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.

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

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.

"Barry" wrote in message
. ..
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.


My apologies, I thought you were talking about the Prevailing
Visibility, as reported by the tower. The flight visibility, is determined
by the pilot. The tower can be calling it 1/8 mile, RVR 600', but if I can
see the environment from the DH, I have demonstrated 1/2 mile flight vis.

Fog Seeder extraordinaire

Al G

On Jan 17, 11:28 am, "Al G" wrote:
"Barry" wrote in message

. ..



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.

My apologies, I thought you were talking about the Prevailing
Visibility, as reported by the tower. The flight visibility, is determined
by the pilot. The tower can be calling it 1/8 mile, RVR 600', but if I can
see the environment from the DH, I have demonstrated 1/2 mile flight vis.

But there is no requirement you see the environment from the DH, only
the approach lights.

-Robert, CFII

But there is no requirement you see the environment from the DH, only
the approach lights.

Correct, but as I've posted before, if you can't see almost to the threshold
at DH (assuming 200 feet), you probably do not have the required visibility of
1/2 mile.

Approach lights are part of runway environment...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:39:46 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Jan 17, 11:28 am, "Al G" wrote:
"Barry" wrote in message

. ..



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.

My apologies, I thought you were talking about the Prevailing
Visibility, as reported by the tower. The flight visibility, is determined
by the pilot. The tower can be calling it 1/8 mile, RVR 600', but if I can
see the environment from the DH, I have demonstrated 1/2 mile flight vis.

But there is no requirement you see the environment from the DH, only
the approach lights.

-Robert, CFII

On Jan 17, 8:48*pm, wrote:
Approach lights are part of runway environment...

Then you are clearly wrong. The fact that you see the approach lights
certainly does not indiciate that you have any visibility. As I
mentioned before you can see the approach lights through the fog but
not be able to see the ground around the lights. So your statement
that seeing the environment demonstrates the visibility, if you
include the apporach lights, cannot be correct.

-robert, CFII

"Barry" wrote in
:

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.




Yeah, but you get to decide if it's adequate at DH


Bertie

There are three conditions for descending below MDA or continuing an
approach beyond DA:

1) Runway environment in sight
2) Continuously in position to descend, etc...
3) Have the established flight visibility






On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:44:38 -0800, "Al G"
wrote:


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