Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video

[[email protected]]

Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2XtN15qOA

Two weeks ago I was with a friend who had COM failure and that was my
first experience with light guns. Because of this, I thought it would
behoove me to brush up on my experiences in a plane.

I posted my experiences in the Flight Aware forums. The COM failure
can be found at http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83618#83618
and my light gun questions can be found at
http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83893#83893

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2XtN15qOA
>
> Two weeks ago I was with a friend who had COM failure and that was my
> first experience with light guns. Because of this, I thought it would
> behoove me to brush up on my experiences in a plane.
>
> I posted my experiences in the Flight Aware forums. The COM failure
> can be found at http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83618#83618
> and my light gun questions can be found at
> http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83893#83893

What's this have to do with IFR Flying?

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 13, 9:03*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2XtN15qOA
>
> > Two weeks ago I was with a friend who had COM failure and that was my
> > first experience with light guns. Because of this, I thought it would
> > behoove me to brush up on my experiences in a plane.
>
> > I posted my experiences in the Flight Aware forums. *The COM failure
> > can be found athttp://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83618#83618
> > and my light gun questions can be found at
> >http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83893#83893
>
> What's this have to do with IFR Flying?

In this case, NORDO situations. Still need to be cleared to land even
if 7600 :-) after breaking out of the clag.

[Sam Spade]

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:03 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video
>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2XtN15qOA
>>
>>>Two weeks ago I was with a friend who had COM failure and that was my
>>>first experience with light guns. Because of this, I thought it would
>>>behoove me to brush up on my experiences in a plane.
>>
>>>I posted my experiences in the Flight Aware forums. The COM failure
>>>can be found athttp://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83618#83618
>>>and my light gun questions can be found at
>>>http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83893#83893
>>
>>What's this have to do with IFR Flying?
>
>
> In this case, NORDO situations. Still need to be cleared to land even
> if 7600 :-) after breaking out of the clag.

What if it's 200 and 1/2?

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 14, 8:54*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> BeechSundowner wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 9:03 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2XtN15qOA
>
> >>>Two weeks ago I was with a friend who had COM failure and that was my
> >>>first experience with light guns. Because of this, I thought it would
> >>>behoove me to brush up on my experiences in a plane.
>
> >>>I posted my experiences in the Flight Aware forums. *The COM failure
> >>>can be found athttp://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83618#83618
> >>>and my light gun questions can be found at
> >>>http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83893#83893
>
> >>What's this have to do with IFR Flying?
>
> > In this case, NORDO situations. *Still need to be cleared to land even
> > if 7600 :-) after breaking out of the clag.
>
> What if it's 200 and 1/2?

Should have thought about an alternate long before then however it
could happen on lift off.....declare an emergency.

Need a clearance to land without an emergency.

[Sam Spade]

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 14, 8:54 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>BeechSundowner wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 13, 9:03 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>
>>>>>Light gun work with ATC COMS - Video
>>
>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2XtN15qOA
>>
>>>>>Two weeks ago I was with a friend who had COM failure and that was my
>>>>>first experience with light guns. Because of this, I thought it would
>>>>>behoove me to brush up on my experiences in a plane.
>>
>>>>>I posted my experiences in the Flight Aware forums. The COM failure
>>>>>can be found athttp://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83618#83618
>>>>>and my light gun questions can be found at
>>>>>http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=83893#83893
>>
>>>>What's this have to do with IFR Flying?
>>
>>>In this case, NORDO situations. Still need to be cleared to land even
>>>if 7600 :-) after breaking out of the clag.
>>
>>What if it's 200 and 1/2?
>
>
> Should have thought about an alternate long before then however it
> could happen on lift off.....declare an emergency.
>
> Need a clearance to land without an emergency.

So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
under the provisions of 91.185?

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 16, 3:41*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
> under the provisions of 91.185?

Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
allowed to land (hence the light signals).

No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
enroute and approach clearances.

[Sam Spade]

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
>>under the provisions of 91.185?
>
>
> Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
> clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
> allowed to land (hence the light signals).
>
> No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
> I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
> enroute and approach clearances.

I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance. If your
destination airport has an operating control tower and conditions are
IMC you don't need a landing clearance any more than you need an
approach clearance. If, however, the Class D area is VMC to the extent
that it is safe to enter the VFR traffic pattern that would be the
prudent thing to do.

