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

[Robert M. Gary]

Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own risk
if he wasn't going to clear me to land?

BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747 have the same
vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2 seconds in a
747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney. Of all my 6
approaches today I easily could have landed from any one of them. I
was able to follow the rabbit to the runway but technically if I can
only see 1/8 or so I can't land.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 12:45*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
> got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
> landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
> landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
> tower ATC phrase book?

I looked in my FAR/AIM 2007 Pilot/Controller glossary and found
nothing.

I could only hazaar guesses as an uninformed VFR only wimp. I'm
curious about the answer though!

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 ...

[kontiki]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
> got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
> landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
> landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
> tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own risk
> if he wasn't going to clear me to land?
>
> BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747 have the same
> vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2 seconds in a
> 747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney. Of all my 6
> approaches today I easily could have landed from any one of them. I
> was able to follow the rabbit to the runway but technically if I can
> only see 1/8 or so I can't land.
>
> -Robert

What are the vis minimums for that approach? Probably > than 1/8 SM.
I'm sure you got cleared for the approach but perhaps since the vis
minimums were below that published for the approach tower didn't issue
you a clearance. That's my guess.

[Robert M. Gary]

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).

-Robert, CFII

[kontiki]

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

Well perhaps you might take the time to gain a bit of knowledge
regarding IFR approach terminology.... might be safer for all... maybe.

The fact is that it may be VFR at pattern altitude but there
may very well be aircraft flying an real instrument approach
above an overcast layer. Approach control will do their best
to release them to advisory so they can hear and talk to folks
in the pattern but it behooves all pilots to become versed in
the locations of local fixes or navaids in the area for safety
reasons.

[kontiki]

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.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 11:15*am, 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.

That would require students to purchase IFR charts for every airport
they visit. They would not only need approach charts but enroutes as
well. 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.

-Robert, CFII

[[email protected]]

>
> > 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. They would not only need approach charts but enroutes as
> well. 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.
>
> -Robert, CFII

I can't see much sense in demanding that VFR pilots learn about IFR
and buy or download the approach plates so they can understand a radio
message from an IFR flight doing practice in VFR conditions (or when
conditions are VFR at the relevant airport).

Since there is no requirement to use the radio at class E fields,
though, then there's really nothing to be said if an IFR pilot just
doesn't want to be bothered.

This will probably never be such a big problem (ie, an accident or two
or three) that the FAA has to write a regulation on it. If they do
regulate, I'd bet money on the rule requiring IFR pilots to announce
position rather than the FAA requiring IFR knowledge from VFR pilots.
However annoying to the IFR pilot it might be.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>
> Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
> got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
> landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
> landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
> tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own risk
> if he wasn't going to clear me to land?
>

He erred. The proper phraseology is "not in sight, runway 22L cleared to
land." "Own risk" is used when a pilot insists on landing on a closed
runway, "unable to issue landing clearance, landing will be at your own
risk."

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 11:30*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:

> He erred. *The proper phraseology is "not in sight, runway 22L cleared to
> land." *"Own risk" is used when a pilot insists on landing on a closed
> runway, "unable to issue landing clearance, landing will be at your own
> risk."

That's what I thought but he said it 6 times. :) Must be training week
in Sacramento. Sunday night I flew into SAC and was told "Cleared to
land runway 22". I assume they hadn't built a new runway over night.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 11:04*am, kontiki > wrote:

> What are the vis minimums for that approach? Probably > than 1/8 SM.
> I'm sure you got cleared for the approach but perhaps since the vis
> minimums were below that published for the approach tower didn't issue
> you a clearance. That's my guess.- Hide quoted text -

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

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).

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. Also,
since most of us have at least a VFR GPS onboard, we have another
reference for distance out in between fixes.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 11:41*am, B A R R Y > wrote:
>
> I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
> direction over waypoints.

That's good but just make sure you use waypoints that a VFR pilot
would know (like VORs, etc). Remember the point is for traffic to know
where you are so you don't want to use references that some pilots may
not know. Personally I prefer using relative location to the airport,
since you're only about 10 miles out anyway.

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> On Jan 15, 11:30 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> He erred. The proper phraseology is "not in sight, runway 22L cleared to
>> land." "Own risk" is used when a pilot insists on landing on a closed
>> runway, "unable to issue landing clearance, landing will be at your own
>> risk."
>>
>
> That's what I thought but he said it 6 times. :) Must be training week
> in Sacramento.
>

A qualified instructor is supposed to correct those things on the spot.

[kontiki]

wrote:
>
> I can't see much sense in demanding that VFR pilots learn about IFR
> and buy or download the approach plates so they can understand a radio
> message from an IFR flight doing practice in VFR conditions (or when
> conditions are VFR at the relevant airport).
>

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.

> Since there is no requirement to use the radio at class E fields,
> though, then there's really nothing to be said if an IFR pilot just
> doesn't want to be bothered.
>

Hmmm... by that logic then why does it matter if they make any
radio calls at all? The whole point is to say give the most amount
of information in the fewest words. That's best for everybody, but
it does require a small amount of training.

> This will probably never be such a big problem (ie, an accident or two
> or three) that the FAA has to write a regulation on it. If they do
> regulate, I'd bet money on the rule requiring IFR pilots to announce
> position rather than the FAA requiring IFR knowledge from VFR pilots.
> However annoying to the IFR pilot it might be.

Sorry we bothered you.

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jan 15, 12:36*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>
> That's what I thought but he said it 6 times. :) Must be training week
> in Sacramento. Sunday night I flew into SAC and was told "Cleared to
> land runway 22". I assume they hadn't built a new runway over night.
>
> -Robert

I agree it sounds like an error on the part of the controller. But it
should be easy for you as the pilot to fix. Your response should be
"XXX Tower please confirm Mooney XXX is cleared for Runway 22"

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 12:24*pm, kontiki > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I can't see much sense in demanding that VFR pilots learn about IFR
> > and buy or download the approach plates so they can understand a radio
> > message from an IFR flight doing practice in VFR conditions (or when
> > conditions are VFR at the relevant airport).
>
> 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.

-Robert

[kontiki]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR (perish the
mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now teach)
there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and we
hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.." or
"N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know what
that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to explain.. once
explained the student will no longer be ignorant and will ultimately
be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree it sounds like an error on the part of the controller.
>

It doesn't just sound like an error, it's definitely an error.



FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control- Terminal

Section 10. Arrival Procedures and Separation

3-10-7. LANDING CLEARANCE WITHOUT VISUAL OBSERVATION

When an arriving aircraft reports at a position where he/she should be seen
but has not been visually observed, advise the aircraft as a part of the
landing clearance that it is not in sight and restate the landing runway.

PHRASEOLOGY-
NOT IN SIGHT, RUNWAY (number) CLEARED TO LAND.

NOTE-
Aircraft observance on the CTRD satisfies the visually observed requirement.




