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

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

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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

"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.

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.