If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 the 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. -Robert |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
: 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. How do you know he was poorly trained? Perhaps he was excellently trained, but has a retention issue? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
On Jan 15, 6:19*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:707fa568-97e2-4d51- : 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. 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 the approaches. Flying over the rabbit I clearly could see far enough of the runway to land. Now, if a car pulled in front of me that would be a different story but I don't think the FAA can protect against that anyway. Well, they're required to protect you against that in those sorts of visses. So, to me landing 1/8SM 001OVC is not unreasonably hard but I could see it could be a handful going 150 knots in a 747. Nope, it;s pretty much just the same. Even easier in some ways ( even hand flown) The flight director, the multi crew co-ordination. Don;'t get me wrong, I've done it and I know it can be done, but if you were at 200' and could see that much the actual WX was better than reported anyway. 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. -Robert |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 -Robert |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
On Jan 15, 7:50*pm, "John" wrote:
But I would expect that the student would have been taught to look around him. *If he's VFR then he should see and avoid. *Just as NORDO traffic may be in the area, so may traffic giving you references you don't know about. Not to mention the fact that procedure turns and final approach fixes are about 5 miles from the touchdown zone so by definition well outside the pattern. Agreed but the topic keeps changing. Yes, its nice to tell students about some IFR waypoints in the area but it is clearly wrong for the IFR pilot to use references that a VFR pilot would not be expected to know. The purpose of announcement is to communicate, using lingo that only a portion of pilots will know does not accomplish that. I'm still confused if people disagree that the IFR pilot was in error in this case or if they are just saying its a nice extra for VFR pilots to know IFR points at some airports. -Robert |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
... 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? I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were below minimums. -- Jim Carter Rogers, Arkansas |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 the 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. -Robert -Robert |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 168 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 50 | November 30th 07 05:25 AM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots" | Skylune | Piloting | 28 | October 16th 06 05:40 AM |