A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Position and Hold at uncontrolled field



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old February 25th 04, 04:57 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Newps" wrote in message
news:n%1%b.57665$4o.75853@attbi_s52...
There is no requirement for the preceding aircraft to be off the runway
for the next one to land. If you are in a single engine plane then the
other plane has to be 3000 feet down the runway.


See my other post. This has little or nothing to do with your "what, you
wouldn't?" comment, nor my response to it.

Pete


  #42  
Old February 25th 04, 08:50 PM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Newps" wrote in message
news:6wM_b.396854$na.764749@attbi_s04...
What, you wouldn't? Why should I wait for someone to clear the runway
if there is enough room for me to land behind him?


The same reason you take more fuel than the bare minimum, that you clear
obstacles by more than the bare minimum, and start your takeoff roll with
more than the bare minimum of required runway remaining.


Yes....but I think the point is, there is a spectrum of choices
between "the bare minimum" and landing only on a clear runway,
just as there's a spectrum of choices between "the bare minimum
fuel" and a rule such as "only take off with full tanks".

How much more runway than "the bare minimum" do you want during
takeoff? 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%?

At some point, most of us make operational choices that we're
willing to accept some margin which is more than "the bare minimum",
but less than twice what we need. Where that margin is lies with
the individual pilot. Maybe it's 20% for me and 30% for you. Maybe
vice versa.

OK, now we're landing. How much more runway than "the bare minimum"
do you want? Same operational choices apply. With me so far?

So what's the difference between landing on a 3000 ft runway when
you feel you really only need 1000 ft, vs landing on a 4000 ft
runway with a plane 3000 ft down the runway taxiing off?

Why reduce or eliminate your safety margin when there's
absolutely no good reason to?


Why do you feel there's "absolutely no good reason to"? Maybe
there is...

Cheers,
Sydney
  #43  
Old February 26th 04, 01:25 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Yes....but I think the point is, there is a spectrum of choices
between "the bare minimum" and landing only on a clear runway


He asked why he should wait. I told him. I never said there are never
situations where one might not need to wait.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boeing Boondoggle Larry Dighera Military Aviation 77 September 15th 04 02:39 AM
Clearance: Direct to airport with /U Judah Instrument Flight Rules 8 February 27th 04 06:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.