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

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Robert M. Gary" wrote

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.
But isn't a clearance him saying that a car is not going to pull onto
the
runway in front of you? If he can't see the end of the runway, can he
issue a clearance to land?

That's right. that's what a clearance is!


Bertie

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
:


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

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.
But isn't a clearance him saying that a car is not going to pull onto
the runway in front of you?


No, a clearance is him saying a car is not authorized to pull onto the
runway in front of him.



If he can't see the end of the runway, can he issue a clearance to
land?


Yes. He can issue a clearance to land even if he can't see any of the
runway.




Yes, but the runway is secure for LVP

Bertie

On Jan 17, 10:32 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
Flaps on approach help stabilize the platform and reduce the drastic
configuration changes brought about 200' AGL when the runway suddenly
pops into view.

I guess I"m just lucky to be flying a Mooney. The Mooney is very, very
stable on approach without flaps. One less thing to worry about during
missed. Its very, very common for students to forget to pull the gear
up on missed, I"m sure adding complexity with flaps would make that
worse.

-Robert

The point of an approach is to land.

If a missed is required, the 285 HP and 10 degrees nose up will
maintain 96 KIAS (Vy) with gear and flaps down.

The drill is simple:
Prop is already full forward, so MP goes to 25"
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Flaps Up
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Gear Up

All this happens in sequence, with no rush required.

Applying full flaps when the runway is in sight seems to introduce
overly complex recations at the most critical phase of flight (low and
slow).

Applying full flaps when the runway is in sight seems to introduce
overly complex recations at the most critical phase of flight (low and
slow).

I think it's more important to stay stabilized on the approach while still in
the clouds and on instruments - I don't want to change speed or configuration
until I'm visual. Then the choices a

1) Full flaps at 1.3 Vs, stabilized all the way to the flare as a large
airplane would - but that would mean 65 knots or so in a Cherokee
2) Full flaps at 90 or 100 knots - which would require a lot of power and be
much different from all other phase of flight
3) No (or partial) flaps at 90 or 100 knots - my preference.

Barry

On Jan 17, 1:59 pm, "Barry" wrote:
Applying full flaps when the runway is in sight seems to introduce
overly complex reactions at the most critical phase of flight (low and
slow).

I think it's more important to stay stabilized on the approach while still in
the clouds and on instruments - I don't want to change speed or configuration
until I'm visual. Then the choices a

90 KIAS with approach flaps is nice and stable.


1) Full flaps at 1.3 Vs, stabilized all the way to the flare as a large
airplane would - but that would mean 65 knots or so in a Cherokee
2) Full flaps at 90 or 100 knots - which would require a lot of power and be
much different from all other phase of flight
3) No (or partial) flaps at 90 or 100 knots - my preference.

Barry

90-100 knots to land? In a Cherokee?

The NTSB reports are rife with airplanes wrecked after skidding off
runways after touching down too fast (and there are probably 2x as
many wrecked that the NTSB doesn't hear about).

Landing too fast results in all sorts of bad endings.

1.3 x Vs1 fpr landing works every time, all the time. Add whatever for
gusts and you don't have to change techniques, IFR or VFR.

Dan

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.

On Jan 17, 10:02*am, " wrote:

The point of an approach is to land.

Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
point is not to jump out of the plane.

If a missed is required, the 285 HP and 10 degrees nose up will
maintain 96 KIAS (Vy) with gear and flaps down.

The drill is simple:
Prop is already full forward, so MP goes to 25"
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Flaps Up
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Gear Up

All this happens in sequence, with no rush required.

But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps)

Applying full flaps when the runway is in sight seems to introduce
overly complex recations at the most critical phase of flight (low and
slow).

Once the runway is in sight everything is simplier. That is when the
student breathes his relief and lands. I've never noticed that part ot
be challenging to students, they're happy they found the runway and
ready to land. Its much easier to move flaps at this point than to try
to retract them while going missed at 200 feet in the soup.

On Jan 17, 9:45*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Morgans" wrote :



"Robert M. Gary" wrote

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.
*But isn't a clearance him saying that a car is not going to pull onto
*the
runway in front of you? *If he can't see the end of the runway, can he
issue a clearance to land?

That's right. that's what a clearance is!

If controllers had to be able to see the runway most airports would be
closed in the fog. I know for a fact that here in Sacramento
controllers do not need to see the runway. In fact they'll often say
"runway not in sight cleared to land". They assume the runway is clear
based on who is allowed to be on it.

-Robert

90-100 knots to land? In a Cherokee?

No, I guess I was unclear. 90-100 knots on approach until I'm visual, then
slow to 65 or so while extending full flaps (or maybe only 2 notches if it's
very windy). The point I was trying to make is that unless you want to fly
the entire approach at 65 knots and full flaps, you have to slow down and
configure somewhere inside the FAF, and I prefer to do it while visual on
short final, not while still in the clouds.

1.3 x Vs1 fpr landing works every time, all the time. Add whatever for
gusts and you don't have to change techniques, IFR or VFR.

But you do have to change technique from VFR to IFR, because VFR you'd
probably not be at 90 or 100 knots on base and after turning final. If the
weather is near minimums, it's only the very last part of short final that
will be the same.

"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.

Fog Seeder extraordinaire

Al G