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 » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aspen at night



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 4th 06, 09:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aspen at night

Jim Macklin wrote:
All missed approach gradients are based on engine out climb,
which is very weak because jets climb at high speed and thus
have a lower gradient.


Nothing in TERPs, including missed approach procedures, consider engine
out climb.
  #2  
Old January 4th 06, 09:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aspen at night

Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than that,
it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require that
the most adverse performance be considered when operating,
gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
requirements.

I did not say it very well the first time.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


wrote in message
news:3NWuf.6579$V.94@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| All missed approach gradients are based on engine out
climb,
| which is very weak because jets climb at high speed and
thus
| have a lower gradient.
|
| Nothing in TERPs, including missed approach procedures,
consider engine
| out climb.


  #3  
Old January 4th 06, 11:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aspen at night

Jim Macklin wrote:
Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than that,
it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require that
the most adverse performance be considered when operating,
gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
requirements.

I did not say it very well the first time.



Departures are standard if they do not exceed 200 feet per mile.

Missed approach surfaces are 40:1, which is 152 feet per mile. That is
probably the 150 per mile you're thinking of. The current FAA thinking
is that a missed approach requires 200 feet per mile, and the AIM so
states. (AIM 5-4-20 b)

One-engine climb gradient requirements apply on the commercial
operators. (121.189 for air carriers). But, the air carrier, under
121.189, is not required to look at the missed approach procedure's
entire area of protected airspace. If the carrier finds that will not
penalize them they are free to simply accept the missed approach as a
missed-approach OEI flight path.

As you know, the 121.189 issues are far more pronounced on departure
than they are on the typical missed approach.
  #4  
Old January 5th 06, 12:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aspen at night

KISS WAG SWAG PDC

150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light aircraft
and many jets with an engine out can't do it at altitudes
above 5,000 feet.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

wrote in message
news:AJYuf.6585$V.412@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Standard climb gradients are based on 150'/ NM (if I
| remember correctly) and if a departure is greater than
that,
| it will be noted on the chart. FAR 135 and 121 require
that
| the most adverse performance be considered when
operating,
| gross weight must be reduced to meet the performance
| requirement. Often you will see airliners with half the
| seats empty because the airplane can't meet the take-off
| requirements.
|
| I did not say it very well the first time.
|
|
|
| Departures are standard if they do not exceed 200 feet per
mile.
|
| Missed approach surfaces are 40:1, which is 152 feet per
mile. That is
| probably the 150 per mile you're thinking of. The current
FAA thinking
| is that a missed approach requires 200 feet per mile, and
the AIM so
| states. (AIM 5-4-20 b)
|
| One-engine climb gradient requirements apply on the
commercial
| operators. (121.189 for air carriers). But, the air
carrier, under
| 121.189, is not required to look at the missed approach
procedure's
| entire area of protected airspace. If the carrier finds
that will not
| penalize them they are free to simply accept the missed
approach as a
| missed-approach OEI flight path.
|
| As you know, the 121.189 issues are far more pronounced on
departure
| than they are on the typical missed approach.


  #5  
Old January 5th 06, 12:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aspen at night

Jim Macklin wrote:
KISS WAG SWAG PDC

150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light aircraft
and many jets with an engine out can't do it at altitudes
above 5,000 feet.


Then, there are the high-end biz jets that can do 700 feet per mile (SL,
standard day) with OEI.

  #6  
Old January 5th 06, 01:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aspen at night

Yes, the modern biz jet is very over-powered and they can
climb at moderate speed. But with an engine out, even the
hot-rod Lear jet climbs out flat.

Just as a point, I once had the opportunity to depart
Wichita (1332 feet MSL) single pilot in a King Air 300, no
passengers or baggage and only 1/2 fuel. I was taking the
plane to Oklahoma City for a salesman to show. Departed
runway 1R and did a 130 kt. IAS chandelle to the right from
rotation, circling around the airport radar antenna. Rolled
out southbound at 5,000 over the Cessna plant. Approach
asked where I was, apparently I stayed in their dead zone
from just after lift-off until I rolled out of my turn,
about 45 seconds after take-off.

I could have been higher but 5,000 was my take-off limit,
approach cleared my to 15,000 and I was there before I was
10 miles south. Love that big King Air, only problem was my
chart bag ended up in the baggage area, lucky for me, it was
a route I flew weekly and the necessary charts were on my
knee. I use a cheap steno pad holder with a "third-hand"
from Sporty's, cost very little, has a clear window on the
flap and a 5x8 yellow pad.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


wrote in message
news:26_uf.6816$V.287@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| KISS WAG SWAG PDC
|
| 150/152 even 200 ft/nm is shallow, but most light
aircraft
| and many jets with an engine out can't do it at
altitudes
| above 5,000 feet.
|
|
| Then, there are the high-end biz jets that can do 700 feet
per mile (SL,
| standard day) with OEI.
|


 




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
FAA PPL night flight requirement - does it have to be DUAL? Peter Clark Piloting 21 January 6th 05 12:38 AM
Night solo XC? G. Burkhart Piloting 51 October 14th 04 03:11 PM
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 Jukka O. Kauppinen Military Aviation 4 March 22nd 04 11:19 PM
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons Curtl33 General Aviation 7 January 9th 04 11:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54 AM.


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