Who's Boss?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:38:23 -0600, wrote:

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.



You would think that someone would calculate the probability of having
an engine failure during the last 6 minutes of a flight.

Not much of a safety issue, I'm afraid.

Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
about departure rules on the instrument written.

Now there's a 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.

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
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:38:23 -0600, wrote:

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.



You would think that someone would calculate the probability of having
an engine failure during the last 6 minutes of a flight.

Not much of a safety issue, I'm afraid.

Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
about departure rules on the instrument written.

Now there's a safety issue...




"Newps" wrote in message
m...


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.

I don't know whether such stats are kept, but I suspect many more light
aircraft crash in IMC on approach than on departure.

wrote:


Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
about departure rules on the instrument written.

Now there's a safety issue...

Maybe so.

I misspoke.

I meant to say that departures very likely killed more people than
engine failures on instrument approaches.





On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:50:23 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

I don't know whether such stats are kept, but I suspect many more light
aircraft crash in IMC on approach than on departure.

wrote:


Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
about departure rules on the instrument written.

Now there's a safety issue...

wrote:

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.


Well, look at the numbers. How many loss of power accidents on
approaches do we have? The answer, statistically, is zero. There's
lots of things to worry about. That just isn't one of them. If it was
a big deal you'd hear about it.

Sounds like you think the entire IFR system should be revamp to make
sure single-engine aircraft are "safe" at all times.

Your ideas are absurd, to say the least.

wrote:
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.

Absurd is such a strong word.

I don't want to change the entire IFR system. I just want the controller to
cut me some slack and let me stay higher until I'm a bit closer to the
runway at night. That being said, the comments on this newsgroup, once
again, have educated me and helped me figure out a better way of achieving
what I want. I realize now I have several other options: One being not
talking to approach when landing on 16. The other, staying VFR with
following and self vectoring to the FAF which will allow me to use the
glideslope information without triggering the set of controller responses
which ensues when I ask for a "practice approach."

Thanks for you help. Didn't mean to be absurd.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news
Sounds like you think the entire IFR system should be revamp to make sure
single-engine aircraft are "safe" at all times.

Your ideas are absurd, to say the least.

wrote:
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.

On Dec 19, 10:52 pm, wrote:

The other, staying VFR with
following and self vectoring to the FAF which will allow me to use the
glideslope information without triggering the set of controller responses
which ensues when I ask for a "practice approach."

You still need to tell the controller your intentions if you want to
be a "good neighbor" that you are not going direct to the airport if
you are not doing a straight in approach.

The controller is expecting you to go direct to the airport VFR, not
putz around IFR fixes. He may have an IFR plane needing that fix and
if you don't tell him, it may mess up his planning stages.

Probably the two most logical options are either squawk, talk and
comply (without compromising safety) or just go without the squawk and
talk part and do your thing.

Allen

Something like: "210BA requests Gugwa then Hawkins 16"?


wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 10:52 pm, wrote:

The other, staying VFR with
following and self vectoring to the FAF which will allow me to use the
glideslope information without triggering the set of controller responses
which ensues when I ask for a "practice approach."

You still need to tell the controller your intentions if you want to
be a "good neighbor" that you are not going direct to the airport if
you are not doing a straight in approach.

The controller is expecting you to go direct to the airport VFR, not
putz around IFR fixes. He may have an IFR plane needing that fix and
if you don't tell him, it may mess up his planning stages.

Probably the two most logical options are either squawk, talk and
comply (without compromising safety) or just go without the squawk and
talk part and do your thing.

Allen