Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:00:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [198.36.178.141] (HELO stoel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 359785 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:00:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com Received: from PDX-SMTP.stoel.com ([172.16.1.137]) by gateway1.stoel.com with ESMTP id <334083>; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:02:10 -0700 Received: from PDX-MX6.stoel.com ([172.16.2.64]) by PDX-SMTP.stoel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:59:32 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Engine out X-Original-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:59:32 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB607219802D@PDX-MX6.stoel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: lml Digest #930 Thread-Index: AcR+wQmOOunCkndkRJi1W+s2AuLk6AAN2kTQ From: "Halle, John" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Return-Path: JJHALLE@stoel.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2004 16:59:32.0660 (UTC) FILETIME=[6865A740:01C47EFB] I agree with all of the recent advice about knowing your airplane's = engine out performance characteristics but have some reservations about = the implied conclusion that this knowledge is always important in = handling an actual engine-out situation. In fact, there is a serious = choice that needs to be made before relying on max glide range = information, whether it comes from the pilot's knowledge and experience, = from the Chelton or from some other source. If you don't have to glide = to max range, don't even think about trying. I agree that there may be = times when there is a great field just at the limit of glide range and = nothing closer that offers a reasonable chance for survival. In that = case, being able to fly the optimum profile (starting with knowing what = it is) may save your life. On the other hand, if the option at the = limit of your glide range is not orders of magnitude superior to any = closer option (from a survival rather than an a/c damage perspective) = choosing the closer option is clearly the better choice. Not only are = you assured of getting there but you have more chance to set up for the = approach and landing/controlled crash and therefore a better chance of = surviving it. This is equally true whether the options are all good = (wall to wall fields) mediocre (a few feasible spots here and there) or = terrible (Western Montana). I think the appropriate conclusion is that, if your survival depends on = coming within 5% of optimum glide, you are in deep trouble and your = chances of survival are not good no matter how much you know about the = optimum profile. If that's where you really are, the more you know, the = better your chance will be. But if you have other options, forget about = optimum glide, get thee to the best one and good luck! As someone has recently observed, the Lancair dead stick grand champion = of all time is Don Goetz. Don did my first flight and, before doing so, = he made it absolutely clear that, in the event of a problem, he had no = interest in what happened to the airplane. Given his record, it is hard = to imagine anyone better qualified to play superhero with a max range = glide so it is interesting that he professed no interest in doing so.