CTRD is Certified Tower Radar Display.

[[email protected]]

> > Since there is no requirement to use the radio at class E fields,
> > though, then there's really nothing to be said if an IFR pilot just
> > doesn't want to be bothered.
>
> Hmmm... by that logic then why does it matter if they make any
> radio calls at all? The whole point is to say give the most amount
> of information in the fewest words. That's best for everybody, but
> it does require a small amount of training.

It's not logic, it's simply not required by the FARs for class E.

> > However annoying to the IFR pilot it might be.
>
> Sorry we bothered you.

I wasn't bothered, and I don't think you're sorry.

When I get IFR certified I'll make sure and also give my position
reports during VFR conditions in language I think VFR pilots will
understand -- mainly because I value my own life and want to make
every reasonable effort to preserve it. Speaking ONLY a language
others may not comprehend won't help me out in that regard.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 3:07*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Brian" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I agree it sounds like an error on the part of the controller.
>
> It doesn't just sound like an error, it's definitely an error.
>
> FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control
>
> Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control- Terminal

Is there an online source for this? The AIM is online, but it didn't
have an answer to the OP.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:07 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>> "Brian" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree it sounds like an error on the part of the controller.
>> It doesn't just sound like an error, it's definitely an error.
>>
>> FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control
>>
>> Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control- Terminal
>
> Is there an online source for this? The AIM is online, but it didn't
> have an answer to the OP.


http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/Atc/index.htm

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Is there an online source for this? The AIM is online, but it didn't
> have an answer to the OP.
>

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_orders/media/ATC.pdf

[John[_13_]]

But there is a requirement to obtain all relevant information for a flight
and I think there is a argument to be made that you should at least be aware
of both vfr and ifr reporting points in close proximity to your intended
landing point. and if you hear a radio report of someone inbound to a
airport that your flying in to and don't know where that point is, it
behooves you to ask .

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 12:24 pm, kontiki > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I can't see much sense in demanding that VFR pilots learn about IFR
> > and buy or download the approach plates so they can understand a radio
> > message from an IFR flight doing practice in VFR conditions (or when
> > conditions are VFR at the relevant airport).
>
> 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.

-Robert

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> If they do
> regulate, I'd bet money on the rule requiring IFR pilots to announce
> position rather than the FAA requiring IFR knowledge from VFR pilots.

The FAA currently has a non-regulatory advisory that recommends IFR
pilots include distance and direction from the airport in their position
reports:

"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the
flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance
and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
completion of the approach."

From section 7 of:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

[[email protected]]

> "Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
> alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the
> flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance
> and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
> completion of the approach."
>
> From section 7 of:http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular...

Well.

I think it boils down to this: a pilot should not depend on other
pilots going beyond what is required of them to be in the air.

A student pilot does not need to know anything about IFR operations to
be in the air. Can you count on him knowing what IFR announcements on
the radio mean? No.

A private pilot does not need to know anything about IFR operations to
be in the air. Can't count on him either.

I appreciate that it's a good idea to learn about IFR, and I am.
However, in my spare time studies of this I haven't read yet about
approach procedures or the radio announcements that describe it. I
wouldn't advise anyone with an IFR rating counting on me understanding
such communications.

The FAA doesn't advise that either.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, kontiki > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
> VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR (perish the
> mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now teach)
> there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and we
> hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.." or
> "N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know what
> that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to explain.. once
> explained the student will no longer be ignorant and will ultimately
> be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.

So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language that
other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly be
foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints and
approach fixes at each airport.

-Robert

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"John" > wrote:

>But there is a requirement to obtain all relevant information for a flight
>and I think there is a argument to be made that you should at least be aware
>of both vfr and ifr reporting points in close proximity to your intended
>landing point. and if you hear a radio report of someone inbound to a
>airport that your flying in to and don't know where that point is, it
>behooves you to ask .
>
Can't agree with you on this. I go to a lot of new airports and I
don't intend to know where every IFR position is.

Ron Lee

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 5:28*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:5fdc8536-11f5-4348-993f-
> :
>
> > Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
> > got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
> > landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
> > landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
> > tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own risk
> > if he wasn't going to clear me to land?
>
> > BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747 have the same
> > vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2 seconds in a
> > 747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney.
>
> No, usually it's classified by category. On some runways the vis
> requirement is the smae, but on some it would be higher for a C or D
> airplane. It's mostly down to the OCL.
>
> Bertie

I understand that. On a standard ILS if a cat C is 1/2 mile vis I
believe a cat A should be 1/8 mile vis. The vis requirements should be
based on how many seconds the pilot can see down the runway. 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.

-robert

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 5:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:0b1f9eb2-37b7-4f0c-b4c0-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, kontiki > wrote:
> >> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >> > 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.
>
> >> Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
> >> VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR (perish the
> >> mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now teach)
> >> there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and we
> >> hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.." or
> >> "N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know what
> >> that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to explain.. once
> >> explained the student will no longer be ignorant and will ultimately
> >> be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.
>
> > So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language that
> > other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly be
> > foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints and
> > approach fixes at each airport.
>
> NOT WHAT HE SAID!
>
> Sorry for shouting. Seemed appropriate for some reason.

That's why I posted that. I'm trying to clarify what he's saying. I'm
saying IFR pilots should use proper phrasing and he's coming back with
VFR pilots should know IFR waypoints. Its not clear if he believes his
suggestion is a "nice extra" or if he believes it really soves the
problem at hand.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

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.

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.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 15, 6:01*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 5:36*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> news:0b1f9eb2-37b7-4f0c-b4c0-
>
> >> :
>
> >> > On Jan 15, 12:55*pm, kontiki > wrote:
> >> >> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >> >> > There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with
> >> >> > an instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise
> >> >> > there is n
> > o
> >> >> > requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and
> >> >> > enroute charts for cross country airports.
>
> >> >> Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
> >> >> VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR
> >> >> (perish the
>
> >> >> mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now
> >> >> teach
> > )
> >> >> there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and
> >> >> we hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.."
> >> >> or "N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know
> >> >> what that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to
> >> >> explain.. once explained the student will no longer be ignorant
> >> >> and will ultimately be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.
>
> >> > So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language
> >> > that other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly
> >> > be foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints
> >> > and approach fixes at each airport.
>
> >> NOT WHAT HE SAID!
>
> >> Sorry for shouting. Seemed appropriate for some reason.
>
> > That's why I posted that. I'm trying to clarify what he's saying. I'm
> > saying IFR pilots should use proper phrasing and he's coming back with
> > VFR pilots should know IFR waypoints. Its not clear if he believes his
> > suggestion is a "nice extra" or if he believes it really soves the
> > problem at hand.
>
> What I understoood him to say was that a vfr pilot should ahve a broad
> view of the structure of insturment flight. e.g, where the outer marker
> is in relation to the end of the runway. Where the center fix is. What
> altitudes the approaching airplane is likely to be at on an ILS. Waht a
> SID and STAR is. If they fly out of a busy airfiled, particulalry if
> tehy were to do special VFR, it would behoove them to know roughly
> what's going on.
> Hel, If I were operating IMC in a strange place, I'd have no idea where
> the other guy was if he called some strange waypoint, nor would I look
> it up. But I'd have a vague idea, at least, what he was up to wheras a
> VFR pilot would have next to none.
> It's an important part of "keeping the big picture" and expanding one's
> comfort zone.
> And regular Bunyip readers will know me as a Luddite who never turns the
> radio on unless he's forced!