Under IMC, so long as you can comply with 91.185 you're expected to
sqawk 7600, not 7700. And, perhaps the transponder isn't working
either. If it is, and you have sufficient time, listening on VOR voice
might find ATC soliciting ident replies to new clearances.

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 16, 3:36*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> BeechSundowner wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
> >>under the provisions of 91.185?
>
> > Correct. *I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
> > clearance to land. *I don't see anything in the above that says I am
> > allowed to land (hence the light signals).
>
> > No light signals, no clearance to land. *I better be squawking 7700 if
> > I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. *The above pertains to
> > enroute and approach clearances.
>
> I beg to differ with you. *When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
> approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance. *

Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
getting a clearance to land via light gun?

What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
procedures?

I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 16, 3:46*pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:36*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>
> > BeechSundowner wrote:
> > > On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> > >>So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
> > >>under the provisions of 91.185?
>
> > > Correct. *I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
> > > clearance to land. *I don't see anything in the above that says I am
> > > allowed to land (hence the light signals).
>
> > > No light signals, no clearance to land. *I better be squawking 7700 if
> > > I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. *The above pertains to
> > > enroute and approach clearances.
>
> > I beg to differ with you. *When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
> > approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance. *
>
> Lets go this route. *The system has built in a communication way for
> getting a clearance to land via light gun?
>
> What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
> procedures?
>
> I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
> move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
> in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
> operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

I hit send too fast! Landing is a VFR operation, not a IFR
operation. You would be visual from DH to wheels down so I really
don't think 91.185 applies.

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/16/09 13:48, BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:46 pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 3:36 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > BeechSundowner wrote:
>> > > On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>> > >>So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
>> > >>under the provisions of 91.185?
>>
>> > > Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
>> > > clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
>> > > allowed to land (hence the light signals).
>>
>> > > No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
>> > > I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
>> > > enroute and approach clearances.
>>
>> > I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
>> > approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance.
>>
>> Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
>> getting a clearance to land via light gun?
>>
>> What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
>> procedures?
>>
>> I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
>> move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
>> in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
>> operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)
>
> I hit send too fast! Landing is a VFR operation, not a IFR
> operation. You would be visual from DH to wheels down so I really
> don't think 91.185 applies.

Oh good grief! If you break out of the clouds at DA and proceed to
land visually, do you really believe you're flying under VFR?

Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
still flying by IFR?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[A Lieberman[_3_]]

On Jul 16, 3:59*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

> Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
> Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
> still flying by IFR?

Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.

My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
set of rules.

I don't think light guns apply to IFR procedures, but we all have to
land, and that landing clearance rules are distinctly different then
the approach clearance rules given in 91.185. Otherwise, I would
imagine the 91.185 would have light gun references in there?

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/16/09 14:12, A Lieberman wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:59 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>> Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
>> Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
>> still flying by IFR?
>
> Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.

No. If you break out at DA and continue to land, you're not executing
a visual approach. See the Pilot/Controller glossary for details.

>
> My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
> set of rules.

When flying IFR and landing through the use of an IAP, the landing is
certainly part of the procedure.

>
> I don't think light guns apply to IFR procedures, but we all have to
> land, and that landing clearance rules are distinctly different then
> the approach clearance rules given in 91.185. Otherwise, I would
> imagine the 91.185 would have light gun references in there?

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to get here. If you're
on an IFR flight and lose radio and get to your destination, fly
the approach, break out at DA, etc., if you are able to land and
don't because you don't see a light gun signal... well - I won't
finish that sentence :-)


However, I think this whole thread started with a Visual approach and
landing to a towered field with no radio. I think the question was
asked at that time: What has this to do with IFR flight? This is an
IFR group, right?



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 16, 4:38*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 07/16/09 14:12, A Lieberman wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 3:59 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
> >> Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
> >> Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
> >> still flying by IFR?
>
> > Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.
>
> No. If you break out at DA and continue to land, you're not executing
> a visual approach. See the Pilot/Controller glossary for details.
>
>
>
> > My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
> > set of rules.
>
> When flying IFR and landing through the use of an IAP, the landing is
> certainly part of the procedure.

Bear with me Mark. If what you say is true, then why do you get a
clearance to land? Why are you NOTcleared to land on the approach
when you receive your clearance to execute the approach.

