With the wind?

[smallg]

Okay, I've never even had a flying lesson, which
may explain it, but yesterday afternoon I stopped
by a local airport to watch some planes, and noticed
that the tower had them all taking off and landing
more *with* the wind than against it. The wind
was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
I know about crosswind landings and t-offs,
but I always thought once the wind was giving
more of a tailwind than headwind, it was time
to change directions. BTW, these were all small
planes, as this airport doesn't accomodate anything
bigger than corporate jets. Just curious, thanks!

-----
Jay McKenzie
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"smallg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, I've never even had a flying lesson, which
> may explain it, but yesterday afternoon I stopped
> by a local airport to watch some planes, and noticed
> that the tower had them all taking off and landing
> more *with* the wind than against it. The wind
> was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
> or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
> I know about crosswind landings and t-offs,
> but I always thought once the wind was giving
> more of a tailwind than headwind, it was time
> to change directions. BTW, these were all small
> planes, as this airport doesn't accomodate anything
> bigger than corporate jets. Just curious, thanks!
>

What airport? What runway?

[Jim Macklin]

Probably a noise abatement agreement for a designated
runway. Until the tailwind is above a certain strength,
making the take-off and initial climb dangerous, many
airports have agreed to use a particular runway to avoid
take-offs over homes.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"smallg" > wrote in message
...
| Okay, I've never even had a flying lesson, which
| may explain it, but yesterday afternoon I stopped
| by a local airport to watch some planes, and noticed
| that the tower had them all taking off and landing
| more *with* the wind than against it. The wind
| was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
| or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
| I know about crosswind landings and t-offs,
| but I always thought once the wind was giving
| more of a tailwind than headwind, it was time
| to change directions. BTW, these were all small
| planes, as this airport doesn't accomodate anything
| bigger than corporate jets. Just curious, thanks!
|
| -----
| Jay McKenzie
| http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews
|
|

[John Gaquin]

"smallg" > wrote in message news:JFPXf.4877

>.....and noticed
> that the tower had them all taking off and landing
> more *with* the wind than against it.

You didn't give any wind direction or runway info, so it is hard to say.
But I can tell you this: The notion of tailwind or headwind on a runway can
be somewhat misleading when the wind is running more or less across the
runway. IIRC, in light airplanes, the wind direction has to be about 20
degrees aft of the wing before you start to pick up significant tailwind
effect.

[Stubby]

I can remember at least one tower communication, "N12345 cleared for
downwind takeoff". And, at the standard procedure at Pepperell, MA
where I learned gliders, was to take off on 06 and land on 24. This
allowed for an aborted take off into a cornfield rather than a pile of
granite. So, downwind is not unheard of, but not preferred because it
uses more runway.


smallg wrote:
> Okay, I've never even had a flying lesson, which
> may explain it, but yesterday afternoon I stopped
> by a local airport to watch some planes, and noticed
> that the tower had them all taking off and landing
> more *with* the wind than against it. The wind
> was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
> or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
> I know about crosswind landings and t-offs,
> but I always thought once the wind was giving
> more of a tailwind than headwind, it was time
> to change directions. BTW, these were all small
> planes, as this airport doesn't accomodate anything
> bigger than corporate jets. Just curious, thanks!
>
> -----
> Jay McKenzie
> http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews
>
>

[Newps]

It depends on the situation. When I worked at GFK we had a lot of
operations from the UND, the large college flight school. The airport
had parallel Ry 35's and a crossing Ry 26. The wind mostly blew north
and south but once a week or so the wind would go strong out of the
west, favoring 26. Due to the volume of traffic we stayed on the
parallels until the wund exceeded a 15 knot crosswind. The same thing
happens at any major airport, changing to the other runway is quite a
production.



smallg wrote:

> Okay, I've never even had a flying lesson, which
> may explain it, but yesterday afternoon I stopped
> by a local airport to watch some planes, and noticed
> that the tower had them all taking off and landing
> more *with* the wind than against it. The wind
> was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
> or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
> I know about crosswind landings and t-offs,
> but I always thought once the wind was giving
> more of a tailwind than headwind, it was time
> to change directions. BTW, these were all small
> planes, as this airport doesn't accomodate anything
> bigger than corporate jets. Just curious, thanks!
>
> -----
> Jay McKenzie
> http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

If a tower phrased a take-off clearance "cleared for |
downwind takeoff" it would be because the pilot requested
that runway and the tower was getting it on tape, that the
pilot knew and accepted the procedure. If the wind was not
significant and a taxi to the other end of the airport was
long, using a runway with a little wind component on the
tail might be very reasonable. It depends on runway length,
departure profile and terrain balanced by aircraft
performance.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Stubby" > wrote in
message . ..
|I can remember at least one tower communication, "N12345
cleared for
| downwind takeoff". And, at the standard procedure at
Pepperell, MA
| where I learned gliders, was to take off on 06 and land on
24. This
| allowed for an aborted take off into a cornfield rather
than a pile of
| granite. So, downwind is not unheard of, but not
preferred because it
| uses more runway.
|
|
| smallg wrote:
| > Okay, I've never even had a flying lesson, which
| > may explain it, but yesterday afternoon I stopped
| > by a local airport to watch some planes, and noticed
| > that the tower had them all taking off and landing
| > more *with* the wind than against it. The wind
| > was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
| > or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
| > I know about crosswind landings and t-offs,
| > but I always thought once the wind was giving
| > more of a tailwind than headwind, it was time
| > to change directions. BTW, these were all small
| > planes, as this airport doesn't accomodate anything
| > bigger than corporate jets. Just curious, thanks!
| >
| > -----
| > Jay McKenzie
| > http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews
| >
| >

[smallg]