But would you expect a student pilot on a cross country to know what
it means if a IFR pilot calls up with "Cessna 1234 4 files from
FOOBAR"???

-Robert

[[email protected]]

> But I do and I'm smarter than the FAA. After the revolution I am going
> to sit all vfr pilots down and tell them everything they need to know
> about instrument flight regarding miing it up with IFR traffic. Ti will
> take twenty minutes, incuding commercials.
>
> Bertie-

In my primary training nothing of the sort ever happened. I don't
think anybody else in my flying club got that kind of training for the
private either -- from any of the instructors. Okay, some ILS
approaches were flown, and you have mandatory hood work for
emergencies. But SIDs, STARS, procedure turns, communications, or any
other stuff useful for IFR I'm picking up solely on my own from
Richard Taylor.

And Rod M.'s new book looks like it has a lot of good stuff in it as
well.

I'll be damned if it isn't taking more than 20 minutes though!

[John[_13_]]

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.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 6:01 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 5:36 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> >> news:0b1f9eb2-37b7-4f0c-b4c0-
>
> >> :
>
> >> > On Jan 15, 12:55 pm, kontiki > wrote:
> >> >> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >> >> > There is no requirement for VFR pilots to visit an airport with
> >> >> > an instructor before they first fly to that airport. Likewise
> >> >> > there is n
> > o
> >> >> > requirement for VFR pilots to purchase approach plates and
> >> >> > enroute charts for cross country airports.
>
> >> >> Of course there "is no requirement...". No one said anything about
> >> >> VFR pilots purchasing approach plates and teaching them IFR
> >> >> (perish the
>
> >> >> mere thought!). Re-read my post. Where I trained (and where I now
> >> >> teach
> > )
> >> >> there are constantly people practicing instrument approaches and
> >> >> we hear calls like "...N1234a is procedure turn inbound ILS23.."
> >> >> or "N1234a is YUPPY inbound ILS 32..." Most students want to know
> >> >> what that means. In any case it behooves an instructor to
> >> >> explain.. once explained the student will no longer be ignorant
> >> >> and will ultimately be a safer pilot when he's out soloing.
>
> >> > So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language
> >> > that other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly
> >> > be foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints
> >> > and approach fixes at each airport.
>
> >> NOT WHAT HE SAID!
>
> >> Sorry for shouting. Seemed appropriate for some reason.
>
> > That's why I posted that. I'm trying to clarify what he's saying. I'm
> > saying IFR pilots should use proper phrasing and he's coming back with
> > VFR pilots should know IFR waypoints. Its not clear if he believes his
> > suggestion is a "nice extra" or if he believes it really soves the
> > problem at hand.
>
> What I understoood him to say was that a vfr pilot should ahve a broad
> view of the structure of insturment flight. e.g, where the outer marker
> is in relation to the end of the runway. Where the center fix is. What
> altitudes the approaching airplane is likely to be at on an ILS. Waht a
> SID and STAR is. If they fly out of a busy airfiled, particulalry if
> tehy were to do special VFR, it would behoove them to know roughly
> what's going on.
> Hel, If I were operating IMC in a strange place, I'd have no idea where
> the other guy was if he called some strange waypoint, nor would I look
> it up. But I'd have a vague idea, at least, what he was up to wheras a
> VFR pilot would have next to none.
> It's an important part of "keeping the big picture" and expanding one's
> comfort zone.
> And regular Bunyip readers will know me as a Luddite who never turns the
> radio on unless he's forced!

But would you expect a student pilot on a cross country to know what
it means if a IFR pilot calls up with "Cessna 1234 4 files from
FOOBAR"???

-Robert

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:19:17 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Jan 15, 11:15*am, 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.
>
>That would require students to purchase IFR charts for every airport
>they visit. They would not only need approach charts but enroutes as

And at that level they's still have no idea where we were. They are
happy to know where they are which is as it should be. There should be
no need to make the primary training more difficult with learning
additional terms and the equivalent of additional patterns. They have
plenty of items to deal with as it is.


>well. 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.
>
If the conditions are VFR it's expected that we identify in plain
language. IOW If I'm at HARPY on the VOR-A into 3BS I'd identify as
Barstow traffic, Thirty Three Romeo, 5 West North West at 1100 on the
VOR-A. Even if the VFR pilot has no idea what the VOR-A is, they do
know what 5 WNW at 1100 means. It also tells them I'm coming into the
airport at about half the pattern altitude they are flying.

It doesn't bother me to see a 310 come screaming in at 500 AGL while
I'm flying the pattern at a 1000, but it certainly would unnerve a
student and probably any other pilot who is not used to seeing it as
well.

If the student and VFR pilots had to be familiar with all the
approaches at out little airport it would be a challenge and this is
just a little airport. We have runways 18/36 as well as 06/24. The
VOR approach is on the 317 radial out of MBS meaning the VOR approach
comes in from the WNW, aligns with nothing on the airport, and it
typically ends with a "circle-to-land" at 500 AGL. Then we have the
GPS approaches to both 06 and 24. They are straight in from about 7
miles out. IOW to VFR traffic they are straight in. Mix learning the
straight ins with the VOR and the circle to land and we'd have no low
time pilots in the pattern.

Normally it's not all that busy and you can fly any of the approaches
with the published missed, but on a busy day those on the VOR break
off before tangling with the down wind traffic for 06 even if they are
using 24 if for no other reason than to avoid rattling students.
The straight ins to 06 and 24 have to watch for base traffic and
*normally* announce often enough to know just where they are.
(There are always exceptions)

Me? When VFR knowing where I am, where they are, and what they are
flying lets me know if I can land or need to extend my down wind and
follow the traffic flying the approach. The student and low time
pilot doesn't normally have this capability nor should they be
expected to. So if I were on the GPS 06 I'd identify my position in
reference to the runway and watch for VFR traffic. If I see, or hear
some one on down wind, I'm going to be extra alert for the possibility
of breaking off and joining the pattern

Yes, I could declare being on final as by the time I'm half way to the
airport from the final approach fix I'm within the distance many fly
VFR patterns. Why they insist on using a pattern large enough a 737
could probably fly it I don't know. To me a VFR pattern has base
between a half to three quarters of a mile out and I'm flying high
performance. BTW we have a pilot who flys a 310 and his VFR patterns
are only *slightly* larger than mine. HOWEVER declaiming final does
two things. It is likely to confuse students who are used to, or are
learning to always do things the same and this would interrupt that.
Then there is always the guy who never progressed beyond that point
and is always going to fly the pattern the same no matter what you
say. With that one you see the conflict coming, break off and hope he
never flys into AirVenture.
So, IF I can fit I'll land straight in on the approach, but always
plan it so I can brake off and avoid conflicts.