> I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to get here. If you're
> on an IFR flight and lose radio and get to your destination, fly
> the approach, break out at DA, etc., if you are able to land and
> don't because you don't see a light gun signal... well - I won't
> finish that sentence :-)

In the real world, you land and deal with the paper work afterwards or
that's how I would deal with it:-) But it would appear to me the
landing clearance has absolutely nothing to do with the instrument
approach clearance. See above why.

> However, I think this whole thread started with a Visual approach and
> landing to a towered field with no radio. I think the question was
> asked at that time: What has this to do with IFR flight? This is an
> IFR group, right?

Well, the way I see it, to land you have to be cleared :-) The light
signal does that. The instrument approach is only part of the process

[Sam Spade]

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:36 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>BeechSundowner wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
>>>>under the provisions of 91.185?
>>
>>>Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
>>>clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
>>>allowed to land (hence the light signals).
>>
>>>No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
>>>I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
>>>enroute and approach clearances.
>>
>>I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
>>approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance.
>
>
> Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
> getting a clearance to land via light gun?
>
> What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
> procedures?
>
> I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
> move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
> in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
> operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)

Light guns were built primarily to be used when two-way radios weren't
mandatory for takeoff and landing at an airport with a control tower.

Actually, their genesis was really World War II military operations.

What makes me thing 91.185 would trump light signals? Answer:

1. A landing is the presumed conculsion of a successful instrument approach.

2. Clouds

[Sam Spade]

BeechSundowner wrote:

> On Jul 16, 3:46 pm, BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
>>On Jul 16, 3:36 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>BeechSundowner wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 16, 3:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>>So, you are saying I need a clearance to land when NORDO and proceeding
>>>>>under the provisions of 91.185?
>>
>>>>Correct. I am sure you know clearance for an approach is NOT a
>>>>clearance to land. I don't see anything in the above that says I am
>>>>allowed to land (hence the light signals).
>>
>>>>No light signals, no clearance to land. I better be squawking 7700 if
>>>>I plan to land without a LANDING clearance. The above pertains to
>>>>enroute and approach clearances.
>>
>>>I beg to differ with you. When operating under 91.185 you don't have an
>>>approach clearance any more than you have a landing clearance.
>>
>>Lets go this route. The system has built in a communication way for
>>getting a clearance to land via light gun?
>>
>>What makes you think that 91.185 would trump the clearance to land
>>procedures?
>>
>>I realize this is more theoretical talk as in the real world, ATC will
>>move traffic to get us in safely and it's a matter of "semantics" but
>>in the theory world, what you gave as reference pertains to enroute
>>operations (center and approaches), not tower operations (landing)
>
>
> I hit send too fast! Landing is a VFR operation, not a IFR
> operation. You would be visual from DH to wheels down so I really
> don't think 91.185 applies.

If landing is a VFR operation than I can't land out of an IAP when the
weather is less than VFR (1,000 and 3 at an airport with an operating ATCT)

[Sam Spade]

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Jul 16, 3:59 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>
>>Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
>>Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
>>still flying by IFR?
>
>
> Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.
>
> My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
> set of rules.
>
> I don't think light guns apply to IFR procedures, but we all have to
> land, and that landing clearance rules are distinctly different then
> the approach clearance rules given in 91.185. Otherwise, I would
> imagine the 91.185 would have light gun references in there?

"VMC" is the term you are searching for. VMC does not necessairly mean
I can see the ATCT or that they can see me. And, even if I "break out"
at 400 feet, my priority is alignment with the runway and landing.

And, on some approaches you never do "break out," rather the visual cues
progressively come into view. Have you ever flown an ILS IAP with the
weather reported "zero zero" and the RVR at 2,400 (or becoming more
prevailent, 1800)?