Thanks Jim, this makes perfect sense, as noise has
been an issue there for years. I just had the idea
that tailwind landings and takeoffs were never allowed,
as the FAA traditionally seemed pretty strict.
BTW, airport is Peachtree-Dekalb (Atlanta metro
area); here's a page on noise abatement there that
I found just now: http://www.pdkairport.org/abatement.htm
--
-----
Jay McKenzie
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews

[Newps]

There's no such phraseology as "downwind takeoff." The controller is
required to issue the wind when you takeoff with a tailwind component,
this can be accomplished via the ATIS and would be obvious when you
listened to the tape.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> If a tower phrased a take-off clearance "cleared for |
> downwind takeoff" it would be because the pilot requested
> that runway and the tower was getting it on tape, that the
> pilot knew and accepted the procedure. If the wind was not
> significant and a taxi to the other end of the airport was
> long, using a runway with a little wind component on the
> tail might be very reasonable. It depends on runway length,
> departure profile and terrain balanced by aircraft
> performance.
>
>
>

[Newps]

smallg wrote:

> Thanks Jim, this makes perfect sense, as noise has
> been an issue there for years. I just had the idea
> that tailwind landings and takeoffs were never allowed,
> as the FAA traditionally seemed pretty strict.

We're not you're mother. If traffic allows and you want a 20 knot
tailwind the runway is all yours.

[BTIZ]

I will not take a 10knt tailwind to land a conventional geared aircraft..
I will take an occasional 10knt tailwind on a 6000ft runway for most of the
other light tri-cycle geared GA aircraft I fly.
Can I send the bill to the local home owners association for extra wear on
brake pads?
BT

"smallg" > wrote in message
.. .
> Thanks Jim, this makes perfect sense, as noise has
> been an issue there for years. I just had the idea
> that tailwind landings and takeoffs were never allowed,
> as the FAA traditionally seemed pretty strict.
> BTW, airport is Peachtree-Dekalb (Atlanta metro
> area); here's a page on noise abatement there that
> I found just now: http://www.pdkairport.org/abatement.htm
> --
> -----
> Jay McKenzie
> http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews
>
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

You're welcome.


"smallg" > wrote in message
.. .
| Thanks Jim, this makes perfect sense, as noise has
| been an issue there for years. I just had the idea
| that tailwind landings and takeoffs were never allowed,
| as the FAA traditionally seemed pretty strict.
| BTW, airport is Peachtree-Dekalb (Atlanta metro
| area); here's a page on noise abatement there that
| I found just now: http://www.pdkairport.org/abatement.htm
| --
| -----
| Jay McKenzie
| http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews
|
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:ZPVXf.7715$t22.1714@dukeread08...
>
> If a tower phrased a take-off clearance "cleared for |
> downwind takeoff" it would be because the pilot requested
> that runway and the tower was getting it on tape, that the
> pilot knew and accepted the procedure.
>

The phraseology is just "cleared for takeoff", the pilot's request would
already be on the tape so adding "downwind" would accomplish nothing..

[Andrew Sarangan]

smallg wrote:
> Thanks Jim, this makes perfect sense, as noise has
> been an issue there for years. I just had the idea
> that tailwind landings and takeoffs were never allowed,
> as the FAA traditionally seemed pretty strict.
> BTW, airport is Peachtree-Dekalb (Atlanta metro
> area); here's a page on noise abatement there that
> I found just now: http://www.pdkairport.org/abatement.htm
> --
> -----
> Jay McKenzie
> http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews


It's got a 6000 ft runway. You could land a Boeing 737. A 10 knot tail
wind is not going to make much difference to most small airplanes.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> We're not you're mother. If traffic allows and you want a 20 knot
> tailwind the runway is all yours.

And so are the blast pad, the approach lighting system, and the trees at
the opposite end. :)

--
Peter

[Roy Smith]

Peter R. > wrote:
>Newps > wrote:
>
>> We're not you're mother. If traffic allows and you want a 20 knot
>> tailwind the runway is all yours.
>
It works the other way too. I've seen HPN using 34 with a slight
tailwind and somebody says they need to use 16 for operational
requirements (or maybe it was the other way around). They get what
they ask for.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Peter R. > wrote:
>
>>Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We're not you're mother. If traffic allows and you want a 20 knot
>>>tailwind the runway is all yours.
>>
> It works the other way too. I've seen HPN using 34 with a slight
> tailwind and somebody says they need to use 16 for operational
> requirements (or maybe it was the other way around). They get what
> they ask for.


But not always. If it's busy you may have to land with a 5 knot tailwind.

[Mike Schumann]

The pilot always makes the final call. If it's busy, you may have to wait
to land without a tail wind. If you are low on fuel that may force you to
divert to another airport. But an air traffic controller can not dictate
which runway you are to use.

Mike Schumann

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> Peter R. > wrote:
>>
>>>Newps > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We're not you're mother. If traffic allows and you want a 20 knot
>>>>tailwind the runway is all yours.
>>>
>> It works the other way too. I've seen HPN using 34 with a slight
>> tailwind and somebody says they need to use 16 for operational
>> requirements (or maybe it was the other way around). They get what
>> they ask for.
>
>
> But not always. If it's busy you may have to land with a 5 knot tailwind.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:
>
>
>Roy Smith wrote:
>> Peter R. > wrote:
>>
>>>Newps > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We're not you're mother. If traffic allows and you want a 20 knot
>>>>tailwind the runway is all yours.
>>>
>> It works the other way too. I've seen HPN using 34 with a slight
>> tailwind and somebody says they need to use 16 for operational
>> requirements (or maybe it was the other way around). They get what
>> they ask for.
>
>
>But not always. If it's busy you may have to land with a 5 knot tailwind.

ATC can't force you to do something contrary to your opspecs.

