If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Darrell S" wrote in message
news:07Zre.462$wV5.435@fed1read06... It wouldn't be practical to require an aircraft to be able to fly a given distance with the fuel reserve. Too many variables and they'd have to publish distance requirements for each type aircraft. Wind, aircraft speed, etc. A ridiculous (I know) extreme example would be to require an SR-71 to have reserve fuel to fly a 30 minute distance at mach 3. That would be about 900 miles. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The current regulation essentially requires just that. It requires enough fuel to fly for 30 minutes at cruise speed, which for any given aircraft translates into a specific calm air distance. Each aircraft is basically given its own regulatory distance requirement. Under the existing regulations, the SR-71 *does* require a 900 mile fuel reserve, if flown under Part 91 of the FARs (since it's always being operated by the government, those rules don't actually apply...but if Part 91 was being applied, it would be applied in just the way you say is ridiculous). Are you trying to say that the current regulation is ridiculous? If so, you'd appear to be in agreement with the original poster. If not, why are you saying that the current regulation is ridiculous? I believe that the original poster is not suggesting that each aircraft get its own distance requirement (as is basically the case now). I believe he's suggesting that each aircraft should share the exact same distance requirement with every other aircraft, regardless of cruise speed. As far as that question goes: it's my opinion that the time-based requirement more appropriately compensates for the relevant variables. It certainly doesn't do it perfectly, but it takes into account likely reasons for needing the reserve, such as being off-course (thus the greater requirement for night than for day) as well as the fact that slower aircraft can generally use a wider range of airports, and thus won't have to fly as great a distance to get to a suitable one. Sure, there are clear extremes that seem to indicate some flaw in the concept. But those are just that: extremes. The regulations couldn't possibly address each and every situation individually and perfectly. They simply set some guidelines -- and quite liberal in this case -- for operation of the aircraft, and it's up to the pilot to take appropriate steps to follow those guidelines to the letter, as well as to the spirit. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
gps to measure feet? | brucrx | Piloting | 19 | November 13th 04 03:33 AM |
Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command To Benefit From New . | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 20th 04 12:32 AM |
the complete minute by minute timeline on 911 | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 27 | January 27th 04 04:35 PM |
Feet Per Minute Conversion Question | Steve B | Soaring | 49 | August 31st 03 04:40 AM |
Reserve Haters (Was... Privatizing Red Air Gaining Momentum) | FastMover114 | Naval Aviation | 13 | August 10th 03 02:32 PM |