Least favorite ATC instructions... ... ...

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...

First time I heard it was McConnell AFB, Wichita, KS (KIAB). Training
sortie, KC-135, we were shooting the full VOR procedure, so several
minutes had elapsed between being cleared for the approach and switching
over to tower. We actually already had the runway more or less in sight
when they called out the weather (below mins; heavy rainshowers) and asked
us for our intentions. When we said we intended to complete the approach
and full-stop, they came back with "Roger, Turbo XX, cleared to land
runway 35L; land at your own risk." For whatever reason, the "official"
weather was wrong, we had plenty of visibility. Landed uneventfully, were
asked for a PIREP, but they didn't change anything based on our input, at
least while we were still on frequency.

I'd never heard that before ("at your own risk"), and we had them
repeat--got the same verbiage. I queried tower on the phone after
landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it essentially
means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane,
we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not
exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own
rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle
differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO). I have an easier time
sorting out the differences between NFL and college ball! That,
actually, is a subject to which I will have to dedicate some serious study
as I ease back into GA....

Second time was at Al Udeid AB, near Doha, Qatar (OTBH). Operational
sortie, KC-135 again, returning from an Enduring Freedom mission. We got
handed off to tower (USAF controllers in a Qatari tower), who told us vis
was below minimums (that area gets some wicked shallow morning fog;
vertical vis typically more-or-less unimpeded, horizontal can go to near
zero). We told them we'd continue and evaluate visibility on final, which
got us the "at your own risk" clearance. Having heard it before, I got to
explain what that meant to the rest of the crew! Landed uneventfully,
were asked for a PIREP, they immediately changed the "official" visibility
to match our observation.


So someone within the USAF thought USAF tower controllers should inform
flight crews that landing was at their own risk when the weather was below
approach minimums? What does that mean, exactly? Does someone else assume
the risk when weather is above approach minimums?

That phraseology doesn't exist in the civilian world, but it's not because
the USAF "flies under its own rules." All controllers in the US are
required to provide services in accordance with FAA Order 7110.65, it
doesn't matter if they wear a uniform.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...

First time I heard it was McConnell AFB, Wichita, KS (KIAB). Training
sortie, KC-135, we were shooting the full VOR procedure, so several
minutes had elapsed between being cleared for the approach and switching
over to tower. We actually already had the runway more or less in sight
when they called out the weather (below mins; heavy rainshowers) and asked
us for our intentions. When we said we intended to complete the approach
and full-stop, they came back with "Roger, Turbo XX, cleared to land
runway 35L; land at your own risk." For whatever reason, the "official"
weather was wrong, we had plenty of visibility. Landed uneventfully, were
asked for a PIREP, but they didn't change anything based on our input, at
least while we were still on frequency.

I'd never heard that before ("at your own risk"), and we had them
repeat--got the same verbiage. I queried tower on the phone after
landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it essentially
means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane,
we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not
exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own
rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle
differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO). I have an easier time
sorting out the differences between NFL and college ball! That,
actually, is a subject to which I will have to dedicate some serious study
as I ease back into GA....

Second time was at Al Udeid AB, near Doha, Qatar (OTBH). Operational
sortie, KC-135 again, returning from an Enduring Freedom mission. We got
handed off to tower (USAF controllers in a Qatari tower), who told us vis
was below minimums (that area gets some wicked shallow morning fog;
vertical vis typically more-or-less unimpeded, horizontal can go to near
zero). We told them we'd continue and evaluate visibility on final, which
got us the "at your own risk" clearance. Having heard it before, I got to
explain what that meant to the rest of the crew! Landed uneventfully,
were asked for a PIREP, they immediately changed the "official" visibility
to match our observation.



So someone within the USAF thought USAF tower controllers should inform
flight crews that landing was at their own risk when the weather was below
approach minimums? What does that mean, exactly? Does someone else assume
the risk when weather is above approach minimums?

That phraseology doesn't exist in the civilian world, but it's not because
the USAF "flies under its own rules." All controllers in the US are
required to provide services in accordance with FAA Order 7110.65, it
doesn't matter if they wear a uniform.

Does 7110.65 prohibit saying "check gear down?"


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Does 7110.65 prohibit saying "check gear down?"


