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

On Jan 16, 1:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :

How about 0/0 landings?

Hopefully the landing will be at one of our many CAVU foothills
airports. That's the nice thing about Sacramento. It may be 0/0 in the
valley but the foothills are likely CAVU. In anycase, the point is not
to take off in 0/0 but be able to transition if the fog at the middle
of the runway is much worse than the runup area (which can happen).

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 2:01*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:d0fa52a6-7d44-479a-91ca-f
:
If you were getting the lights at that distance, you didn't have 1/8
vis. That may have been the reported vis, but if an RVR were
installed, you would have been getting something a lot closer to
legal vis.

I think part of the problem is that the FAA defines visibility during
the day as the ability to see an unlit object but we're looking at
high intensity lights in this case. You may only be able to see
something w/o lights 1/8mile away but may be able to see a strobe
light 1/2 mile away.


No, the problem is the ability to control the airplane in 1/8 mile.
If the vis is actually 1/8 in the threshold area, then it is extremely
dangerous to try and hand fly down to minimums. Period. This is without
regard to what's legal and what isn't. The difficulty in transitioning
between the clocks and the windscreen are huge, especially single pilot.
Practice can improve this quite a bit, but it's still risky transitioning
to visual below minimums. Unless your eyes are arranged like a Chmeleons,
you can't adequately scan and digest the scene in front of you. When RVRs
are provided, they are invariably twice the reported general vis, so if you
were getting a report of 1/8, you were more than likely looking at twice
that.

Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 1:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:d5fc6492-b280-4efb-8427-3
:

How about 0/0 landings?

Hopefully the landing will be at one of our many CAVU foothills
airports. That's the nice thing about Sacramento. It may be 0/0 in the
valley but the foothills are likely CAVU. In anycase, the point is not
to take off in 0/0 but be able to transition if the fog at the middle
of the runway is much worse than the runup area (which can happen).


Common enough, but what I meant was, have you ever practiced one?


Bertie

On Jan 16, 3:04*pm, "John Collins"
wrote:
Barry,

I teach pitch up, power up, positive rate, gear up. *I only teach in
Bonanza's and Barons where I don't teach using flaps, so that may need to be
added into the missed approach as indicated by the aircraft type.

I expect there to be some descent below the DA during the process of the
miss and this is acceptable. *Remember the DA is a Decision Altitude, and
that if the decision is made at that altitude, momentum alone will cause
some sink below the DA.

I teach in Mooneys and I 100% agree with everything you said here. I
also teach to pitch before power because it removes the need to "haul
back" on the yoke as the plane accelerates in order to climb. I also
don't teach flaps until landing is assured. I don't see any reason for
pilots to be flying approaches so slow that flaps are necessary to
reduce stall speed.

-Robert, CFII

Most CFIIs around here
require pilots to practice zero/zero take offs by putting the hood on
our students before applying power on take off. Its not that we want
you to take off in zero vis, its because you could be rolling down the
runway and encounter it.

-Robert

Question from the uneducated he in this case, do you keep the plane
from running off the runway by, well, by what ... the ILS? Is it good
enough for that?

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? :-)

On Jan 16, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :

No, the problem is the ability to control the airplane in 1/8 mile.
If the vis is actually 1/8 in the threshold area, then it is extremely
dangerous to try and hand fly down to minimums.

I guess that's just not been my experience. Hunting for a runway with
1/8 mile vis would be pretty upsetting but landing with 2 or 3 strips
visible down the middle does not seem to be a challenge (certainly not
as challenging as holding the ILS w/i 1 dot below 500 feet).

The difficulty in transitioning
between the clocks and the windscreen are huge,

If you had said the other way around I could understand. It can take
practice for students to transition from outside to instruments, but
I've not seen students have a hard time transiting from gauges to
outside references.

-Robert

Rich Ahrens wrote in news:478ea095$0$27493$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

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? :-)


Hardly never. You can't see anything most of the time!

Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:58ed4948-39bf-462a-9678-2
:

No, the problem is the ability to control the airplane in 1/8 mile.
If the vis is actually 1/8 in the threshold area, then it is
extremely dangerous to try and hand fly down to minimums.

I guess that's just not been my experience.

Someday it will be.

Hunting for a runway with
1/8 mile vis would be pretty upsetting but landing with 2 or 3 strips
visible down the middle does not seem to be a challenge (certainly not
as challenging as holding the ILS w/i 1 dot below 500 feet).

No flight director?
Even raw data I can smoke down an ILS but I still get an awkward feeling
at minimums. We're not even alowed to initiate one below, though I have
flown in places where this is allowed and we have pushed it.


The difficulty in transitioning
between the clocks and the windscreen are huge,

If you had said the other way around I could understand. It can take
practice for students to transition from outside to instruments, but
I've not seen students have a hard time transiting from gauges to
outside references.


Ok...

Bertie

kontiki wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Yea, we teach (or are suppose to teach) IFR pilots not to do that. Its
not very helpful for the intended purpose (to let everyone know where
you are).

-Robert, CFII

Flight instructors should at least tell their students
about what IFR fixes are and where they are (at that airport).
Its not rocket science and it will help the student in the long run.


Better to give CTAF fixes in some universally recognized form...
5 miles out straight in for 22 beats the hell out of NAILR even
if the guys in the pattern are instrument rated. If their flying
VFR at some non-familiar airport you think they've studied all the
approach charts for the airport to understand what fix you might
be reporting.