![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In a previous article, "Douglas Paterson" said:
"caleb" wrote in message roups.com... 3) "cleared to land on any runway" #3 doesn't bother me if it's the "field is wide open land wherever you want" variety; if it's the "you have big problems, go ahead and land wherever you can, trucks are rolling" sort, then it's no fun! I still like the fact that Captain Haines had enough cool to say "You want to be particular and make it a runway, huh?" It's hard to overstate what heros that whole crew were. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ Every fleeting thought you've ever had in your life, no matter how bizarre, is someone's lifelong obsession. And he has a website. -- Skif's Internet Theorem |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Douglas Paterson" wrote in message ... My personal least-favorite (which I've received twice): "Cleared to land runway XX; land at your own risk" -- given by tower when wx drops below published mins (above mins when approach started, broke out at/before reaching DH [despite "official" wx]). No big deal, I guess, but the "at your own risk" wording sure got our attention!! What tower uses that wording? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Douglas Paterson" wrote in message ... My personal least-favorite (which I've received twice): "Cleared to land runway XX; land at your own risk" -- given by tower when wx drops below published mins (above mins when approach started, broke out at/before reaching DH [despite "official" wx]). No big deal, I guess, but the "at your own risk" wording sure got our attention!! No tower says that when the runway is open. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Au contraire. Please read my response to Steven's question....
-- Doug "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight Zone" (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change to contact me) "Newps" wrote in message ... "Douglas Paterson" wrote in message ... My personal least-favorite (which I've received twice): "Cleared to land runway XX; land at your own risk" -- given by tower when wx drops below published mins (above mins when approach started, broke out at/before reaching DH [despite "official" wx]). No big deal, I guess, but the "at your own risk" wording sure got our attention!! No tower says that when the runway is open. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net... "Douglas Paterson" wrote in message ... My personal least-favorite (which I've received twice): "Cleared to land runway XX; land at your own risk" -- given by tower when wx drops below published mins (above mins when approach started, broke out at/before reaching DH [despite "official" wx]). No big deal, I guess, but the "at your own risk" wording sure got our attention!! What tower uses that wording? First time I heard it was McConnell AFB, Wichita, KS (KIAB). Training sortie, KC-135, we were shooting the full VOR procedure, so several minutes had elapsed between being cleared for the approach and switching over to tower. We actually already had the runway more or less in sight when they called out the weather (below mins; heavy rainshowers) and asked us for our intentions. When we said we intended to complete the approach and full-stop, they came back with "Roger, Turbo XX, cleared to land runway 35L; land at your own risk." For whatever reason, the "official" weather was wrong, we had plenty of visibility. Landed uneventfully, were asked for a PIREP, but they didn't change anything based on our input, at least while we were still on frequency. I'd never heard that before ("at your own risk"), and we had them repeat--got the same verbiage. I queried tower on the phone after landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it essentially means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane, we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO). I have an easier time sorting out the differences between NFL and college ball! ![]() to which I will have to dedicate some serious study as I ease back into GA.... Second time was at Al Udeid AB, near Doha, Qatar (OTBH). Operational sortie, KC-135 again, returning from an Enduring Freedom mission. We got handed off to tower (USAF controllers in a Qatari tower), who told us vis was below minimums (that area gets some wicked shallow morning fog; vertical vis typically more-or-less unimpeded, horizontal can go to near zero). We told them we'd continue and evaluate visibility on final, which got us the "at your own risk" clearance. Having heard it before, I got to explain what that meant to the rest of the crew! ![]() a PIREP, they immediately changed the "official" visibility to match our observation. -- Doug "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight Zone" (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change to contact me) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Douglas Paterson" wrote in message ... First time I heard it was McConnell AFB, Wichita, KS (KIAB). Training sortie, KC-135, we were shooting the full VOR procedure, so several minutes had elapsed between being cleared for the approach and switching over to tower. We actually already had the runway more or less in sight when they called out the weather (below mins; heavy rainshowers) and asked us for our intentions. When we said we intended to complete the approach and full-stop, they came back with "Roger, Turbo XX, cleared to land runway 35L; land at your own risk." For whatever reason, the "official" weather was wrong, we had plenty of visibility. Landed uneventfully, were asked for a PIREP, but they didn't change anything based on our input, at least while we were still on frequency. I'd never heard that before ("at your own risk"), and we had them repeat--got the same verbiage. I queried tower on the phone after landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it essentially means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane, we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO). I have an easier time sorting out the differences between NFL and college ball! ![]() actually, is a subject to which I will have to dedicate some serious study as I ease back into GA.... Second time was at Al Udeid AB, near Doha, Qatar (OTBH). Operational sortie, KC-135 again, returning from an Enduring Freedom mission. We got handed off to tower (USAF controllers in a Qatari tower), who told us vis was below minimums (that area gets some wicked shallow morning fog; vertical vis typically more-or-less unimpeded, horizontal can go to near zero). We told them we'd continue and evaluate visibility on final, which got us the "at your own risk" clearance. Having heard it before, I got to explain what that meant to the rest of the crew! ![]() were asked for a PIREP, they immediately changed the "official" visibility to match our observation. So someone within the USAF thought USAF tower controllers should inform flight crews that landing was at their own risk when the weather was below approach minimums? What does that mean, exactly? Does someone else assume the risk when weather is above approach minimums? That phraseology doesn't exist in the civilian world, but it's not because the USAF "flies under its own rules." All controllers in the US are required to provide services in accordance with FAA Order 7110.65, it doesn't matter if they wear a uniform. