BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:36 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

BeechSundowner wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade wrote:

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance.


Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
getting a clearance to land via light gun?

What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
procedures?

I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

Light guns were built primarily to be used when two-way radios weren't
mandatory for takeoff and landing at an airport with a control tower.

Actually, their genesis was really World War II military operations.

What makes me thing 91.185 would trump light signals? Answer:

1. A landing is the presumed conculsion of a successful instrument approach.

2. Clouds