All Activity

If that is the case it shows what a joke the legal system has become. Sorry they made a huge claim, somehow got the FAA to sign off on their BS, now it turns out their BS is BS and they just get to take their toys and go home without making right? If I was on that jury I wouldn’t be voting that way. Think in 2025 folks are getting sick of corp/gov scams, people don’t think nullification be like it be, but it do

A while ago, there was a thread that mentioned GAMI's design of this clamp being in process of approval. https://mooneyspace.com/topic/47643-bravo-aog-need-the-dreaded-v-band-clamp/page/3/ The design looked much more robust that what we are currently using. Notwithstanding my dislike to their marketing practices related to G100UL fuel, I hope that that can get the clamp design approved. Of course, we have no idea what would such clamp go for from GAMI. Maybe there are other producers of parts who would want to take a crack at redesiging it. Producing aviation parts is definitely not a cheap endeavor.

Was the "leak" from the crankshaft/prop flange area or from one of the prop blade to hub seals? In hot weather one "might" see small specks of oil from a blade/seal interface - not really a problem The aft spinner bulkhead can only be removed with the prop off. One could always just get a dynamic prop balance done to avoid removing the prop IF the leak is NOT between the crankshaft/prop flange or the crankcase seal.

That's why I'd use the commercially available automotive part as a 'base part' to upscreen and prove it is equal or better than the aviation part; so, way less than $1700. Yes, the DER would be one plan at a time...and, his cost might ruin the financial break-even. Again, my response is how I would proceed to investigate an alternative. Might not workout...but I'd try it before bending over and just accepting $1700 for a 50 buck part!

Avidyne does the same.

Do you have any idea how strong the centrifugal force is at 2700 RPM on that broken corner? Once it lets go the added diameter to the spinner now is a weight throwing the balance out on the entire assembly Can you spell VIBRATION ? To be honest I wouldn't pass it on a 100 hr inspection Get a new spinner and use plastic or fiber or nylon washers under the screw heads That is probably why it cracked in the first place Welding won't work (at least I've never seen on welded that worked) Its probably made from 2024 O condition aluminum and can't be welded. Learned that 50 years ago on Navajo spinners We couldn't keep them from cracking until we used plastic washers.

Yes, that will work great. For potty break, I would choose a bit less agressive approach to avoid passenger discomfort (my wife does not enjoy steep spiral maneuver) - throttle back to about 18in MAP, pop brakes and point the nose down in the direction of the airport, descend at about 1,500 fpm or so, on the ground in about 10-15 min.

But the OPP will be way more than $1700 You need a DER to sign off o it. AND- Remember NO OPP can market the part to others It takes a DER for each owner Now you might find a DER that will "re-engineer" each subsequent clamp for follow on owners at a reduced rate per.

What is your rationale for this? I had mine checked at annual in 2018, having been done during overhaul by the previous owner around 2003-04. It was still under 0.01 ops. Haven't checked it since.

Throttle back, 45° bank, maintain cruise speed, you will fall out of the sky under control. It's one of my practiced emergency descent. Can't say how fast we came down, my IVSI was pegged.

Jose Monroy spoke rather fondly of his piss hose that poured out a venturi underneath the fuselage all over the underside of the plane.

Thankfully, I haven't faced this issue....yet. After reading the problems with Skybolt, my normally CB self wonders just how much of a price premium I would pay for Camlocs? Sounds like it might just be worth it!

Yes, as a practical reality, there is not much to be done with getting vendors to cease greedy monopolistic pricing. What would I do if I was unfortunate enough to need these V-band clamps? I.e., how would I 'fight back?' I'd look at OPP...I would investigate my suspicion that the turbochargers on our aircraft are NOT any special design but, rather, an automotive design 'converted' to aviation via a different part number! As such, I'd then determine the appropriate high-quality riveted automotive clamp. Then find a willing DER to come up with a QA/testing protocol to 'test' the automotive part against the materials/properties of the old aviation clamp. Finally, apply the OPP protocol using that 'testing' methodology to legally approve the use of the part on my aircraft. The question is where each individual's 'pricing pain point' is located before going to that much trouble. It appears that many here are 'happy' to pay the current $1700 price...but everyone is going to cry 'uncle' at some point. Again, just my guess, but if the OPP method proves viable, and others 'go to that trouble' we will magically see the price of these clamps plummet to a fair price.

