fehim yamak calgavIn poor weather conditions, especially fog, low visibility, precipitation, or low cloud cover, whether an aircraft can continue its landing does not depend on the pilot’s personal judgment alone. It depends on technical conditions such as runway visual range, approach category, aircraft systems, crew authorization, and airport equipment. If the required visual references are not obtained at decision altitude, the pilot must go around or divert to an alternate airport. [1][2]
Therefore, an aircraft can land without the pilot visually seeing the runway only under specific conditions, such as CAT II/CAT III capability, autoland, suitable runway lighting, an ILS system, and authorization for low-visibility operations. Otherwise, the statement “the weather was bad, so the aircraft had to land” is not technically correct from an aviation safety perspective. [3][4][5]
This technical reality is important not only for civilian landings but also for extraordinary events that require visual target identification. If visibility during a flight is so limited that the pilot cannot safely see the runway, ground, or target, then either the aircraft must have advanced navigation or targeting systems, or external support such as guidance, reconnaissance, radar, marking, or pre-determined coordinate information must be involved.
In this context, regarding publicly debated events such as the Pentagon attacks, the following technical question may be raised: If visibility conditions were truly limited, how did the pilot or the person controlling the aircraft identify the target, which systems were used, and was any external reconnaissance or guidance support investigated? This is not a definitive accusation, but a technical question that should be addressed from the standpoint of flight safety and incident analysis.
More formal version
In some publicly debated incidents, it has been claimed that the flight took place under low visibility, sudden weather changes, or limited visual reference conditions. Under aviation rules, if a pilot cannot obtain the necessary visual references, the approach cannot be continued; instead, a go-around, holding pattern, or diversion to an alternate airport must be carried out. [6][1][7]
On the other hand, continuing a flight without visually seeing the runway or target can only be explained by technical means such as special equipment, instrument navigation, autoland, radar, coordinate-based guidance, or external reconnaissance support. Therefore, in such incidents, the assumption that “the pilot saw the target and directed the aircraft toward it” is not sufficient on its own; visibility, weather reports, flight path, onboard equipment, radar records, and possible guidance elements must be examined together.
Short public statement
“If a passenger aircraft is to land in low visibility, certain technical conditions must be met; if those conditions are not met, the pilot must go around or divert to an alternate airport. By the same logic, if an aircraft is directed toward a target under limited visibility, it should be technically examined how the target was seen, what systems were used for guidance, and whether reconnaissance or external guidance support was involved.” [1][2][5]
Cautious conclusion
The text should not state, “There were definitely reconnaissance forces involved,” because such a claim would require documents, radar records, witness statements, technical reports, or official investigation data. A stronger and legally safer wording would be: “If visibility conditions made it difficult to identify the target with the naked eye, it should be investigated whether the event can be technically explained solely by the pilot’s visual capability.”