[Newps]

Mike Schumann wrote:

> The pilot always makes the final call. If it's busy, you may have to wait
> to land without a tail wind. If you are low on fuel that may force you to
> divert to another airport. But an air traffic controller can not dictate
> which runway you are to use.

Baloney. If you get a chance go to any big airport on a day with light
winds. Most of these airports have preferred runways, landing in a
particular direction is preferred by the controllers for any number of
reasons. If the wind shifts to make that runway a tailwind, but it's
only 5 knots or so, you will land with a tailwind or you will go
somewhere else. Same as my previous example about the crosswind.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

Due to the volume of traffic we stayed on the
>parallels until the wund exceeded a 15 knot crosswind.

Were you reading "Gone with the Wund, or Withering Heights?"
(sorry - couldn't resist)

The same thing
>happens at any major airport, changing to the other runway is quite a
>production.
>

True. They could even have been in the process of changing, but by the
time they get turned around quite a few have landed with a slight
tailwind.

I have also seen airports where the apron and terminal are all the way on
one end of the runway. In these cases pilots sometimesprefer to take a
slight tailwind to land toward their destination, rather than have to
taxi back.

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 08:46:48 -0400, "smallg" >
wrote:

>The wind
>was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
>or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.

The local airport PSM has a single runway, with the SE end more or
less pointing toward the small city nearby. I believe the "calm"
status is defined as up to 7 knots (possibly 7 mph). So if the wind is
blowing 7 knots or less, you take off to the NW. Perhaps your airfield
has a like orientation and reason for taking off into the wind.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATC can't force you to do something contrary to your opspecs.
>

True. Your opspecs may require you to divert to another airport, they will
not require ATC to change runways.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> ATC can't force you to do something contrary to your opspecs.
>
> True. Your opspecs may require you to divert to another airport, they
> will not require ATC to change runways.

No one has suggested they will. However, my experience has been that ATC is
quite accomodating when possible (your own tower cab notwithstanding).

Even at our largest GA airport in the area, Boeing Field right next door to
Sea-Tac, if traffic permits they will allow for landings against the
existing traffic pattern (which is always determined by the Sea-Tac pattern
and can take a while to catch up with a wind shift).

It never hurts to ask, and ATC is frequently able to accomodate a special
request like that.

Pete

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 05:41:27 -0400, Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 08:46:48 -0400, "smallg" >
>wrote:
>
>>The wind
>>was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
>>or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
>
>The local airport PSM has a single runway, with the SE end more or
>less pointing toward the small city nearby. I believe the "calm"
>status is defined as up to 7 knots (possibly 7 mph). So if the wind is
>blowing 7 knots or less, you take off to the NW. Perhaps your airfield
>has a like orientation and reason for taking off into the wind.

With 11,300' of runway at sea level you could have a 20 knot tailwind
and still not worry ;)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> No one has suggested they will. However, my experience has been that ATC
> is quite accomodating when possible (your own tower cab notwithstanding).
>

There is no tower cab more accomodating than the one in which I am on duty.


>
> Even at our largest GA airport in the area, Boeing Field right next door
> to Sea-Tac, if traffic permits they will allow for landings against the
> existing traffic pattern (which is always determined by the Sea-Tac
> pattern and can take a while to catch up with a wind shift).
>
> It never hurts to ask, and ATC is frequently able to accomodate a special
> request like that.
>

"If traffic permits" is the key.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> There is no tower cab more accomodating than the one in which I am on
> duty.


Maverick: "Requesting permission for flyby."


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> Maverick: "Requesting permission for flyby."
>

"Cleared for the option"

[David Cartwright]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Baloney. If you get a chance go to any big airport on a day with light
> winds. Most of these airports have preferred runways, landing in a
> particular direction is preferred by the controllers for any number of
> reasons. If the wind shifts to make that runway a tailwind, but it's only
> 5 knots or so, you will land with a tailwind or you will go somewhere
> else. Same as my previous example about the crosswind.

Frankly, if a controller tells me I'm to land with a tailwind, he can get
stuffed. Aside from the "hey, that fence is rushing at me quite quickly"
factor, you also have the issue of the extra strain it's putting on the
tyres/landing gear because the ground speed is so much higher.

Generally, of course, the controller will try to accommodate you if you
don't like the "preferred" runway. This happened on my final PPL "skillls
test" - there was a highish (unforecast) crosswind on the east-west runway
by the time, and I wasn't sure whether the examiner would insist I used
that. So I said to him: "Do you want me to use 27, or are you happy for me
to ask for something different?". In hindsight, his reply was obvious:
"You're the pilot, you ask him for whatever you want - even if it means us
diverting". So I asked for RW22 (stiffish breeze only just off the
centreline) and got it.

I've been a passenger in a light aircraft where the controller has insisted
on the PIC using a particular (shortish) runway with a tailwind, though.
Fortunately, the PIC was (a) a 14,000-hour veteran and (b) a stroppy, but
polite old git. The discussion was an interesting one to hear, but the
one-sentence summary goes something like: "You don't have a clue what you're
saying, you don't have the performance documents or POH for this aircraft to
hand, and you're not responsible for the safety of this aircraft; I am,
though, so I'm going to do a visual approach to RWXX instead, and you can
lump it. When we're safely on the ground, if you want to come and argue with
me, that's fine". To the controller's credit, we sat and had a coffee with
him later and both sides explained their point of view in a grown-up manner,
and the controller went away with the understanding that if we'd landed with
the tailwind, we stood a good chance of being in the hedge at the other end.

D.

[David Cartwright]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:ZPVXf.7715$t22.1714@dukeread08...
> It depends on runway length,
> departure profile and terrain balanced by aircraft
> performance.

Sure does. I remember a CAA safety evening, where the presenter showed a
photo with an aircraft poised to take off with the windsock pointing in
pretty much the same direction, and said: "Why isn't this as mad as it
looks?"

