Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

On Jan 15, 12:24 pm, kontiki <kont...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> sockpuppe...@ wrote:
>
> > I can't see much sense in demanding that VFR pilots learn about IFR
> > and buy or download the approach plates so they can understand a radio
> > message from an IFR flight doing practice in VFR conditions (or when
> > conditions are VFR at the relevant airport).
>
> If an instructor can't explain to a student (with a simple diagram)
> what the fixes are for the common instrument approaches at the airport
> they are doing their students a disfavor.


There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with an
instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise there is no
requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and enroute
charts for cross country airports.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with an
> instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise there is no
> requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and enroute
> charts for cross country airports.
>

Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR (perish the
mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now teach)
there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and we
hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.." or
"N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know what
that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to explain.. once
explained the student will no longer be ignorant and will ultimately
be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.

In article <i9tqo3h3hs9iaih5sifcrkij3fi2mdfodd@>,
"Roger (K8RI)" <validaddress@my.com> wrote:

> It doesn't bother me to see a 310 come screaming in at 500 AGL while
> I'm flying the pattern at a 1000, but it certainly would unnerve a
> student and probably any other pilot who is not used to seeing it as
> well.

I gotta tell you, if I saw an A-310 screaming in at 500 AGL while I was in
the pattern, I'd probably have a laundry problem too. :-)

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:41 am, B A R R Y <beech23pi...m> wrote:
>> I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
>> direction over waypoints.
>
> That's good but just make sure you use waypoints that a VFR pilot
> would know (like VORs, etc). Remember the point is for traffic to know
> where you are so you don't want to use references that some pilots may
> not know. Personally I prefer using relative location to the airport,
> since you're only about 10 miles out anyway.

I only use ONE waypoint for airport calls, the airport. <G>

On Jan 16, 5:17 am, "Jim Carter" <jim.car...@swbell.net> wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@> wrote in messagenews:1ee64105-a800-4e4f-82f5-5fce6ea01bec@j20g2000hsi..com...
>
> ...
>
> There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.
>
> -Robert
>
> The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
> following:
>
>     ILS or LOC RWY 22L    Cat A    500 - 1/2
>     RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L    Cat A    300 - 1/2
>     VOR/DME RWY 22L    Cat A    700 - 1/2
>
> I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with all
> equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
> visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
> minimums by quite a bit?

1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
flight visibility.
2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower
reports.

-Robert

-Robert

On Jan 16, 8:16 am, "Jim Carter" <jim.car...@swbell.net> wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@> wrote in messagenews:dc41bc1d-dc41-41c6-b557-a98f0008b1a7@e4g2000hsg..com...
> On Jan 16, 5:17 am, "Jim Carter" <jim.car...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@> wrote in
> > messagenews:1ee64105-a800-4e4f-82f5-5fce6ea01bec@j20g2000hsi..com...
>
> > ...
>
> > There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.
>
> > -Robert
>
> > The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
> > following:
>
> > ILS or LOC RWY 22L Cat A 500 - 1/2
> > RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L Cat A 300 - 1/2
> > VOR/DME RWY 22L Cat A 700 - 1/2
>
> > I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with
> > all
> > equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
> > visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
> > minimums by quite a bit?
>
> 1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
> flight visibility.
> 2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
> you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
> loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
> the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower
> reports.
>
> -Robert
>
> You are correct that I sited flight visibility, however on those same
> approach plates a required visibility is listed in RVR terms making it a
> ground based observation. Additionally, 001OVC does not indicate smoke,
> haze, or fog. It is 100' overcast which represents a ceiling doesn't it?

There is no requirement for a minimum reported overcast or ceiling
under part 91. I've landed with an overcast reported at 50 feet by on
field FSS. As long as I can see the rabbit at 200 feet and the runway
environment at 100 feet I'm legal with regard to ceilings. Fog is a
way of life around here so its not that odd to us.

> I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were below
> minimums.

No, several planes did land.

-Robert

On Jan 16, 11:41 am, "Jim Carter" <jim.car...@swbell.net> wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@> wrote in messagenews:331fcbab-cfe1-400e-a7f4-204c4623afff@s8g2000prg..com...
>
> ...
>
> No, several planes did land.
>
> -Robert
>
> I think you're confusing with practicality with legality. OVC represents an
> overcast which represents a ceiling. 001 OVC is 100' ceiling which is less
> than any of the published minimums. 1/8 SM represents a visibility and on
> the ground that is less than RVR 2400 or any of the other published
> minimums.

We were speaking legall; I think we agree that legally the 001OVC
1/8SM is not significant. In my experience with fog it isn't
necessarily significant from a practical point of view either
because...
1) Fog is rarely uniform. 1/8 at the end of the runway may be 1/2 mile
at the other end. That is why RVR is often quoted in "touch down" and
"roll out", sometimes even 3 locations.
2) At 200 feet you may be in the clouds but its common to be able to
pick the rabbit out from the clouds. The rabbit is very high intensity
and commonly pierces through the clouds (which is its purpose).
Sometimes I'll fly 1/2 a dot off to the right so the rabbit appears
below me out the window.

-robert

"Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@> wrote

We were speaking legall; I think we agree that legally the 001OVC
1/8SM is not significant. I think everyone is hung up on the visibility of
the runway from the plane.

Could it be that if he could not see you, he could not guarantee that there
was not someone else around that he could not see also, (so could not clear
you) so he told you what runway was in use and turned over separation
responsibility to you.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" <jsmorgan@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:O3Mjj.11$rL.7@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@> wrote
>
> We were speaking legall; I think we agree that legally the 001OVC
> 1/8SM is not significant. I think everyone is hung up on the visibility of
> the runway from the plane.
>
> Could it be that if he could not see you, he could not guarantee that
> there was not someone else around that he could not see also, (so could
> not clear you) so he told you what runway was in use and turned over
> separation responsibility to you.
>

No, that couldn't be.

>>>You are correct that as a Part 91 flight you can begin the approach even if
>>>it is reported Zero-Zero, and you are allowed to land if you have the
>>>runway
>>>environment in site when you reach the decision point on the approach.
>>
>> You must also have the prescribed flight visibility
>>
> Nope, just the runway environment.

FAR 91.175 is pretty clear that the prescribed flight visibility is required
to land:

(d) Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the
United States, may land that aircraft when—
(1) [refers to use of enhanced vision systems]; or

(2) For all other part 91 operations and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135
operations, the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed in
the standard instrument approach procedure being used.



Also, as I've already posted, 91.175(c) prohibits even continuing below DH
unless you have the prescribed visibility.