tough landing for this Piper Malibu ...

Spring Ford said:
about 70mph gain/loss from the potential energy of the hill
Click to expand...
Of course some of it will be lost on friction but yes, there is significant help from this terrain.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
What is this MPH nonsense..?! This is an aviation site, we speak in knots!

haha jk, thanks for the work up. The Malibu should have been within its POH for runway length, in general.. once you factor in the math above (thanks) that makes the situation even better for him. So that's totally on the pilot

The Citation... on the other hand will need at least 3,000 ft.. and with Courcheval at under 1,800 I'm wondering how much of an effective reduction in runway length requirement 70 mph, err, 60 knots, will have. I've heard as rule of thumb 10% for every 10 knots of wind? So if we pretend his 60 knot headstart is equivalent to a 60 knot headwind then that reduces his takeoff roll by a fair amount, more than half, obviously the math is very "back of the napkin" but it does suggest that the airplane may have been more or less at it's typical Vr when going off the runway end.. I want to say Vr for a Mustang is around 95ish knots?
 
MauleSkinner said:
All of the exemptions I'm familiar with provide an equivalent level of safety to the reg being exempted...they don't waive the requirement, they use an alternate means of compliance.
Click to expand...

Like, say, getting the manufacturer to state that their runway slope limit is simply because it wasn't tested, and doing the requisite testing?

Also, the FAA generally doesn't give two ****s if you kill yourself. It's the general public they're worried about. Show them that you aren't going to kill anyone else, and they'll probably go with it.

Finally, plenty of regs get exempted at airshows without a truly equivalent level of safety. They just have to show that the probability of killing an unsuspecting audience member is low.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Like, say, getting the manufacturer to state that their runway slope limit is simply because it wasn't tested, and doing the requisite testing?

Also, the FAA generally doesn't give two ****s if you kill yourself. It's the general public they're worried about. Show them that you aren't going to kill anyone else, and they'll probably go with it.

Finally, plenty of regs get exempted at airshows without a truly equivalent level of safety. They just have to show that the probability of killing an unsuspecting audience member is low.
Click to expand...
If yo want to believe it’s that easy, go ahead. As you said in Post 64, though, it’s probably not going to pass by just doing the requisite testing. There’s going to have to be modification.

And even if the airplane didn’t have to be physically modified, a paperwork mod is still going to require an STC or the equivalent.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
If yo want to believe it’s that easy, go ahead. As you said in Post 64, though, it’s probably not going to pass by just doing the requisite testing. There’s going to have to be modification.

And even if the airplane didn’t have to be physically modified, a paperwork mod is still going to require an STC or the equivalent.
Click to expand...

I never said it was going to be easy.
 
MauleSkinner said:
True...you also never said you understood certification or multiengine operations, so I guess there’s no sense trying to explain how impossible “not easy” becomes.
Click to expand...

Is the discussion about legalities on private flights, legalities as a charter op, or what? With a non-charter, I assume you can do whatever you want if you're prepared to accept the consequences of effing it up.
 
MauleSkinner said:
True...you also never said you understood certification or multiengine operations, so I guess there’s no sense trying to explain how impossible “not easy” becomes.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

I figure, if a guy can get FAA approval to tow a dead 182 from one airport to another in the air, anything is possible... And that there are people who will spend the time and money to do what they want, or buy off the right people that they can get away with it illegally. Clearly, somebody is doing it somehow... How, we don't know.

kyleb said:
Is the discussion about legalities on private flights, legalities as a charter op, or what? With a non-charter, I assume you can do whatever you want if you're prepared to accept the consequences of effing it up.
Click to expand...