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message ... First time I heard it was McConnell AFB, Wichita, KS (KIAB). Training sortie, KC-135, we were shooting the full VOR procedure, so several minutes had elapsed between being cleared for the approach and switching over to tower. We actually already had the runway more or less in sight when they called out the weather (below mins; heavy rainshowers) and asked us for our intentions. When we said we intended to complete the approach and full-stop, they came back with "Roger, Turbo XX, cleared to land runway 35L; land at your own risk." For whatever reason, the "official" weather was wrong, we had plenty of visibility. Landed uneventfully, were asked for a PIREP, but they didn't change anything based on our input, at least while we were still on frequency. I'd never heard that before ("at your own risk"), and we had them repeat--got the same verbiage. I queried tower on the phone after landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it essentially means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane, we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO). I have an easier time sorting out the differences between NFL and college ball! ![]() actually, is a subject to which I will have to dedicate some serious study as I ease back into GA.... Second time was at Al Udeid AB, near Doha, Qatar (OTBH). Operational sortie, KC-135 again, returning from an Enduring Freedom mission. We got handed off to tower (USAF controllers in a Qatari tower), who told us vis was below minimums (that area gets some wicked shallow morning fog; vertical vis typically more-or-less unimpeded, horizontal can go to near zero). We told them we'd continue and evaluate visibility on final, which got us the "at your own risk" clearance. Having heard it before, I got to explain what that meant to the rest of the crew! ![]() were asked for a PIREP, they immediately changed the "official" visibility to match our observation. So someone within the USAF thought USAF tower controllers should inform flight crews that landing was at their own risk when the weather was below approach minimums? What does that mean, exactly? Does someone else assume the risk when weather is above approach minimums? That phraseology doesn't exist in the civilian world, but it's not because the USAF "flies under its own rules." All controllers in the US are required to provide services in accordance with FAA Order 7110.65, it doesn't matter if they wear a uniform. Does 7110.65 prohibit saying "check gear down?" Matt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net... "Douglas Paterson" wrote in message ... [snip] I queried tower on the phone after landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it essentially means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane, we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO). [snip] So someone within the USAF thought USAF tower controllers should inform flight crews that landing was at their own risk when the weather was below approach minimums? What does that mean, exactly? Does someone else assume the risk when weather is above approach minimums? That phraseology doesn't exist in the civilian world, but it's not because the USAF "flies under its own rules." All controllers in the US are required to provide services in accordance with FAA Order 7110.65, it doesn't matter if they wear a uniform. HOW it got into the regs, I can't say; I read it for myself, though, it's there (or at least it was at the time). It "means" what I somewhat flippantly said in my earlier response--it emphasizes the fact that the controller has advised the pilot of the below-mins wx conditions. The controller tells the pilot that he may land on the runway (as opposed to being *denied clearance to land* and diverting or holding, etc.), but that because of the conditions he's doing so "at his own risk." I think it's less about assuming risk, exactly, and more about communicating that point (my opinion). Of course, the pilot will always be responsible for any mishap; but, let's say the controller clears an aircraft to land knowing that the weather is below minimums--in any mishap, that controller is going to be hung to dry as well (at least in the USAF world). I spoke imprecisely when I said the USAF flies under its own rules--yes, it flies in compliance with FAA (and ICAO and host-nation, where applicable) rules. There are some pretty broad exceptions granted to the military *by the FARs*, though, and that's the point I was trying to make.... Air Force Instruction 11-202 Volume 3 [http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfi...i11-202v3.pdf] is the "General Flight Rules" for USAF pilots--chapter 1 of that pub does a pretty decent job of explaining that inter-relation if you want the details. Similar relationships exist as well, for example, for the control of aircraft (though I'm not familiar enough with that side of things to give you a citation). -- Doug "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight Zone" (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change to contact me) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Douglas Paterson wrote:
I'd never heard that before ("at your own risk"), and we had them repeat--got the same verbiage. I queried tower on the phone after landing, they explained (and cited an appropriate reg) that it essentially means "hey, we told you the weather's below mins; you fly your airplane, we don't mind if you land on our runway." That clearance may or may not exist in the civilian world, I don't know. USAF flies under its own rules--they mirror both FAA and ICAO regs, but there are plenty of subtle differences (as there are between FAA and ICAO). I have an easier time sorting out the differences between NFL and college ball! ![]() to which I will have to dedicate some serious study as I ease back into GA.... I've not heard that before either, but I'd never heard "check gear down" before I flew into a military field either. And this was in a 182 which made it even more comical. Matt |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:55:37 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
I've not heard that before either, but I'd never heard "check gear down" before I flew into a military field either. And this was in a 182 which made it even more comical. I got this on my Beech Sundowner at GLH which is a commercial airport. Tower got a chuckle when I replied "fixed and welded." Maybe he thought I was a Sierra, who knows :-) Allen |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RUMSFELD GAVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB | MORRIS434 | Military Aviation | 1 | July 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
RUMSFELD GAVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB | MORRIS434 | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 2nd 04 02:23 PM |
Polikarpov PO-2 antique bipe-building plans and instructions FS | Nenad Miklusev | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 2nd 04 09:30 AM |
Polikarpov PO-2 antique bipe-building plans and instructions FS | Nenad Miklusev | Home Built | 0 | May 2nd 04 09:29 AM |
My Favorite Wartime Person: Bill Detz | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 13th 03 05:19 AM |