Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in

As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off
landings as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it
to a runway, engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at
2,000' then?

Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
pattern slower rather than lower

So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within
gliding distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while
four other aircraft head cross country several miles from the
runway? Doubtful.

Larry... be reasonable!

I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute word
'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to question your
meaning.

So... you object to "always" having a viable option? Obviously, there will
be times when one *doesn't* have a viable option. Still, I agree with my
instructors advice that abandoning viable options by choice shouldn't be
considered "safe flying". Nor should applying "rules" where doing so
results in the abandonment of viable options (even FARs don't insist on
such behavior). So, no, I don't think you were being reasonable, just
argumentative.

Neil