Descent below MDA in NZ

[Cloud Cutter]

There might be some confusion here between a "visual approach" and descending below MDA on an "instrument approach".

Ha, I certainly hope not - If ya can't get your head round that one you'll have no hope with the rest of the argument.

[123567]

Only if it differs to my cut & paste above

Here it is...


Visual approach procedures. Each pilot-in-command may, subject to ATC authorisation in controlled airspace, conduct a visual approach under IFR, from the applicable minimum altitudes under 91.412A (c), provided that—
(1) if the visual approach is to be commenced en route, the ceiling is above the applicable route minimum altitude prescribed under Part 95; and
(2) if the visual approach is to be conducted during an instrument approach, the ceiling is above the initial instrument approach altitude; and
(3) the visibility is at least—
(i) 8 km at day; and
(ii) 16 km at night; and
(4) the approach can be conducted with continuous visual rference to the surface; and
(5) at night, the runway approach or runway lighting is in sight throughout the approach; and
(6) the visual approach is not conducted below the minimum heights—
(i) prescribed for VFR flight under 91.311(a)(2) and (3); and
(ii) where applicable, for noise abatement procedures prescribed under Part 93— until the aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal manoeuvres that will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing.


That should clear everything up.

[Cloud Cutter]

Bugger! More numbers for me to remember........ At least the rule discribes what most of us would call common sense and probibly do anyway. I really must dust off the old bible

My appologies Capt, wont be so quick to disagree next time

[flyby_kiwi]

well 1-7 I cant dispute the quote!
Where did you get it? I just had a look at the online caa rules and the rule numbers go from 91.411 to 91.413 (no .412). This is dated Nov. 2004, so prehaps the rule has been removed?
If you got it from an upto date source from somewhere then I do conceed.

[123567]

This is a quote from the NPRM CAR part 95.

Effecitivelly it is not a rule, but was leftover from the old CASO.

But it is essentially a reproducdion on NZAIP ENR 1.5 - 34.

REf 4.22.

[Cloud Cutter]

Hang on, how can it be a rule if it's NPRM, doesn't the 'proposed' bit negate that?

[El Oso]

Having flown in 7 different countries its curious to me how the previous Ozzie posters think NZ viz app rules are strange or dangerous.

They are basically std ICAO doc 4444 stuff where as OZ rules are full of non ICAO condx, especially their viz app rules(<30 nm, no reduction of tracking, etc). The only non ICAO diff I can think of in NZ is that ATC sometimes give Viz Apps with Alt restrictions.

More interesting to me is why in some 3rd world countries ATC insist you have the runway in sight before granting a Viz App by day, when that has never been an ICAO reqt nor usually a local reg. (PIC viz ref to gnd / water sufficient to continue etc is enough as per previous posts). But then 3rd world ATC is another issue...

Why can't the world get its sh*t together and have 1 set of rules! GRRRRRRR.

[Capt. On Heat]

Cheers 1-7. A thread with a seemingly decent outcome, who'd have thought!? I wish the NZCAA would hurry the f**k up and finish the rules etc properly. Cripes how many years have those failed pilots (not all admittedly, but many) in the "Authority" been dragging the chain since the damn act was implemented in 1990. There's crap all over the show from the reg's, rules, caso's half pied NPRM's, AC's and then the wonderful new(ish) mish mash of the AIP. I've saw better organisation during our 2003 rugby world cup bid!

Bitch session complete.