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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:5fdc8536-11f5-4348-993f-
:

Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own risk
if he wasn't going to clear me to land?

BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747 have the same
vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2 seconds in a
747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney.

No, usually it's classified by category. On some runways the vis
requirement is the smae, but on some it would be higher for a C or D
airplane. It's mostly down to the OCL.

Bertie

On Jan 15, 5:28*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:5fdc8536-11f5-4348-993f-
:

Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own risk
if he wasn't going to clear me to land?

BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747 have the same
vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2 seconds in a
747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney.

No, usually it's classified by category. On some runways the vis
requirement is the smae, but on some it would be higher for a C or D
airplane. It's mostly down to the OCL.

Bertie

I understand that. On a standard ILS if a cat C is 1/2 mile vis I
believe a cat A should be 1/8 mile vis. The vis requirements should be
based on how many seconds the pilot can see down the runway. I can't
think of any reason why this would not be. A typical GA plane may be
stopped on the runway before a 747 touches down. I think vis
requirements, in general, for GA planes are a bit bogus, at least with
regard to precision approaches.

-robert

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 15, 5:28*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:5fdc8536-11f5-4348-993f-

:

Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own
risk if he wasn't going to clear me to land?

BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747 have the
same vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2
seconds in a 747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney.

No, usually it's classified by category. On some runways the vis
requirement is the smae, but on some it would be higher for a C or D
airplane. It's mostly down to the OCL.

Bertie

I understand that. On a standard ILS if a cat C is 1/2 mile vis I
believe a cat A should be 1/8 mile vis. The vis requirements should be
based on how many seconds the pilot can see down the runway.

Nope, it's how reasonable it might be to expect to see he runway and
munuever the airplane to a landing form the MAP or DH.
You're nto going to be able to do that safely with 1/8 from 200' or
thereabouts.
1/8 mile is pretty ****ing small! That's Cat 3a minima.

I can't
think of any reason why this would not be. A typical GA plane may be
stopped on the runway before a 747 touches down. I think vis
requirements, in general, for GA planes are a bit bogus, at least with
regard to precision approaches.


Hand flown, you would have a lot of airplanes crashed into the approach
lights.
An excepetional pilot would be able to do it most of the time, though.
most of the time.

And I've done a LOT of instruments in singles and light twins. 1/4 is
reasonablem but 1/8. no.

Bertie

On Jan 15, 5:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Nope, it's how reasonable it might be to expect to see he runway and
munuever the airplane to a landing *form the MAP or DH.
You're nto going to be able to do that safely with 1/8 from 200' or
thereabouts.
1/8 mile is pretty ****ing small! That's Cat 3a minima.

I can't

think of any reason why this would not be. A typical GA plane may be
stopped on the runway before a 747 touches down. I think vis
requirements, in general, for GA planes are a bit bogus, at least with
regard to precision approaches.

Hand flown, you would have a lot of airplanes crashed into the approach
lights.
An excepetional pilot would be able to do it most of the time, though.
most of the time.

And I've done a LOT of instruments in singles and light twins. 1/4 is
reasonablem but 1/8. no.

Maybe this is different to me because I live in a fog valley. Today I
shoot 6 approaches. Weather was reported as 001OVC and 1/8SM. This is
pretty common weather here. I easily could have landed from any of the
approaches. Flying over the rabbit I clearly could see far enough of
the runway to land. 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.

So, to me landing 1/8SM 001OVC is not unreasonably hard but I could
see it could be a handful going 150 knots in a 747.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:707fa568-97e2-4d51-
:

On Jan 15, 5:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Nope, it's how reasonable it might be to expect to see he runway and
munuever the airplane to a landing *form the MAP or DH.
You're nto going to be able to do that safely with 1/8 from 200' or
thereabouts.
1/8 mile is pretty ****ing small! That's Cat 3a minima.

I can't

think of any reason why this would not be. A typical GA plane may
be
stopped on the runway before a 747 touches down. I think vis
requirements, in general, for GA planes are a bit bogus, at least
with
regard to precision approaches.

Hand flown, you would have a lot of airplanes crashed into the
approach
lights.
An excepetional pilot would be able to do it most of the time,
though.
most of the time.

And I've done a LOT of instruments in singles and light twins. 1/4 is
reasonablem but 1/8. no.

Maybe this is different to me because I live in a fog valley. Today I
shoot 6 approaches. Weather was reported as 001OVC and 1/8SM. This is
pretty common weather here. I easily could have landed from any of the
approaches. Flying over the rabbit I clearly could see far enough of
the runway to land. 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.


Well, they're required to protect you against that in those sorts of
visses.

So, to me landing 1/8SM 001OVC is not unreasonably hard but I could
see it could be a handful going 150 knots in a 747.