The photo had been cleverly taken/cropped and done at a jaunty angle so that
the pole of the windsock was just off the side of the picture - and there
were no reference points from which you could realise that, in fact, the
runway had a socking great downslope.

D.

[David Cartwright]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> The same thing
>>happens at any major airport, changing to the other runway is quite a
>>production.

Yeah, I was a passenger on a commercial flight into Schiphol (Amsterdam)
last year; the captain came onto the intercom to say: "We were second in
line to land, and they just changed runways on us". Took us the best part of
15-20 minutes to muck about and get down.

> I have also seen airports where the apron and terminal are all the way on
> one end of the runway. In these cases pilots sometimesprefer to take a
> slight tailwind to land toward their destination, rather than have to
> taxi back.

We used to see this a lot at Norwich (probably still do if they've reopened
04 - last time I flew there it was shut for maintenance). The main runway is
27/09, but we also have 04/22. The terminal is right at the starting end of
04 (in fact, there's a displaced threshold because the terminal building is
in the way). So the smaller commercial aircraft, particularly those heading
to Amsterdam, would often choose 04 if the wind was within limits, because
it was only a 60-second taxi and a quick right turn instead of a drive
around the airfield.

D.

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:21:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> Maverick: "Requesting permission for flyby."
>>
>
>"Cleared for the option"

All right, all right! I hear this all the time (well, I hear it
sometimes) at PSM nearby.

What does "cleared for the option" mean? Is it any whim on the part of
the pilot in the pattern, like a touch&go?

In other words, is it a way of saying "your request is approved"?

(The problem, I suppose, is that with a handheld I didn't hear the
request.)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>No one has suggested they will. However, my experience has been that ATC is
>quite accomodating when possible (your own tower cab notwithstanding).
>
>Even at our largest GA airport in the area, Boeing Field right next door to
>Sea-Tac, if traffic permits they will allow for landings against the
>existing traffic pattern (which is always determined by the Sea-Tac pattern
>and can take a while to catch up with a wind shift).
>


Just a few days ago at KBOS I saw a Virgin 747-400 land downwind in order to
get a sick passenger more quickly to the gate, where an ambulance was waiting.
Of course this is a bit different, because it involves a medical emergency, but
it must have required quite a bit of extra shuffling around by the tower
controllers.

I'm guessing the reason for the downwind landing was not to save time on the
ground (the plane still had to taxi back to the gate, probably just as far) but
to save time in the approach - the Gardner3/15R approach being unused by any
other aircraft when under these wind conditions.

GF

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:15:24 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>>The local airport PSM has a single runway, with the SE end more or
>>less pointing toward the small city nearby. I believe the "calm"
>>status is defined as up to 7 knots (possibly 7 mph). So if the wind is
>>blowing 7 knots or less, you take off to the NW. Perhaps your airfield
>>has a like orientation and reason for taking off into the wind.
>
>With 11,300' of runway at sea level you could have a 20 knot tailwind
>and still not worry ;)

Indeed, I could land on the crosswise taxiways at Pease.

(And of course I meant to say *with* the wind.)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Jose]

> What does "cleared for the option" mean? Is it any whim on the part of
> the pilot in the pattern, like a touch&go?

It means the pilot can land to a full stop, or touch and go, or do a low
approach to the runway ("peek and go?") without advising the controller
which option he will pick. Otherwise, if you are cleard for (say) a
touch and go, you are not cleared to do a full stop landing - you'd have
to tell him you want a full stop and he would have to clear you for that.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

David Cartwright wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Baloney. If you get a chance go to any big airport on a day with light
>>winds. Most of these airports have preferred runways, landing in a
>>particular direction is preferred by the controllers for any number of
>>reasons. If the wind shifts to make that runway a tailwind, but it's only
>>5 knots or so, you will land with a tailwind or you will go somewhere
>>else. Same as my previous example about the crosswind.
>
>
> Frankly, if a controller tells me I'm to land with a tailwind, he can get
> stuffed.

That's fine. You land with the flow or you don't land. Your inability
to handle a 5 knot tailwind is not my problem.


Aside from the "hey, that fence is rushing at me quite quickly"
> factor,

If a 5 knot tailwind does that to you, you are way too fast on final.


you also have the issue of the extra strain it's putting on the
> tyres/landing gear because the ground speed is so much higher.

Yep, 5 knots. A real tire buster.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> What does "cleared for the option" mean? Is it any whim on the part of
>> the pilot in the pattern, like a touch&go?
>
>
> It means the pilot can land to a full stop, or touch and go, or do a low
> approach to the runway ("peek and go?") without advising the controller
> which option he will pick.

As well as a stop and go.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
>
> Frankly, if a controller tells me I'm to land with a tailwind, he can get
> stuffed. Aside from the "hey, that fence is rushing at me quite quickly"
> factor, you also have the issue of the extra strain it's putting on the
> tyres/landing gear because the ground speed is so much higher.
>

So would you go somewhere else or land without a clearance?


>
> I've been a passenger in a light aircraft where the controller has
> insisted on the PIC using a particular (shortish) runway with a tailwind,
> though. Fortunately, the PIC was (a) a 14,000-hour veteran and (b) a
> stroppy, but polite old git. The discussion was an interesting one to
> hear, but the one-sentence summary goes something like: "You don't have a
> clue what you're saying, you don't have the performance documents or POH
> for this aircraft to hand, and you're not responsible for the safety of
> this aircraft; I am, though, so I'm going to do a visual approach to RWXX
> instead, and you can lump it. When we're safely on the ground, if you want
> to come and argue with me, that's fine". To the controller's credit, we
> sat and had a coffee with him later and both sides explained their point
> of view in a grown-up manner, and the controller went away with the
> understanding that if we'd landed with the tailwind, we stood a good
> chance of being in the hedge at the other end.
>

Did he land without a clearance?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
>
> All right, all right! I hear this all the time (well, I hear it
> sometimes) at PSM nearby.
>
> What does "cleared for the option" mean? Is it any whim on the part of
> the pilot in the pattern, like a touch&go?
>
> In other words, is it a way of saying "your request is approved"?
>

CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a
touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop
landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so
that an instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing
situations.

