Pace
Even with overcast at 200 feet no one can prove that there was not a hole and tunnel in the clouds leading to the numbers and touchdown point. This appears to be unenforceable law in the above format.
Very true! I guess we have all seen people landing in abysmal conditions having "found a hole". The "Law" is unenforceable for "real" DH/MDH's as well. Even I have landed where I and ATC were surprised I made it in but, a couple of minutes later, as we taxy to stand, we could not even see the next aircraft as it executed a GA. And the converse has happened to me - off we trot to the Diversion!!!!
All I would observe is that the question raised here is what the legal minima are for an IMCr pilot, not the enforceability of said legal minima. Personally, I Instruct to the 500/600ft minima and flew to my interpretation of the minima on my IMCR. I'm not suggesting that anyone here is doing otherwise as the issue here is clearly "interpretation" of what the law is.
Shunter, Fuji
Always delighted to be corrected, is it possible to have a copy of any letter from the CAA as that would be really useful? I have learned over the last 30 years, some correspondence is best held on file – just in case. My logic for my current position is that, if there was an "and" rather than a "but" between the two sections, I would agree that the recommendation applies to both. That's my take on it given my knowledge of English but if the CAA view both as recommendations then, hey, it's their Rules!!!!!
The sad part about this, why don't they just amend the section to read:-
Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, and are advised to use absolute minima of 500 ft for all precision approaches and 600 ft for all non-precision approaches for additional safety. Job done!
Cheers,
H ‘n’ H