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 pilots misinterpret 14 CFR 91.175(c)(3) regarding descent below 100 feet AGL; merely seeing approach lights is insufficient, as specific red components of the lighting system or visibility of the entire system are required to confirm adequate visibility and legally descend further.
An alternate airport is generally required for IFR flight plan filing (unless the "1-2-3 rule" is met at the destination), but these filing requirements do not restrict a pilot's choice of diversion after a missed approach if communications are maintained.
Other critical IFR misunderstandings include: landing if lost communications occur in visual conditions, the "clear of clouds" requirement for visual approaches flown under an IFR flight plan, and the need to confirm specific GPS database currency requirements based on the manufacturer.

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.