Because wind may not be the only determining factor. Can I name them
all? No. But you should take into account
1. Wind (of course)
2. Where are trying to get to for landing
3. What is the condition of the aircraft and pilot.
4. In addition to wind, what is happening with the weather?
5. There are undoubtedly more.

So is the additional airtime a benefit? Each circumstance will dictate
the appropriate answer. Not just wind.

Dan
CFI/CFII

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in news:cpcEe.6612
:

OK.

I don't see what is ambigous about "it must depend on the wind"

Mike
MU-2
ATP


"PilotCFI" wrote in message
4...
I did read the post and if you think that's what you said, then so be
it.
Dan
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in
ink.net:

That is what I said. read the post.

Mike
MU-2


"Dan Malcolm" wrote in message
...
Mike,
Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all
circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition,
and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the
most
beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good
discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg
Dan Malcolm

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use
in
the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed.
I
said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there
was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better.
I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium
sink
speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was
the speed to use. That was our last flight.

We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too
stubborn to learn.

Mike
MU-2

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).


Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds
somewhere.
The timing table is pretty much the only possible source.

His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the
ground,
the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for
example,
on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
'just made good common sense'.

However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
and claiming that this is what the rule implies.

He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach
category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which,
of course, is based on ground speed).



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change
and
will become a headwind at some point.

Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think
he's
stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
approach as being the speed used to determine the approach
category... That's just not what the FARs say.


Mike
MU-2


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA