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

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

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

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?

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? :-)

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.

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.

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

..

wrote:

Extended gear prior to FAF, slow to 90 KIAS, add approach flaps,
descend and trim for 90 KIAS works just fine in an A36.

Yeah doesn't work for me. The gear speed on my plane is 87 knots.
I fly most of the approach at the gear speed and drop the gear at
the FAF (or equivalent).

"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