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

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

It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 17, 11:44*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:742db77b-27c0-433a-a541-


No, they're perfectly stable without flaps. Three problems, though.
The pitch attitude is quite high making it difficult to see the
runway properly. You'll have very little drag and you won't really be
able to spool up muc and of course you'll be going 200 knots over the
threshold!

That's something I've got to do. I can certainly afford to get a 737
type rating if I really wanted to but for some reason I always find a
way to justify the thought away since it would only be for fun. Taking
the week off to do it is probably the biggest issue, I could do a lot
of things with that week..


Ah, they're not that much fun to fly. Go do that Connie rating if the guy
is still doing it with the MACS one or get checked out in a B-17!

Bertie

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.

There are three conditions for descending below MDA or continuing an
approach beyond DA:

1) Runway environment in sight
2) Continuously in position to descend, etc...
3) Have the established flight visibility






On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:44:38 -0800, "Al G"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:41:03 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

"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 must also have the prescribed flight visibility

Nope, just the runway environment.

Al G

Approach lights are part of runway environment...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:39:46 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Jan 17, 11:28 am, "Al G" wrote:
"Barry" wrote in message

. ..



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 must also have the prescribed flight visibility

Nope, just the runway environment.

FAR 91.175 is pretty clear that the prescribed flight visibility is
required to land:

(d) Landing. No pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of
the United States, may land that aircraft when--
(1) [refers to use of enhanced vision systems]; or

(2) For all other part 91 operations and parts 121, 125, 129, and 135
operations, the flight visibility is less than the visibility prescribed
in the standard instrument approach procedure being used.

Also, as I've already posted, 91.175(c) prohibits even continuing below DH
unless you have the prescribed visibility.

My apologies, I thought you were talking about the Prevailing
Visibility, as reported by the tower. The flight visibility, is determined
by the pilot. The tower can be calling it 1/8 mile, RVR 600', but if I can
see the environment from the DH, I have demonstrated 1/2 mile flight vis.

But there is no requirement you see the environment from the DH, only
the approach lights.

-Robert, CFII