Search results

If you’re flying into Culpeper, you need to include the balls in your plan! :p

You are actually making his point. He was being facetious.

Just to be clear, are you saying my speech in the example in the OP is fine, or are you saying for second+ transmissions to shorten "Potomac Approach" to "Approach"? I think it's the former but I want to avoid making a bad assumption. Thanks in advance, appreciate the advice. @Clip4 I think...

I just discussed this issue separately with an airline pilot I know and he had a good explanation. If my non-initial call is an expected report AND is very obvious that I'm a pilot talking to Potomac, then perhaps leaving off the "Potomac Approach" or equivalent at the beginning is okay...

Yeah to be clear, I'm not at all concerned about the fact that my call was missed. That occasionally happens and I understand why. My focus is on whether or not to say "Potomac," "Potomac Approach," "Approach," when making a subsequent call-up.

Here is a script from a recent flight departing from Lee within the Washington DC SFRA, intending to depart the SFRA: Me: "Potomac [Approach], Bugsmasher 1234 off of Lee." (technically I left off "approach") Potomac: "N1234, radar contact, proceed on course outside Bravo, Baltimore altimeter...

Do a few more dual flights, in a Cessna 152, with a fat, annoying instructor. Then do a solo flight and you'll be glad to be rid of 'em! I remember as a student pilot I felt I was ready for PIC privileges when I started to prefer flying without the instructor in order to get a nice performance...

Good thing you didn’t make this into a YouTube video.

The discussion mentioned at the beginning of the OP was regarding a straight-in VFR approach to a towered field actually. I didn't think about it, but you are right that the applicability does not extend nicely to instrument approaches for most airplanes. A VFR pilot could still follow the...

It's foolish to call it mental gymnastics. It's simply a rough analysis of options. I didn't tell you to do anything differently and then try to justify it.

Probably true for other than no-flap planes like Velocities. The analysis becomes significantly more complicated if you try to take flaps into account so I'll just say, you can delay flaps if you think the math above justifies it (personally, I don't).

I was trying to demonstrate how much extra speed you need to compensate for insufficient altitude when you lose your engine on final. I had to look up what TCH stood for but I'm glad I did. As I mentioned, I assumed no flaps because, presumably, if you lose your engine on say, a 1 mile final...

In some cases the people are probably "taking it all in" and distracted. It's easy to avoid stepping on the "no step" area when the other aspects of climbing up on to a wing and getting into a new type of vehicle are automatic and the view around you isn't surprising. Being dumb could actually...

This is a good point. I envisioned, upon losing the engine, the fast pilot immediately converts that excess kinetic energy into potential energy, then takes the best glideslope down from there at 73 kts. Realistically, this is difficult to do optimally. My math is overly optimistic but is...

A year or two ago I was discussing straight-in approaches with an instructor. I pointed out that a 3 degree glideslope does not allow for us to glide in if we lose the engine. He generally agreed but also pointed out that prior to short final you can maintain a higher speed which allows you to...

I’m instrument rated but don’t have anything witty to add. OP, what are you working on?

I did my IR 141 due to funding. I liked it but make sure you train regularly or it can bite you.

Also note you were watching no-flap landings. Planes like that don’t have any.

You seem to have an unusual talent. When you sump the tanks does milk ever come out?

They were trying to help get you in but honestly that clearance sounds unnecessarily dangerous unless you and the other plane each have one pound of fuel left. Good call by you in my opinion.