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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 5:17*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
messagenews:1ee64105-a800-4e4
...

...

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 a
ll
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.



Well, there's nothing stopping you from making the approach in the first
place, part 91, and once you have a runway element in sight you are
permitted to land, so it's not really an issue for you anyway.
Still think it;'s a bad idea..

Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 8:09*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:501e4456-faf1-4e0b-890b-

:

On Jan 16, 5:07*am, kontiki wrote:
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 th
e
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.

No, it looked like about 1/8 mile. Not sure why the FAA requires
1/2 mile if you can already see the runway.

1/8 mile is only a bit over 200 yards! Where were you when you saw
the runway? On an ILS? At 200' you are over 1,000 yards from the
touchdown point the piano keys are 300 yards into the runway.

An ILS allows you to follow the approach lights at 100 feet once you
see the rabbit. At that point you are 100 feet AGL almost over the
numbers. 200 yards vis from that possition when flying at 80 knots
does not seem to be much of a handful. I can see vis requirements to
prevent pilots from searching for a runway they are not going to find,
but once you have the runway in site, at 100 AGL, vis mins don't seem
to be very meaningful.

Well, hand flying? I think they are.. Single pilot and trying to hand
flw while staring at a couple of flashing lights in space?
Not easy. If anything the Rabbit can be more of a hinderance than a
help.


Bertie

On Jan 16, 8:29*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :





On Jan 16, 8:09*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:501e4456-faf1-4e0b-890b-

:

On Jan 16, 5:07*am, kontiki wrote:
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 th
e
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.

No, it looked like about 1/8 mile. Not sure why the FAA requires
1/2 mile if you can already see the runway.

1/8 mile is only a bit over 200 yards! Where were you when you saw
the runway? On an ILS? At 200' you are over 1,000 yards from the
touchdown point the piano keys are 300 yards into the runway.

An ILS allows you to follow the approach lights at 100 feet once you
see the rabbit. *At that point you are 100 feet AGL almost over the
numbers. 200 yards vis from that possition when flying at 80 knots
does not seem to be much of a handful. I can see vis requirements to
prevent pilots from searching for a runway they are not going to find,
but once you have the runway in site, at 100 AGL, vis mins don't seem
to be very meaningful.

Well, hand flying? I think they are.. Single pilot and trying to hand
flw while staring at a couple of flashing lights in space?
Not easy. If anything the Rabbit can be more of a hinderance than a
help.

But we do that legally today. We don't have to see anything other than
the rabbit at 200 feet. I commonly folow the rabbit lights through the
fog down to 100 above TDZE. Again, I can see this being difficult at
150 knots in a 747 but at 80 knots in a Mooney its not very busy.

-robert

On Jan 16, 8:16*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...
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?

There is no requirement for a minimum reported overcast or ceiling
under part 91. I've landed with an overcast reported at 50 feet by on
field FSS. As long as I can see the rabbit at 200 feet and the runway
environment at 100 feet I'm legal with regard to ceilings. Fog is a
way of life around here so its not that odd to us.

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

No, several planes did land.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 8:29*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:e14a7245-14c0-453b-9c15-6
:





On Jan 16, 8:09*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:501e4456-faf1-4e0b-890b-

:

On Jan 16, 5:07*am, kontiki wrote:
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 th
e
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.

No, it looked like about 1/8 mile. Not sure why the FAA requires
1/2 mile if you can already see the runway.

1/8 mile is only a bit over 200 yards! Where were you when you saw
the runway? On an ILS? At 200' you are over 1,000 yards from the
touchdown point the piano keys are 300 yards into the runway.

An ILS allows you to follow the approach lights at 100 feet once
you see the rabbit. *At that point you are 100 feet AGL almost over
the numbers. 200 yards vis from that possition when flying at 80
knots does not seem to be much of a handful. I can see vis
requirements to prevent pilots from searching for a runway they are
not going to find, but once you have the runway in site, at 100
AGL, vis mins don't seem to be very meaningful.

Well, hand flying? I think they are.. Single pilot and trying to hand
flw while staring at a couple of flashing lights in space?
Not easy. If anything the Rabbit can be more of a hinderance than a
help.

But we do that legally today. We don't have to see anything other than
the rabbit at 200 feet. I commonly folow the rabbit lights through the
fog down to 100 above TDZE. Again, I can see this being difficult at
150 knots in a 747 but at 80 knots in a Mooney its not very busy.


It's not any harder in a big airplane for several reasons. And I've done
both. In many ways it's easier and safer to do it in a large aircraft,
not the least of which is the capability of having noe guy look out the
window while the other is flying the airplane to the FD. you can legally
do a hand flown CAT2 legally this way in some types, even with no HUD.

Bertie


Bertie

At 200 feet all I can see is some light through the fog so I go down
to 100 above TDZE. At 100 feet I can see the chevrons or maybe the
runway numbers. If vis is 1/8 and I can see the runway numbers, its
hard to understand why the FAA prohibits landing.