When it gets exciting is when you discover some one flying those big
patterns just under the ceiling, or you do the step down to find a
windshield full of some one scud running.

BTW we have one pilot who flys such large patterns that on several
occasions pilots in the pattern have mistakenly assumed he was headed
elsewhere. One day he got all bent out of shape because an ultra light
landed ahead of him and he had to go around. I even though he was
headed for MBS.

Roger (K8RI)

>-Robert, CFII

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> It doesn't bother me to see a 310 come screaming in at 500 AGL while
> I'm flying the pattern at a 1000, but it certainly would unnerve a
> student and probably any other pilot who is not used to seeing it as
> well.

I gotta tell you, if I saw an A-310 screaming in at 500 AGL while I was in
the pattern, I'd probably have a laundry problem too. :-)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:41 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
>> direction over waypoints.
>
> That's good but just make sure you use waypoints that a VFR pilot
> would know (like VORs, etc). Remember the point is for traffic to know
> where you are so you don't want to use references that some pilots may
> not know. Personally I prefer using relative location to the airport,
> since you're only about 10 miles out anyway.

I only use ONE waypoint for airport calls, the airport. <G>

[kontiki]

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.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"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

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

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!>

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Judah]

"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?

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

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]

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

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 16, 8:29*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 th
> > e
> >> >> > 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.
>
> Well, hand flying? I think they are.. Single pilot and trying to hand
> flw while staring at a couple of flashing lights in space?
> Not easy. If anything the Rabbit can be more of a hinderance than a
> help.

But we do that legally today. We don't have to see anything other than
the rabbit at 200 feet. I commonly folow the rabbit lights through the
fog down to 100 above TDZE. Again, I can see this being difficult at
150 knots in a 747 but at 80 knots in a Mooney its not very busy.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 16, 8:16*am, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> 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?

There is no requirement for a minimum reported overcast or ceiling
under part 91. I've landed with an overcast reported at 50 feet by on
field FSS. As long as I can see the rabbit at 200 feet and the runway
environment at 100 feet I'm legal with regard to ceilings. Fog is a
way of life around here so its not that odd to us.

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

No, several planes did land.

-Robert

[Barry]

> 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.

> The only requirement for part 91 is that
> you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200

I want to reply to both of these posts by Robert. 91.175(c)(2) says that to
continue the approach below DH, you must have the required flight visibility
(1/2 mile in this case). I agree that this is observed (not reported) flight
visibility. If you have the required viz and the approach lights are
"distinctly visible and identifiable", then you can continue the descent (but
not below 100 feet unless you see the red terminating bars or red side row
bars, or one of the items listed in 91.175(c)(3)). But seeing the lights DOES
NOT relieve you of the visibility requirement, and I'd say that seeing some
light through the fog doesn't count as "distinctly visible and identifiable".

Note that at 200 feet on a 3 degree glideslope, you are about 3000 feet, or
just over 1/2 sm, from the threshold. So if the viz is right at 1/2 mile, you
should be able to see the approach lights almost, but not quite, to the
threshold. Within a few seconds, the threshold should be in sight. At 100
feet, you're only about 1000 feet from the threshold. So obviously if you
don't see the threshold until 100 feet, slant visibility is well below 1/2
mile. It's true that forward and slant visibility are not exactly the same,
but it the slant viz is less than 1/2 mile, it's almost certain that the
forward viz is less than 1/2 mile at least somewhere along your path.

Concerning landing out of an approach like this, I think that most GA pilots,
like myself, have very little chance to practice. We don't have simulators
like the airline pilots do, and it's hard in most places to get this type of
practice in actual. The only time I did an actual approach all the way down
to minimum (reported viz was 3/8) I found that it was not so easy to
transition to landing. I'm sure that with practice it would become much
easier, as you describe, but I don't find the FAA requirement unreasonable.
It doesn't leave much margin for error.

Barry

[Jim Macklin]

Weather was reported below minimums. Part 91 allows the PIC
to make the approach and land if you have the required
minimums.

Rwy 22L was open.

They don't "clear" you to do things when you are the only
one who can determine the weather is at or above landing
minimums.

Thus they said... you are not in sight, since he can't see
crap except snow. They are using rwy 22L and you can land
if you decide that all required visual cues and visibility
exist.

See CATII landing minimums, and special procedures for
category A aircraft.




"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
| Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC
1/8SM. When I
| got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not
in site,
| landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound
like a
| landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L"
mean in the
| tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing
was own risk
| if he wasn't going to clear me to land?
|
| BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747
have the same
| vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2
seconds in a
| 747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney. Of all
my 6
| approaches today I easily could have landed from any one
of them. I
| was able to follow the rabbit to the runway but
technically if I can
| only see 1/8 or so I can't land.
|
| -Robert

[John Godwin]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:rtpjj.7900$pA7.1831
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Maybe the AWOS was made by B*lfort. <G>

Damn, beat me to it <lol>

--

[Bob Gardner]

Back in the olden days, when I operated an AST-300 sim business, I could
control both ceiling and visibility. The mode I liked best was the variable
ceiling, which required entry of a ceiling figure and a depth figure (I'm
working from memory here, so don't hold me to exactness). The combination
delivered a sine wave to the visual screen...if I entered a 100 foot depth
and a 300 foot ceiling, the pilot would see/not see as the cloud base varied
sinusoidally between 100 and 300. I had no way to control what the cloud
base would be when the pilot was at DA or MDA, so the student and I were
both surprised with the result.