[Jim Macklin]

The PIC can always say UNABLE, a magic word to controllers.
The controller cannot turn the whole airport around at a
busy air carrier airport, there may be dozens of airplanes
in trail for a hundred miles. But the PIC can usually work
something out to get a more favorable runway within a
reasonable time. It helps if you can fly your approach at
higher speeds, nothing like getting a C172 at 62 knots on
final to really slow the airport down.
Don't accept a clearance you can't safely fly, and practice
some non-standard operations to find out how to fly fast and
slow down for the landing.

Most POHs show landing distances with a tailwind, but you
should understand that many pilots fly and land too fast and
waste a lot of runway and have other landing problems [wheel
barrow]. Tires have a speed limit, but that is usually not
a problem on light aircraft.

If you want to fly to a big, busy airport with noise
problems, learn to deal with it.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "David Cartwright" > wrote in
message
| ...
| >
| > Frankly, if a controller tells me I'm to land with a
tailwind, he can get
| > stuffed. Aside from the "hey, that fence is rushing at
me quite quickly"
| > factor, you also have the issue of the extra strain it's
putting on the
| > tyres/landing gear because the ground speed is so much
higher.
| >
|
| So would you go somewhere else or land without a
clearance?
|
|
| >
| > I've been a passenger in a light aircraft where the
controller has
| > insisted on the PIC using a particular (shortish) runway
with a tailwind,
| > though. Fortunately, the PIC was (a) a 14,000-hour
veteran and (b) a
| > stroppy, but polite old git. The discussion was an
interesting one to
| > hear, but the one-sentence summary goes something like:
"You don't have a
| > clue what you're saying, you don't have the performance
documents or POH
| > for this aircraft to hand, and you're not responsible
for the safety of
| > this aircraft; I am, though, so I'm going to do a visual
approach to RWXX
| > instead, and you can lump it. When we're safely on the
ground, if you want
| > to come and argue with me, that's fine". To the
controller's credit, we
| > sat and had a coffee with him later and both sides
explained their point
| > of view in a grown-up manner, and the controller went
away with the
| > understanding that if we'd landed with the tailwind, we
stood a good
| > chance of being in the hedge at the other end.
| >
|
| Did he land without a clearance?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:3n_Yf.8891$t22.4772@dukeread08...
>
> The PIC can always say UNABLE, a magic word to controllers.
>

How so?

[Jim Macklin]

It is an official term, in the pilot/controller glossary
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/PCG/U.HTM



UNABLE- Indicates inability to comply with a specific
instruction, request, or clearance.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:3n_Yf.8891$t22.4772@dukeread08...
| >
| > The PIC can always say UNABLE, a magic word to
controllers.
| >
|
| How so?
|
|

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:31:41 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> What does "cleared for the option" mean? Is it any whim on the part of
>> the pilot in the pattern, like a touch&go?
>
>It means the pilot can land to a full stop, or touch and go, or do a low
>approach to the runway ("peek and go?") without advising the controller
>which option he will pick. Otherwise, if you are cleard for (say) a
>touch and go, you are not cleared to do a full stop landing - you'd have
>to tell him you want a full stop and he would have to clear you for that.

Thank you!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Greg Farris]

In article t>,
says...

>
>CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a
>touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop
>landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so
>that an instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing
>situations.
>

I see it used often enough just to save time and effort. Instead of ATC
asking your intentions, you saying what you want to do, ATC clearing you and
you repeating the clearance - if you're on your fourth time around the
pattern, and there is no traffic conflict, ATC may just say "cleared for the
option" (do what you want to do) and from what I see it is customary to
answer with your intentions ("touch and go four left, seven mike tango")
rather than just leave them guessing.

GF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:NJ%Yf.8900$t22.5226@dukeread08...
>
> It is an official term, in the pilot/controller glossary
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/PCG/U.HTM
>
> UNABLE- Indicates inability to comply with a specific
> instruction, request, or clearance.
>

That makes it a magic word?

[Jim Macklin]

Because ATC can't question you further, you've stated that
you are UNABLE to do whatever it is that they wanted, such
as a turn into a thunderstorm, or a land and hold short. No
need to argue, just say unable and then tell them what you
can do... saves a lot of time.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:NJ%Yf.8900$t22.5226@dukeread08...
| >
| > It is an official term, in the pilot/controller glossary
| > http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/PCG/U.HTM
| >
| > UNABLE- Indicates inability to comply with a specific
| > instruction, request, or clearance.
| >
|
| That makes it a magic word?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:ja8Zf.9077$t22.4360@dukeread08...
>
> Because ATC can't question you further, you've stated that
> you are UNABLE to do whatever it is that they wanted, such
> as a turn into a thunderstorm, or a land and hold short. No
> need to argue, just say unable and then tell them what you
> can do... saves a lot of time.
>

Well, just saying UNABLE doesn't magically tell them what you intend to do.

[Jose]

> That makes it a magic word?

It's a metaphor.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It's a metaphor.
>

A metaphor that the user needs to explain.

