Oh, can't speak of the things we did with the extra sim time after we completed the checkride!

50G60 x-wind with one engine flamed out down to ILS minimums? no problem!

Sounds like every one of my sim sessions.

The weird part is flying the actual plane home and nothing breaks. Takes a little while to get over "sim paranoia".

Mike C.

No, but they will spend 20 minutes waiting for another arrival slot.

There was nothing particularly difficult about it. I thought we were being helpful and compliant.


Every flight violates this one since this is so subjective.

Mike C.

Hence my belief no flight is totally conforming to the FARs.

When you commit aviation, you break some FAR somewhere, every time.

Relax Francis. Military aircraft don't play by the same rules.

Yes, actual break done in actual aircraft with actual passengers.

Almost all Naval Aviators on the way home from Tailhook.

No, you won't. If they try to re-sequence you because they don't think you're "helping them out" enough things will go badly for them.



Nothing wrong with that, most pilots do but it's completely the pilots' choice.



Everything is subjective, that's the point but it all boils down to which interpretation would be the most convincing to an administrative law judge.

It isn't them being punitive, it is just that they have 8 planes line up on the approach and they have this one hole I can be in or I have to move to the back of the line. That's just the way it is when you hit KMDW at 9:30am in the morning.

If they resequence me in earlier, then it becomes much more disruptive to lots more people and the airspace in general. This was 500 ft ceilings, so no VFR options.

Personally, I'm always willing to do my part to make the system work, be that going faster or going slower (and my plane is good at both ends of that). I also believe it is reasonable to land the airliners ahead of me as that inconveniences the least number of people, if that is what is needed. In my mind, the airline airports are theirs first and mine second as I had more choices and I'll do my part to be accommodating.

I believe no ALJ would lock me up for complying with an ATC request even if it is technically my fault for doing so. Now I know to file an ASRS report if it comes up again!

This has been educational, thanks all for the references.

Mike C.

No they won't but by the same token if you bend metal/bust an altitude/cause a loss of separation,etc. because you were trying to comply with an ATC speed/expedite/whatever request no-one will care that you were trying to make the system work. You will be guilty of poor judgment in the eyes of the FAA and will pay the price.

Mr. Ciholas,

As an avid reader of this thread I have a question/clarifcation issue I would like you to address if you could.

I understand your premise about the airframe parachute on the Cirrus encouraging "riskier behavior" but much is dependent upon where one places the datum between risky and not risky.

It seems your position is that night/IMC flight in single engine piston airplanes is an unacceptable risk.

It's demonstrable that others believe that flying single engine pistons in this manner is acceptable. They have decided single engine pistons are the best fit, for themselves, due to; hanger size/economics/runway constraints/religion/whatever, and they intend to fly at night and IMC in order to get full use out of their investment.

Given an individual like this, would you stipulate that choosing an airplane with an airframe parachute over one without is in fact a "safer" option?

I have also been waiting for you to make an appearance in the Tesla threads. I would be very much interested in your opinion of their technology and your view on electric car viability.

One can argue the chance of something going wrong is higher if you don't comply with ATC instructions.

In this case, fully IMC, fully in radar, fully under ATC control, doing what they ask for seemed prudent even if it wasn't legal.

Regardless of any legal technicality, putting a pilot into a situation where he has to sort out that he was given an illegal instruction while joining an approach in IMC to a very busy metro airport is just wrong.

Or to put it another way, I'd rather comply and be wrong, than argue on the radio that ATC is wrong, but be wrong about that. That would certainly cause all sorts of problems worse than complying. For all I know, they have some sort of waiver, too, like Houston did at one time.

If it comes up again, I will simply ask if I am allowed to exceed 200 knots. If ATC says yes, I will happily comply and then file an ASRS report after I happily land.

Mike C.

This thread about the SF50? I am

Air shares folds, and they were going to buy 50's.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Ai ... 259-1.html

Mike,

Flying into Midway, I doubt you were in violation of the regs. The limit is 250 inside the bravo. It is 200 below the bravo.
So 230 to the marker for MDW, you were legal.

Tim

Risk is not black and white, it is gray based on an ever changing set of variables. Every person gets to set what they accept as "risky". Two different people can judge the exact same situation differently.


How did you come to that conclusion?


Good for them. I was one of those folks and may yet be again. Then I will fly a piston single to a level of risk I consider acceptable. That will be quite a bit less utility than my MU2, however.


Not necessarily.

The problem is that risk comes in many flavors. Would I fly a piston single from Wichita to Dallas on a summer night with 2000 ft ceilings? Sure. Would I fly a non deiced piston single from Denver to Telluride in a snow storm? Heck no. Would I fly my twin turboprop known ice airplane between Denver and Telluride? Possibly, I'd check the conditions carefully and see, perhaps most of the trip is on top and TEX has reasonably high weather when I get there.

The problem is that pilots with the chute are "upgrading" the airplane to a more capable one, going in more dangerous situations than the plane is really capable of. This attitude comes all the way from the top at Cirrus. If you had the chance to see that FIKI video of Klapmeier, you would understand (alas, they removed it, too embarrassing). In that video he flies his two young sons, at night, into weather, into icing, in the mountains, racing a storm to get into KJAC to go skiing. That's using a piston single (experimental at the time no less) where a twin turbine should really be called for (or just cancel).

A few posters in this thread admitted to the "upgrade" saying they would fly a single with a chute like it was a twin. I think that is being very honest and truthful about how the chute affects their "go, no go" decisions. I think the pilot who absolutely doesn't take into consideration the chute, even subconsciously, is extremely rare and possibly nonexistent.


I must be holding a sign that reads "will post on controversial subjects for food".

I'll check out the thread. :-)

Mike C.

I am pretty sure ILS 31C at KMDW is outside class B airspace, thus subject to the 200 KIAS limit, or so the discussion would indicate.

Class B floor is 3600 overlaying the approach, approach altitude is 2500 at RUNTS, intercept 1700 at HOBEL. I would probably stay at 2500 to intercept, the 1700 is not required per plate, I tend to avoid doing fiddly step downs near GS intercept for no apparent reason.

Mike C.

Isn't thread drift wonderful?

This all came about discussing what it takes to fly a jet in metro areas. Then I happened to mention the one time I got 230 to the marker as an example of how jets could be treated differently than pistons. The forum police found me in violation of the regs on that one.

Also, everyone ran away when I made the bet specific, 110 SF50s by 12/31/2017, half of what Cirrus promises. Apparently, the believers are allergic to such a precise commitment, so all commentary along those lines vanished.

Mike C.