BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:32

Username Protected wrote:

You know people..... Only well trained pilots should be allowed to fly. Everyone else should walk. :D

I fixed it for you.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:37

The jet may be in a different category and vis requirements may vary. The Citation V is Cat III certified. Some companies don't allow the for-hire folks to do circle-to-land approaches at published minimums. Have one friend that said they had to be VFR for him to circle. 3,800 foot runway in rain wouldn't be high on my list in a Citation V. Several restrictions besides published minimums when for-hire: besides runway length, brake energy, stopping distance and several others. Some minimum facilities may be required for pacs. TRs aren't used when computing stopping distance on the charts.

Vref in the V can be in the high 90s. Low 100s when heavier and adding compensating factors. Although we may start the approach at 200 knots, should be at Vref well above DA. If heavy, compensating for ice, and cross winds faster, but the other aircraft should also be compensating for those conditions also.

Don't know about the swept wing guys. That may call for more speed.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:37

Quote:

You know people..... Only pilots with ability should be allowed to fly. Everyone else should walk.

There, I fixed it better. I have seen a lot of well trained pilots that I will not ride with.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:38

Username Protected wrote:

You know people..... Only well trained pilots should be allowed to fly. Everyone else should walk.

I fixed it for you.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:44

Username Protected wrote:

Also, your motivation to look up my tail number and then track my flights is...

... natural when you hold up this flight as an example of your plane's prowess.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N801 ... /MMUN/KPDK

Don't draw attention to it if you don't want people looking at it.

Quote:

It's stuff like this that will eventually kill BT.

BT can survive using real facts.

If FlightAware frosts your buns, just wait until you hear yourself on LiveATC...

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:47

Username Protected wrote:

Also, your motivation to look up my tail number and then track my flights is...

... natural when you hold up this flight as an example of your plane's prowess.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N801 ... /MMUN/KPDK

Don't draw attention to it if you don't want people looking at it.

Quote:

It's stuff like this that will eventually kill BT.

BT can survive using real facts.

If FlightAware frosts your buns, just wait until you hear yourself on LiveATC...

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:51

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 17:54

Username Protected wrote:

3,800 foot runway in rain wouldn't be high on my list in a Citation V.

Note that runway 21L at PDK is 6000 ft. Whether jets made it in or not was due primarily to ceilings and viz, not runway condition, and a number of jets landed before and after PC-12s.

But the point is valid, TPs can get into smaller airports with wet, snowy, or icy runways when jets can't.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 18:04

I'm not sure I see a problem with the flight mentioned. It appears that it was not a miss since he was more than 5 miles out when the turn around and sightseeing adventure started. I don't think it was an established approach at that time? The flight most definitely landed after crossing the FAF.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 18:06

Username Protected wrote:

The jet may be in a different category and vis requirements may vary.

At KPDK ILS 21L, all categories use the same mins, works out to 343 ft ceiling and 7/8 mile viz.

For comparison, KFTY ILS 8 is 250 ft and 3/4 mile viz (also for all cats), so somewhat lower.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 18:08

Username Protected wrote:

I'm not sure I see a problem with the flight mentioned. It appears that it was not a miss since he was more than 5 miles out when the turn around and sightseeing adventure started. I don't think it was an established approach at that time? The flight most definitely landed after crossing the FAF.

I never made it to the FAF until the last try and then I landed no problem.

The ILS at PDK has had a NOTAM for some time. I've had issues with it before. It needs MX.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 18:08

Username Protected wrote:

3,800 foot runway in rain wouldn't be high on my list in a Citation V.

Note that runway 21L at PDK is 6000 ft. Whether jets made it in or not was due primarily to ceilings and viz, not runway condition, and a number of jets landed before and after PC-12s.

But the point is valid, TPs can get into smaller airports with wet, snowy, or icy runways when jets can't.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 18:11

Username Protected wrote:

give me a 172 with synthetic vision and WAAS (don't need an ILS) and a 5000' runway and I will land it every time at near 0/0 without incident. If I did it in a Citation I might make it work 1 out of 10 if I was lucky.

Once FLIR technology is advanced enough we will be landing 0/0 all the time as SOP.

I agree with that. WAAS trumps all and is way more reliable. Synthetic Vis and WAAS and you don't need windows.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Jan 2015, 18:14

Username Protected wrote:

I agree with that. With that said, give me a 172 with synthetic vision and WAAS (don't need an ILS) and a 5000' runway and I will land it every time at near 0/0 without incident. If I did it in a Citation I might make it work 1 out of 10 if I was lucky.

Once FLIR technology is advanced enough we will be landing 0/0 all the time as SOP.

Todd,
0/0 might actually be easier in a Citation. Throttles to idle at 50, nothing else left to do.

Never flown a Pilatus, do you flare?