Landing Decision

Actually you would probably lose your job if you landed downwind on RWY 26
under the circumstances listed. The 135 certificate holder would be in a
lot of trouble with the FAA. Review Part 135 runway length limitations

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
What do you do?

What do *I* do?

I probably wake up just before the really good part in the dream where I
land the Conquest I'm flying.

I just watched a Cessna Conquest land downwind. He made it with plenty
of room to spare.

Sounds like he knows his performance capabilities just fine. You should
strive to be as good a pilot.

My much smaller plane took the upwind.

Yeah, but you're the troll who thinks 12000' is a short runway for a 150.

Pete

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...


I'm not going to look it up but I don't think that a Conquest flown for
hire could not use rwy 26 since it does not meet the 135 runway effective
length requirements.

Mike
MU-2

There are a lot of negatives in that sentence, Mike. Which "not" does not
belong?

Argh! Your right. The not before "use runway 26" should come out.

Part 135 spells out what percentage of the runway can be used for landing
and also requires using 150% of any tailwind for the landing distance
calculation.

Mike
MU-2


"Allen" wrote in message
.. .

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...


I'm not going to look it up but I don't think that a Conquest flown for
hire could not use rwy 26 since it does not meet the 135 runway effective
length requirements.

Mike
MU-2

There are a lot of negatives in that sentence, Mike. Which "not" does not
belong?

In article ,
Newps wrote:



How much runway do you use? I use less than a 1000 feet when I'm hardly
trying, call it 800 feet. That's an extra 80 feet per 2 knots if all
you have to go by is the book.

Depends. On that 540' strip I used to go into an extra 80' would have
put me in the ravine.

7 knots of tailwind is 7 knots of tailwind and will increase the landing
distance regardless if you're in a Cub or the Shuttle. On most public
airports with a competant pilot in a light aircraft...no it won't be
that big of a deal.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"Dale" wrote in message
...
7 knots of tailwind is 7 knots of tailwind and will increase the landing
distance regardless if you're in a Cub or the Shuttle.

The difference being that the increase in landing distance for the shuttle
will be imperceptible, relative to the typical distance consumed during a
landing.

Mike wrote:

I'm not going to look it up but I don't think that a Conquest flown for hire
could not use rwy 26 since it does not meet the 135 runway effective length
requirements.

Assuming the Conquest were flying under part 135. It is possible it
may have been flying part 91.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike wrote:

I'm not going to look it up but I don't think that a Conquest flown for
hire
could not use rwy 26 since it does not meet the 135 runway effective
length
requirements.

Assuming the Conquest were flying under part 135. It is possible it
may have been flying part 91.

--
Peter



Not if it was flying for hire as stated in the original post

Mike
MU-2

Your Conquest situation description could smell like he did a near
straight-in approach to land downwind. If so, I think his biggest
crime is the disregard of the normal traffic pattern & the
unanticipatable collision potential for others.

Otherwise it is just his aircraft he put at unnecessary risk - unless
he was illegally low on fuel.

Mike wrote:

Not if it was flying for hire as stated in the original post

Sorry. Lost the fact that the OP had raised a question about a
hypothetical situation. I was thinking of the actual flight that he
had witnessed.

--
Peter

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Assuming the Conquest were flying under part 135. It is possible it
may have been flying part 91.

Not if it was flying for hire as stated in the original post

Why do you say that? A pilot "flying for hire" could easily be flying Part
91, no matter what the kind of aircraft. Holding out, that's a whole
'nother ball of wax. But there are plenty of Part 91 "flying for hire"
pilots out there. All it would take is a corporate flight department, for
example.

Pete