Landing Decision

"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.

"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

"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

"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.