Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video

On Jul 16, 3:41*am, Sam Spade wrote:

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade wrote:


So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?


Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance. If your
destination airport has an operating control tower and conditions are
IMC you don't need a landing clearance any more than you need an
approach clearance. If, however, the Class D area is VMC to the extent
that it is safe to enter the VFR traffic pattern that would be the
prudent thing to do.

Under IMC, so long as you can comply with 91.185 you're expected to
sqawk 7600, not 7700. And, perhaps the transponder isn't working
either. If it is, and you have sufficient time, listening on VOR voice
might find ATC soliciting ident replies to new clearances.

On Jul 16, 3:36*pm, Sam Spade wrote:
BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade wrote:

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. *I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. *I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. *I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. *The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. *When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance. *

Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
getting a clearance to land via light gun?

What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
procedures?

I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

On Jul 16, 3:46*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:36*pm, Sam Spade wrote:



BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade wrote:

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. *I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. *I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. *I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. *The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. *When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance. *

Lets go this route. *The system has built in a communication way for
getting a clearance to land via light gun?

What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
procedures?

I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

I hit send too fast! Landing is a VFR operation, not a IFR
operation. You would be visual from DH to wheels down so I really
don't think 91.185 applies.

On 07/16/09 13:48, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:46 pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:36 pm, Sam Spade wrote:



BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade wrote:

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance.

Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
getting a clearance to land via light gun?

What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
procedures?

I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

I hit send too fast! Landing is a VFR operation, not a IFR
operation. You would be visual from DH to wheels down so I really
don't think 91.185 applies.

Oh good grief! If you break out of the clouds at DA and proceed to
land visually, do you really believe you're flying under VFR?

Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
still flying by IFR?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Jul 16, 3:59*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
still flying by IFR?

Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.

My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
set of rules.

I don't think light guns apply to IFR procedures, but we all have to
land, and that landing clearance rules are distinctly different then
the approach clearance rules given in 91.185. Otherwise, I would
imagine the 91.185 would have light gun references in there?

On 07/16/09 14:12, A Lieberman wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:59 pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
still flying by IFR?

Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.

No. If you break out at DA and continue to land, you're not executing
a visual approach. See the Pilot/Controller glossary for details.


My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
set of rules.

When flying IFR and landing through the use of an IAP, the landing is
certainly part of the procedure.


I don't think light guns apply to IFR procedures, but we all have to
land, and that landing clearance rules are distinctly different then
the approach clearance rules given in 91.185. Otherwise, I would
imagine the 91.185 would have light gun references in there?

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to get here. If you're
on an IFR flight and lose radio and get to your destination, fly
the approach, break out at DA, etc., if you are able to land and
don't because you don't see a light gun signal... well - I won't
finish that sentence :-)


However, I think this whole thread started with a Visual approach and
landing to a towered field with no radio. I think the question was
asked at that time: What has this to do with IFR flight? This is an
IFR group, right?



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

A Lieberman wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:59 pm, Mark Hansen wrote:


Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
still flying by IFR?


Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.

My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
set of rules.

I don't think light guns apply to IFR procedures, but we all have to
land, and that landing clearance rules are distinctly different then
the approach clearance rules given in 91.185. Otherwise, I would
imagine the 91.185 would have light gun references in there?

"VMC" is the term you are searching for. VMC does not necessairly mean
I can see the ATCT or that they can see me. And, even if I "break out"
at 400 feet, my priority is alignment with the runway and landing.

And, on some approaches you never do "break out," rather the visual cues
progressively come into view. Have you ever flown an ILS IAP with the
weather reported "zero zero" and the RVR at 2,400 (or becoming more
prevailent, 1800)?

BeechSundowner wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:46 pm, BeechSundowner wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:36 pm, Sam Spade wrote:




BeechSundowner wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade wrote:

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance.

Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
getting a clearance to land via light gun?

What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
procedures?

I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)


I hit send too fast! Landing is a VFR operation, not a IFR
operation. You would be visual from DH to wheels down so I really
don't think 91.185 applies.

If landing is a VFR operation than I can't land out of an IAP when the
weather is less than VFR (1,000 and 3 at an airport with an operating ATCT)

BeechSundowner wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:36 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

BeechSundowner wrote:

On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade wrote:

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance.


Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
getting a clearance to land via light gun?

What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
procedures?

I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

Light guns were built primarily to be used when two-way radios weren't
mandatory for takeoff and landing at an airport with a control tower.

Actually, their genesis was really World War II military operations.

What makes me thing 91.185 would trump light signals? Answer:

1. A landing is the presumed conculsion of a successful instrument approach.

2. Clouds