[Jim Macklin]

No, but it puts them on the "what do you want to do" rather
than the do as I say.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:ja8Zf.9077$t22.4360@dukeread08...
| >
| > Because ATC can't question you further, you've stated
that
| > you are UNABLE to do whatever it is that they wanted,
such
| > as a turn into a thunderstorm, or a land and hold short.
No
| > need to argue, just say unable and then tell them what
you
| > can do... saves a lot of time.
| >
|
| Well, just saying UNABLE doesn't magically tell them what
you intend to do.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:dKcZf.9737$t22.1840@dukeread08...
>
> No, but it puts them on the "what do you want to do" rather
> than the do as I say.
>

That appears to be a question. You said that ATC can't question you
further, once you've stated that you are UNABLE to do whatever it is that
they wanted.

[Jose]

> A metaphor that the user needs to explain.

"Magic words" (real ones, which btw do not exist) are words which, when
uttered, do things that are beyond the laws of physics. They are
incantations of, well, magic. Simply saying the magic words cause
things to happen which ordinarily could not take place.

"Please" and "thank you" are metaphorically "magic words" because by
using those words, people respond differently than when the same
situation is presented, but without these words. They are (of course)
not =really= magical and do not invoke the other world, but because they
are powerful social lubricants, they have been given this metaphorical
moniker.

"Mayday" and "this is an emergency" are also words which elicit a
powerful response when otherwise such a response would not be
forthcoming. While they do not have the power of actual magical
incantations (and thus cannot put fuel in your tank) they will in
general garner much more assistance than would normally be gotten
without them.

"Unable" is similar in this respect. By conveying that the requested
action is not just inconvenient, but either unsafe or impossible, the
other party is more likely to try to find a workaround, if it is possible.

As with all incantations, metaphorical or otherwise, abuse leads to the
wrath of the Dark Side, which may be vented on those later to come.
Therefore, these magic words should be used with care. But they do have
a powerful effect, even if it is not truely magical.

Controllers can use these words too. "Request straight in to runway 5"
(runway 5 is full of men and machines, seventy parked cars, and a large
tent). "Unable runway 5, I can give you left base to runway 35. Report
three miles."

Generally however it is the pilots who will have the more stringent
operations requirements, and will be more likely to use magic words.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Magic words" (real ones, which btw do not exist) are words which, when
> uttered, do things that are beyond the laws of physics. They are
> incantations of, well, magic. Simply saying the magic words cause things
> to happen which ordinarily could not take place.
>
> "Please" and "thank you" are metaphorically "magic words" because by using
> those words, people respond differently than when the same situation is
> presented, but without these words. They are (of course) not =really=
> magical and do not invoke the other world, but because they are powerful
> social lubricants, they have been given this metaphorical moniker.
>
> "Mayday" and "this is an emergency" are also words which elicit a powerful
> response when otherwise such a response would not be forthcoming. While
> they do not have the power of actual magical incantations (and thus cannot
> put fuel in your tank) they will in general garner much more assistance
> than would normally be gotten without them.
>
> "Unable" is similar in this respect. By conveying that the requested
> action is not just inconvenient, but either unsafe or impossible, the
> other party is more likely to try to find a workaround, if it is possible.
>
> As with all incantations, metaphorical or otherwise, abuse leads to the
> wrath of the Dark Side, which may be vented on those later to come.
> Therefore, these magic words should be used with care. But they do have a
> powerful effect, even if it is not truely magical.
>
> Controllers can use these words too. "Request straight in to runway 5"
> (runway 5 is full of men and machines, seventy parked cars, and a large
> tent). "Unable runway 5, I can give you left base to runway 35. Report
> three miles."
>
> Generally however it is the pilots who will have the more stringent
> operations requirements, and will be more likely to use magic words.
>

Only Jim Macklin can explain what he was thinking.

[Jose]

> Only Jim Macklin can explain what he was thinking.

I don't think that's true. If he has expressed himself reasonably
(which I think he has), then many people can explain what he was
thinking, or at least what he was attempting to communicate. He is of
course free to explain himself further, but I'll bet I'm fairly close.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I don't think that's true. If he has expressed himself reasonably (which
> I think he has), then many people can explain what he was thinking, or at
> least what he was attempting to communicate. He is of course free to
> explain himself further, but I'll bet I'm fairly close.
>

What do you think he was attempting to communicate?

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>
> I don't think that's true. If he has expressed himself reasonably
> (which I think he has), then many people can explain what he was
> thinking, or at least what he was attempting to communicate. He is of
> course free to explain himself further, but I'll bet I'm fairly close.

Everybody with at least three brain cells knew what he was talking about.

[Jose]

> Well, then it shouldn't have been too hard for him to explain. I wonder why
> he declined to do that?

He didn't want to waste time?

He hasn't read your incomprehension yet?

He's taking extra time to figure out how to express himself in a manner
fitting his audience?

I'm just guessing of course, and in this case I really =don't= know what
he's thinking.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> He didn't want to waste time?
>
> He hasn't read your incomprehension yet?
>
> He's taking extra time to figure out how to express himself in a manner
> fitting his audience?
>

No, it's because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Happy Dog]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>
> "Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> All right, all right! I hear this all the time (well, I hear it
>> sometimes) at PSM nearby.
>>
>> What does "cleared for the option" mean? Is it any whim on the part of
>> the pilot in the pattern, like a touch&go?
>>
>> In other words, is it a way of saying "your request is approved"?
>>
>
> CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a
> touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop
> landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so
> that an instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing
> situations.

And in conditions where the pilot is not certain that a landing can be
accomplished. (i.e. Strong crosswinds.)

moo

[Jim Macklin]

I think you're just having fun being difficult. ATC will
assign what is easiest for ATC. Any pilot can refuse any
clearance. A simple UNABLE is the end of ATCs option to
continue to issue that clearance. Any PIC should have the
sense to offer an option of what he wants to do, what he is
able to do.