Bob Gardner

"Barry" > wrote in message
. ..
>> 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.
>
>> The only requirement for part 91 is that
>> you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200
>
> I want to reply to both of these posts by Robert. 91.175(c)(2) says that
> to continue the approach below DH, you must have the required flight
> visibility (1/2 mile in this case). I agree that this is observed (not
> reported) flight visibility. If you have the required viz and the
> approach lights are "distinctly visible and identifiable", then you can
> continue the descent (but not below 100 feet unless you see the red
> terminating bars or red side row bars, or one of the items listed in
> 91.175(c)(3)). But seeing the lights DOES NOT relieve you of the
> visibility requirement, and I'd say that seeing some light through the fog
> doesn't count as "distinctly visible and identifiable".
>
> Note that at 200 feet on a 3 degree glideslope, you are about 3000 feet,
> or just over 1/2 sm, from the threshold. So if the viz is right at 1/2
> mile, you should be able to see the approach lights almost, but not quite,
> to the threshold. Within a few seconds, the threshold should be in sight.
> At 100 feet, you're only about 1000 feet from the threshold. So obviously
> if you don't see the threshold until 100 feet, slant visibility is well
> below 1/2 mile. It's true that forward and slant visibility are not
> exactly the same, but it the slant viz is less than 1/2 mile, it's almost
> certain that the forward viz is less than 1/2 mile at least somewhere
> along your path.
>
> Concerning landing out of an approach like this, I think that most GA
> pilots, like myself, have very little chance to practice. We don't have
> simulators like the airline pilots do, and it's hard in most places to get
> this type of practice in actual. The only time I did an actual approach
> all the way down to minimum (reported viz was 3/8) I found that it was not
> so easy to transition to landing. I'm sure that with practice it would
> become much easier, as you describe, but I don't find the FAA requirement
> unreasonable. It doesn't leave much margin for error.
>
> Barry
>

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> Today I was shooting approaches at MHR. Wx was 001OVC 1/8SM. When I
> got handed off to tower they would say "Mooney 1234, not in site,
> landing own risk, landing runway 22L". That doesn't sound like a
> landing clearance to me. What does "landing runway 22L" mean in the
> tower ATC phrase book? Why would he tell me that landing was own risk
> if he wasn't going to clear me to land?
>
> BTW: It always struck me as odd that a Mooney and a 747 have the same
> vis requirements on an ILS. A 1/2 mile is probably like 2 seconds in a
> 747 but an 1/8 mile is like 10 seconds in a Mooney. Of all my 6
> approaches today I easily could have landed from any one of them. I
> was able to follow the rabbit to the runway but technically if I can
> only see 1/8 or so I can't land.

Perhaps the controller deemed that the runway was unsafe due to the
visibility. Without being able to see if the runway was clear, he could not
verify it was safe:

3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or
unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and
a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate
parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a
clearance cannot be issued.
b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation
would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation
will be at his/her own risk.

PHRASEOLOGYRUNWAY
(runway number) CLOSED/UNSAFE.
If appropriate, (quote NOTAM information),
UNABLE TO ISSUE DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCHAND-GO CLEARANCE.
DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCH-AND-GO WILL BE AT YOUR OWN RISK

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"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
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.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
et...
>
> 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 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?
>

No.


>
> My point has always been that the reason the controller used this phrase
> was due to minimums, not your ability to land in fog.
>

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you know he was poorly trained?
>

Because only a poorly trained controller would make that error.


>
> Perhaps he was excellently trained, but has a retention issue?
>

It doesn't work that way.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 16, 11:41*am, "Jim Carter" > wrote:

> 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
> 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?

Because other planes were landing. I've never see a situation in which
a tower controller could deny landing clearance because he thought the
wx was too low.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 16, 11:41*am, "Jim Carter" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
>
> ...
>
> 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.

We were speaking legall; I think we agree that legally the 001OVC
1/8SM is not significant. In my experience with fog it isn't
necessarily significant from a practical point of view either
because...
1) Fog is rarely uniform. 1/8 at the end of the runway may be 1/2 mile
at the other end. That is why RVR is often quoted in "touch down" and
"roll out", sometimes even 3 locations.
2) At 200 feet you may be in the clouds but its common to be able to
pick the rabbit out from the clouds. The rabbit is very high intensity
and commonly pierces through the clouds (which is its purpose).
Sometimes I'll fly 1/2 a dot off to the right so the rabbit appears
below me out the window.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 16, 8:49*am, "Barry" > wrote:
and I'd say that seeing some
> light through the fog doesn't count as "distinctly visible and identifiable".

I disagree. When you see the approach lights they are quiet
identifiable, even if you cannot see the grass around them.

> Concerning landing out of an approach like this, I think that most GA pilots,
> like myself, have very little chance to practice. *We don't have simulators
> like the airline pilots do, and it's hard in most places to get this type of
> practice in actual. *The only time I did an actual approach all the way down
> to minimum (reported viz was 3/8) I found that it was not so easy to
> transition to landing. *I'm sure that with practice it would become much
> easier, as you describe, but I don't find the FAA requirement unreasonable..
> It doesn't leave much margin for error.

Come to Sacramento. You'll get lots of practice in the winter. The
transition is not really that hard. From my experience as a CFII the
transition to missed is much more difficult for students. 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. Going
from visual to instrument is more difficult. 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

[Barry]

> 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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[[email protected]]

> 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 here: 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?

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

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? :-)

[Ron Natalie]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

..

[Ron Natalie]

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).

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Robert M. Gary]

> 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

[Barry]

> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Al G[_1_]]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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).

[Barry]

> 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 are:

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

[[email protected]]

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 are:

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

[Barry]

>>>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.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 17, 10:02*am, " > wrote:

> The point of an approach is to land.

Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
point is not to jump out of the plane. :)

> 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.

But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps) :)

> 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).

Once the runway is in sight everything is simplier. That is when the
student breathes his relief and lands. I've never noticed that part ot
be challenging to students, they're happy they found the runway and
ready to land. Its much easier to move flaps at this point than to try
to retract them while going missed at 200 feet in the soup.

[Barry]

> 90-100 knots to land? In a Cherokee?

No, I guess I was unclear. 90-100 knots on approach until I'm visual, then
slow to 65 or so while extending full flaps (or maybe only 2 notches if it's
very windy). The point I was trying to make is that unless you want to fly
the entire approach at 65 knots and full flaps, you have to slow down and
configure somewhere inside the FAF, and I prefer to do it while visual on
short final, not while still in the clouds.

> 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.

But you do have to change technique from VFR to IFR, because VFR you'd
probably not be at 90 or 100 knots on base and after turning final. If the
weather is near minimums, it's only the very last part of short final that
will be the same.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Barry" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>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.
>
>
My apologies, I thought you were talking about the Prevailing
Visibility, as reported by the tower. The flight visibility, is determined
by the pilot. The tower can be calling it 1/8 mile, RVR <600', but if I can
see the environment from the DH, I have demonstrated 1/2 mile flight vis.

Fog Seeder extraordinaire

Al G

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 17, 11:28 am, "Al G" > wrote:
> "Barry" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> >>>>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.
>
> My apologies, I thought you were talking about the Prevailing
> Visibility, as reported by the tower. The flight visibility, is determined
> by the pilot. The tower can be calling it 1/8 mile, RVR <600', but if I can
> see the environment from the DH, I have demonstrated 1/2 mile flight vis.

But there is no requirement you see the environment from the DH, only
the approach lights.

-Robert, CFII

[Barry]

> But there is no requirement you see the environment from the DH, only
> the approach lights.

Correct, but as I've posted before, if you can't see almost to the threshold
at DH (assuming 200 feet), you probably do not have the required visibility of
1/2 mile.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 2:22 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>
> > The point of an approach is to land.
>
> Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
> point is not to jump out of the plane. :)

Landing fast just because you might have to go missed is stacking the
deck -- in a bad way.

