Who's Boss?

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.

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...

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

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...

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

On Dec 19, 9:32 am, wrote:

True, but it cuts it pretty close.


It's 1.92 NM from GUGWA to the ten mile Class C ring. A three degree
glidepath begun at GUGWA would put you at about 1300 MSL at the ten
mile ring, 400' below Class C airspace. A constant descent begun at
GUGWA so as to reach the MDA at IHUZU would put you about 1500 MSL at
the ten mile ring, 200' below Class C airspace. Not close at all.

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

wrote in message
. ..

Rather than shoot the approach as published, I guess I could just program
the GPS 16 with vectors and do my own vectors. This would allow me to
descend slighly to the west of the Class C airspace, then intercept the
GPS or ILS glideslope and lateral guidance as I got closer to the airport.
(I have a healthy respect for the black hole illusion.) As far as the
controller is concerned, I'm just shooting my own visual approach. If he
interferes, I just cancel following an squak VFR.


Why contact ATC in the first place you're going to refuse the service?

wrote in message
. ..

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


More like "210BA proceeding to Hawkins via GUGWA."