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

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:41:03 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

...

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.

Planes landing have nothing to do with legality if someone breaks something
here. Your original question was why the controller used "landing runway 22"
instead of "cleared to land".

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


You
are not allowed to break something in the process. If the controller cleared
you to land wouldn't he or she possibly share some culpability?



My point has always been that the reason the controller used this phrase was
due to minimums, not your ability to land in fog.

On Jan 16, 6:41 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

I also
don't teach flaps until landing is assured. I don't see any reason for
pilots to be flying approaches so slow that flaps are necessary to
reduce stall speed.

-Robert, CFII

Flaps on approach help stabilize the platform and reduce the drastic
configuration changes brought about 200' AGL when the runway suddenly
pops into view.

Extended gear prior to FAF, slow to 90 KIAS, add approach flaps,
descend and trim for 90 KIAS works just fine in an A36. The landing
speed is consistent to VFR pattern speeds (72-80 KIAS) and the landing
attitude, configuration, and power are all the same. The fewer
differences, the better.

I'd rather spread the workload out evenly. If you wait until breakout
to change configuration, you're introducing a bucket full of change
near the ground -- not good.

Dan

..

wrote:

Extended gear prior to FAF, slow to 90 KIAS, add approach flaps,
descend and trim for 90 KIAS works just fine in an A36.

Yeah doesn't work for me. The gear speed on my plane is 87 knots.
I fly most of the approach at the gear speed and drop the gear at
the FAF (or equivalent).

"Robert M. Gary" 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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

Now, if a car pulled in front of me that would be
a different story but I don't think the FAA can protect against that
anyway.
But isn't a clearance him saying that a car is not going to pull onto the
runway in front of you? If he can't see the end of the runway, can he issue
a clearance to land?
--
Jim in NC

Flaps on approach help stabilize the platform and reduce the drastic
configuration changes brought about 200' AGL when the runway suddenly
pops into view.

I guess I"m just lucky to be flying a Mooney. The Mooney is very, very
stable on approach without flaps. One less thing to worry about during
missed. Its very, very common for students to forget to pull the gear
up on missed, I"m sure adding complexity with flaps would make that
worse.

-Robert

Its very, very common for students to forget to pull the gear
up on missed, I"m sure adding complexity with flaps would make that
worse.

For this reason I think it's sometimes a good idea to teach a student to use
flaps on approach. If the training is in a fixed-gear but the pilot plans to
fly a retractable later on, using flaps from the beginning helps establish the
habit of reconfiguring the airplane at (or near) the FAF and again on the
missed.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" 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.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Now, if a car pulled in front of me that would be
a different story but I don't think the FAA can protect against that
anyway.
But isn't a clearance him saying that a car is not going to pull onto the
runway in front of you?


No, a clearance is him saying a car is not authorized to pull onto the
runway in front of him.



If he can't see the end of the runway, can he issue a clearance to land?


Yes. He can issue a clearance to land even if he can't see any of the
runway.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:41:03 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

...

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.

Planes landing have nothing to do with legality if someone breaks
something
here. Your original question was why the controller used "landing runway
22"
instead of "cleared to land".

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.

Al G