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

Marco Leon wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
That was wrong on the controllers part.

Wouldn't it be covered under here? Maybe he forgot to specifically say
"runway xx unsafe?"

No, this section has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

On Jan 18, 2:05 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:


What plane are you flying that is more slippery than a Mooney and that
does not slow when you deploy the flaps? Your A36 is a truck compared
to the slippery Mooney. I used to cook into San Jose Int'l in the A36
at 150 knots and drop the gear/flaps on short final. I could feel the
G's of the decelleration, so you can't tell me that your A36 won't
slow with flaps.

-Robert

The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

In the Army we differentiated between doctrine and technique. Doctrine
everybody was to do, period. Technique was the method you employed to
achieve doctrine.

In this case "doctrine" is to arrive at the runway with as little
energy as possible, given the requirements of safety in the conditions
at hand.

If you can reconfigure the airplane on short final and reduce the
speed as appropriate to achieve this, then that's your technique.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

It just seems to me that a consistent, less drastic change in
configuration is the better technique.

Dan

On Jan 18, 6:32*pm, " wrote:


The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
actual.

-Robert

On Jan 18, 9:37 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jan 18, 6:32 pm, " wrote:



The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
actual.

-Robert

Well then there ya go...

Dan

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:12386052-d134-4208-b818-
:

On Jan 18, 6:32*pm, " wrote:


The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767.


Wel, as a matter of fact, we do have to do that....


Bertie

wrote in message
...

Some of them are never wrong...




Jeeze - I'd never have to take my wife to the comedy club if I could just
get her to read this group....


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:55:04 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

Some of them are never wrong...

Of course; those are the ones that were properly trained.


The ones I'm talking about are never wrong about anything...





On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:25:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:13osru9nohbb0b0
@corp.supernews.com:

It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

Of course not, all controllers are superhuman beings that never forget,
never get distracted, never make a mistake, never cough, sneeze, or
blink, never have a bad day, always get enough sleep, never get ****ed
at the boss, and don't catch a cold or any other disease that plagues
mere mortals.

If there was a procedural "error", the controller was poorly trained.

QED.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:01:44 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

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


I am not saying that at all.

Descent below the MDA, or continuation of the approach beyond DA,
requires 3 conditions:

1) Runway environment in sight
2) Normal rates of descent, etc...
3)Flight visibility as specified...

All 3 conditions must be met. Approach lights satisfy condition 1.

On Jan 18, 9:37 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jan 18, 6:32 pm, " wrote:



The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
actual.

-Robert

So, you are able to:
Apply full flaps
Reduce speed from 90-100 K to 70 K
Continue descending to the touchdown point
Stabilize the approach at somewhere near 1.3-1.4 Vso
All beginning at 200' AGL?

Dan

wrote in news:uqp3p3lau9kqq62b1q0ttf9pi3368kb4k8
@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:01:44 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

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


I am not saying that at all.

Descent below the MDA, or continuation of the approach beyond DA,
requires 3 conditions:

1) Runway environment in sight
2) Normal rates of descent, etc...
3)Flight visibility as specified...

All 3 conditions must be met. Approach lights satisfy condition 1.


The letter of the law is the letter of the law, but the spirit behind it
is "don't crash"

1/8 mile is not enough to transition to visual manuevering by hand.

Period.


Bertie