[Sam Spade]

BeechSundowner wrote:

> On Jul 16, 4:38 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>>On 07/16/09 14:12, A Lieberman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jul 16, 3:59 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>>
>>>>Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
>>>>Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
>>>>still flying by IFR?
>>
>>>Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.
>>
>>No. If you break out at DA and continue to land, you're not executing
>>a visual approach. See the Pilot/Controller glossary for details.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
>>>set of rules.
>>
>>When flying IFR and landing through the use of an IAP, the landing is
>>certainly part of the procedure.
>
>
> Bear with me Mark. If what you say is true, then why do you get a
> clearance to land? Why are you NOTcleared to land on the approach
> when you receive your clearance to execute the approach.
>
>
>>I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to get here. If you're
>>on an IFR flight and lose radio and get to your destination, fly
>>the approach, break out at DA, etc., if you are able to land and
>>don't because you don't see a light gun signal... well - I won't
>>finish that sentence :-)
>
>
> In the real world, you land and deal with the paper work afterwards or
> that's how I would deal with it:-) But it would appear to me the
> landing clearance has absolutely nothing to do with the instrument
> approach clearance. See above why.
>
>
>>However, I think this whole thread started with a Visual approach and
>>landing to a towered field with no radio. I think the question was
>>asked at that time: What has this to do with IFR flight? This is an
>>IFR group, right?
>
>
> Well, the way I see it, to land you have to be cleared :-) The light
> signal does that. The instrument approach is only part of the process

Your way of seeing it doesn't make it a reality.

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 17, 10:25*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> What makes me thing 91.185 would trump light signals? *Answer:
>
> 1. A landing is the presumed conculsion of a successful instrument approach.
>
> 2. Clouds

Number 2 certainly won't apply. No visual on runway environment, no
landing.

Lets suffice it to say we will have to agree to disagree. I really
think the two clearances do not intertwine and if you land without a
clearance, that's a no no in spite of you getting a clearance for the
approach. 7600 is not a clearance for landing.

Otherwise, on an instrument approach, you wouldn't have to hear those
magic words clear to land. The lights only replace the aural part
"cleared to land". JMHO.

Like I said earlier, in the real world, I would land and deal with any
paper work later.

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/17/09 09:36, BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 17, 10:25 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>> What makes me thing 91.185 would trump light signals? Answer:
>>
>> 1. A landing is the presumed conculsion of a successful instrument approach.
>>
>> 2. Clouds
>
> Number 2 certainly won't apply. No visual on runway environment, no
> landing.

Come on Allen. Are you saying that you cannot land if you don't have
the Control Tower in view?

>
> Lets suffice it to say we will have to agree to disagree. I really
> think the two clearances do not intertwine and if you land without a
> clearance, that's a no no in spite of you getting a clearance for the
> approach. 7600 is not a clearance for landing.
>
> Otherwise, on an instrument approach, you wouldn't have to hear those
> magic words clear to land. The lights only replace the aural part
> "cleared to land". JMHO.
>
> Like I said earlier, in the real world, I would land and deal with any
> paper work later.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/16/09 15:38, BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 16, 4:38 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 07/16/09 14:12, A Lieberman wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 16, 3:59 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>>
>> >> Why don't you think 91.185 applies once you break out of the clouds?
>> >> Did you cancel your IFR clearance at that point? If not, aren't you
>> >> still flying by IFR?
>>
>> > Actually it's a visual, I didn't mean VFR.
>>
>> No. If you break out at DA and continue to land, you're not executing
>> a visual approach. See the Pilot/Controller glossary for details.
>>
>>
>>
>> > My point being landing is not an instrument procedure and has it's own
>> > set of rules.
>>
>> When flying IFR and landing through the use of an IAP, the landing is
>> certainly part of the procedure.
>
> Bear with me Mark. If what you say is true, then why do you get a
> clearance to land? Why are you NOTcleared to land on the approach
> when you receive your clearance to execute the approach.

Again, if you are flying an IAP under IFR and NORDO, when you get
to the DA on the approach - and all other IAP landing criteria are
met (visibility, etc.), then you land. You had better not be looking
for a light gun signal at this point.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[BeechSundowner]

On Jul 17, 11:39*am, Mark Hansen > wrote:

> Come on Allen. Are you saying that you cannot land if you don't have
> the Control Tower in view?

Do you have anything to back in FARS that you can land without a
landing clearance on a NORDO situation.

Again, practical world, I will land, but I will be betting on "call
the tower" after landing.

7600 isn't a landing clearance and nor is "cleared for the approach" a
landing clearance. The light gun is a visual replacement for "cleared
to land".

If it's 200 1/2 I am not going missed because I can't see the tower, I
am landing in the real world, but the book world does not support this
for NORDO situations. It does support this in emergency situation
which I would consider the situation myself.

