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

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!

On Jan 16, 5:07*am, kontiki wrote:
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.

No, it looked like about 1/8 mile. Not sure why the FAA requires 1/2
mile if you can already see the runway.

-Robert

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
:

The controller made a mistake. He used the wrong phraseology. He did it
because he was poorly trained. That's all there is to it.

How do you know he was poorly trained? Perhaps he was excellently trained,
but has a retention issue?

On Jan 15, 6:19*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:707fa568-97e2-4d51-
:







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.

Well, they're required to protect you against that in those sorts of
visses.

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.

Nope, it;s pretty much just the same. Even easier in some ways ( even
hand flown) The flight director, the multi crew co-ordination.
Don;'t get me wrong, I've done it and I know it can be done, but if you
were at 200' and could see that much the actual WX was better than
reported anyway.

At 200 feet all I can see is some light through the fog so I go down
to 100 above TDZE. At 100 feet I can see the chevrons or maybe the
runway numbers. If vis is 1/8 and I can see the runway numbers, its
hard to understand why the FAA prohibits landing.

-Robert

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

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:501e4456-faf1-4e0b-890b-
:

On Jan 16, 5:07*am, kontiki wrote:
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.

No, it looked like about 1/8 mile. Not sure why the FAA requires 1/2
mile if you can already see the runway.


1/8 mile is only a bit over 200 yards! Where were you when you saw the
runway? On an ILS? At 200' you are over 1,000 yards from the touchdown
point the piano keys are 300 yards into the runway. Granted you can
probably follow the lights like bread crumbs, but you're not going to have
a lot of spacial reference for actually flying the airplane. I'm not saying
you can't do it, people do it all the time, but it;s pushing your luck if
you ask me.

Bertie

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

"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

On Jan 16, 8:09*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:501e4456-faf1-4e0b-890b-
:

On Jan 16, 5:07*am, kontiki wrote:
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.

No, it looked like about 1/8 mile. Not sure why the FAA requires 1/2
mile if you can already see the runway.

1/8 mile is only a bit over 200 yards! Where were you when you saw the
runway? On an ILS? At 200' you are over 1,000 yards from the touchdown
point the piano keys are 300 yards into the runway.

An ILS allows you to follow the approach lights at 100 feet once you
see the rabbit. At that point you are 100 feet AGL almost over the
numbers. 200 yards vis from that possition when flying at 80 knots
does not seem to be much of a handful. I can see vis requirements to
prevent pilots from searching for a runway they are not going to find,
but once you have the runway in site, at 100 AGL, vis mins don't seem
to be very meaningful.

-Robert

-Robert