Negative... That would be a violation of 14 CFR 91.9(a):

14 CFR Part 91 said:
§91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that people think they can do if they're part 91, or VFR. Just because you're on your own and operating under the least stringent regulations doesn't mean it's a free-for-all.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
:rolleyes:

I figure, if a guy can get FAA approval to tow a dead 182 from one airport to another in the air, anything is possible... And that there are people who will spend the time and money to do what they want, or buy off the right people that they can get away with it illegally. Clearly, somebody is doing it somehow... How, we don't know.
Click to expand...
Clearly somebody is violating AFM limitations to do it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
You assume incorrectly.
Click to expand...
So.. to follow that through, are guys operating 182s off river banks and mountain ridges doing so illegally? I'm willing to bet at least some of those landings are not within runway length/pitch requirements
 
Tantalum said:
So.. to follow that through, are guys operating 182s off river banks and mountain ridges doing so illegally? I'm willing to bet at least some of those landings are not within runway length/pitch requirements
Click to expand...
those are not limitations in those airplanes.
 
The 182 doesn't have runway length requirements?
 
MauleSkinner said:
not in the limitations section
Click to expand...
Ah okay, makes sense. For some reason I thought we were talking about the Citation in the video and how it was flown "illegally" given how short of a runway it was taking off from.. so was trying to make the point about runway lengths and types.. if course if there's a gradient limitation that's a whole different thing. I see
 
Tantalum said:
Ah okay, makes sense. For some reason I thought we were talking about the Citation in the video and how it was flown "illegally" given how short of a runway it was taking off from.. so was trying to make the point about runway lengths and types.. if course if there's a gradient limitation that's a whole different thing. I see
Click to expand...
gradient, field length, brake energy...
 
MauleSkinner said:
Clearly somebody is violating AFM limitations to do it.
Click to expand...

Clearly? :no:

That is not at all clear. It's quite possible to get a waiver for that sort of thing, you know... (Lather, rinse, repeat...)

Tantalum said:
So.. to follow that through, are guys operating 182s off river banks and mountain ridges doing so illegally? I'm willing to bet at least some of those landings are not within runway length/pitch requirements
Click to expand...

The only things that are binding are "Limitations" which are found in Section 2 of a modern POH. Anything else in the book is still up for debate. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Clearly? :no:

That is not at all clear. It's quite possible to get a waiver for that sort of thing, you know... (Lather, rinse, repeat...)
Click to expand...
So show me an example of the paperwork for a Part 25 airplane with accelerate-stop, accelerate-go, V1, and/or brake energy limitations waived.
 
I'm wondering if that plane is owned by a brothel or something and that tail number was a special request...
 
Tantalum said:
I sometimes wish we had European style tail numbers... some people obviously have fun with those.. some better ones (this probably deserves its own thread):
...
Click to expand...
There are a few on the FAA registry (including one that's been discussed in the media) that are questionable. (States are much more strict with license plate numbers.)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
States are much more strict with license plate numbers
Click to expand...
Every now and then one will slip through.. honestly we're a fairly prude-ish country. We all vote. We all have opinions. We are all adults.

Having said that.. I generally dislike vanity plates, especially when they're something cute like "NO GAS" or "GOT AMPD" or something on a Tesla..
 
For a foreign-registered plane landing at a foreign airport, this is the part that is important:

91.9-a.jpg
 
Tantalum said:
Every now and then one will slip through.. honestly we're a fairly prude-ish country. We all vote. We all have opinions. We are all adults..
Click to expand...
We don’t all vote, not even close.
We all have opinions, some are informed, some are not.
We definitely are not all adults, at least we all don’t act like it.
1 out 3 aint bad.


Tom
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
We don’t all vote
Click to expand...
Probably for the best.

My point is.. if someone gets offended because a license plate says "I <3 69" then that person must lead a very stressful, emotional, and anxiety filled life. I feel bad
 
I’m a proud member of POOP. People offended by offended people.
 
olasek said:
Recovery ...

Click to expand...
Looks like they moved it about 200 feet. I'm wondering why they needed a truck with a crane instead of a tug unless the nosegear was damaged when he went into the snowbank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top