Pt. 91 Climb gradient

[Singlecoil]

"Sir, I don't think we should go today because if we lose an engine, we may not be able to clear the terrain in our jet."
"Hmmm. Well then, go hop in that PC-12 and launch in that then. Does that make you feel safer? They're both legal under the regs."

 

[h25b]

"Sir, I don't think we should go today because if we lose an engine, we may not be able to clear the terrain in our jet."
"Hmmm. Well then, go hop in that PC-12 and launch in that then. Does that make you feel safer? They're both legal under the regs."

You and I have debated this before, I think... The above is spoken like a true goon with no true understanding of how things should operate at any reputable operator, large or small... I've been around long enough to know that there's not many high level Fortune 500 execs. that would set foot on or even suggest the PC-12.

 

[LJ45]

other dangers

Just to add to the debate what about the extra take off and landing if a fuel stop is needed. Lots of danger and exposure for more problems in doing an extra take off and landing!

Something to think about in the big picture... and no way am I advocating some type of unsafe operation.


Just thinking about that fuel stop that CE-560 was making for fuel in Pueblo. Of courses, in hind site they should have stopped someplace with better weather.

 

[fokkerjet]

Just to add to the debate what about the extra take off and landing if a fuel stop is needed. Lots of danger and exposure for more problems in doing an extra take off and landing!

Would it not be safer to just leave the airplane in the hangar? Flying is a "dangerous" profession and that's why we get paid the big bucks .

Take this a step farther; When I fly the simulator on windshear day, I almost always fly through it. Does that mean that when a windshear is reported by tower that I just land, ignoring the warnings, because that's what the boss would expect me to do and since my airplane is equipped with all this gee wiz equipment? On take off, what are the odds that I will experience an engine failure? Pretty low, so lets load the airplane up and depart because the odds are we will make it. De-ice the airplane; well I "know" we don't need de-icing so lets save some money and go before it starts snowing harder.

Personally I want as much on my side as possible, and if a fuel stop is the lesser of two evils, a fuel stop it is.

 

[G100driver]

"Sir, I don't think we should go today because if we lose an engine, we may not be able to clear the terrain in our jet."
"Hmmm. Well then, go hop in that PC-12 and launch in that then. Does that make you feel safer? They're both legal under the regs."

Response: "illegal operation is still illegal operation, Sir. Sir, you should ask yourself this, how does it sound at the hearing when we survived and we killed the bosses children. Sir, do you want to be held personally liable for operating an unsafe airplane? I do not. I still need to put my children through college, Sir.":uzi:

 

[Lead Sled]

Everyone seems to be falling back to the position that you have to be able to fly the Lindz4 on a single engine. The "professional" position would be to spend less than $100 and get Jeppesen OpData to develop an alternate departure for your aircraft. It's amazing how hard people try and make everything. Just an observation.

'Sled

 

[some_dude]

Response: "illegal operation is still illegal operation, Sir. Sir, you should ask yourself this, how does it sound at the hearing when we survived and we killed the bosses children. Sir, do you want to be held personally liable for operating an unsafe airplane? I do not. I still need to put my children through college, Sir.":uzi:

I think Singlecoil's point was that under 91 (which is what we are talking about), it IS perfectly legal to depart without being able to meet the terrain clearance requirements in a jet.

And in any multiengine jet you are far less exposed than in most turboprops, or turboprop singles (duh). Your point about how it sounds at the hearing is completely valid, though.

You and I have debated this before, I think... The above is spoken like a true goon with no true understanding of how things should operate at any reputable operator, large or small... I've been around long enough to know that there's not many high level Fortune 500 execs. that would set foot on or even suggest the PC-12.

Umm, who do you think buys PC-12s and TBM-700s, then?

 

[Spooky 1]

Clueless

Big Picture, you should have looked around here before posting that. I don't know who you work for, but "Spooky Ones" tend to lurk about. Hmmmmmm

Hmmmmmm

I certainly do not know this fellow and I am clueless as to why you would think otherwise. Not aware of any climb gradient issues on my particular aircraft although I think the GEX may have some.

Spooky 1

 

[some_dude]

I agree 100%!

Is there a website link where you can order that?

Everyone seems to be falling back to the position that you have to be able to fly the Lindz4 on a single engine. The "professional" position would be to spend less than $100 and get Jeppesen OpData to develop an alternate departure for your aircraft. It's amazing how hard people try and make everything. Just an observation.

'Sled

 

[h25b]

Umm, who do you think buys PC-12s and TBM-700s, then?

For the asking price of a new PC-12 you can get a lot of airplane with two engines.. Not many large corporate flight departments. That's my point... They have sold well and I see a lot of them on the ramps but you don't see many large flight departments operating them either do you ???

The response I get a lot is, "it's nice, but only has one motor and for that money I'd rather go get a King Air..."

 

[sleepy]

Hummmm............. Even if you are Part 91, you really should not accept the SID if it is IFR and you do not meet the climb requirements. I guess if it is VFR and you don't meet the climb requirements, you could see and avoid the terrain visually if needed. Of course if you lose an engine the whole climb gradient and SID are out the window anyway. If you stay on the SID you are unlikely to be able to meet the climb gradient necessary to avoid the terrain. If it is critical to avoid terrain, then why not spend a little money and buy an alternate procedure for the departure that allows you to lose an engine at V1 and continue the departure while avoiding terrain. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Lead Sled]

I agree 100%!

Is there a website link where you can order that?

Just call Jeppesen and ask for Ops Data. There is a short questionair to fill out and a few days later you get your alternate procedure.

'Sled

 

[Ty Webb]

If they don't comply with the required climb gradients, then get the heck out of there.

That's not a corporate flight department, that's a shelter for battered pilots.




.

 

[G100driver]

I think Singlecoil's point was that under 91 (which is what we are talking about), it IS perfectly legal to depart without being able to meet the terrain clearance requirements in a jet.

OK I have a flak jacket on now. If the WX is IFR then you must be able to comply with the gradient of the SID 91 or 135. Correct? Please correct me if I am wrong. If I am wrong so be it, I aint a changing!

 

[Meathead]

Odd as it seems, Part 91 there is no specific reg to prevent you from launching IFR when you can't make the gradient single engine. That being said, I know of a Challenger crew that got clobbered after flying to the east coast from a certain airport in CO. When they landed, a fed met them and asked 'what did you weigh at takeoff'? Both crew got popped with 91.13 (the careless and reckless thing). How's that for an uplifting story?