The intent of an approach is landing -- whatever provides the most
consistent, reliable, safe, controllable airspeed for landing is the
target airspeed -- not some arbitrary missed approach speed.

> But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
> not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps) :)

The benefit of approach flaps is reducing energy prior to contact with
the ground. Given a 20% increase in landing distance for every 10%
increase in airspeed (if I recall correctly), the slower I go, the
less floating over and subsequent rolling on the ground I do. That's a
good thing.

> Once the runway is in sight everything is simplier. That is when the
> student breathes his relief and lands. I've never noticed that part ot
> be challenging to students, they're happy they found the runway and
> ready to land. Its much easier to move flaps at this point than to try
> to retract them while going missed at 200 feet in the soup.

So breaking out at minimums and introducing a significant pitch change
is simpler than...?

Keep in mind -- I never said Full flaps on approach -- only approach
flaps. In most airplanes that's 10 degrees. Full power at the MAP and
the airplane climbs. You climbing? Good -- flaps up. Still climbing?
Good -- gear up.

What could be simpler?

In my very humble opinion -- too much IFR training focuses on repeat
approaches then miss

I understand this helps compress training time, but I appreciated my
instructor's insistence on landing nearly every time. That's the point
of the approach. It doesn't take repeated missed approaches to learn
what to do when you go missed. But it takes some practice and power/
attitude/configuration experience to re-learn how to land.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 2:25 pm, "Barry" > wrote:
> > 90-100 knots to land? In a Cherokee?
>
> No, I guess I was unclear. 90-100 knots on approach until I'm visual, then
> slow to 65 or so while extending full flaps (or maybe only 2 notches if it's
> very windy). The point I was trying to make is that unless you want to fly
> the entire approach at 65 knots and full flaps, you have to slow down and
> configure somewhere inside the FAF, and I prefer to do it while visual on
> short final, not while still in the clouds.
>
> > 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.
>
> But you do have to change technique from VFR to IFR, because VFR you'd
> probably not be at 90 or 100 knots on base and after turning final. If the
> weather is near minimums, it's only the very last part of short final that
> will be the same.

Thanks for the clarification. Airplanes such as the Cherokee and C172
will slow down drastically in plenty of time. More slippery airplanes
such as the Bonanza will not.

Dan

[Barry]

> In my very humble opinion -- too much IFR training focuses on repeat
> approaches then miss
>
> I understand this helps compress training time, but I appreciated my
> instructor's insistence on landing nearly every time. That's the point
> of the approach. It doesn't take repeated missed approaches to learn
> what to do when you go missed. But it takes some practice and power/
> attitude/configuration experience to re-learn how to land.

I agree that many instructors do too many missed approaches and not enough
landings. At a towered airport, I usually try to get "cleared for the option"
so the student doesn't know my intentions. I then tell the student that if I
say so, he should look outside and land if able, otherwise go missed. But I
wouldn't say that we land "nearly every time" - it's important to practice the
missed approach too, especially when it's unexpected.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 17, 12:04*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2:22 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Landing fast just because you might have to go missed is stacking the
> deck -- in a bad way.

I'm not following. Why would you land fast, you just dumped all your
flaps when you broke out.

> The intent of an approach is landing -- whatever provides the most
> consistent, reliable, safe, controllable airspeed for landing is the
> target airspeed -- not some arbitrary missed approach speed.

But landing is easy, missed is hard. Make the hard part easier and the
easy part will take care of itself.

> The benefit of approach flaps is reducing energy prior to contact with
> the ground. Given a 20% increase in landing distance for every 10%
> increase in airspeed (if I recall correctly), the slower I go, the
> less floating over and subsequent rolling on the ground I do. That's a
> good thing.

I agree, dump the flaps when you break out at DH.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 17, 11:44*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:742db77b-27c0-433a-a541-

> No, they're perfectly stable without flaps. Three problems, though. The
> pitch attitude is quite high making it difficult to see the runway
> properly. You'll have very little drag and you won't really be able to
> spool up muc and of course you'll be going 200 knots over the threshold!

That's something I've got to do. I can certainly afford to get a 737
type rating if I really wanted to but for some reason I always find a
way to justify the thought away since it would only be for fun. Taking
the week off to do it is probably the biggest issue, I could do a lot
of things with that week..

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 4:18 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> But landing is easy, missed is hard. Make the hard part easier and the
> easy part will take care of itself.

Going Missed is the scary monster because:
1) You're close to the ground
2) You have configuration and power changes
3) You didn't get to land
4) You're still in the soup

The anxiety level can be reduced by:
1) Minimize configuration changes
2) Anticipate a missed
3) Take comfort in having been in the soup for however long it took
you to get to this phase of the flight. If you're still uncomfortable
in IMC, some dual is probably in order.

I think the student will have to unlearn the fast approach technique
once he/she steps into a more aerodynamically slippery airplane. In a
fast airplane you have to manage your energy if you want to land on a
small field at the conclusion of the approach.

With the proliferation of VNAV GPS approaches more and more smaller
runways have basically ILS minimums. A typical ILS ends with a 5,000
foot+ runway -- not so for VNAV GPS.

To clarify -- my point is that the approach should be flown in a way
that is a consistent and predictable. This presumes a specific Power-
Attitude-Configuration combination that requires only minor changes to
transition from the approach phase to the landing phase.

The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
Flaps up, gear up.

If you're in a fixed gear, it's doubly important that you teach
configuration change as part of the missed to prepare them for
retracts.

Try this next time -- see what happens to the ILS needles when your
student drops full flaps once the runway is in sight.

Dan

[Barry]

> The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
> Flaps up, gear up.

And please, let's not forget PITCH UP right away.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:05 pm, "Barry" > wrote:
> > The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
> > Flaps up, gear up.
>
> And please, let's not forget PITCH UP right away.

Good point, though I've found that the trim I've applied to maintain
the target airspeed on approach takes care of that pretty well when I
apply full power. Mostly, I need to maintain some forward pressure
until I can get the flaps retracted.

Dan

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> 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).


87 knots? You've got to be kidding.

[Newps]

Marco Leon wrote:

>
> Perhaps the controller deemed that the runway was unsafe due to the
> visibility. Without being able to see if the runway was clear, he could not
> verify it was safe:

Never the controllers call. Always the pilots call.
>
> 3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
> If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or
> unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and
> a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate
> parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a
> clearance cannot be issued.
> b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation
> would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation
> will be at his/her own risk.
>

This has nothing to do with weather.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Rwy 22L was open.
>
> They don't "clear" you to do things when you are the only
> one who can determine the weather is at or above landing
> minimums.

Sure we do. Every day, all day. Contact approaches. VFR on Top. VFR
thru a surface area when the primary airport is IFR.


>
> Thus they said... you are not in sight, since he can't see
> crap except snow. They are using rwy 22L and you can land
> if you decide that all required visual cues and visibility
> exist.

