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

"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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

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
identifiabl
e".

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
pilo
ts,
like myself, have very little chance to practice. *We don't have
simulat
ors
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.


How about 0/0 landings?


Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 11:41*am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
messagenews:331fcbab-cfe1-400
...

...

No, several planes did land.

-Robert

I think you're confusing with practicality with legality. OVC
represents a
n
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.

It's usually three in fact.

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.


If you were getting the lights at that distance, you didn't have 1/8
vis. That may have been the reported vis, but if an RVR were installed,
you would have been getting something a lot closer to legal vis.


Bertie

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.

I agree that this is a problem. I attribute it (at least in part) to
over-reliance on the airspeed indicator and lack of attention to the attitude
indicator, and to the notion that since "power controls altitude," all they
have to do to climb is add power. Which, if the plane is trimmed, will
eventually be true, but only after a scary few seconds of hanging around at or
below DH.

Barry

On Jan 16, 2:01*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :
If you were getting the lights at that distance, you didn't have 1/8
vis. That may have been the reported vis, but if an RVR were installed,
you would have been getting something a lot closer to legal vis.

I think part of the problem is that the FAA defines visibility during
the day as the ability to see an unlit object but we're looking at
high intensity lights in this case. You may only be able to see
something w/o lights 1/8mile away but may be able to see a strobe
light 1/2 mile away.

-robert