A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 16th 08, 03:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.ifr
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,767
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

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
  #32  
Old January 16th 08, 04:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.ifr
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,767
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

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
  #33  
Old January 16th 08, 04:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.ifr
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

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-


In my primary training nothing of the sort ever happened. I don't
think anybody else in my flying club got that kind of training for the
private either -- from any of the instructors. Okay, some ILS
approaches were flown, and you have mandatory hood work for
emergencies. But SIDs, STARS, procedure turns, communications, or any
other stuff useful for IFR I'm picking up solely on my own from
Richard Taylor.

And Rod M.'s new book looks like it has a lot of good stuff in it as
well.

I'll be damned if it isn't taking more than 20 minutes though!





  #34  
Old January 16th 08, 04:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
John[_13_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

But I would expect that the student would have been taught to look around
him. If he's VFR then he should see and avoid. Just as NORDO traffic may
be in the area, so may traffic giving you references you don't know about.
Not to mention the fact that procedure turns and final approach fixes are
about 5 miles from the touchdown zone so by definition well outside the
pattern.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
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

  #35  
Old January 16th 08, 04:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Roger (K8RI)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 727
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:19:17 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

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. They would not only need approach charts but enroutes as


And at that level they's still have no idea where we were. They are
happy to know where they are which is as it should be. There should be
no need to make the primary training more difficult with learning
additional terms and the equivalent of additional patterns. They have
plenty of items to deal with as it is.


well. Its much simplier to just tell the IFR pilots that they need to
use VFR friendly phrasing. Instead of saying "I'm at FOOBAR" they
could just say "I'm 5 miles out on the the ILS straight in runway 12".
Its not very hard.

If the conditions are VFR it's expected that we identify in plain
language. IOW If I'm at HARPY on the VOR-A into 3BS I'd identify as
Barstow traffic, Thirty Three Romeo, 5 West North West at 1100 on the
VOR-A. Even if the VFR pilot has no idea what the VOR-A is, they do
know what 5 WNW at 1100 means. It also tells them I'm coming into the
airport at about half the pattern altitude they are flying.

It doesn't bother me to see a 310 come screaming in at 500 AGL while
I'm flying the pattern at a 1000, but it certainly would unnerve a
student and probably any other pilot who is not used to seeing it as
well.

If the student and VFR pilots had to be familiar with all the
approaches at out little airport it would be a challenge and this is
just a little airport. We have runways 18/36 as well as 06/24. The
VOR approach is on the 317 radial out of MBS meaning the VOR approach
comes in from the WNW, aligns with nothing on the airport, and it
typically ends with a "circle-to-land" at 500 AGL. Then we have the
GPS approaches to both 06 and 24. They are straight in from about 7
miles out. IOW to VFR traffic they are straight in. Mix learning the
straight ins with the VOR and the circle to land and we'd have no low
time pilots in the pattern.

Normally it's not all that busy and you can fly any of the approaches
with the published missed, but on a busy day those on the VOR break
off before tangling with the down wind traffic for 06 even if they are
using 24 if for no other reason than to avoid rattling students.
The straight ins to 06 and 24 have to watch for base traffic and
*normally* announce often enough to know just where they are.
(There are always exceptions)

Me? When VFR knowing where I am, where they are, and what they are
flying lets me know if I can land or need to extend my down wind and
follow the traffic flying the approach. The student and low time
pilot doesn't normally have this capability nor should they be
expected to. So if I were on the GPS 06 I'd identify my position in
reference to the runway and watch for VFR traffic. If I see, or hear
some one on down wind, I'm going to be extra alert for the possibility
of breaking off and joining the pattern

Yes, I could declare being on final as by the time I'm half way to the
airport from the final approach fix I'm within the distance many fly
VFR patterns. Why they insist on using a pattern large enough a 737
could probably fly it I don't know. To me a VFR pattern has base
between a half to three quarters of a mile out and I'm flying high
performance. BTW we have a pilot who flys a 310 and his VFR patterns
are only *slightly* larger than mine. HOWEVER declaiming final does
two things. It is likely to confuse students who are used to, or are
learning to always do things the same and this would interrupt that.
Then there is always the guy who never progressed beyond that point
and is always going to fly the pattern the same no matter what you
say. With that one you see the conflict coming, break off and hope he
never flys into AirVenture.
So, IF I can fit I'll land straight in on the approach, but always
plan it so I can brake off and avoid conflicts.

When it gets exciting is when you discover some one flying those big
patterns just under the ceiling, or you do the step down to find a
windshield full of some one scud running.

BTW we have one pilot who flys such large patterns that on several
occasions pilots in the pattern have mistakenly assumed he was headed
elsewhere. One day he got all bent out of shape because an ultra light
landed ahead of him and he had to go around. I even though he was
headed for MBS.

Roger (K8RI)

-Robert, CFII

  #36  
Old January 16th 08, 05:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 478
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

In article ,
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

It doesn't bother me to see a 310 come screaming in at 500 AGL while
I'm flying the pattern at a 1000, but it certainly would unnerve a
student and probably any other pilot who is not used to seeing it as
well.


I gotta tell you, if I saw an A-310 screaming in at 500 AGL while I was in
the pattern, I'd probably have a laundry problem too. :-)
  #37  
Old January 16th 08, 01:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
B A R R Y[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:41 am, B A R R Y wrote:
I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
direction over waypoints.


That's good but just make sure you use waypoints that a VFR pilot
would know (like VORs, etc). Remember the point is for traffic to know
where you are so you don't want to use references that some pilots may
not know. Personally I prefer using relative location to the airport,
since you're only about 10 miles out anyway.


I only use ONE waypoint for airport calls, the airport. G
  #38  
Old January 16th 08, 02:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
kontiki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 479
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

Robert M. Gary wrote:

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.


If you could see that far the Vis was better than 1/8 SM. Maybe
the AWOS visibility sensor needs to be recalibrated.


  #39  
Old January 16th 08, 02:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Jim Carter[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 403
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

....

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert


The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
following:

ILS or LOC RWY 22L Cat A 500 - 1/2
RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L Cat A 300 - 1/2
VOR/DME RWY 22L Cat A 700 - 1/2

I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with all
equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
minimums by quite a bit?

The "landing runway" phrase used to be used a lot when the airport was known
to be below minimums.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas


  #40  
Old January 16th 08, 04:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
B A R R Y[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

kontiki wrote:

If you could see that far the Vis was better than 1/8 SM. Maybe
the AWOS visibility sensor needs to be recalibrated.


Maybe the AWOS was made by B*lfort. G

Ducking!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" Robert M. Gary Piloting 168 February 5th 08 06:32 PM
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks" Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 50 November 30th 07 06:25 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.