Landing Decision

"nrp" wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
Otherwise it is just his aircraft he put at unnecessary risk - unless
he was illegally low on fuel.

What if he was legally low on fuel?

There are other variables in the actual flight as well. I was only
commenting on the stated conditions. We don't know what the real landing
distance in the performance charts is. The landing distance for an airplane
is never "xxxx'" It is always a function of many variables (weight, density
altitude ect).

Mike
MU-2

"Peter R." wrote in message
oups.com...
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

nrp wrote:

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.

He did nothing wrong.



Otherwise it is just his aircraft he put at unnecessary risk

No risk at all.

"Mike Rapoport" writes:

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.

Can you give a more specific pointer into the regulations? FAR
135.385/387 seem to forbid *take-offs* unless landings can be
*expected* to use = 60% or 70% of the runway. That does not seem to
require *actually landing* that way, only that this be possible. The
rule appears really intended to require limiting the aircraft load.


- FChE

The specific limits are in the Operating Specifications for each 135
operator but they will be the same as the general rules that you cited
(60-70%). The rule is intended to force conservatism on choosing landing
runways. These rules are covered ad nauseam on the ATP written test...to
the point that I still remember them:-).

Mike
MU-2


"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" writes:

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.

Can you give a more specific pointer into the regulations? FAR
135.385/387 seem to forbid *take-offs* unless landings can be
*expected* to use = 60% or 70% of the runway. That does not seem to
require *actually landing* that way, only that this be possible. The
rule appears really intended to require limiting the aircraft load.


- FChE

The original post said "You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest" which I
interpret to mean that the airplane was "for hire"

Mike
MU-2

..
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"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

"Mike Rapoport" writes:

The specific limits are in the Operating Specifications for each 135
operator but they will be the same as the general rules that you
cited (60-70%). The rule is intended to force conservatism on
choosing landing runways. [...]

Yes, for planning purposes. But is there a clause that obligates a
pilot to use that runway, or only to have it available?


- FChE

It is a good question. The FARS don't explicitly forbid it but I think that
it is in the Operating Specifications. I have a friend that flys 135 and I
will ask him but it will have to wait until next week. I think that is is
very unlikely that the FAA would require a 67%+ safety factor for planning
and then allow you to land downwind using the entire runway. Hopefully
there is a 135 pilot here than can provide an answer.

Mike
MU-2


"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" writes:

The specific limits are in the Operating Specifications for each 135
operator but they will be the same as the general rules that you
cited (60-70%). The rule is intended to force conservatism on
choosing landing runways. [...]

Yes, for planning purposes. But is there a clause that obligates a
pilot to use that runway, or only to have it available?


- FChE

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

Actually, it was a joke. I hope it was taken as such. I didn't mean
to tweak anyone off.

-Charles Talleyrand

I don't know that this was a part 135 operation. I think it was a
private airplane flying a private person. I'm told the pilot was a
professional. But everything I saw could have been part 91.

-Charles Talleyrand