I performed below landing on KLAX RNAV RYW 06R in misty weather. I was wondering if this would qualify as a landing that respected minimums. I was able to see the runway at the minimums of 471 ft, and the (official) RVR at the time was 6000. Required minimums is 471 ft @ 40 RVR. So I guess it was ok, but I’m not sure because it was only júst visible.
6000ft is the horizontal viz, 471ft is vertical.
I know 
My question is if my landing respected the minimums or not.
Yes. Visibility was reported as 6000 RVR and the minimum on the chart was 4000 RVR.
Just noticed that this wasn’t an ILS approach, sorry.
You definitely violated the minimum and should have performed a go-around.
Could you elaborate? I’m trying to understand how to correctly interpret minimums. I know what the figures mean, but in practice what does it actually mean to be able to ‘see the runway from the minimums of 471 ft’. I saw it, but how well should you see it?
You need just enough visual cues, e.g. a few approach lights, to be able to continue visually.
In your video the first approach lights became visible at ~360ft which is well below minimum.
IRL a single flasher would be too little info for me to continue.
That’s the reason why you should always choose an approach (if possible) were the minimum is lower than the actual ceiling
Even if you didn’t see the runway at minimums but you saw the approach lights you can still go down to 100 feet above touchdown zone elevation. FAR 91.175 has more info on this. At the 500 callout (mins are 471’) the approach lights were in sight. It is legal to continue to 100 feet above TDZE. The reported RVR exceeded the requirement on the chart. So yes, it’s legal despite ILS, VOR, GPS, etc. on the approach type.
Thanks, that’s what I needed to know.
The first blip was visible exactly at 500 ft (baro). That’s the reason for my question: is it enough to legally continue the landing at that point.
I’m not a real pilot but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t continue the landing if I were one under those conditions 
The minimum for this approach is very high.
Even a ‘classic’ non-precision approach usually has lower minimums.
If you take e.g. the standard 300ft non-precision minimum, the first thing you would have seen when dropping below the cloud base would have been the rabbits and part of the approach lights.
This gives you already a sufficient idea about your attitude and alignment.
At the 200ft CAT I minimum you would have seen the complete approach lights and already runwa lights.
edit: if you want to know what low viz actually means…
ACTUAL CONDITIONS CAT IIIB LANDING AT NEW DELHI AIRPORT - YouTube
You’re right, 471 ft indeed is high. The RNAV 06R Y has 316 ft minimums, as has the ILS approach.
The RNAV Z is RNP 0.3, the RNAV Y is LPV. I guess that’s the reason.
On my channel, people have asked which approach should they select. Just like in real life, the approach with the lowest minimums available. It makes life easier that way.
My god, that CAT IIIB landing is just insane
Yes. I did not realize that LPV was better than RNP 0.3. In my mind they are equal, even though I know they are different beasts.
Been there, done that quite a few times.
The even more interesting part at DEL is taxiing/parking and the drive to the crew hotel under these conditions!
I was thinking exactly that… that the taxiing afterwards is probably more dangerous than the landing… how to even do that without colliding? Guess ATC has some way of tracking…
Just because something is legal doesn’t mean 1) you have the skill (flying beyond your capabilities), 2) it is safe. There may be other factors such as crosswind.
IRL and in MSFS there isn’t anyone at the runway threshold making sure all aircraft are flying legally. If one lands below minimums the FAA or MSFS police aren’t going to chase you down the runway and give you a violation. Pilots do choose to fly and land below minimums and suffer the ultimate penalty.
As pilot-in-command only you know the actual cloud height and visibility and make the decision to land or go around.
It’s more than just the numbers.
Once you have the numbers, you move into a judgment phase which is developed through expirience.
Myself, I would have taken the miss. I’m good, but not that good where I would risk the lives and aircraft.
You can legally attempt an approach regardless of the reported weather. If you can see enough of the runway environment at minimums to safely attempt the landing, you can land without breaking any rules. The “runway environment” can be as little as the lead-in lights, the rabbit etc… You have to make the decision as to whether you have the skills to continue based on what you see at minimums. Assuming you land safely, no one can question your decision after the fact. You were the captain and the only one there at the time to make the decision.