Who's Boss?

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.
|
|
|
|

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.

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.

wrote in message
...

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.


Five miles from BRENZ would put him in Class E airspace, he said he was in
Class C airspace.

You're not seriously practicing an approach under these circumstances.



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 five miles before the FAF
for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at 4,000 and stay
within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the authority to tell
him no?

Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound leg.
The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then Gugwa,
which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am single
engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound from the
IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the runway, so
4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver Eagle with a
turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like the structure of
an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to 2,000
while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic that
is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind, I'd
like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend for
traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually. Will
maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his command
that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he going to
report me to the FSDO?



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
You're not seriously practicing an approach under these circumstances.



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 five miles
before the FAF for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at
4,000 and stay within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the
authority to tell him no?

wrote in message
...

Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am
single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound
from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver
Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like
the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway,
for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you
don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do
mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have
traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry
way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding distance.
Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?


You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
remain clear of Class C airspace.

That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes into
Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.

It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always got
the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into Hawkins
which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining power.
However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I supposed
it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole complaint is that
they ignored my very understandable desire to stay within glide distance,
which really shouldn't have been a problem for them. It was as though I were
inconveniencing them by flying the approach differently, wanting to stay
higher until the FAF.

Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was told
"unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to what?
I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a thing.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am
single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound
from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver
Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like
the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the
runway, for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say,
"If you don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller
says, "I do mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend
yet. Have traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue on
my merry way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding
distance. Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?


You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
remain clear of Class C airspace.

Visit the facility and talk. They will tell what they do and why and you
can explain you r concerns.

BTW, if you are THAT worried, about an engine failure at night or in the day
for that matter, buy a twin and get very good instruction. Unless you are
over some very hostile terrain, like Chicago near Midway, and you are not
stretching fuel, an engine failure is not a serious problem that you will
solve with an extra 1,000 feet.



wrote in message
...
| That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes
into
| Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.
|
| It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
| approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always
got
| the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into
Hawkins
| which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining power.
| However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I supposed
| it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole complaint is that
| they ignored my very understandable desire to stay within glide distance,
| which really shouldn't have been a problem for them. It was as though I
were
| inconveniencing them by flying the approach differently, wanting to stay
| higher until the FAF.
|
| Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
| flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was
told
| "unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to what?
| I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a thing.
|
|
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
| ...
|
| wrote in message
| ...
|
| Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS.
This
| involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
| leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
| Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I
am
| single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance.
Outbound
| from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
| runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a
Silver
| Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I
like
| the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
| emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
| doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
| descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the
| runway, for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I
say,
| "If you don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller
| says, "I do mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend
| yet. Have traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue
on
| my merry way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding
| distance. Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?
|
|
| You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
| remain clear of Class C airspace.
|
|
|