Is "Number 1 for landing" the same as "cleared to land"?

I think 91.129 (i) is clear enough.
 
I like when someone revives a thread and people come in to answer the OPs question when the revival was never really about the first post.
 
nddons said:
Man, you sound like you work in ZAU or something. ;)
Click to expand...


LOL!

And here is some more mental fodder, given the fact I don't want to waste additional exclamation points. They, like good clearances, are finite in number.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Why do wish it were "spelled out somewhere?" You think a reg is needed to specifically prohibit a pilot from staying 1' above the runway, weaving around the airplane that hasn't quite cleared the runway or taking out the deer's antlers? And don't forget the slalom while staying at that altitude on crosswind, downwind, base and final!

Does every single ridiculous scenario need to be dealt with by adding a reg or guidance? Exactly how long and complex would you like the FAR and AIM to be?
Click to expand...
Because I wish I had a clear understanding of exactly what I can and can't do. I do understand what should be done, and what I should be aware of. That said, I have always felt that should be spelled out with a definition. YMMV.

Why do you suppose they spell it out with the clearances on the other end? Position and hold, line up and wait... Why not just "line up"? Probably because they don't want somebody blasting down the runway, but never rotating. Might be a stretch, but who knows? Obviously the terminology has changed, but it was always spelled out NOT to start the roll.
 
Kritchlow said:
Because I wish I had a clear understanding of exactly what I can and can't do. I do understand what should be done, and what I should be aware of. That said, I have always felt that should be spelled out with a definition. YMMV.

Why do you suppose they spell it out with the clearances on the other end? Position and hold, line up and wait... Why not just "line up"? Probably because they don't want somebody blasting down the runway, but never rotating. Might be a stretch, but who knows? Obviously the terminology has changed, but it was always spelled out NOT to start the roll.
Click to expand...
I guess you want or need a lot more regulations than I do. I don't need or want a reg to tell me to climb back up to the pattern on a go-around. To me, that's just how to fly an airplane. To tell me to do somersetting different than that? Sure.

Don't forget "Cleared to land, and do it on the runway." And, of course, "Dont extend your downwind." After all, without it, you might just fly to the next city before turning base. :D

:D
 
Kritchlow said:
Because I wish I had a clear understanding of exactly what I can and can't do. I do understand what should be done, and what I should be aware of. That said, I have always felt that should be spelled out with a definition. YMMV.

Why do you suppose they spell it out with the clearances on the other end? Position and hold, line up and wait... Why not just "line up"? Probably because they don't want somebody blasting down the runway, but never rotating. Might be a stretch, but who knows? Obviously the terminology has changed, but it was always spelled out NOT to start the roll.
Click to expand...

It's simple, anything not specified as can't is can, plus you have PIC emergency authority spelled out that says 'anything you need to do to get it down safe, do it."
 
The bottom line is that the tower and your fellow pilots will never or at least should never be bothered if you make an additional radio call to either verify your landing clearance if you are not sure you were cleared or to reverify your clearance if a period of time has elapsed since you received it or if you feel that the traffic situation warrants it. We need to help ATC and each other to keep all of us safe as we are all prone to error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top