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

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

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

....

No, several planes did land.

-Robert

I think you're confusing with practicality with legality. OVC represents an
overcast which represents a ceiling. 001 OVC is 100' ceiling which is less
than any of the published minimums. 1/8 SM represents a visibility and on
the ground that is less than RVR 2400 or any of the other published
minimums.

Planes landing have nothing to do with legality if someone breaks something
here. Your original question was why the controller used "landing runway 22"
instead of "cleared to land".

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
are not allowed to break something in the process. If the controller cleared
you to land wouldn't he or she possibly share some culpability?

My point has always been that the reason the controller used this phrase was
due to minimums, not your ability to land in fog.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
et...

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 are not allowed to break something in the process. If the
controller cleared you to land wouldn't he or she possibly share some
culpability?


No.



My point has always been that the reason the controller used this phrase
was due to minimums, not your ability to land in fog.


The controller made a mistake. He used the wrong phraseology. He did it
because he was poorly trained. That's all there is to it.

"Judah" wrote in message
...

How do you know he was poorly trained?


Because only a poorly trained controller would make that error.



Perhaps he was excellently trained, but has a retention issue?


It doesn't work that way.

On Jan 16, 11:41*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:

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
are not allowed to break something in the process. If the controller cleared
you to land wouldn't he or she possibly share some culpability?

Because other planes were landing. I've never see a situation in which
a tower controller could deny landing clearance because he thought the
wx was too low.

-Robert

On Jan 16, 11:41*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...

...

No, several planes did land.

-Robert

I think you're confusing with practicality with legality. OVC represents an
overcast which represents a ceiling. 001 OVC is 100' ceiling which is less
than any of the published minimums. 1/8 SM represents a visibility and on
the ground that is less than RVR 2400 or any of the other published
minimums.

We were speaking legall; I think we agree that legally the 001OVC
1/8SM is not significant. In my experience with fog it isn't
necessarily significant from a practical point of view either
because...
1) Fog is rarely uniform. 1/8 at the end of the runway may be 1/2 mile
at the other end. That is why RVR is often quoted in "touch down" and
"roll out", sometimes even 3 locations.
2) At 200 feet you may be in the clouds but its common to be able to
pick the rabbit out from the clouds. The rabbit is very high intensity
and commonly pierces through the clouds (which is its purpose).
Sometimes I'll fly 1/2 a dot off to the right so the rabbit appears
below me out the window.

-robert

On Jan 16, 8:49*am, "Barry" wrote:
and I'd say that seeing some
light through the fog doesn't count as "distinctly visible and identifiable".

I disagree. When you see the approach lights they are quiet
identifiable, even if you cannot see the grass around them.

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.

Come to Sacramento. You'll get lots of practice in the winter. The
transition is not really that hard. From my experience as a CFII the
transition to missed is much more difficult for students. Its very
common for students to pour on the coals but not pitch up; resulting
in racing down the runway but not climbing. In fact, I'd say more than
50% of instrument rated pilots who have lapsed have this issue. Going
from visual to instrument is more difficult. 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