On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:36:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

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?

No.

Obviously, there will be times when one *doesn't* have a viable option.

That was my point.

Still, I agree with my instructors advice that abandoning viable options
by choice shouldn't be considered "safe flying".

Given your statement above, your choice should be to divert to another
airport when there are several aircraft in the pattern necessitating
an extended downwind leg in excess of gliding distance to the runway,
right?

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.

Could it be that I was attempting to point out, that your instance on
remaining within gliding distance of the runway failed to consider the
fact that it is often impossible at busy airports? Isn't that
reasonable?