Sport Pilot Talk

Delete

......

drseti wrote:My guess is that he meant he was 3500 MSL over the airfield (which is 1300 AGL), and so well clear of the Bravo.

The approach is rapidly descending terrain plus 1,300' is nothing in terms of a fuel emergency allowance to allow you to glide to a field, this area is quite densely populated. It is a serious place to fly and there have been attempts to outlaw experimentals there using the densely populated environment as the reason for the ban.

There's more to the story for sure, now we know that they got a low header tank warning at 50miles out. The owner presented it as though that meant 1.1 gallons remaining and they stretched it and did a steep approach to set up for a dead stick landing.

I say the chances of them stretching a portion of 1.1 gallons ( had a low level warning ) 50 miles is pretty slim. Assuming they were flying on 'both' selection it is more likely that they ran 1 wing dry and the other unported for the same reason. Easy to do in a CT resulting in the header running low but there was remaining fuel in a wing. If this guess is correct it would be the reason for slipping in, if one wing goes dry a slip is prudent to keep the remaining fuel inboard.

Its not clear if the emergency was declared, who was flying, or what exactly.

Delete

CTLSi wrote:

FlyingForFun wrote:Nope, he can't glide 4 miles from 1300 feet.

You have a reading issue. READ IT AGAIN. We were 4400 feet AGL... yes, you can glide the CTLS 4 mi from that height.

He doesn't have a reading issue, 1,300' AGL is what Paul said. Be nice.

And tell us the rest of the story, were you the pilot? Did you get a clearance in Bravo? Could you get a clearance for a steep approach due to fuel concerns? Did you declare?

Thanks,

CTLSi wrote:You have a reading issue. READ IT AGAIN. We were 4400 feet AGL... yes, you can glide the CTLS 4 mi from that height.

Now I'm confused. Your earlier post said:

CTLSi wrote: a slipped landing from 3k feet over the runway. The extra height allowed for a possible engine out glide landing.

Maybe I have a reading issue too.

Delete

FlyingForFun wrote: we don't know who we are talking with. <snip> if you would tell us about yourself, we would have a frame of reference for your opinions and advice.

I would hope that we wouldn't judge each other on this forum, but rather would strive to learn from each other. That said, the best way to promote such learning is through total transparency. If CTLSi is owning up to a lapse in judgment, he is to be commended, and we can all learn from that. If he is maintaining the appropriateness of a decision that others find questionable, he can maybe learn from that. Either way, someone's going to benefit from this discussion.

Delete

drseti wrote:

FlyingForFun wrote: we don't know who we are talking with. <snip> if you would tell us about yourself, we would have a frame of reference for your opinions and advice.

I would hope that we wouldn't judge each other on this forum, but rather would strive to learn from each other. That said, the best way to promote such learning is through total transparency. If CTLSi is owning up to a lapse in judgment, he is to be commended, and we can all learn from that. If he is maintaining the appropriateness of a decision that others find questionable, he can maybe learn from that. Either way, someone's going to benefit from this discussion.

He has made very clear that he does not consider this a judgment problem, but rather a problem with an equipment deficiency of his aircraft (e.g. sight tubes) that he wants others to be aware of. I'm not seeing much learning going on here.