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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
On Jan 16, 1:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote : How about 0/0 landings? Hopefully the landing will be at one of our many CAVU foothills airports. That's the nice thing about Sacramento. It may be 0/0 in the valley but the foothills are likely CAVU. In anycase, the point is not to take off in 0/0 but be able to transition if the fog at the middle of the runway is much worse than the runup area (which can happen). -Robert |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
On Jan 16, 3:04*pm, "John Collins"
wrote: Barry, I teach pitch up, power up, positive rate, gear up. *I only teach in Bonanza's and Barons where I don't teach using flaps, so that may need to be added into the missed approach as indicated by the aircraft type. I expect there to be some descent below the DA during the process of the miss and this is acceptable. *Remember the DA is a Decision Altitude, and that if the decision is made at that altitude, momentum alone will cause some sink below the DA. I teach in Mooneys and I 100% agree with everything you said here. I also teach to pitch before power because it removes the need to "haul back" on the yoke as the plane accelerates in order to climb. I also don't teach flaps until landing is assured. I don't see any reason for pilots to be flying approaches so slow that flaps are necessary to reduce stall speed. -Robert, CFII |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 Question from the uneducated he in this case, do you keep the plane from running off the runway by, well, by what ... the ILS? Is it good enough for that? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
Robert M. Gary wrote:
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. Oh, you don't ever see fog at home, do you, Bertie? :-) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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. Better to give CTAF fixes in some universally recognized form... 5 miles out straight in for 22 beats the hell out of NAILR even if the guys in the pattern are instrument rated. If their flying VFR at some non-familiar airport you think they've studied all the approach charts for the airport to understand what fix you might be reporting. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
On Jan 16, 6:41 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
I also don't teach flaps until landing is assured. I don't see any reason for pilots to be flying approaches so slow that flaps are necessary to reduce stall speed. -Robert, CFII Flaps on approach help stabilize the platform and reduce the drastic configuration changes brought about 200' AGL when the runway suddenly pops into view. Extended gear prior to FAF, slow to 90 KIAS, add approach flaps, descend and trim for 90 KIAS works just fine in an A36. The landing speed is consistent to VFR pattern speeds (72-80 KIAS) and the landing attitude, configuration, and power are all the same. The fewer differences, the better. I'd rather spread the workload out evenly. If you wait until breakout to change configuration, you're introducing a bucket full of change near the ground -- not good. Dan .. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
"Robert M. Gary" wrote We were speaking legall; I think we agree that legally the 001OVC 1/8SM is not significant. I think everyone is hung up on the visibility of the runway from the plane. Could it be that if he could not see you, he could not guarantee that there was not someone else around that he could not see also, (so could not clear you) so he told you what runway was in use and turned over separation responsibility to you. -- Jim in NC |
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 |