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
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 ... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 168 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 50 | November 30th 07 05:25 AM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots" | Skylune | Piloting | 28 | October 16th 06 05:40 AM |