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 misinterpret regulations for descending below Decision Altitude/Minimum Descent Altitude, specifically that seeing only approach lights does not automatically permit descent to 100 feet AGL; specific red light components and sufficient visibility are often required.
An alternate airport is legally required by default for IFR flight plans unless specific 1-2-3 weather conditions are met at the destination, a rule frequently misunderstood regarding its necessity, associated fuel planning, and the application of alternate minimums.
Other common IFR misconceptions include landing in visual conditions during lost communications, the varied legality of flying with an expired GPS database, and cloud clearance requirements for visual approaches on an IFR flight plan (clear of clouds).
The article emphasizes the critical importance of understanding the precise wording of FARs, rather than common beliefs, to avoid regulatory violations and enhance safety, cautioning against misinterpreting information, even from navigation apps like ForeFlight.

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.