Did you figure your glide with the prop feathered? In the King Air, with
the PT6, you can have the engines running at idle and feather both props to
see what the glide is like. [I would not do this below 5,000 feet AGL] and
I'd be over a big airport.

The primary cause of engine failure is fuel starvation due to empty tanks.



wrote in message
. ..
| Given that my one engine is a turbine, the odds of an engine failure
during
| this tiny time span is infintesimal. The Allison B17F has a failure rate,
at
| most, of once per 200,000 hours. (Based on the FAA stats on the Bell
| helicopters which use thise engine.) Since I fly only ten percent of my
time
| at night, that boosts the probablity to one in two million. If you
consider
| that I am outside of glide range only ten percent of my night routes, that
| boosts the odds of an engine failure at night outside of glide range to
one
| in twenty million.
|
| So this is a bit of an intellectual argument. Nevertheless, I enjoy always
| having an "out" when I fly no matter how small the odds. I admit this
whole
| issue is a bit compulsive, but that's one reason I enjoy flying.
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote in message
| ...
| Turn on the landing light at 200 feet, if you don't like what you see,
| turn
| it off.
|
| That is why they sell twins. But if you are not very well trained and
| current, twins crash out of control and have a fatal rate worse than the
| singles. Of course every engine failure in a single probably is
reported
| and only the accidents get reported in twins.
|
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| | If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
| | ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good
| chance
| of
| | missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in
Mississippi.
| At
| | night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you
are
| | forced to land.
| |
| | ----- Original Message -----
| | From: "Newps"
| | Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
| | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
| | Subject: Who's Boss?
| |
| |
| | "Newps" wrote in message
| | . ..
| |
| |
| | wrote:
| |
| | Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
| running
| | into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
| concerned
| | about my safety if my engine quits.
| |
| |
| | Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
| | airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's
that
| | critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
| engine
| | airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
| | marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
| |
| |
| |
| | That's my point: I know where the
| | antennas are.
| |
| | Irrelevant.
| |
| |
| | And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
| |
| |
| | TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
| | aircraft was the sole reason.
| |
| |
| |
| | The only thing I'm
| | really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies.
But
| the
| | controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
| downright
| | determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
| Then
| | you'll have to go VFR.
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|