Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

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.

Poorly made, I might add. Risk management is an unavoidable part of daily
life, and as such shouldn't require a lot of explanation. Ergo, you were
not being reasonable.

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?

How would *increasing* the time in which an engine failure might occur by
flying to another airport be the best way to maintain viable options? If
one is concerned about the status of one's engine, one should minimize
their dependence on it, no? ;-)

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?

Not really. Unless you actually believed that I was in some way implying
that no XC should ever take place. Was that to be your next point (of
course, "...make it to the pattern" would have made such an argument
difficult)? ;-)

Regards,

Neil