Does anyone do simulated approach engine failures?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ATC didn't seem to mind. They knew who I was and what I was doing. No complaints when I reported back.

Besides, the VFR cruising altitudes are based on magnetic course and stable altitude. You don't have either while doing maneuvers.

[/ QUOTE ]

ATC is not responsible for choosing your altitudes. You are.

Besides, the FARs talk about VFR altitudes in a pretty simple manner, you should have a look at it.

You don't go buzzing around 10000ft because ATC knows you! I had to do an evasive maneuver one day ("climb, turn left", from the TCAS) because a goofball was flying VFR at 10000ft (it wasn't in Or, so I am confident it wasn't you). Guess what, that pilot got reported to ATC, and most likely got violated (ATC knew who he was and where he was).
confused.gif


I'll see you in 2 1/2 weeks!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Could've been operating in a cold MOA.
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Could've been operating in a cold MOA

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, just flight following.

You military guys have it pretty good. You get your own airspace, and have really neat toys to play with.
smirk.gif
 
Sayspeed: [ QUOTE ]
Besides, the FARs talk about VFR altitudes in a pretty simple manner, you should have a look at it.

[/ QUOTE ] Please help me out.
I couldn't find the section in the FAR where it explained how to do maneuvers at VFR altitudes.
Can you refer me to the sections so I can read it.
Please share your vast knowledge with me.
 
Well nobody else stopped posting, so I'm back.

[ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to point out, is despite what someone said here, doing a single engine low altitude go-around is not allways the safest action. Surely there are situations where I would opt for a go around on 1 engine, and like you said the PIC has to know his airplane.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, actually you've been saying never make a single engine go-around. I and other people have been saying sometimes you're better off doing a single engine go-around than landing into certain death. You also seem to think that simply because an airplane isn't certified under part 23, that it can't do a single engine go around. What it actually means is that it hasn't demonstrated it. That doesn't mean it can't, it means the manufacturer didn't want to go through the trouble to get part 23 certified. Now of course you're going to think that I'm saying all airplanes that aren't part 23 certified can do this. Of course not, but some can.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the FARs talk about VFR altitudes in a pretty simple manner, you should have a look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, they do.

[ QUOTE ]
§ 91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight level.
Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:

[/ QUOTE ]
Gosh, looks like you don't always have to be at even/odd plus 500.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Guess what, that pilot got reported to ATC, and most likely got violated (ATC knew who he was and where he was).

[/ QUOTE ]
No, most probably that pilot did not get violated. Unless you happen upon a controller who is having a really bad day or just really doesn't like you for some reason, they are not going to violate you unless they will lose their job by not doing so (runway incursion for example). If what a pilot does causes them to lose seperation, then yeah you might get violated, but since ATC (I'm assuming class E airspace here) is not required to seperate VFR aircraft (or even IFR/VFR), they wouldn't lose seperation from your example.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, actually you've been saying never make a single engine go-around. I and other people have been saying sometimes you're better off doing a single engine go-around than landing into certain death. You also seem to think that simply because an airplane isn't certified under part 23, that it can't do a single engine go around. What it actually means is that it hasn't demonstrated it. That doesn't mean it can't, it means the manufacturer didn't want to go through the trouble to get part 23 certified. Now of course you're going to think that I'm saying all airplanes that aren't part 23 certified can do this. Of course not, but some can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am back from my fantastic time off, and what a surprise, still arguing about that subject!

First of all, I have never said never, I know a BE 76 will do a single engine go around. But, if you read carefully, I mentioned at full weight.

That is the reason why I said in some circumstances, I would envision a single engine go, if landing straight ahead was not an survivable option. I cautioned pilots to attempt to do this, but like MikeD said, knowing your airplane performance is part of the pic duty.

Nevertheless, at full weight I maintain what I said before, you are taking a great risk by doing this.

As far as the Part 23 certification, this is not because "the manufacturer didn't want to go through the trouble", it is simply because the airplane will not meet the requirements of the certification. Beech went through the trouble for its King Air line, because the airplane meets the requirements; They didn't do it for the -76 because it doesn't meet the requirements. And this should tell you something: the airplane will not climb!!! Like you said: "what it actually means is that it hasn't demonstrated it"... You couldn't make my point any better; it hasn't demonstrated it because it couldn't!

On a side note, even in VFR following, you are responsible for your own "see and avoid", the controller does not have an obligation to do this for you, he is advisory. And maybe someday when you will fly larger and faster airplanes, lots of people in the back, you will look differently at the clown who practices single engine maneuvers at 10,000ft...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I am back from my fantastic time off, and what a surprise, still arguing about that subject!

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually that last reply was shortly after your last reply and it was quite nice and quiet here while you were gone.

[ QUOTE ]
That is the reason why I said in some circumstances, I would envision a single engine go, if landing straight ahead was not an survivable option.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't say that until very late in the game.

[ QUOTE ]
I cautioned pilots to attempt to do this, but like MikeD said, knowing your airplane performance is part of the pic duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you didn't, you consistantly maintined (until very late in the game) that no non-part 23 certified airplane will do a single engine go around and there are no circumstances where one should be attempted.

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, at full weight I maintain what I said before, you are taking a great risk by doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody said you weren't, but it's better than the certain death that may await in some situations.

[ QUOTE ]
You couldn't make my point any better; it hasn't demonstrated it because it couldn't!

[/ QUOTE ]

No it hasn't demonstrated it because it hasn't demonstrated it. That does not mean it can not do it. For some airplanes, perhaps they can't, but not all.

[ QUOTE ]
And maybe someday when you will fly larger and faster airplanes, lots of people in the back, you will look differently at the clown who practices single engine maneuvers at 10,000ft...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, they have just as much right to be there as I do.
 
[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, even in VFR following, you are responsible for your own "see and avoid", the controller does not have an obligation to do this for you, he is advisory. And maybe someday when you will fly larger and faster airplanes, lots of people in the back, you will look differently at the clown who practices single engine maneuvers at 10,000ft...

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, [edited ad hominem], I'm a licensed commercial pilot and I'm a hell of a lot smarter and safer than you are. You're really big on making unfounded claims on this board. For a while it seemed we could shed some light on your dismal understanding of aviation, but your main goal on this board seems to be an attempt to discredit anyone who posts. You imply that you;re flying jets full of passengers -- based on your posts, I'd say you're either lying or you are an anomaly in the aviation industry.

To address the specific insult... EVERYONE has the duty to see and avoid. Even the jet pilot (who by the way would probably not be vectored into flight-following traffic flying in VMC).
 
Since the beginning of this thread, I have not used the language that you used to discredit me. Please, try to be a little more politically correct in your answers, as you do not know me (nor do you know my background in aviation).

The purpose of a website as this one (and other ones as well) is to have a group discussion about aviation topics. It seems to me that the discussion has stopped here, when you insulted me. I respect you, as a person and as a professional pilot, therefore I will not respond to your personal attacks.

If you want to further insult me, please use my private email: tsr6500@hotmail.com, or send me a pm here on this website, but let's keep it between us 2.
 
[ QUOTE ]

If you want to further insult me, please use my private email: tsr6500@hotmail.com, or send me a pm here on this website, but let's keep it between us 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you accepting insults from anyone?
laugh.gif
LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top