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

"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?
--
Jim in NC

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

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.

For this reason I think it's sometimes a good idea to teach a student to use
flaps on approach. If the training is in a fixed-gear but the pilot plans to
fly a retractable later on, using flaps from the beginning helps establish the
habit of reconfiguring the airplane at (or near) the FAF and again on the
missed.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"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.


No, that couldn't be.

"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.

wrote in message
...
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

Nope, just the runway environment.

Al G

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.