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

On Jan 15, 11:04*am, kontiki wrote:

What are the vis minimums for that approach? Probably than 1/8 SM.
I'm sure you got cleared for the approach but perhaps since the vis
minimums were below that published for the approach tower didn't issue
you a clearance. That's my guess.- Hide quoted text -

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

....

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert


The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
following:

ILS or LOC RWY 22L Cat A 500 - 1/2
RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L Cat A 300 - 1/2
VOR/DME RWY 22L Cat A 700 - 1/2

I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with all
equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
minimums by quite a bit?

The "landing runway" phrase used to be used a lot when the airport was known
to be below minimums.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

On Jan 16, 5:17*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...

...

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert

The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
following:

* * ILS or LOC RWY 22L * *Cat A * *500 - 1/2
* * RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L * *Cat A * *300 - 1/2
* * VOR/DME RWY 22L * *Cat A * *700 - 1/2

I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with all
equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
minimums by quite a bit?

1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
flight visibility.
2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower
reports.

-Robert

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 5:17 am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
...

...

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert

The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
following:

ILS or LOC RWY 22L Cat A 500 - 1/2
RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L Cat A 300 - 1/2
VOR/DME RWY 22L Cat A 700 - 1/2

I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with
all
equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
minimums by quite a bit?

1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
flight visibility.
2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower
reports.

-Robert


You are correct that I sited flight visibility, however on those same
approach plates a required visibility is listed in RVR terms making it a
ground based observation. Additionally, 001OVC does not indicate smoke,
haze, or fog. It is 100' overcast which represents a ceiling doesn't it?

I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were below
minimums.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

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?


He erred. The proper phraseology is "not in sight, runway 22L cleared to
land." "Own risk" is used when a pilot insists on landing on a closed
runway, "unable to issue landing clearance, landing will be at your own
risk."

On Jan 15, 11:30*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

He erred. *The proper phraseology is "not in sight, runway 22L cleared to
land." *"Own risk" is used when a pilot insists on landing on a closed
runway, "unable to issue landing clearance, landing will be at your own
risk."

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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

On Jan 15, 11:30 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

He erred. The proper phraseology is "not in sight, runway 22L cleared to
land." "Own risk" is used when a pilot insists on landing on a closed
runway, "unable to issue landing clearance, landing will be at your own
risk."


That's what I thought but he said it 6 times. Must be training week
in Sacramento.


A qualified instructor is supposed to correct those things on the spot.

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.

Weather was reported below minimums. Part 91 allows the PIC
to make the approach and land if you have the required
minimums.

Rwy 22L was open.

They don't "clear" you to do things when you are the only
one who can determine the weather is at or above landing
minimums.

Thus they said... you are not in sight, since he can't see
crap except snow. They are using rwy 22L and you can land
if you decide that all required visual cues and visibility
exist.

See CATII landing minimums, and special procedures for
category A aircraft.




"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
| 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. Of all
my 6
| approaches today I easily could have landed from any one
of them. I
| was able to follow the rabbit to the runway but
technically if I can
| only see 1/8 or so I can't land.
|
| -Robert