On Jan 18, 9:37 pm, "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 18, 6:32 pm, "danm...@gmail.com" <danm...@gmail.com> wrote:

The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
actual.

-Robert

So, you are able to:
Apply full flaps
Reduce speed from 90-100 K to 70 K
Continue descending to the touchdown point
Stabilize the approach at somewhere near 1.3-1.4 Vso
All beginning at 200' AGL?

Dan
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Derby City BBS - Louisville, KY - Derbycitybbs.com (1:2320/100)

The onus is on the IFR pilot to communicate in a way that is understandable
by everyone. VFR pilots should not have to take extraordinary actions in
order to understand a transmission.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cf080ce5-058a-489b-afa4-29c278fb490e@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 7:50 pm, "John" <JThe...@FLYverizon.net> wrote:

But I would expect that the student would have been taught to look around him. If he's VFR then he should see and avoid. Just as NORDO traffic may
be in the area, so may traffic giving you references you don't know about. Not to mention the fact that procedure turns and final approach fixes are about 5 miles from the touchdown zone so by definition well outside the pattern.

Agreed but the topic keeps changing. Yes, its nice to tell students
about some IFR waypoints in the area but it is clearly wrong for the
IFR pilot to use references that a VFR pilot would not be expected to
know. The purpose of announcement is to communicate, using lingo that
only a portion of pilots will know does not accomplish that.
I'm still confused if people disagree that the IFR pilot was in error
in this case or if they are just saying its a nice extra for VFR
pilots to know IFR points at some airports.

-Robert
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Derby City BBS - Louisville, KY - Derbycitybbs.com (1:2320/100)

I can't find anything in the Air Traffic Control Handbook giving that authority to the controller. You can research it yourself on the faa.gov web site.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Carter" <jim.carter@swbell.net> wrote in message news:s5qjj.63622$eY.43511@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

"Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dc41bc1d-dc41-41c6-b557-a98f0008b1a7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 5:17 am, "Jim Carter" <jim.car...@swbell.net> wrote:

"Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1ee64105-a800-4e4f-82f5-5fce6ea01bec@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...

...

There is no min reported visibility requirement for the approach.

-Robert

The plates for runway 22 at Mather (MHR) that I just pulled show the
following:

ILS or LOC RWY 22L Cat A 500 - 1/2
RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L Cat A 300 - 1/2
VOR/DME RWY 22L Cat A 700 - 1/2

I may be reading these wrong, but these are the lowest (straight in with
all
equipment working) that I see. Please show me where there is no minimum
visibility requirement for this runway, and isn't 001OVC 1/8SM below
minimums by quite a bit?

1) There is no minimum reported vis required. The vis you site here is
flight visibility.
2) 001OVC is ok for part 91. The only requirement for part 91 is that
you can see the rabbit through the fog at 200 (the 500 you site is for
loc only) feet . The light tends to shine through the fog. In anycase,
the requirement of 200 feet is what the pilot sees, not what the tower reports.

-Robert

You are correct that I sited flight visibility, however on those same approach plates a required visibility is listed in RVR terms making it a ground based observation. Additionally, 001OVC does not indicate smoke, haze, or fog. It is 100' overcast which represents a ceiling doesn't it?

I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were
below minimums.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Derby City BBS - Louisville, KY - Derbycitybbs.com (1:2320/100)

Bob Gardner wrote:

I can't find anything in the Air Traffic Control Handbook giving that authority to the controller. You can research it yourself on the faa.gov
web site.

Bob Gardner

I believe the tower used the "landing runway" phrase because they were
below minimums.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

Minimums aren't relevant to ATC in a case like this. ATC will not ever
tell a pilot he cannot shoot an approach due to weather. Ever. It is entirely up to the pilot to know what the rules are. ATC simply lines
up the airplanes. If you want to shoot the approach you just have to
ask. As long as the runway is open, ATC is never the one to close a
runway, only its owner can do that, an aircraft will be given a
clearance to land.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Derby City BBS - Louisville, KY - Derbycitybbs.com (1:2320/100)