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...