X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:09:08 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-956905@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <sportform@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7f)
  with ESMTP id 956771 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:21:28 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.36; envelope-from=sportform@cox.net
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (really [70.187.129.106]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP
          id <20060128011932.ZRZO20875.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@[10.0.1.2]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:19:32 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
In-Reply-To: <list-955509@logan.com>
References: <list-955509@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8--957233307
X-Original-Message-Id: <d9cf490d20d61f856087ae57d414bbbf@cox.net>
From: Barry Hancock <sportform@cox.net>
Subject: Runway checks, passes, flybys
X-Original-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:20:40 -0800
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623)


--Apple-Mail-8--957233307
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

> Just where in the FAR/AIM is the "Overhead approach" defined? And 
> where and
> in what civil rating is it taught? I know it did not appear in the PTS 
> for
> the private rating in 2000.

The Overhead is not in any civilian ratings...but is recognized by 
every controller I've ever requested it from in the entire country.  It 
may not be "standard" but it is a recognized maneuver.

To insinuate that the overhead is somehow unsafe is unfair.  It can be 
implemented in an unsafe manner at an uncontrolled airport...but that's 
an oxymoron in and of itself.  I would argue that a "standard" pattern 
(i.e. the way that most civilians are taught and fly it....waaay to 
wide and waaay to big) is unsafe in the respect that it does not allow 
them to reach the runway in the event of a power loss....

I sure like the idea that if I'm on a mile initial that the engine can 
quit at any point thereafter and I'll have the ability to put it down 
on the tarmac....

I'm not trying to instigate debate...just pointing out that to 
characterize the "overhead" as somehow unrecognized, unsafe, or 
reckless is not between the foul poles....

Barry (this poor horse isn't even good for glue anymore) Hancock



--Apple-Mail-8--957233307
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>Just where in the
FAR/AIM is the "Overhead approach" defined? And where and </smaller></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>in what civil rating is it
taught? I know it did not appear in the PTS for </smaller></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>the private rating in 2000.

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt>

The Overhead is not in any civilian ratings...but is recognized by
every controller I've ever requested it from in the entire country. 
It may not be "standard" but it is a recognized maneuver.


To insinuate that the overhead is somehow unsafe is unfair.  It can be
implemented in an unsafe manner at an uncontrolled airport...but
that's an oxymoron in and of itself.  I would argue that a "standard"
pattern (i.e. the way that most civilians are taught and fly
it....waaay to wide and waaay to big) is unsafe in the respect that it
does not allow them to reach the runway in the event of a power
loss....


I sure like the idea that if I'm on a mile initial that the engine can
quit at any point thereafter and I'll have the ability to put it down
on the tarmac....


I'm not trying to instigate debate...just pointing out that to
characterize the "overhead" as somehow unrecognized, unsafe, or
reckless is not between the foul poles....


Barry (this poor horse isn't even good for glue anymore) Hancock




--Apple-Mail-8--957233307--