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

On Jan 15, 12:36*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:


That's what I thought but he said it 6 times. Must be training week
in Sacramento. Sunday night I flew into SAC and was told "Cleared to
land runway 22". I assume they hadn't built a new runway over night.

-Robert

I agree it sounds like an error on the part of the controller. But it
should be easy for you as the pilot to fix. Your response should be
"XXX Tower please confirm Mooney XXX is cleared for Runway 22"

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

"Brian" wrote in message
...

I agree it sounds like an error on the part of the controller.


It doesn't just sound like an error, it's definitely an error.



FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control- Terminal

Section 10. Arrival Procedures and Separation

3-10-7. LANDING CLEARANCE WITHOUT VISUAL OBSERVATION

When an arriving aircraft reports at a position where he/she should be seen
but has not been visually observed, advise the aircraft as a part of the
landing clearance that it is not in sight and restate the landing runway.

PHRASEOLOGY-
NOT IN SIGHT, RUNWAY (number) CLEARED TO LAND.

NOTE-
Aircraft observance on the CTRD satisfies the visually observed requirement.




CTRD is Certified Tower Radar Display.

"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

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.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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.

Oh, you don't ever see fog at home, do you, Bertie? :-)

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

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.
But isn't a clearance him saying that a car is not going to pull onto the
runway in front of you? If he can't see the end of the runway, can he issue
a clearance to land?
--
Jim in NC