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/17/09 14:18, BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:39 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>> Come on Allen. Are you saying that you cannot land if you don't have
>> the Control Tower in view?
>
> Do you have anything to back in FARS that you can land without a
> landing clearance on a NORDO situation.

Allen - This will be my last attempt, as you seem unwilling to see
the point:

When you reach decision altitude and are able to land (based on
visibility, etc.) are you guaranteed you will be able to see
the light gun from the tower? Do you even want to be looking
at the tower at that point in the flight?

The answer to both should be obvious: No.

If you're NORDO, they want you to land and get out of the
system. Period. Once you land, call them on the phone and
let them know you're out of the air. That's it.

>
> Again, practical world, I will land, but I will be betting on "call
> the tower" after landing.
>
> 7600 isn't a landing clearance and nor is "cleared for the approach" a
> landing clearance. The light gun is a visual replacement for "cleared
> to land".

Just how will you get this if you can't see the tower? I expect you
will argue that if you can't see the tower, you're not legal to land?
You need to go back and check the regs again.

>
> If it's 200 1/2 I am not going missed because I can't see the tower, I
> am landing in the real world, but the book world does not support this
> for NORDO situations. It does support this in emergency situation
> which I would consider the situation myself.

As you wish.

Best Regards,

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Sam Spade]

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:39 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>
>>Come on Allen. Are you saying that you cannot land if you don't have
>>the Control Tower in view?
>
>
> Do you have anything to back in FARS that you can land without a
> landing clearance on a NORDO situation.
>
> Again, practical world, I will land, but I will be betting on "call
> the tower" after landing.
>
> 7600 isn't a landing clearance and nor is "cleared for the approach" a
> landing clearance. The light gun is a visual replacement for "cleared
> to land".
>
> If it's 200 1/2 I am not going missed because I can't see the tower, I
> am landing in the real world, but the book world does not support this
> for NORDO situations. It does support this in emergency situation
> which I would consider the situation myself.

You're counting angels on the head of a pin.

[Ash Wyllie]

Sam Spade opined

>BeechSundowner wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 11:39 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Come on Allen. Are you saying that you cannot land if you don't have
>>>the Control Tower in view?
>>
>>
>> Do you have anything to back in FARS that you can land without a
>> landing clearance on a NORDO situation.
>>
>> Again, practical world, I will land, but I will be betting on "call
>> the tower" after landing.
>>
>> 7600 isn't a landing clearance and nor is "cleared for the approach" a
>> landing clearance. The light gun is a visual replacement for "cleared
>> to land".
>>
>> If it's 200 1/2 I am not going missed because I can't see the tower, I
>> am landing in the real world, but the book world does not support this
>> for NORDO situations. It does support this in emergency situation
>> which I would consider the situation myself.

>You're counting angels on the head of a pin.

The real question is, what do you do if the tower flashes a red signal at you?

-ash
Elect Cthulhu!
Vote the greater evil.

[Sam Spade]

Ash Wyllie wrote:
> Sam Spade opined
>
>
>>BeechSundowner wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 17, 11:39 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Come on Allen. Are you saying that you cannot land if you don't have
>>>>the Control Tower in view?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you have anything to back in FARS that you can land without a
>>>landing clearance on a NORDO situation.
>>>
>>>Again, practical world, I will land, but I will be betting on "call
>>>the tower" after landing.
>>>
>>>7600 isn't a landing clearance and nor is "cleared for the approach" a
>>>landing clearance. The light gun is a visual replacement for "cleared
>>>to land".
>>>
>>>If it's 200 1/2 I am not going missed because I can't see the tower, I
>>>am landing in the real world, but the book world does not support this
>>>for NORDO situations. It does support this in emergency situation
>>>which I would consider the situation myself.
>
>
>>You're counting angels on the head of a pin.
>
>
> The real question is, what do you do if the tower flashes a red signal at you?
>
> -ash
> Elect Cthulhu!
> Vote the greater evil.
>
>
I already covered that. If the weather is good enough to permit *safe*
flight in the traffic pattern I'll break off the approach and enter the
pattern. If the weather isn't sufficent to safely enter the traffic
pattern I'll land unless there is an aircraft on the runway and the
visibility is sufficient to see it. If there is an aircraft on the
runway in such circumstances and I properly followed the provisions of
91.185 then ATC has screwed up, big time.