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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:a4f267c7-2c28-49dd-af70-
:

On Jan 15, 11:15*am, 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.

That would require students to purchase IFR charts for every airport
they visit.

No, I think he means what a center fix and final fix and go around
proceudre are, for instance.

Good idea to know how the whole thng is laid out. When another airplane,
out of sight, is cleared for something, they have a notion of what's going
on in that "paralell universe"


Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:0b1f9eb2-37b7-4f0c-b4c0-
:

On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, kontiki wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with an
instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise there is no
requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and enroute
charts for cross country airports.

Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR (perish the
mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now teach)
there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and we
hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.." or
"N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know what
that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to explain.. once
explained the student will no longer be ignorant and will ultimately
be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.

So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language that
other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly be
foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints and
approach fixes at each airport.


NOT WHAT HE SAID!

Sorry for shouting. Seemed appropriate for some reason.


Bertie

wrote in
:

"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be
particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid
interrupting the flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should
include distance and direction from the airport, as well as the
pilot's intentions upon completion of the approach."

From section 7

of:http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...AdvisoryCircul
ar...

Well.

I think it boils down to this: a pilot should not depend on other
pilots going beyond what is required of them to be in the air.

A student pilot does not need to know anything about IFR operations to
be in the air. Can you count on him knowing what IFR announcements on
the radio mean? No.

A private pilot does not need to know anything about IFR operations to
be in the air. Can't count on him either.

I appreciate that it's a good idea to learn about IFR, and I am.
However, in my spare time studies of this I haven't read yet about
approach procedures or the radio announcements that describe it. I
wouldn't advise anyone with an IFR rating counting on me understanding
such communications.

The FAA doesn't advise that either.



But I do and I'm smarter than the FAA. After the revolution I am going
to sit all vfr pilots down and tell them everything they need to know
about instrument flight regarding miing it up with IFR traffic. Ti will
take twenty minutes, incuding commercials.


Bertie

On Jan 15, 5:28*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:5fdc8536-11f5-4348-993f-
:

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.

No, usually it's classified by category. On some runways the vis
requirement is the smae, but on some it would be higher for a C or D
airplane. It's mostly down to the OCL.

Bertie

I understand that. On a standard ILS if a cat C is 1/2 mile vis I
believe a cat A should be 1/8 mile vis. The vis requirements should be
based on how many seconds the pilot can see down the runway. 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.

-robert

-Robert

On Jan 15, 5:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:0b1f9eb2-37b7-4f0c-b4c0-
:





On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, kontiki wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with an
instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise there is no
requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and enroute
charts for cross country airports.

Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR (perish the
mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now teach)
there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and we
hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.." or
"N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know what
that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to explain.. once
explained the student will no longer be ignorant and will ultimately
be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.

So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language that
other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly be
foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints and
approach fixes at each airport.

NOT WHAT HE SAID!

Sorry for shouting. Seemed appropriate for some reason.

That's why I posted that. I'm trying to clarify what he's saying. I'm
saying IFR pilots should use proper phrasing and he's coming back with
VFR pilots should know IFR waypoints. Its not clear if he believes his
suggestion is a "nice extra" or if he believes it really soves the
problem at hand.

-robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 15, 5:28*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:5fdc8536-11f5-4348-993f-

:

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.

No, usually it's classified by category. On some runways the vis
requirement is the smae, but on some it would be higher for a C or D
airplane. It's mostly down to the OCL.

Bertie

I understand that. On a standard ILS if a cat C is 1/2 mile vis I
believe a cat A should be 1/8 mile vis. The vis requirements should be
based on how many seconds the pilot can see down the runway.

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.

Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 15, 5:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:0b1f9eb2-37b7-4f0c-b4c0-

:





On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, kontiki wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with
an instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise
there is n
o
requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and
enroute charts for cross country airports.

Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR
(perish the

mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now
teach
)
there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and
we hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.."
or "N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know
what that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to
explain.. once explained the student will no longer be ignorant
and will ultimately be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.

So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language
that other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly
be foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints
and approach fixes at each airport.

NOT WHAT HE SAID!

Sorry for shouting. Seemed appropriate for some reason.

That's why I posted that. I'm trying to clarify what he's saying. I'm
saying IFR pilots should use proper phrasing and he's coming back with
VFR pilots should know IFR waypoints. Its not clear if he believes his
suggestion is a "nice extra" or if he believes it really soves the
problem at hand.

What I understoood him to say was that a vfr pilot should ahve a broad
view of the structure of insturment flight. e.g, where the outer marker
is in relation to the end of the runway. Where the center fix is. What
altitudes the approaching airplane is likely to be at on an ILS. Waht a
SID and STAR is. If they fly out of a busy airfiled, particulalry if
tehy were to do special VFR, it would behoove them to know roughly
what's going on.
Hel, If I were operating IMC in a strange place, I'd have no idea where
the other guy was if he called some strange waypoint, nor would I look
it up. But I'd have a vague idea, at least, what he was up to wheras a
VFR pilot would have next to none.
It's an important part of "keeping the big picture" and expanding one's
comfort zone.
And regular Bunyip readers will know me as a Luddite who never turns the
radio on unless he's forced!


Bertie

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.

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.

-Robert

"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.
Now if you were suggesting there be another category added, say Cat
1A..Or that hand flown single pilot cat II be allowed, I can see a case
for it.

Bertie

On Jan 15, 6:01*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :





On Jan 15, 5:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:0b1f9eb2-37b7-4f0c-b4c0-

:

On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, kontiki wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with
an instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise
there is n
o
requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and
enroute charts for cross country airports.

Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR
(perish the

mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now
teach
)
there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and
we hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.."
or "N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know
what that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to
explain.. once explained the student will no longer be ignorant
and will ultimately be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.

So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language
that other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly
be foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints
and approach fixes at each airport.

NOT WHAT HE SAID!

Sorry for shouting. Seemed appropriate for some reason.

That's why I posted that. I'm trying to clarify what he's saying. I'm
saying IFR pilots should use proper phrasing and he's coming back with
VFR pilots should know IFR waypoints. Its not clear if he believes his
suggestion is a "nice extra" or if he believes it really soves the
problem at hand.

What I understoood him to say was that a vfr pilot should ahve a broad
view of the structure of insturment flight. e.g, where the outer marker
is in relation to the end of the runway. Where the center fix is. What
altitudes the approaching airplane is likely to be at on an ILS. Waht a
SID and STAR is. If they fly out of a busy airfiled, particulalry if
tehy were to do special VFR, it would behoove them to know roughly
what's going on.
Hel, If I were operating IMC in a strange place, I'd have no idea where
the other guy was if he called some strange waypoint, nor would I look
it up. But I'd have a vague idea, at least, what he was up to wheras a
VFR pilot would have next to none.
It's an important part of "keeping the big picture" and expanding one's
comfort zone.
And regular Bunyip readers will know me as a Luddite who never turns the
radio on unless he's forced!

But would you expect a student pilot on a cross country to know what
it means if a IFR pilot calls up with "Cessna 1234 4 files from
FOOBAR"???

-Robert