Davin News Server

On 2025-08-13 17:24, AlleyCat wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:40:56 -0700,  Alan says...
> 
>>> This ain't no "Hunt for Red October"!
>> 
>> Straw man.
> 
> [sniff]
> 
> Whah whah whah!
> 
> 100 mile range.
> 
> Not cool to lose battery power in a VTOL, which can't glide.

It can glide.

The reason it can go as fast as it does is that it has wings that let it
transition from vertical flight to horizontal wing-borne flight.

> 
> LOL
> 
> 100 mile RANGE and that's it.
> 
> 50 miles there... 50 miles back.
> 
> MAYBE 75 if the FAA lets them.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> I'm actually amending my trip numbers.
> 
> LESS than a 100 miles.
> 
> That's a very important question that gets to the heart of aviation
> safety regulations. The short answer is no, the FAA would not simply
> hold them to a 100-mile trip. THE ACTUAL OPERATIONAL RANGE FOR EACH
> FLIGHT WOULD BE MUCH SHORTER, because the FAA has strict rules for
> flight planning that prioritize safety above all else.
> 
> The FAA's regulations are designed to ensure that an aircraft has
> enough energy (fuel or battery power) not just for a planned trip,
> but also for contingencies. This is a crucial distinction.
> 
> Here is a breakdown of how the FAA would regulate a flight based on
> your example, likely under FAR Part 135, which governs on- demand
> air taxis and other commercial charter operations.
> 
> The FAA's Three-Part Flight Plan
> 
> For any commercial flight, a pilot or company must ensure the
> aircraft has enough energy for these three requirements:
> 
> Fuel/Power to Destination: The aircraft must have enough energy to
> fly from the departure point to the destination.
> 
> Fuel/Power to an Alternate: The aircraft must then have enough to
> fly from the destination to a pre-selected alternate airport. This
> is required in case of unexpected weather changes, an airport
> closure, or any other issue preventing a safe landing at the primary
> destination.
> 
> The Reserve: On top of the first two requirements, the aircraft must
> have a specific reserve of power for an additional amount of time.
> For Part 135 operations, this is typically 30 to 45 minutes of
> flight time, depending on whether the flight is conducted under
> Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).
> 
> Applying Your Example
> 
> In your scenario, the company's stated "100-mile range with a 50-
> mile reserve" is a total capacity, not an operational limit. THE FAA
> WOULD VIEW THAT 50-MILE RESERVE NOT AS A MARKETING CLAIM, BUT AS A
> CRITICAL SAFETY BUFFER.
> 
> For a trip to be approved, the flight plan would look something like
> this:
> 
> Operational Trip = (Trip to Destination) + (Trip to Alternate) +
> (Reserve)
> 
> Let's say the company wants to fly a 75-mile trip. If the closest
> alternate airport is 10 miles away, the flight would require at 
> least:
> 
> 75 miles (to destination)
> 
> + 10 miles (to alternate)
> 
> + ~25 miles (for the 30-minute reserve, assuming an average speed of
> 50 mph)
> 
> = 110 miles of total required range
> 
> As you can see, even a 75-mile trip would exceed the 100-mile
> portion of the capacity, eating into the reserve. A 100-MILE TRIP 
> WOULD BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THESE REGULATIONS, as there would
> be no energy left for an alternate airport or the required reserve.
 > > This regulatory framework is designed to prevent pilots from running
> out of energy in an emergency, ensuring that every flight has a
> significant safety margin built in.
Except the regulatory framework is based on the notion that the aircraft 
must land on a RUNWAY.

You think that there can't be different rules for an aircraft that in an 
emergency can land in any open space big enough for it?

:-)