Landing Decision

[Charles Talleyrand]

A Cessna Conquest landing at gross weight over 50 foot trees in no wind
and perfect pilot technique needs 2150 feet.

You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest. The runway is 3,501 feet
long. The 7 knot winds favor runway 8. You're in perfect position for a
landing on runway 26, with trees over the approach end and a cliff at
the far end. Or you can fly around the pattern and take extra time to
get an upwind landing.

What do you do?

I just watched a Cessna Conquest land downwind. He made it with plenty
of room to spare. My much smaller plane took the upwind.

-Charles Talleyrand

[Newps]

A 7 knot direct tailwind is trivial.



Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> A Cessna Conquest landing at gross weight over 50 foot trees in no wind
> and perfect pilot technique needs 2150 feet.
>
> You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest. The runway is 3,501 feet
> long. The 7 knot winds favor runway 8. You're in perfect position for a
> landing on runway 26, with trees over the approach end and a cliff at
> the far end. Or you can fly around the pattern and take extra time to
> get an upwind landing.
>
> What do you do?
>
> I just watched a Cessna Conquest land downwind. He made it with plenty
> of room to spare. My much smaller plane took the upwind.
>
> -Charles Talleyrand
>

[Dale]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> A 7 knot direct tailwind is trivial.


I just checked a couple of my Cessna POHs.... for the 1981 172P and the
1980 Cutlass RG. In both in notes for takeoff or landing distances that
you should "increases the distance by 10% for each 2 knots of tailwind".

I don't consider 35% as trivial. Of course, that may only apply to those
two models of aircraft.

--
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

[Peter Duniho]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I don't consider 35% as trivial. Of course, that may only apply to those
> two models of aircraft.

It is trivial for an airplane landing as fast as a Citation. Of course, for
something doing only 40-50 knots at touchdown, 7 knots makes a big
difference.

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> It is trivial for an airplane landing as fast as a Citation.

And yes, I realize it's a Conquest, not a Citation. Sorry...same statement
still applies though. The Conquest lands faster, and thus is less affected
by a given tailwind.

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in

>A 7 knot direct tailwind is trivial.

For what kind of plane? And, for whatever you're talking about now, what is
a non-trivial tailwind? Think.

moo

[Newps]

Dale wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>A 7 knot direct tailwind is trivial.
>
>
>
> I just checked a couple of my Cessna POHs.... for the 1981 172P and the
> 1980 Cutlass RG. In both in notes for takeoff or landing distances that
> you should "increases the distance by 10% for each 2 knots of tailwind".
>
> I don't consider 35% as trivial. Of course, that may only apply to those
> two models of aircraft.

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.

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in
>
>
>>A 7 knot direct tailwind is trivial.
>
>
> For what kind of plane?

Any twin.


And, for whatever you're talking about now, what is
> a non-trivial tailwind?

15

[Mike Rapoport]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>A Cessna Conquest landing at gross weight over 50 foot trees in no wind
> and perfect pilot technique needs 2150 feet.
>
> You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest. The runway is 3,501 feet
> long. The 7 knot winds favor runway 8. You're in perfect position for a
> landing on runway 26, with trees over the approach end and a cliff at
> the far end. Or you can fly around the pattern and take extra time to
> get an upwind landing.
>
> What do you do?
>
> I just watched a Cessna Conquest land downwind. He made it with plenty
> of room to spare. My much smaller plane took the upwind.
>
> -Charles Talleyrand
>

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

[Mike Rapoport]

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
>

[Allen]

"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? :)

[Mike Rapoport]

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? :)
>

[Dale]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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.

[Peter R.]

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

[Mike Rapoport]

"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

[nrp]

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.

[Peter R.]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Peter Duniho]

"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?

[Mike Rapoport]

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
>

[Newps]

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.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"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

[Mike Rapoport]

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

[Mike Rapoport]

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
>

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"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

[Mike Rapoport]

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

[Charles Talleyrand]

> 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

[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

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> The original post said "You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest" which I
> interpret to mean that the airplane was "for hire"

There is no valid reason to restrict your interpretation to that meaning.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> The original post said "You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest" which
>> I interpret to mean that the airplane was "for hire"
>
> There is no valid reason to restrict your interpretation to that meaning.
>

I disagree, it would be irrelevent to say "for hire" if we are only talking
about the pilot being employed. It would make no difference to the flight
or the rules under which the flight operated and it also doesn't say
anything about the pilot who could be anyone from a PP to an ATP.

I will concede that it is not totally clear what the OP meant by "for hire"
or why he mentioned it at all.

Mike
MU-2

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>> The original post said "You are flying for hire a Cessna Conquest" which
>>> I interpret to mean that the airplane was "for hire"
>>
>> There is no valid reason to restrict your interpretation to that meaning.
>
> I disagree, it would be irrelevent to say "for hire" if we are only
> talking about the pilot being employed.

Why do you say that? Do people not hire pilots? Do pilots not fly for
hire?

> It would make no difference to the flight or the rules under which the
> flight operated

You're the one who brought up "the flight or the rules under which the
flight operated". There's no reason to believe from the original post that
those were ever relevant to the discussion, so the fact that they might be
irrelevant under a given interpretation is, in and of itself, irrelevant.

> and it also doesn't say anything about the pilot who could be anyone from
> a PP to an ATP.

The pilot is "you", and "you" are flying "for hire". Thus, the pilot
("you") has at least a commercial certificate. They obviously could NOT be
"anyone from a PP to an ATP". They need to be qualified to be paid for
flying.

> I will concede that it is not totally clear what the OP meant by "for
> hire" or why he mentioned it at all.

You concede that, but still disagree that "there is no valid reason to
restrict your interpretation to that meaning"?

Very odd.

Pete

[Capt.Doug]

>"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
> A Cessna Conquest landing at gross weight over 50 foot trees in no wind
> and perfect pilot technique needs 2150 feet.

Did you mean "max" gross weight? If so, the landing is illegal as the max
gross weight is more than the max landing weight for either series of
Conquest.

> What do you do?

Traffic permitting, I'd land straight in, regardless of a small tail-wind.

D.