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

"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.
Now if you were suggesting there be another category added, say Cat
1A..Or that hand flown single pilot cat II be allowed, I can see a case
for it.

Bertie

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

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

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

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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

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
identifiabl
e".

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
pilo
ts,
like myself, have very little chance to practice. *We don't have
simulat
ors
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.


How about 0/0 landings?


Bertie

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" wrote in
:

On Jan 16, 1:54*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:d5fc6492-b280-4efb-8427-3
:

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).


Common enough, but what I meant was, have you ever practiced one?


Bertie

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

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 he 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?