ATC is always required to say "Not in sight" when they don't have you
either actually in sight or on radar. A clearance to land is never
withheld because ATC can't see the runway.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:13osru9nohbb0b0
@corp.supernews.com:

> It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Robert,
When did fog start getting reported as a ceiling? 001OVC is a ceiling
report. Fog would be reported as 1/8F or smoke / haze would be 1/8K wouldn't
it?

Also, the controller reported that he couldn't see you, so he probably
couldn't determine if the runway was clear for your landing. I don't see
where the confusion is here. He told you to land at your own risk.

I think you're also skewing the situation to fit your personal
preferences (hence the comment about 1/2 dot off) rather than strictly
discuss the technicalities of the situation. The controller had no visual
sighting of you (or probably the runway) so there was nothing else for him
or her to say other than "not in sight, land at your own risk" regardless of
training level. You were gonna do what you were gonna do anyway, so who is
he or she to tell you you can't? He couldn't clear you to land unless he
knew the runway was clear could he? Based on your original comments the
airport wasn't closed.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 17, 2:01*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 4:18 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> I think the student will have to unlearn the fast approach technique
> once he/she steps into a more aerodynamically slippery airplane. In a
> fast airplane you have to manage your energy if you want to land on a
> small field at the conclusion of the approach.

I only teach in Monneys but I'm not sure why you would need to be
faster without flaps. Even if I used flaps I wouldn't change the speed
on the approach. Are you flying ILSs in a 172 at 50 knots such that
you need flaps?

> With the proliferation of VNAV GPS approaches more and more smaller
> runways have basically ILS minimums. A typical ILS ends with a 5,000
> foot+ runway -- not so for VNAV GPS.

But either way you have full flaps once you go visual so the landings
distance is the same in each technique.

> Try this next time -- see what happens to the ILS needles when your
> student drops full flaps once the runway is in sight.

Once you're visual holding the needles in the middle is trivial
because you are looking at the runway.

-robert, CFII

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:
> Robert,
> When did fog start getting reported as a ceiling? 001OVC is a ceiling
> report. Fog would be reported as 1/8F or smoke / haze would be 1/8K wouldn't
> it?




Fog would be reported as vertical visibility and you would see it on the
METAR as VV001



> Also, the controller reported that he couldn't see you, so he probably
> couldn't determine if the runway was clear for your landing.

If the controller doesn't know the runway is clear he doesn't let you
land. Period. There are other ways to determine that.


The controller had no visual
> sighting of you (or probably the runway) so there was nothing else for him
> or her to say other than "not in sight, land at your own risk" regardless of
> training level.


That was wrong on the controllers part.

[[email protected]]

There are three conditions for descending below MDA or continuing an
approach beyond DA:

1) Runway environment in sight
2) Continuously in position to descend, etc...
3) Have the established flight visibility






On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:44:38 -0800, "Al G"
> wrote:

>
> 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
>

[[email protected]]

Approach lights are part of runway environment...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:39:46 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Jan 17, 11:28 am, "Al G" > wrote:
>> "Barry" > wrote in message
>>
>> . ..
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>>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.
>>
>> My apologies, I thought you were talking about the Prevailing
>> Visibility, as reported by the tower. The flight visibility, is determined
>> by the pilot. The tower can be calling it 1/8 mile, RVR <600', but if I can
>> see the environment from the DH, I have demonstrated 1/2 mile flight vis.
>
>But there is no requirement you see the environment from the DH, only
>the approach lights.
>
>-Robert, CFII

[[email protected]]

90-100 on the approach, when landing decision is made, pull the power
and glide to the runway.

In a Cherokee you'll be at touchdown speed at the Fixed Distance
Marker, or damn near to it, with one notch of flaps.




On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:14:57 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>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 are:
>
>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
>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> You mean controllers never forget?
>

No, I mean what I write.

[[email protected]]

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.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Keep in mind -- I never said Full flaps on approach -- only approach
> flaps. In most airplanes that's 10 degrees. Full power at the MAP and
> the airplane climbs. You climbing? Good -- flaps up. Still climbing?
> Good -- gear up.
>

That's always worked for me, as well.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 9:15 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> I only teach in Monneys but I'm not sure why you would need to be
> faster without flaps. Even if I used flaps I wouldn't change the speed
> on the approach. Are you flying ILSs in a 172 at 50 knots such that
> you need flaps?

Nope --100-90 KIAS in an A36, 90 KIAS in a 172. Approach flaps set in
the A36 and 10 degrees in 172.

>
> But either way you have full flaps once you go visual so the landings
> distance is the same in each technique.

While that may be the case in a particular Mooney or Cherokee or
Skyhawk, this method will not work in a faster (more slippery)
airplane.

> > Try this next time -- see what happens to the ILS needles when your
> > student drops full flaps once the runway is in sight.
>
> Once you're visual holding the needles in the middle is trivial
> because you are looking at the runway.

Do you ever practice ILS all the way down to touchdown? If not, you
may want to try it -- it's a good confidence boost.

Dan

[[email protected]]

Some of them are never wrong...



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.

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> That was wrong on the controllers part.

Wouldn't it be covered under here? Maybe he forgot to specifically say
"runway xx unsafe?"

3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or
unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and
a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate
parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a
clearance cannot be issued.
b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation
would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation
will be at his/her own risk.

PHRASEOLOGYRUNWAY
(runway number) CLOSED/UNSAFE.
If appropriate, (quote NOTAM information),
UNABLE TO ISSUE DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCHAND-GO CLEARANCE.
DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCH-AND-GO WILL BE AT YOUR OWN RISK

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

> Some of them are never wrong...

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


> 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.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 17, 8:48*pm, wrote:
> Approach lights are part of runway environment...

Then you are clearly wrong. The fact that you see the approach lights
certainly does not indiciate that you have any visibility. As I
mentioned before you can see the approach lights through the fog but
not be able to see the ground around the lights. So your statement
that seeing the environment demonstrates the visibility, if you
include the apporach lights, cannot be correct.

-robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 18, 5:26*am, " > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:15 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I only teach in Monneys but I'm not sure why you would need to be
> > faster without flaps. Even if I used flaps I wouldn't change the speed
> > on the approach. Are you flying ILSs in a 172 at 50 knots such that
> > you need flaps?
>
> Nope --100-90 KIAS in an A36, 90 KIAS in a 172. Approach flaps set in
> the A36 and 10 degrees in 172.

I never noticed that as a problem in the A36. It was very stable at
100 knots without flaps. I never felt any tendancy for it to be
unstable.

>
> > But either way you have full flaps once you go visual so the landings
> > distance is the same in each technique.
>
> While that may be the case in a particular Mooney or Cherokee or
> Skyhawk, this method will not work in a faster (more slippery)
> airplane.