Nope. It actually requires some controllers to say it, although the book
phraseology is "check wheels down".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I queried tower on the phone after
landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it
essentially
means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane,
we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not
exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own
rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle
differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO).
[snip]
So someone within the USAF thought USAF tower controllers should inform
flight crews that landing was at their own risk when the weather was below
approach minimums? What does that mean, exactly? Does someone else
assume the risk when weather is above approach minimums?

That phraseology doesn't exist in the civilian world, but it's not because
the USAF "flies under its own rules." All controllers in the US are
required to provide services in accordance with FAA Order 7110.65, it
doesn't matter if they wear a uniform.


HOW it got into the regs, I can't say; I read it for myself, though, it's
there (or at least it was at the time). It "means" what I somewhat
flippantly said in my earlier response--it emphasizes the fact that the
controller has advised the pilot of the below-mins wx conditions. The
controller tells the pilot that he may land on the runway (as opposed to
being *denied clearance to land* and diverting or holding, etc.), but that
because of the conditions he's doing so "at his own risk." I think it's
less about assuming risk, exactly, and more about communicating that point
(my opinion). Of course, the pilot will always be responsible for any
mishap; but, let's say the controller clears an aircraft to land knowing
that the weather is below minimums--in any mishap, that controller is going
to be hung to dry as well (at least in the USAF world).

I spoke imprecisely when I said the USAF flies under its own rules--yes, it
flies in compliance with FAA (and ICAO and host-nation, where applicable)
rules. There are some pretty broad exceptions granted to the military *by
the FARs*, though, and that's the point I was trying to make....

Air Force Instruction 11-202 Volume 3
[http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfi...i11-202v3.pdf]
is the "General Flight Rules" for USAF pilots--chapter 1 of that pub does a
pretty decent job of explaining that inter-relation if you want the details.
Similar relationships exist as well, for example, for the control of
aircraft (though I'm not familiar enough with that side of things to give
you a citation).

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

Douglas Paterson wrote:

HOW it got into the regs, I can't say; I read it for myself, though, it's
there (or at least it was at the time). It "means" what I somewhat
flippantly said in my earlier response--it emphasizes the fact that the
controller has advised the pilot of the below-mins wx conditions. The
controller tells the pilot that he may land on the runway (as opposed to
being *denied clearance to land* and diverting or holding, etc.), but that
because of the conditions he's doing so "at his own risk." I think it's
less about assuming risk, exactly, and more about communicating that point
(my opinion). Of course, the pilot will always be responsible for any
mishap; but, let's say the controller clears an aircraft to land knowing
that the weather is below minimums--in any mishap, that controller is going
to be hung to dry as well (at least in the USAF world).

Every landing is at the pilot's risk. The controller has much less at
stake. :-)


Matt

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...

HOW it got into the regs, I can't say; I read it for myself, though, it's
there (or at least it was at the time). It "means" what I somewhat
flippantly said in my earlier response--it emphasizes the fact that the
controller has advised the pilot of the below-mins wx conditions. The
controller tells the pilot that he may land on the runway (as opposed to
being *denied clearance to land* and diverting or holding, etc.), but that
because of the conditions he's doing so "at his own risk." I think it's
less about assuming risk, exactly, and more about communicating that point
(my opinion). Of course, the pilot will always be responsible for any
mishap; but, let's say the controller clears an aircraft to land knowing
that the weather is below minimums--in any mishap, that controller is
going to be hung to dry as well (at least in the USAF world).


How does the controller know when the weather is below minimums for any
particular operation? If the controller is going to be hung to dry in the
event of a mishap if he doesn't state "at your own risk", then to cover his
ass he'd have to state it whenever the weather drops below the highest user
minima, which may still be above what's required for the arriving aircraft.
Seems to me it'd be better to just state the latest weather information.
I'd expect the pilot is going to ask for it anyway when told "at your own
risk."

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...


How does the controller know when the weather is below minimums for any
particular operation? If the controller is going to be hung to dry in the
event of a mishap if he doesn't state "at your own risk", then to cover
his ass he'd have to state it whenever the weather drops below the highest
user minima, which may still be above what's required for the arriving
aircraft. Seems to me it'd be better to just state the latest weather
information. I'd expect the pilot is going to ask for it anyway when told
"at your own risk."

I believe that it only applies when the weather is below the minimums for
the lowest applicable approach to the field--that was the case both times I
received that clearance. Also, now that you remind me, both times, the
clearance included the weather in the same transmission: "call sign,
weather is ____________, cleared to land rwy XX, land at your own risk."

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)