Nope, it;s pretty much just the same. Even easier in some ways ( even
hand flown) The flight director, the multi crew co-ordination.
Don;'t get me wrong, I've done it and I know it can be done, but if you
were at 200' and could see that much the actual WX was better than
reported anyway.
Now if you were suggesting there be another category added, say Cat
1A..Or that hand flown single pilot cat II be allowed, I can see a case
for it.

Bertie

On Jan 15, 6:19*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:707fa568-97e2-4d51-
:







On Jan 15, 5:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Nope, it's how reasonable it might be to expect to see he runway and
munuever the airplane to a landing *form the MAP or DH.
You're nto going to be able to do that safely with 1/8 from 200' or
thereabouts.
1/8 mile is pretty ****ing small! That's Cat 3a minima.

I can't

think of any reason why this would not be. A typical GA plane may
be
stopped on the runway before a 747 touches down. I think vis
requirements, in general, for GA planes are a bit bogus, at least
with
regard to precision approaches.

Hand flown, you would have a lot of airplanes crashed into the
approach
lights.
An excepetional pilot would be able to do it most of the time,
though.
most of the time.

And I've done a LOT of instruments in singles and light twins. 1/4 is
reasonablem but 1/8. no.

Maybe this is different to me because I live in a fog valley. Today I
shoot 6 approaches. Weather was reported as 001OVC and 1/8SM. This is
pretty common weather here. I easily could have landed from any of the
approaches. Flying over the rabbit I clearly could see far enough of
the runway to land. 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.

Well, they're required to protect you against that in those sorts of
visses.

So, to me landing 1/8SM 001OVC is not unreasonably hard but I could
see it could be a handful going 150 knots in a 747.

Nope, it;s pretty much just the same. Even easier in some ways ( even
hand flown) The flight director, the multi crew co-ordination.
Don;'t get me wrong, I've done it and I know it can be done, but if you
were at 200' and could see that much the actual WX was better than
reported anyway.

At 200 feet all I can see is some light through the fog so I go down
to 100 above TDZE. At 100 feet I can see the chevrons or maybe the
runway numbers. If vis is 1/8 and I can see the runway numbers, its
hard to understand why the FAA prohibits landing.

-Robert

At 200 feet all I can see is some light through the fog so I go down
to 100 above TDZE. At 100 feet I can see the chevrons or maybe the
runway numbers. If vis is 1/8 and I can see the runway numbers, its
hard to understand why the FAA prohibits landing.

The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200

I want to reply to both of these posts by Robert. 91.175(c)(2) says that to
continue the approach below DH, you must have the required flight visibility
(1/2 mile in this case). I agree that this is observed (not reported) flight
visibility. If you have the required viz and the approach lights are
"distinctly visible and identifiable", then you can continue the descent (but
not below 100 feet unless you see the red terminating bars or red side row
bars, or one of the items listed in 91.175(c)(3)). But seeing the lights DOES
NOT relieve you of the visibility requirement, and I'd say that seeing some
light through the fog doesn't count as "distinctly visible and identifiable".

Note that at 200 feet on a 3 degree glideslope, you are about 3000 feet, or
just over 1/2 sm, from the threshold. So if the viz is right at 1/2 mile, you
should be able to see the approach lights almost, but not quite, to the
threshold. Within a few seconds, the threshold should be in sight. At 100
feet, you're only about 1000 feet from the threshold. So obviously if you
don't see the threshold until 100 feet, slant visibility is well below 1/2
mile. It's true that forward and slant visibility are not exactly the same,
but it the slant viz is less than 1/2 mile, it's almost certain that the
forward viz is less than 1/2 mile at least somewhere along your path.

Concerning landing out of an approach like this, I think that most GA pilots,
like myself, have very little chance to practice. We don't have simulators
like the airline pilots do, and it's hard in most places to get this type of
practice in actual. The only time I did an actual approach all the way down
to minimum (reported viz was 3/8) I found that it was not so easy to
transition to landing. I'm sure that with practice it would become much
easier, as you describe, but I don't find the FAA requirement unreasonable.
It doesn't leave much margin for error.

Barry

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Maybe this is different to me because I live in a fog valley. Today I
shoot 6 approaches. Weather was reported as 001OVC and 1/8SM. This is
pretty common weather here. I easily could have landed from any of the
approaches. Flying over the rabbit I clearly could see far enough of
the runway to land.

If you could see that far the Vis was better than 1/8 SM. Maybe
the AWOS visibility sensor needs to be recalibrated.

kontiki wrote:

If you could see that far the Vis was better than 1/8 SM. Maybe
the AWOS visibility sensor needs to be recalibrated.


Maybe the AWOS was made by B*lfort. G

Ducking!

B A R R Y wrote in news:rtpjj.7900$pA7.1831
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Maybe the AWOS was made by B*lfort. G

Damn, beat me to it lol

--