(on my former J) I also thought nothing of my vibration levels, but was convinced by my A&P to let him do it. Sure enough, it was a seat of the pants measurable difference, for all of my typical operating speeds. I do not think that balancing for 2500 rpm means that 2600 and 2400 rpm will be rough as a trade off. I do not think I have heard anyone complain that balancing did not make an improvment.

When I did my brake calipers the first time the 5606 FLUID HAD CHANGED TO JELLY under the brake puck!

I hate to bring this up...but any chance the old material contains asbestos? If so, I'd be very careful, and wear a VERY good respirator, when removing it.

While ago I had tough time crossfill flight plan between two navigators (2×G430 in Cirrus), it turns out that Garmin prevents this when the two of them are running on two different cycles. This is not an issue of "expired database", however, it shows the kind of problems one gets when there are two set of avionics that have two databases that are out of sync...

Yes, do it. I just had mine done last Friday. I usually do it every 3 years or 500 hours whichever occurs first. I was talking with the shop about changes that require re-balance and changing cylinders is one of them.

Any opinions on rebalancing after changing cylinders? (3 since balancing after prop overhaul)

For flying with expired database, in Europe, we are allowed as long as it's only one AIRAC cycle (28days) and you can cross-check, however, my understanding examiners will fail the test if the database is expired. I was curious if FAA has any rule or guidance on this for P91 ops, however, it seems Garmin limitation sits above AIM guidance ! I am bit mixing EASA vs FAA (sorry for that) but I am very curious on any discrepancies, I always get questions here and there, especially for GPS operation or substitution, it's far from being trivial and it's hard to follow, it changes quicker than software versions...

You are right, VFR should not trigger PBN clauses... I am not sure about P91 rules but for NCO rules in EASA or ICAO Ops, if the weather is good for VFR or IFR in VMC nothing prevents you from planning visual, contact and circling approche and executing whatever you like: for approch procedures in VMC, you are not even required to carry an equipment and you can ask for LPV and navigate it visually while ensuring visual separation on approch and runway. Only landings in IMC require equipments to be carried. https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/965-2012/Content/Document Structure/07 NCO/2 Regs/20530_NCOIDEA195_Navigation_equipment.htm Aeroplanes operated on flights in which it is intended to land in IMC shall be equipped with suitable equipment capable.... For departure, arrival and en-route you are required to comply with PBN or RNAV specs and limitations for airspace when route separation is mandated (these applies to VFR or IFR in VMC). One easy way to think about it is that the approche procedure is not part of the ATC flight plan (or ICAO format), no one files ILS25 or LPV25 in their flight plans, they just file some navigation fix or airport. However, STAR+IAF, AWY, SID are part of flight plan and require equipment carriage. In US, things could be different as visual separation and visual navigation in PBN airspace is allowed, even in Bravo, and vectoring is pretty much available everywhere, including VFR, so I would have expected VFR not having to comply with PBN specs. However, FAA still mandate VFR to comply with PBN as if it's an "IFR flight", however, this constraints is likely moot if VFR never file a flight plan or if VFR can claim they can navigate visually. The other thing is that even VFR have certified GPS equipment for ADSB which allow them to navigate even in Charlie or Bravo, it does not comply with PBN specs or limitations but it is still display TSO'ed GPS position on iPad even if aircraft is not equipped with transponder or outside radar coverage, you can call this sort of "mini-RNAV" for VFR We have a group of pilots who spent some time pushing back against ICAO PBN, asking VFR to comply with PBN in controlled airspace or routes will kill lot of freedom with no safety benefits. This topic becomes even more interesting when talking about flying IFR procedure in EXP or LSA, I think there is not much to discuss on PBN (RNP or RNAV) when you have GTN installed but no AFMS paperwork As far I can see for FAA guidance, if a VFR can navigate visually, it's all good.

I agree with you. The debate occurs because the AIM provided guidance is the same as what Garmin provides for enroute. But since the AFMS always trumps the AIM the AFMS is the controlling guidance. So it would be a big mistake to show up for Instrument Practical exam with an expired database knowing you’ll be expected to fly an RNAV approach. But in more practical terms if an approach plate has not been updated after the database expired it’s going to be fine even though not legal - unless it’s been retired in which case ATC won’t clear it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t think anyone here is saying suck it up like money doesn’t matter. but there aren’t any legal options. how exactly would you fight back?

Yes, I do dynamic balancing (as an a&p) and every single one of my customers said they could feel the difference.

Except for a few authors, I have not be impressed by the quality of the writing and often questioned the journalistic integrity. I didn't see anything negative about Van's Aircraft... I can't help but think that it has to do with the advertising.