It could be equipment, weather, operating limitations, but
saying UNABLE is clearly understood. No further reason or
explanation is required.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:dKcZf.9737$t22.1840@dukeread08...
| >
| > No, but it puts them on the "what do you want to do"
rather
| > than the do as I say.
| >
|
| That appears to be a question. You said that ATC can't
question you
| further, once you've stated that you are UNABLE to do
whatever it is that
| they wanted.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Nicely said.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
|> A metaphor that the user needs to explain.
|
| "Magic words" (real ones, which btw do not exist) are
words which, when
| uttered, do things that are beyond the laws of physics.
They are
| incantations of, well, magic. Simply saying the magic
words cause
| things to happen which ordinarily could not take place.
|
| "Please" and "thank you" are metaphorically "magic words"
because by
| using those words, people respond differently than when
the same
| situation is presented, but without these words. They are
(of course)
| not =really= magical and do not invoke the other world,
but because they
| are powerful social lubricants, they have been given this
metaphorical
| moniker.
|
| "Mayday" and "this is an emergency" are also words which
elicit a
| powerful response when otherwise such a response would not
be
| forthcoming. While they do not have the power of actual
magical
| incantations (and thus cannot put fuel in your tank) they
will in
| general garner much more assistance than would normally be
gotten
| without them.
|
| "Unable" is similar in this respect. By conveying that
the requested
| action is not just inconvenient, but either unsafe or
impossible, the
| other party is more likely to try to find a workaround, if
it is possible.
|
| As with all incantations, metaphorical or otherwise, abuse
leads to the
| wrath of the Dark Side, which may be vented on those later
to come.
| Therefore, these magic words should be used with care.
But they do have
| a powerful effect, even if it is not truely magical.
|
| Controllers can use these words too. "Request straight in
to runway 5"
| (runway 5 is full of men and machines, seventy parked
cars, and a large
| tent). "Unable runway 5, I can give you left base to
runway 35. Report
| three miles."
|
| Generally however it is the pilots who will have the more
stringent
| operations requirements, and will be more likely to use
magic words.
|
| Jose
| --
| Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

That's very true, what I write is not always what or the
only thing I'm thinking.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jose" > wrote in message
| m...
| >
| > "Magic words" (real ones, which btw do not exist) are
words which, when
| > uttered, do things that are beyond the laws of physics.
They are
| > incantations of, well, magic. Simply saying the magic
words cause things
| > to happen which ordinarily could not take place.
| >
| > "Please" and "thank you" are metaphorically "magic
words" because by using
| > those words, people respond differently than when the
same situation is
| > presented, but without these words. They are (of
course) not =really=
| > magical and do not invoke the other world, but because
they are powerful
| > social lubricants, they have been given this
metaphorical moniker.
| >
| > "Mayday" and "this is an emergency" are also words which
elicit a powerful
| > response when otherwise such a response would not be
forthcoming. While
| > they do not have the power of actual magical
incantations (and thus cannot
| > put fuel in your tank) they will in general garner much
more assistance
| > than would normally be gotten without them.
| >
| > "Unable" is similar in this respect. By conveying that
the requested
| > action is not just inconvenient, but either unsafe or
impossible, the
| > other party is more likely to try to find a workaround,
if it is possible.
| >
| > As with all incantations, metaphorical or otherwise,
abuse leads to the
| > wrath of the Dark Side, which may be vented on those
later to come.
| > Therefore, these magic words should be used with care.
But they do have a
| > powerful effect, even if it is not truely magical.
| >
| > Controllers can use these words too. "Request straight
in to runway 5"
| > (runway 5 is full of men and machines, seventy parked
cars, and a large
| > tent). "Unable runway 5, I can give you left base to
runway 35. Report
| > three miles."
| >
| > Generally however it is the pilots who will have the
more stringent
| > operations requirements, and will be more likely to use
magic words.
| >
|
| Only Jim Macklin can explain what he was thinking.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Ditto



"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
|> Only Jim Macklin can explain what he was thinking.
|
| I don't think that's true. If he has expressed himself
reasonably
| (which I think he has), then many people can explain what
he was
| thinking, or at least what he was attempting to
communicate. He is of
| course free to explain himself further, but I'll bet I'm
fairly close.
|
| Jose
| --
| Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

I went to bed for a while.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Newps" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > Everybody with at least three brain cells knew what he
was talking about.
| >
|
| Well, then it shouldn't have been too hard for him to
explain. I wonder why
| he declined to do that?
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

CFI ASMEI, ATP BE300/1900 BE400/MU300 Gold Seal CFI 8,000
plus hours, lots of single pilot hard IFR, including ATL and
ORD and STL. Also grass strips and pastures and a number of
planned highway landings [ the police will take road signs
down if you need them too and ask nicely, even block traffic
for you].
Steve has a problem with any opinion except his own, just
the thought that I had; but I might not know what I'm
talking about on that issue.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jose" > wrote in message
| . com...
| >
| > He didn't want to waste time?
| >
| > He hasn't read your incomprehension yet?
| >
| > He's taking extra time to figure out how to express
himself in a manner
| > fitting his audience?
| >
|
| No, it's because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
|
|

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>>
>> CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a
>> touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop
>> landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so
>> that an instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing
>> situations.
>
>And in conditions where the pilot is not certain that a landing can be
>accomplished. (i.e. Strong crosswinds.)

As is "Touch and Go, Stop and Go, Full Stop or Crash and Burn?"
I don't think so.

GF

[David Cartwright]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Did he land without a clearance?

No, but the clearance he got that permitted him to do as he wished could be
best described as "begrudging".

D.

[David Cartwright]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> "Please" and "thank you" are metaphorically "magic words" because by using
> those words, people respond differently than when the same situation is
> presented, but without these words. They are (of course) not =really=
> magical and do not invoke the other world, but because they are powerful
> social lubricants, they have been given this metaphorical moniker.