What plane are you flying that is more slippery than a Mooney and that
does not slow when you deploy the flaps? Your A36 is a truck compared
to the slippery Mooney. I used to cook into San Jose Int'l in the A36
at 150 knots and drop the gear/flaps on short final. I could feel the
G's of the decelleration, so you can't tell me that your A36 won't
slow with flaps.

-Robert

[Newps]

Marco Leon wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> That was wrong on the controllers part.
>
> Wouldn't it be covered under here? Maybe he forgot to specifically say
> "runway xx unsafe?"

No, this section has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 2:05 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>
> What plane are you flying that is more slippery than a Mooney and that
> does not slow when you deploy the flaps? Your A36 is a truck compared
> to the slippery Mooney. I used to cook into San Jose Int'l in the A36
> at 150 knots and drop the gear/flaps on short final. I could feel the
> G's of the decelleration, so you can't tell me that your A36 won't
> slow with flaps.
>
> -Robert

The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

In the Army we differentiated between doctrine and technique. Doctrine
everybody was to do, period. Technique was the method you employed to
achieve doctrine.

In this case "doctrine" is to arrive at the runway with as little
energy as possible, given the requirements of safety in the conditions
at hand.

If you can reconfigure the airplane on short final and reduce the
speed as appropriate to achieve this, then that's your technique.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

It just seems to me that a consistent, less drastic change in
configuration is the better technique.

Dan

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 18, 6:32*pm, " > wrote:

>
> The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
> it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

> But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
> airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
> landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
actual.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 9:37 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 6:32 pm, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
> > it's pretty slippery.
>
> True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.
>
> > But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
> > airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
> > landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.
>
> I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
> all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
> approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
> or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
> training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
> not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
> flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
> finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
> to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
> actual.
>
> -Robert

Well then there ya go...

Dan

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Some of them are never wrong...
>
>
>

Jeeze - I'd never have to take my wife to the comedy club if I could just
get her to read this group....


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[[email protected]]

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...



>
>
>> 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.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:01:44 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Jan 17, 8:48*pm, wrote:
>> Approach lights are part of runway environment...
>
>Then you are clearly wrong. The fact that you see the approach lights
>certainly does not indiciate that you have any visibility. As I
>mentioned before you can see the approach lights through the fog but
>not be able to see the ground around the lights. So your statement
>that seeing the environment demonstrates the visibility, if you
>include the apporach lights, cannot be correct.
>
>-robert, CFII


I am not saying that at all.

Descent below the MDA, or continuation of the approach beyond DA,
requires 3 conditions:

1) Runway environment in sight
2) Normal rates of descent, etc...
3)Flight visibility as specified...

All 3 conditions must be met. Approach lights satisfy condition 1.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 18, 9:37 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 6:32 pm, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
> > it's pretty slippery.
>
> True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.
>
> > But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
> > airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
> > landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.
>
> I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
> all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
> approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
> or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
> training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
> not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
> flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
> finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
> to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
> actual.
>
> -Robert

So, you are able to:
Apply full flaps
Reduce speed from 90-100 K to 70 K
Continue descending to the touchdown point
Stabilize the approach at somewhere near 1.3-1.4 Vso
All beginning at 200' AGL?

Dan

[[email protected]]

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.

[Bob Gardner]

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

[Bob Gardner]

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
>

[Newps]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Hamish Reid]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>
> So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language that
> other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly be
> foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints and
> approach fixes at each airport.
>

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

Examples of self-announce phraseologies:

Strawn traffic, Cessna 2143Q, (Name - Final Approach Fix) inbound,
descending through (altitude), practice (type) approach runway 35 Strawn.


Is the IFR pilot wrong to use FAA recommended phraseology?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you could see that far the Vis was better than 1/8 SM. Maybe
> the AWOS visibility sensor needs to be recalibrated.
>

AWOS does not detect visibility less than 1/4 mile. If a station is
reporting visibility of 1/8 mile the observation was augmented by a human
observer.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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).
>

He will be and say where his instruments indicate him to be.


>
> Ditto for the IFR case.
>

Wrong.

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> From Advisory Circular 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports
> Without Operating
> Control Towers:
>
> Examples of self-announce phraseologies:
>
> Strawn traffic, Cessna 2143Q, (Name - Final Approach Fix) inbound,
> descending through (altitude), practice (type) approach runway 35
> Strawn.

This issue has come up before back in June of 2007. I posted back then the
reference to Advisory Circular 90-66A (which was published about 3 years
after AC 90-42F) in which it states this recommended practice for airports
without operating control towers:

"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the
flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance
and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
completion of the approach."

> Is the IFR pilot wrong to use FAA recommended phraseology?

I wouldn't think so - irrespective of whether the IFR pilot followed AC 90-
42F or AC 90-66A. But that is just my opinion.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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).
> >
>
> He will be and say where his instruments indicate him to be.

How so?

>
> >
> > Ditto for the IFR case.
> >
>
> Wrong.

How so?

Hamish

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> This issue has come up before back in June of 2007. I posted back then the
> reference to Advisory Circular 90-66A (which was published about 3 years
> after AC 90-42F) in which it states this recommended practice for airports
> without operating control towers:
>

If you're suggesting that AC 90-66A superseded AC 90-42F, that is not the
case. When older ACs are cancelled by the publication of a new AC it is so
stated in the new AC. From AC 90-66A:

2. CANCELLATION.
AC 90-66, Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns for Airplane Operations at
Uncontrolled Airports, dated February 27,1975, is cancelled.

Note also that paragraph 5 of AC 90-66A lists the latest "addition" of AC
90-42 as related reading material. AC 90-42F and AC 90-66A are both listed
in the latest edition of the Advisory Circular Checklist.


>
> "Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
> alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the
> flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance
> and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
> completion of the approach."
>

Well, a position report over a known fix does provide distance and direction
from the airport, so the ACs are not in conflict. I see no downside in
stating the distance in miles along with the name of the fix. That would
report position in terms that should be understood by all and also indicate
that it's a reliable report.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> He will be and say where his instruments indicate him to be.
>>
>
> How so?
>

Read FAA-H-8083-15 and FAA-H-8261-1A

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> He will be and say where his instruments indicate him to be.
> >>
> >
> > How so?
> >
>
> Read FAA-H-8083-15 and FAA-H-8261-1A

I'll take that as a tacit admission that you know as well as I do that
*any* position report at an uncontrolled field should be regarded with
skepticism, regardless of whether it's done using instruments or
estimated visually.

Rather than knowing "exactly where he is" when you "hear another pilot
use 'IFR terminology' to describe his position (your words), given the
mistakes pilots (even instrumented-rated pilots) and / or controllers
make, and the various errors possible in any instrument system, you
really only have some idea where he says he is. Having more than once
heard confident and wrong position reports on CTAF from (presumably)
instrument-rated pilots on practice approaches, maybe I'm just a little
less credulous than you...

Hamish