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

On Jan 17, 4:18 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

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

Going Missed is the scary monster because:
1) You're close to the ground
2) You have configuration and power changes
3) You didn't get to land
4) You're still in the soup

The anxiety level can be reduced by:
1) Minimize configuration changes
2) Anticipate a missed
3) Take comfort in having been in the soup for however long it took
you to get to this phase of the flight. If you're still uncomfortable
in IMC, some dual is probably in order.

I think the student will have to unlearn the fast approach technique
once he/she steps into a more aerodynamically slippery airplane. In a
fast airplane you have to manage your energy if you want to land on a
small field at the conclusion of the approach.

With the proliferation of VNAV GPS approaches more and more smaller
runways have basically ILS minimums. A typical ILS ends with a 5,000
foot+ runway -- not so for VNAV GPS.

To clarify -- my point is that the approach should be flown in a way
that is a consistent and predictable. This presumes a specific Power-
Attitude-Configuration combination that requires only minor changes to
transition from the approach phase to the landing phase.

The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
Flaps up, gear up.

If you're in a fixed gear, it's doubly important that you teach
configuration change as part of the missed to prepare them for
retracts.

Try this next time -- see what happens to the ILS needles when your
student drops full flaps once the runway is in sight.

Dan

The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
Flaps up, gear up.

And please, let's not forget PITCH UP right away.

On Jan 17, 6:05 pm, "Barry" wrote:
The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
Flaps up, gear up.

And please, let's not forget PITCH UP right away.

Good point, though I've found that the trim I've applied to maintain
the target airspeed on approach takes care of that pretty well when I
apply full power. Mostly, I need to maintain some forward pressure
until I can get the flaps retracted.

Dan

Ron Natalie wrote:
wrote:

Extended gear prior to FAF, slow to 90 KIAS, add approach flaps,
descend and trim for 90 KIAS works just fine in an A36.


Yeah doesn't work for me. The gear speed on my plane is 87 knots.
I fly most of the approach at the gear speed and drop the gear at
the FAF (or equivalent).


87 knots? You've got to be kidding.

Marco Leon wrote:


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:

Never the controllers call. Always the pilots call.

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.


This has nothing to do with weather.

Jim Macklin wrote:

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.

Sure we do. Every day, all day. Contact approaches. VFR on Top. VFR
thru a surface area when the primary airport is IFR.



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.

ATC is always required to say "Not in sight" when they don't have you
either actually in sight or on radar. A clearance to land is never
withheld because ATC can't see the runway.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:13osru9nohbb0b0
@corp.supernews.com:

It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

Robert,
When did fog start getting reported as a ceiling? 001OVC is a ceiling
report. Fog would be reported as 1/8F or smoke / haze would be 1/8K wouldn't
it?

Also, the controller reported that he couldn't see you, so he probably
couldn't determine if the runway was clear for your landing. I don't see
where the confusion is here. He told you to land at your own risk.

I think you're also skewing the situation to fit your personal
preferences (hence the comment about 1/2 dot off) rather than strictly
discuss the technicalities of the situation. The controller had no visual
sighting of you (or probably the runway) so there was nothing else for him
or her to say other than "not in sight, land at your own risk" regardless of
training level. You were gonna do what you were gonna do anyway, so who is
he or she to tell you you can't? He couldn't clear you to land unless he
knew the runway was clear could he? Based on your original comments the
airport wasn't closed.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

On Jan 17, 2:01*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:18 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
I think the student will have to unlearn the fast approach technique
once he/she steps into a more aerodynamically slippery airplane. In a
fast airplane you have to manage your energy if you want to land on a
small field at the conclusion of the approach.

I only teach in Monneys but I'm not sure why you would need to be
faster without flaps. Even if I used flaps I wouldn't change the speed
on the approach. Are you flying ILSs in a 172 at 50 knots such that
you need flaps?

With the proliferation of VNAV GPS approaches more and more smaller
runways have basically ILS minimums. A typical ILS ends with a 5,000
foot+ runway -- not so for VNAV GPS.

But either way you have full flaps once you go visual so the landings
distance is the same in each technique.

Try this next time -- see what happens to the ILS needles when your
student drops full flaps once the runway is in sight.

Once you're visual holding the needles in the middle is trivial
because you are looking at the runway.

-robert, CFII

Jim Carter wrote:
Robert,
When did fog start getting reported as a ceiling? 001OVC is a ceiling
report. Fog would be reported as 1/8F or smoke / haze would be 1/8K wouldn't
it?




Fog would be reported as vertical visibility and you would see it on the
METAR as VV001



Also, the controller reported that he couldn't see you, so he probably
couldn't determine if the runway was clear for your landing.

If the controller doesn't know the runway is clear he doesn't let you
land. Period. There are other ways to determine that.


The controller had no visual
sighting of you (or probably the runway) so there was nothing else for him
or her to say other than "not in sight, land at your own risk" regardless of
training level.


That was wrong on the controllers part.