While we train for the essential ability to fly approaches to minimums, that's not always enough preparation for real-life weather, which can conjure up things that don't fit neatly into the ceiling/visibility numbers on the charts. Sometimes it's not clear: Am I at those minimums? Do I have the visual minimums to cancel? Should I continue, or miss? Surprises happen, but we can have Plans A and B (and sometimes C) ready to lessen the odds of a snap decision. And if flying under 14 CFR Part 91, it's largely up to the PIC whether to continue for that landing under IFR or VFR, with few legal constraints. Here's an example from the NTSB files. A pilot and passenger flying a TBM 700 escaped with minor injuries following a go-around and crash at Truckee-Tahoe Airport (KTRK) near Lake Tahoe, California. It was December 2009,1738 local time, around dusk. According to the NTSB's report, the probable cause was "The pilot's failure to maintain an adequate airspeed and clearance from terrain during an attempted go-around. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's decision to land on a partially obscured runway." It happens: Breaking out of the clouds and seeing the runway or runway lighting in front of you, thus meeting §91.175. But sometimes you're not seeing those objects clearly due to thin clouds, mist, or snow. Continue or miss? Depends on what else is going on. But flying the missed approach, even if it seems safer than continuing to the runway in partial obscuration, is a high-workload procedure for single-pilot IMC.
展开▼
