If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
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. GUGWA looks to be about 2 miles from the Class C boundary, you don't need to enter Class C airspace at all on that approach. 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. It could only mean they're unable to provide separation from IFR aircraft in the outer area. So tell them good day and continue with your plans, staying outside of Class C airspace. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
wrote in message . .. Jog by memory. What are my requirements to enter Class D. If I recall, I just have to make radio contact with the tower. What happens when the tower is closed. The field is uncontrolled and tower frequency is CTAF. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
True, but it cuts it pretty close. But you can't avoid class C shooting the
GPS 34 into the other runway. "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ... 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. GUGWA looks to be about 2 miles from the Class C boundary, you don't need to enter Class C airspace at all on that approach. 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. It could only mean they're unable to provide separation from IFR aircraft in the outer area. So tell them good day and continue with your plans, staying outside of Class C airspace. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
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. | | | | |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
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. "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ... "Wyatt Emmerich" wrote in message ... 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? You can tell him you have the traffic in sight, then he can assign visual separation and there's no reason for him to push you down. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Who's Boss?
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. | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
But monsieur... you are ze fat boss-tard... | Kingfish | Piloting | 13 | December 25th 06 01:05 AM |
Fire Your Boss..! | cashandprofits | Home Built | 0 | September 12th 05 04:51 PM |