NJA Capt said:
Well.......I think that pretty much makes my case. Thanks.
Come on dude, don't snip up the quote to make it say what you want. You left out the part that says:
but, all else being equal, if I have a tie at the airport, or an arrival fix or whatever, and there are no other factors involved,
Big difference! If you are ahead by a couple of miles, if you're going to take less time going straight in than the air carrier that has to do downwind-base-final, you're number one. If it's a toss up,
all else being equal, sorry, Charlie, report the 757 in sight.
Now, let's address the blow-by issue. There you are in your GV, cruising along at .84. Here comes the 757, at .80. He's grounding at 440, you're grounding at 480.
Let's say I have a sector that's 140 miles long. The two of you are pacing along at 7-8 miles per minute, which means I have you for about 18 minutes. You come over 12 miles behind the 757, and I need to put you out the other side over an arrival fix at the same altitude, therefore I need 6-7 miles separation (5 miles is minimum in enroute). So, you need to make up the 12 miles you are behind, and the additional 6+ in need in front, for a total of 18 miles. The problem is, back in the first sentence, the overtake is 40 knots, or 2/3 of a mile per minute, and in the 18 minutes I have available, you will only make up 12 miles of the difference... or, end up right side-by-side of the 757. I can't have that.
The point is that blow-bys CAN work, but they take a lot of time and airspace. Throw some other things into the scenario, like making it an enroute sector, with a 10 or 15 mile-in-trail restriction, and it's even worse.
Then too, put two or three airplanes ahead of the 757 in my example, and there's no where to go even if I thought the blow-by would work.
I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying that it's a more difficult situation that it appears to be at face value.
Gotta go plug in and talk to some of you guys now, next break I'll share my favorite attempted blow-by story.