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

On Jan 17, 10:02*am, " wrote:

The point of an approach is to land.

Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
point is not to jump out of the plane.

If a missed is required, the 285 HP and 10 degrees nose up will
maintain 96 KIAS (Vy) with gear and flaps down.

The drill is simple:
Prop is already full forward, so MP goes to 25"
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Flaps Up
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Gear Up

All this happens in sequence, with no rush required.

But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps)

Applying full flaps when the runway is in sight seems to introduce
overly complex recations at the most critical phase of flight (low and
slow).

Once the runway is in sight everything is simplier. That is when the
student breathes his relief and lands. I've never noticed that part ot
be challenging to students, they're happy they found the runway and
ready to land. Its much easier to move flaps at this point than to try
to retract them while going missed at 200 feet in the soup.

90-100 knots to land? In a Cherokee?

No, I guess I was unclear. 90-100 knots on approach until I'm visual, then
slow to 65 or so while extending full flaps (or maybe only 2 notches if it's
very windy). The point I was trying to make is that unless you want to fly
the entire approach at 65 knots and full flaps, you have to slow down and
configure somewhere inside the FAF, and I prefer to do it while visual on
short final, not while still in the clouds.

1.3 x Vs1 fpr landing works every time, all the time. Add whatever for
gusts and you don't have to change techniques, IFR or VFR.

But you do have to change technique from VFR to IFR, because VFR you'd
probably not be at 90 or 100 knots on base and after turning final. If the
weather is near minimums, it's only the very last part of short final that
will be the same.

"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.

On Jan 17, 2:22 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:


The point of an approach is to land.

Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
point is not to jump out of the plane.

Landing fast just because you might have to go missed is stacking the
deck -- in a bad way.

The intent of an approach is landing -- whatever provides the most
consistent, reliable, safe, controllable airspeed for landing is the
target airspeed -- not some arbitrary missed approach speed.

But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps)

The benefit of approach flaps is reducing energy prior to contact with
the ground. Given a 20% increase in landing distance for every 10%
increase in airspeed (if I recall correctly), the slower I go, the
less floating over and subsequent rolling on the ground I do. That's a
good thing.

Once the runway is in sight everything is simplier. That is when the
student breathes his relief and lands. I've never noticed that part ot
be challenging to students, they're happy they found the runway and
ready to land. Its much easier to move flaps at this point than to try
to retract them while going missed at 200 feet in the soup.

So breaking out at minimums and introducing a significant pitch change
is simpler than...?

Keep in mind -- I never said Full flaps on approach -- only approach
flaps. In most airplanes that's 10 degrees. Full power at the MAP and
the airplane climbs. You climbing? Good -- flaps up. Still climbing?
Good -- gear up.

What could be simpler?

In my very humble opinion -- too much IFR training focuses on repeat
approaches then miss

I understand this helps compress training time, but I appreciated my
instructor's insistence on landing nearly every time. That's the point
of the approach. It doesn't take repeated missed approaches to learn
what to do when you go missed. But it takes some practice and power/
attitude/configuration experience to re-learn how to land.

Dan

On Jan 17, 2:25 pm, "Barry" wrote:
90-100 knots to land? In a Cherokee?

No, I guess I was unclear. 90-100 knots on approach until I'm visual, then
slow to 65 or so while extending full flaps (or maybe only 2 notches if it's
very windy). The point I was trying to make is that unless you want to fly
the entire approach at 65 knots and full flaps, you have to slow down and
configure somewhere inside the FAF, and I prefer to do it while visual on
short final, not while still in the clouds.

1.3 x Vs1 fpr landing works every time, all the time. Add whatever for
gusts and you don't have to change techniques, IFR or VFR.

But you do have to change technique from VFR to IFR, because VFR you'd
probably not be at 90 or 100 knots on base and after turning final. If the
weather is near minimums, it's only the very last part of short final that
will be the same.

Thanks for the clarification. Airplanes such as the Cherokee and C172
will slow down drastically in plenty of time. More slippery airplanes
such as the Bonanza will not.

Dan

In my very humble opinion -- too much IFR training focuses on repeat
approaches then miss

I understand this helps compress training time, but I appreciated my
instructor's insistence on landing nearly every time. That's the point
of the approach. It doesn't take repeated missed approaches to learn
what to do when you go missed. But it takes some practice and power/
attitude/configuration experience to re-learn how to land.

I agree that many instructors do too many missed approaches and not enough
landings. At a towered airport, I usually try to get "cleared for the option"
so the student doesn't know my intentions. I then tell the student that if I
say so, he should look outside and land if able, otherwise go missed. But I
wouldn't say that we land "nearly every time" - it's important to practice the
missed approach too, especially when it's unexpected.

On Jan 17, 12:04*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:22 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Landing fast just because you might have to go missed is stacking the
deck -- in a bad way.

I'm not following. Why would you land fast, you just dumped all your
flaps when you broke out.

The intent of an approach is landing -- whatever provides the most
consistent, reliable, safe, controllable airspeed for landing is the
target airspeed -- not some arbitrary missed approach speed.

But landing is easy, missed is hard. Make the hard part easier and the
easy part will take care of itself.

The benefit of approach flaps is reducing energy prior to contact with
the ground. Given a 20% increase in landing distance for every 10%
increase in airspeed (if I recall correctly), the slower I go, the
less floating over and subsequent rolling on the ground I do. That's a
good thing.

I agree, dump the flaps when you break out at DH.

-robert

On Jan 17, 11:44*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:742db77b-27c0-433a-a541-

No, they're perfectly stable without flaps. Three problems, though. The
pitch attitude is quite high making it difficult to see the runway
properly. You'll have very little drag and you won't really be able to
spool up muc and of course you'll be going 200 knots over the threshold!

That's something I've got to do. I can certainly afford to get a 737
type rating if I really wanted to but for some reason I always find a
way to justify the thought away since it would only be for fun. Taking
the week off to do it is probably the biggest issue, I could do a lot
of things with that week..

-Robert