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"  wrote in message 
news:s5qjj.63622$eY.43511{at}newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> "Robert M. Gary"  wrote in message 
> news:dc41bc1d-dc41-41c6-b557-a98f0008b1a7{at}e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 5:17 am, "Jim Carter"  wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary"  wrote in 
>>
messagenews:1ee64105-a800-4e4f-82f5-5fce6ea01bec{at}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