Landing Decision

"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

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

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

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" 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" 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?

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?

"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

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