The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200

I want to reply to both of these posts by Robert. 91.175(c)(2) says that to
continue the approach below DH, you must have the required flight visibility
(1/2 mile in this case). I agree that this is observed (not reported) flight
visibility. If you have the required viz and the approach lights are
"distinctly visible and identifiable", then you can continue the descent (but
not below 100 feet unless you see the red terminating bars or red side row
bars, or one of the items listed in 91.175(c)(3)). But seeing the lights DOES
NOT relieve you of the visibility requirement, and I'd say that seeing some
light through the fog doesn't count as "distinctly visible and identifiable".

Note that at 200 feet on a 3 degree glideslope, you are about 3000 feet, or
just over 1/2 sm, from the threshold. So if the viz is right at 1/2 mile, you
should be able to see the approach lights almost, but not quite, to the
threshold. Within a few seconds, the threshold should be in sight. At 100
feet, you're only about 1000 feet from the threshold. So obviously if you
don't see the threshold until 100 feet, slant visibility is well below 1/2
mile. It's true that forward and slant visibility are not exactly the same,
but it the slant viz is less than 1/2 mile, it's almost certain that the
forward viz is less than 1/2 mile at least somewhere along your path.

Concerning landing out of an approach like this, I think that most GA pilots,
like myself, have very little chance to practice. We don't have simulators
like the airline pilots do, and it's hard in most places to get this type of
practice in actual. The only time I did an actual approach all the way down
to minimum (reported viz was 3/8) I found that it was not so easy to
transition to landing. I'm sure that with practice it would become much
easier, as you describe, but I don't find the FAA requirement unreasonable.
It doesn't leave much margin for error.

Barry

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

B A R R Y wrote in news:rtpjj.7900$pA7.1831
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Maybe the AWOS was made by B*lfort. G

Damn, beat me to it lol

--

Back in the olden days, when I operated an AST-300 sim business, I could
control both ceiling and visibility. The mode I liked best was the variable
ceiling, which required entry of a ceiling figure and a depth figure (I'm
working from memory here, so don't hold me to exactness). The combination
delivered a sine wave to the visual screen...if I entered a 100 foot depth
and a 300 foot ceiling, the pilot would see/not see as the cloud base varied
sinusoidally between 100 and 300. I had no way to control what the cloud
base would be when the pilot was at DA or MDA, so the student and I were
both surprised with the result.

Bob Gardner

"Barry" wrote in message
. ..
At 200 feet all I can see is some light through the fog so I go down
to 100 above TDZE. At 100 feet I can see the chevrons or maybe the
runway numbers. If vis is 1/8 and I can see the runway numbers, its
hard to understand why the FAA prohibits landing.

The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200

I want to reply to both of these posts by Robert. 91.175(c)(2) says that
to continue the approach below DH, you must have the required flight
visibility (1/2 mile in this case). I agree that this is observed (not
reported) flight visibility. If you have the required viz and the
approach lights are "distinctly visible and identifiable", then you can
continue the descent (but not below 100 feet unless you see the red
terminating bars or red side row bars, or one of the items listed in
91.175(c)(3)). But seeing the lights DOES NOT relieve you of the
visibility requirement, and I'd say that seeing some light through the fog
doesn't count as "distinctly visible and identifiable".

Note that at 200 feet on a 3 degree glideslope, you are about 3000 feet,
or just over 1/2 sm, from the threshold. So if the viz is right at 1/2
mile, you should be able to see the approach lights almost, but not quite,
to the threshold. Within a few seconds, the threshold should be in sight.
At 100 feet, you're only about 1000 feet from the threshold. So obviously
if you don't see the threshold until 100 feet, slant visibility is well
below 1/2 mile. It's true that forward and slant visibility are not
exactly the same, but it the slant viz is less than 1/2 mile, it's almost
certain that the forward viz is less than 1/2 mile at least somewhere
along your path.

Concerning landing out of an approach like this, I think that most GA
pilots, like myself, have very little chance to practice. We don't have
simulators like the airline pilots do, and it's hard in most places to get
this type of practice in actual. The only time I did an actual approach
all the way down to minimum (reported viz was 3/8) I found that it was not
so easy to transition to landing. I'm sure that with practice it would
become much easier, as you describe, but I don't find the FAA requirement
unreasonable. It doesn't leave much margin for error.

Barry

"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.

Perhaps the controller deemed that the runway was unsafe due to the
visibility. Without being able to see if the runway was clear, he could not
verify it was safe:

3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or
unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and
a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate
parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a
clearance cannot be issued.
b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation
would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation
will be at his/her own risk.

PHRASEOLOGYRUNWAY
(runway number) CLOSED/UNSAFE.
If appropriate, (quote NOTAM information),
UNABLE TO ISSUE DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCHAND-GO CLEARANCE.
DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCH-AND-GO WILL BE AT YOUR OWN RISK