meaning: "in point of time" ?

[JAFI]

I believe it was a Midwest crew. From what I remember they lost an engine and were slightly closer to an airport they didn't serve - so they instead chose to go an airport they did serve thinking that it was more "suitable". The distance difference between the two aiports was really irrelevant because they had enough altitude where they had to circle to descend to either one. The FAA went after them and - if I remember right - I think they were able to get a short suspension on the CA's license. The fed's case all hinged on fact that the crew didn't choose the closest suitable airport.

Were you there in the court to hear this or is this something you heard from some one's brother's barber's cousin next door neighbors girl friend? You may be correct but let's be sure it's acurate before posting "what you heard".
============
In short you must convince the Admin. Law Judge that you landed at the nearest suitable airport in point of time. The whole point is to get the aircraft safely on the ground as quickly as possible. The concern is that the "other" engine can quit and you will not be able to "make" it to the maintenance base or any where other than down.

This must be a safety decision, not a convience decision. If you can satisfy both, all well and good as long as safety is the PRIMARY reason. Again, to the satisification of the Judge....

JAFI

 

[Sam Snead]

Were you there in the court to hear this or is this something you heard from some one's brother's barber's cousin next door neighbors girl friend? You may be correct but let's be sure it's acurate before posting "what you heard".
============

YOU were not there EITHER!

Dude! I believe that most of the pilots on this forum have good intentions, and the use of hearsay is just fine. Pro pilots usually have excellent memories anyway.

I think you should back off, and realize that we are here to DISCUSS things. Plus, there were only 2 or 3 pilots in the airplane, and at the most, a dozen or two at a hearing.

Where does that leave the rest of the tens of thousands us?

JAFI, if you want rote accuracy, look somewhere else. I'm asking for tolerance on this forum.

 

[Spooky 1]

I believe it was a Midwest crew. From what I remember they lost an engine and were slightly closer to an airport they didn't serve - so they instead chose to go an airport they did serve thinking that it was more "suitable". The distance difference between the two aiports was really irrelevant because they had enough altitude where they had to circle to descend to either one. The FAA went after them and - if I remember right - I think they were able to get a short suspension on the CA's license. The fed's case all hinged on fact that the crew didn't choose the closest suitable airport.[/QUOTE

I'll try to find it but I think their was a water shed decision regarding a Merlin or Metro down in the Denver area a few years ago. It went before the NTSB/DOT/FAA and the pilots action were deemed wrong when he passed over a couple of suitable aiports while proceeding to his destination. I actually think I saw refernce to it here on this board, so it must be true!

 

[avbug]

Dude! I believe that most of the pilots on this forum have good intentions, and the use of hearsay is just fine.

No, it isn't. Particularly in a discussion of law and regulation. Speculation and guesswork is juvinile and unprofessional.

Pro pilots usually have excellent memories anyway.

Then why do we use checklists?

 

[JAFI]

Sam, I’m not sure where to start here. I thought I was discussing "things" when I asked a question "were you there or is this something that you heard?" and I made a suggestion that "we make sure something is accurate before posting it". I could change the words "posting it" to "betting your life on it" or "going to court with that".

If you wish to accept "hearsay" to base your decisions, I can only say good luck with that.

I have some land to sell that is "Not" a toxic waste dump. Will you believe what you hear, or would you like to check the land out before you give me the cash?

---- "Where does that leave the rest of the tens of thousands us? ---

Hopefully looking for accurate information to base your life and liberty on.

I'm not sure what "Rote Accuracy" is, but I try to be as accurate as I can to pass on correct information and not hearsay, innuendo, or rumor.

I'm at a loss on how to continue any more of a response.

edit ---
As I re-read the post I commented on, he did say "As I remember" so it was wrong of me to jump as I did. I apologize. Sometimes I read too quickly. One of my many faults.


JAFI

 

[A Squared]

Actually, both the cases mentioned are real. Not all the details mentioned here are exactly accurate, but the general principle is correct. If you have a problem, land at the nearest place consistent with safety. By consistent with safety, the FAA means "you probably won't crash the airplane" not "the closest one would work, but I think this one a little farther away would be better"

#1) a guy performs a precautionary shutdown in a metro over Laramie WY, continues on to Denver Stapleton. Gets judgment against him, escapes penalty only because of ASRS report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3628.PDF

#2) IT was indeed an Air Midwest crew, Kansas City MO to Boston. Had a little binding in the ailerons which broke free and was later determined to be a little ice from the landing gear. They diverted to Milwaukee, which is a Mx base. FAA's position was that instead of going to Milwaukee (which was slightly further than continuing to Boston, they should have landed at the nearest suitable airport.

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/5149.PDF

Here's another, where the pilot touched down momentarily with the gear up at Noorvik AK (small gravel runway, no rescue services, no medical services) then returned to Kotzebue (Fire and rescue, large paved runway) FAA tried to violate him for not landing at Noorvik, NTSB ALJ disagreed with FAA, FAA appealed to the full board of the NTSB. Thankfully, the FAA lost on appeal

http://www.ntsb.gov/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4329.PDF

Lesson: If you land anywhere other than the nearest airport with a long enough runway, the FAA will second guess your decision and try to violate you for it, even when, as in the third case, the pilot's reasoning is rock solid.

It should be noted that none of these decisions shed any direct light on "in point of time" or 121.565

 

[59PA]

In the case of an inflight shutdown, not an emergency, if the aircraft exceeds max landing weight, with no dump capability, would an overweight landing be required to satisfy nearest suitable, in point of time?

 

[m4j2t]

thanks alot for the court transripts EXACTLY what I was looking for!

good question about the fuel

 

[avbug]

In the case of an inflight shutdown, not an emergency, if the aircraft exceeds max landing weight, with no dump capability, would an overweight landing be required to satisfy nearest suitable, in point of time?

No, and I think that's the point. However, there may be some question as to weather the aircraft can proceed to a destination based on the need to burn fuel, or the need to proceed to a nearby airport and orbit to burn fuel, as did the recent publicized Jet Blue landing at LAX.

 

[r1830]

Whoops, mispost sorry.