed to the full board. The board reversed the ALJ's decision, saying that the FAA failed to show that "ceiling" was a landing minimum. Clearly, MDA is a "landing minimum" and it implies a ceiling, but ceiling is not, in itself, a "landing minimum" OK, sounds like ceiling is *not* controlling, right? well if that was the end of the story, I'd agree. It's not. Here's the rest of the story: During the course of the investigation and appeals, the FAA's Chief Counsel issued an interpretation of 135.225 (a) Now, as the interpretation was issued after the incident, (accident, actually) it cannot be used in that case. However, the NTSB is required by law to defer to the FAA's interpretation for any case which follows the interpretation. I've copied the entire text of the interpretation below. The relevant passage is: "So, even though ceiling is not a criterion on the approach plates, it must be considered by the pilot in his decision to initiate the approach, and in deciding whether the reported ceiling is above or below the decision height or minimum descent altitude for the approach."

Ok, that sentence is a nightmare. What does it mean? It falls short of saying the "ceiling must be reported at or above MDA or DA", it just says it must be "considered" So what does "considered" mean? I don't know, there is no clarification on that, but one thing is clear, "Consider" does not mean "ignore" so the reported ceiling must factor into your decision. There is no case law I know of which further clarifies this interpretation. Lacking case law, all we can do is read the interpretation and play "what if" games.

What if, under 135 you began an approach and continued past the FAF on an approach with an MDA which was 500 ft above the airport, when the reported ceiling was 200 feet overcast. Could you say that you had "considered" the Ceiling in your decision to begin the approach? I think not.

What if, under 135, you began an approach and continued past the FAF on an approach with an MDA of 450 above the airport when the ceiling was reported as 400 broken? Did you "consider" the ceiling? You could make a good case that you had considered it, and you'd probably convince me... the thing is, you're not dealing with me, you're dealing with the FAA, and the FAA tends to be a little less understanding and flexible. Here's the question, would you begin that last approach if you had a fed with a grudge aboard who had told you just after takeoff that he intended to find violations and violate you for everything he could find? Not knowing how the NTSB will interpret "consider" , I think I would be pretty conservative in my reading of the interpretation.

Bear in mind that the this interpretation was issued while the FAA was trying to violate a pilot for beginning an approach when the ceiling was below the HAA for the approach. So, clearly, they desire to violate pilots for this (obviously, they tried.) and evan though thay were unsucessful the interpretation gives them a means to suceed next time. If the FAA intends for only visibility to be controlling under 135, why would they try to violate the pilot? In this case the Ceiling was reported at 900 feet, whether it was broken or overcast is unknown. The HAA of the approach was 3025 feet. It should be noted that the interpretation was issued after the accident, after the initial NTSB decision, after the Pilot appealed to the Full board, and before the full board issued the final order. If you believe that the interpretation is unrelated to the case, you have more faith in coincidence than I do.

OK, now, getting back to the original question. We're not talking about beginning an approach, we're talking about departing for a destination. Different situation, right? well, yes and no. Whether or not you may depart is controlled by a different regulation, 135.219. I've copied 135.219 below. It says that in order to depart under 135, it must be forecast above minimums at the destination. Note that the regulation has the identical language as 135.225; "weather conditions........at or above authorized IFR landing minimums."
It seems reasonable to me that these words will be interpreted the same way in 135.219 as they are in 135.225. In other words, you are not allowed to ignore ceiling, and rely solely on visibility in deciding to depart. I would have to agree with the captain in the original post, you gotta look at ceiling.


§135.219 IFR: Destination airport weather minimums.

No person may take off an aircraft under IFR or begin an IFR or over-the-top operation unless the latest weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that weather conditions at the estimated time of arrival at the next airport of intended landing will be at or above authorized IFR landing minimums.


§135.225 IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

(a) No pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure to an airport unless --

(1) That airport has a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by U.S. National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator; and

(2) The latest weather report issued by that weather reporting facility indicates that weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport.

(b) No pilot may begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure to an airport unless the latest weather reported by the facility described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section indicates that weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that procedure.




FAA Legal Opinion:
"March 21, 1991
Mr. Glenn Rizner
Technical Specialist, Membership Services Department
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Frederick, MD 21701-4798

Dear Mr. Rizner:

We recently received a letter from the Assistant Chief Counsel for the Eastern Region of the Federal Aviation Administration asking us to give a legal interpretation of a question you posed to them concerning Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize for the delay in answering your query.

The question was: Are both ceiling and visibility required in order for an FAR Part 135 air carrier pilot to initiate an instrument approach?

FAR 135.225(a) and 135.225(a)(2) forbid a Part 135 pilot from beginning an instrument approach unless reported weather conditions at the destination airport are at or above the authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport. So, even though ceiling is not a criterion on the approach plates, it must be considered by the pilot in his decision to initiate the approach, and in deciding whether the reported ceiling is above or below the decision height or minimum descent altitude for the approach. Similarly, FAR 135.225(b) forbids initiation of a final approach segment unless reported conditions are at or above minimums. Again, the pilot must know the reported ceiling and visibility before deciding whether that approach segment can legally be initiated.

This interpretation has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service. We hope that this satisfactorily answers your question.

Sincerely,

/s/

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

cc: AGC-220/AGC-200/AFS-230/AEA-7