Not Quite By The Book

It really should be true. Visual contact with lights offers a bridge between the miasma of IMC and the welcoming squeak of pavement. If you reach DA and have only the approach lights in sight, just holding your attitude for a moment longer-and lower-should yield enough visual information to put the wheels safely on the runway.

jwanwest

Tuesday, May 02, 2017 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Many IFR pilots commonly misinterpret regulations for descending below minimums, mistakenly assuming that simply seeing approach lights allows descent below 100 feet AGL without meeting specific red light component or runway environment requirements (14 CFR 91.175 (c)(3)).
Pilots often misunderstand alternate airport requirements (91.169), including the default need for an alternate, nuances in fuel planning, limitations for non-instrument airports, and correctly interpreting non-standard minimums or NA designations.
Beyond minimums and alternates, other frequently misunderstood IFR regulations include lost communication procedures (e.g., land if in visual conditions), GPS database currency, WAAS limitations for alternates, and cloud clearance requirements during visual approaches on an IFR flight plan.
The article stresses that a precise and current understanding of FARs, the AIM, and Advisory Circulars is critical, as relying on outdated knowledge or "wishful thinking" can lead to violations and scrutiny during incidents.

See a mistake? Contact us.

I’m voting this regulation as the most commonly misinterpreted rule for IFR: “If you can see the approach lights, you can descend to within 100 feet AGL of the runway.”

It really should be true. Visual contact with lights offers a bridge between the miasma of IMC and the welcoming squeak of pavement. If you reach DA and have only the approach lights in sight, just holding your attitude for a moment longer—and lower—should yield enough visual information to put the wheels safely on the runway.