Can I add one to the list: "sir" (or "ma'am" counts too). As in "XX radar,
good morning sir, G-ABCD, PA-28 blah, blah, blah ...".

I remember waiting for another pilot to belt up so I could get in on the
radio and ask for a clearance. The other guy was being downright rude and
awkward, demanding stuff from the controller, and it was clear that the
controller wasn't having any of it. Eventually I chimed in with a cheery "XX
radar, good morning sir, ..." and asked for (and got) precisely what the
other guy had been declined (can't remember what now). There may, of course,
have been some condition that prevented the controller from granting what
the other guy had asked for, and that condition had ceased to exist in the
couple of minutes since he asked for it, but I like to think it was because
I was nice to the controller :-)

D.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>Can I add one to the list: "sir" (or "ma'am" counts too). As in "XX radar,
>good morning sir, G-ABCD, PA-28 blah, blah, blah ...".
>

A controller once told me over lunch that he was irked by "all this sir stuff"
and would prefer businesslike manner - just state what you want. Maybe that's
just him. . .


Once a tower controller, seeing a developing conflict, sent a slower plane out
on an extended downwind to get him out of my way, and gave me priority to land.
I thanked him for his cooperation, and he yelled at me for wasting his time!

GF

[Happy Dog]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in
>>> CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a
>>> touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop
>>> landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training
>>> so
>>> that an instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing
>>> situations.
>>
>>And in conditions where the pilot is not certain that a landing can be
>>accomplished. (i.e. Strong crosswinds.)
>
> As is "Touch and Go, Stop and Go, Full Stop or Crash and Burn?"
> I don't think so.

Huh?

moo

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>Huh?
>

"Cleared for the option" is used in pattern work, not in emergencies or
delicate situations. If you are in an emergency, or you have given the
controller any indication that your landing may not be a sure thing, they will
not say "Cleared for the option". They will most likely move other traffic out
of your way, and clear you to the runway of your choice and watch you very
closely, one hand on the phone. Besides that, if you're really worried that
you cannot get it down safely, are you really going to want to land and take
off again?

GF

[Newps]

Greg Farris wrote:
They will most likely move other traffic out
> of your way, and clear you to the runway of your choice and watch you very
> closely, one hand on the phone.

You will be asked what runway you want and will be cleared to land on
that runway. The phone call will already have been made and the trucks
will be standing by, nobody will be standing by with a hand on the phone.

[Happy Dog]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message news:
>
> "Cleared for the option" is used in pattern work, not in emergencies or
> delicate situations. If you are in an emergency, or you have given the
> controller any indication that your landing may not be a sure thing, they
> will
> not say "Cleared for the option". They will most likely move other traffic
> out
> of your way, and clear you to the runway of your choice and watch you very
> closely, one hand on the phone. Besides that, if you're really worried
> that
> you cannot get it down safely, are you really going to want to land and
> take
> off again?

Did anyone say "emergency"? Imagine yourself in the foreseeable situation
where you, as a less than seasoned pilot, are attempting a night landing, in
a strong crosswind, on a snow and ice covered runway, other traffic or not,
towered or not. In every case are you sure you will be making a full stop
landing? (If that isn't a rhetorical question for you your godlike
abilities precede you.) When unsure, how do you announce your intentions?
It should be rare, but this has happened to me and most other pilots I know
who fly in "delicate" situations. (Common in places with habitually
marginal conditions.)

moo

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message news:
>
>>"Cleared for the option" is used in pattern work, not in emergencies or
>>delicate situations. If you are in an emergency, or you have given the
>>controller any indication that your landing may not be a sure thing, they
>>will
>>not say "Cleared for the option". They will most likely move other traffic
>>out
>>of your way, and clear you to the runway of your choice and watch you very
>>closely, one hand on the phone. Besides that, if you're really worried
>>that
>>you cannot get it down safely, are you really going to want to land and
>>take
>>off again?
>
>
> Did anyone say "emergency"? Imagine yourself in the foreseeable situation
> where you, as a less than seasoned pilot, are attempting a night landing, in
> a strong crosswind, on a snow and ice covered runway, other traffic or not,
> towered or not. In every case are you sure you will be making a full stop
> landing? (If that isn't a rhetorical question for you your godlike
> abilities precede you.) When unsure, how do you announce your intentions?
> It should be rare, but this has happened to me and most other pilots I know
> who fly in "delicate" situations. (Common in places with habitually
> marginal conditions.)

It still isn't an "option", it's a full stop landing with the
possibility of a go around. As are all landings.

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in
> Happy Dog wrote:
>> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message news:
>>
>>>"Cleared for the option" is used in pattern work, not in emergencies or
>>>delicate situations. If you are in an emergency, or you have given the
>>>controller any indication that your landing may not be a sure thing, they
>>>will
>>>not say "Cleared for the option". They will most likely move other
>>>traffic out
>>>of your way, and clear you to the runway of your choice and watch you
>>>very
>>>closely, one hand on the phone. Besides that, if you're really worried
>>>that
>>>you cannot get it down safely, are you really going to want to land and
>>>take
>>>off again?
>>
>> Did anyone say "emergency"? Imagine yourself in the foreseeable
>> situation where you, as a less than seasoned pilot, are attempting a
>> night landing, in a strong crosswind, on a snow and ice covered runway,
>> other traffic or not, towered or not. In every case are you sure you
>> will be making a full stop landing? (If that isn't a rhetorical question
>> for you your godlike abilities precede you.) When unsure, how do you
>> announce your intentions? It should be rare, but this has happened to me
>> and most other pilots I know who fly in "delicate" situations. (Common
>> in places with habitually marginal conditions.)
>
> It still isn't an "option", it's a full stop landing with the possibility
> of a go around. As are all landings.

And you would inform other traffic or ATC facility of this how?

moo