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

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:55:04 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

Some of them are never wrong...

Of course; those are the ones that were properly trained.


The ones I'm talking about are never wrong about anything...

Obviously; that's the miracle and wonder of proper training.

Now if only such training were available for subjects like picking
girlfriends and stocks for the retirement portfolio...




On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:25:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:13osru9nohbb0b0
@corp.supernews.com:

It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

Of course not, all controllers are superhuman beings that never forget,
never get distracted, never make a mistake, never cough, sneeze, or
blink, never have a bad day, always get enough sleep, never get ****ed
at the boss, and don't catch a cold or any other disease that plagues
mere mortals.

If there was a procedural "error", the controller was poorly trained.

QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The onus is on the IFR pilot to communicate in a way that is understandable
by everyone. VFR pilots should not have to take extraordinary actions in
order to understand a transmission.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 7:50 pm, "John" wrote:
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.

Agreed but the topic keeps changing. Yes, its nice to tell students
about some IFR waypoints in the area but it is clearly wrong for the
IFR pilot to use references that a VFR pilot would not be expected to
know. The purpose of announcement is to communicate, using lingo that
only a portion of pilots will know does not accomplish that.
I'm still confused if people disagree that the IFR pilot was in error
in this case or if they are just saying its a nice extra for VFR
pilots to know IFR points at some airports.

-Robert

I can't find anything in the Air Traffic Control Handbook giving that
authority to the controller. You can research it yourself on the faa.gov web
site.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
et...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 5:17 am, "Jim Carter" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
...

...

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?

1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
flight visibility.
2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower
reports.

-Robert


You are correct that I sited flight visibility, however on those same
approach plates a required visibility is listed in RVR terms making it a
ground based observation. Additionally, 001OVC does not indicate smoke,
haze, or fog. It is 100' overcast which represents a ceiling doesn't it?

I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were
below minimums.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

Bob Gardner wrote:
I can't find anything in the Air Traffic Control Handbook giving that
authority to the controller. You can research it yourself on the faa.gov
web site.

Bob Gardner

I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were
below minimums.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas





Minimums aren't relevant to ATC in a case like this. ATC will not ever
tell a pilot he cannot shoot an approach due to weather. Ever. It is
entirely up to the pilot to know what the rules are. ATC simply lines
up the airplanes. If you want to shoot the approach you just have to
ask. As long as the runway is open, ATC is never the one to close a
runway, only its owner can do that, an aircraft will be given a
clearance to land.

wrote in message
...

ON a (barely) related aside regarding my ignorance of IFR terminology:
I checked out in a 172 on Sunday, and while doing some landings at a
non-towered local airport that had some published IFR approaches I'd
hear planes calling their positions using IFR terminology.

I had NO CLUE where the planes actually were in relation to the
airport. I didn't know if they were two minutes out or ten. A bit
disconcerting when you want to take the active and fly the pattern. If
wishes were horses this beggar would ask that IFR pilots report their
positions (during VFR conditions) in a way us poor VFR only morons
could understand.

Might be safer for all ... maybe might maybe ...


By "this beggar would ask that IFR pilots report their positions (during VFR
conditions) in a way us poor VFR only morons could understand" you probably
mean distance in miles and the direction from the airport. The problem with
that is you don't know how the other pilot determined his distance from the
airport. Maybe he determined it with GPS or DME and the distance is quite
accurate, but maybe it's just a guess.

Here's an example. I'm an air traffic controller, I recall observing a 1200
code approach the Class C boundary as I was vectoring a Skyhawk for a
practice ILS. Right after I called that traffic to the Skyhawk I get a call
from an inbound VFR aircraft stating he's nineteen miles southwest of the
field. I issue a beacon code and watch as the unknown VFR changes to that
code, he's now a mile inside the Class C boundary, nine miles from the
field. This is not an unusual occurrence, happens with all types of
operators, this guy was even a local.

When I'm flying at an uncontrolled field and I hear another pilot use "IFR
terminology" to describe his position I know exactly where he is. When I
hear another pilot use a direction and distance from the field without
knowing how he determined his position I know where he THINKS he is, but not
where he ACTUALLY is. They may be the same point or they may be far apart.
There's no way to know.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:02 am, wrote:

I had NO CLUE where the planes actually were in relation to the
airport. I didn't know if they were two minutes out or ten. A bit
disconcerting when you want to take the active and fly the pattern. If
wishes were horses this beggar would ask that IFR pilots report their
positions (during VFR conditions) in a way us poor VFR only morons
could understand.


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).


From AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating
Control Towers:

11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES.
(3) Practice Instrument Approach:


STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
(NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN.

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

[...]

When I'm flying at an uncontrolled field and I hear another pilot use "IFR
terminology" to describe his position I know exactly where he is.

No -- you know where he says he is. That may not even be where he thinks
he is, let alone where he actually is (said from personal experience).

When I
hear another pilot use a direction and distance from the field without
knowing how he determined his position I know where he THINKS he is, but not
where he ACTUALLY is. They may be the same point or they may be far apart.
There's no way to know.

Ditto for the IFR case.

Hamish

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:15 am, kontiki wrote:

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.


I took "at that airport" to mean the home field, where most of the student
instruction takes place. But the purchase of IFR charts wouldn't be
required for any airport, they're available free online. Once the fixes are
identified the student can use a site such as AeroPlanner or SkyVector to
plot them on his VFR chart, which he should be purchasing anyway.



They would not only need approach charts but enroutes as well.


Why would they need enroute charts?



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.


How is that VFR friendly phrasing? It uses IFR terminology.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
. net...

I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
direction over waypoints.

If you think about it, it's not difficult to do, as the distance from the
named point to the airport is usually right on the plate.


But unless you state that your position was determined by GPS other pilots
cannot be confident of the accuracy of your report.

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

If an instructor can't explain to a student (with a simple diagram)
what the fixes are for the common instrument approaches at the airport
they are doing their students a disfavor.


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.


A good instructor will go beyond what is required and explain pertinent
things like approach fixes to his student.