Who's Boss?

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. That's my point: I know where the
antennas are. And I have the traffic on TIS or visually. 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.


wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 7:45 pm, "Wyatt Emmerich" wrote:
I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane.
At
no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR
shooting
a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class D
airport.
The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet

You don't say what approach you are doing, but if you are at 4000, and
5 miles from Brenz, then there is no way in haydes you are doing a
"practice approach" assuming you are doing an ILS into 16.

As Jim sez, you are the boss, and my experiences with KJAN is that
they will give you what you want, but their standard altitude is 2000
until established for all approaches from the north. From the south,
it's higher due to the antenna farm..

I shoot the ILS 16 all the time over there and depending on the
ceilings, will request 3000 to get IMC time when ceilings dictate.

I bet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHC-s9cl8cE will look might
familiar :-) as I worked the dickens out of Brenz LOL

http://www.youtube.com/BeechSundowner, I am sure will bring home
memories as I have KJAN, KMBO and KHKS approaches, both VFR and IFR
for all three airports as well as other airports in and out of
Mississippi.

Allen
(based in KMBO)

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.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
you'll have to go VFR.


He was VFR.

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.

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.
|
|
|
|

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.
|
|
|
|

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.
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:19:11 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

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.



In which case it is usually a case of brain failure, not engine
failure...




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.
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers) don't
consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
safety issue.


"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.

They will vector you over the Atlantic Ocean even if you don't have
flotation gear too.

Better stop night flights, stay away from swamps, mountains, oceans, lakes,
cities or get good maintenance, buy plenty of fuel and study the area.



wrote in message
...
| It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers)
don't
| consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
| traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
| sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
| obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
| safety issue.
|
|
| "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.
|
|
|
|