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.
|
|
|
|

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
|
|
|
|

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.

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.

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.

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