Cyril Gibb

O.K. David, now I understand. I thought you meant a much much much greater speed reduction than 20kts to the threshold.

Agreed, as I mentioned in my previous append, changing headwind component may require minor power changes to maintain speed or glideslope. As indicated in this: https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/SE_Topic_16-11.pdf But nowhere have I seen a definition of stabilised including "continuous slowing from FAF to touchdown". That was the point. Also agree with the "keep the speed up" exception if and only if there is a comfortable ceiling. If I'm coming in expecting a 200 foot ceiling and a half mile, I will say "unable" and focus on my own approach.

David, I didn't want to start a fight. I just wanted to say that each of us chooses how we fly an approach. I will point out, however, that the FAA, Transport Canada, IATA, IFAPA, ICAO, Airbus and many many more organisations include a constant airspeed and throttle setting as part of the definition of a stabilised approach. That's good enough for me. Do what you wish, but note that I do what I do because I consider it to be safe, not because of inadequate training, piloting skill or lack of awareness of alternative technique. P.S. If you perform an approach your way during a checkride in Canada, you fail.

Chacun a son gout (Each to his own...). Everyone should adopt whatever technique works for them. I was taught that a stabilised approach, once I intercept the glideslope, was one with ZERO changes in configuration, speed, trim or (mostly) power. If I do it correctly, I do nothing other than monitor with my scan and keep the needles centered until I break out or go missed. The one rare exception is power during approaches with significant changing headwind components. I don't have (or want) autotrim and don't see the need to trim on an approach. If the autopilot is engaged I use power to keep my speed nailed. If I'm hand flying, I use power to maintain glideslope. Hopefully this doesn't begin yet another pitch vs power discussion. Edit after reading and agreeing with Bartmans append below.... my comments were based on flying an approach close to minimums. If I'm expecting to break out early, I'm not as worried about configuration other than trying to be consistent for the times I need to be.

Thanks Dan! Got mine today....

I find that rudder/aileron authority varies according to airspeed. If I do an aggressive slip to lose airspeed or altitude quickly (no speed brakes) at higher speeds, my ailerons have more authority than my rudder. When I have to do a one wheel takeoff or landing in a stiff crosswind, I run out of aileron before rudder at that lower airspeed. The limit for me to stay centered and straight is about 20kts crosswind component. The wildest I've done was a 30G40 90 degree crosswind. It wasn't pretty. I've found that a high wing is easier for me in a crosswind. The ground effect in a low wing gives more opportunity to float in the last few seconds before touching down. Those last few seconds are where I can run out of aileron in the Mooney trying to hold the downwind wheel off. I find that flaps help aileron authority and use them always.

In Toronto, within 5 minutes of parking that thing, some SUV park-by-ear moron would cause 100AMU in damage.

In reading between the lines of various methods for fuel injected engines in both this thread and the cold start thread, I think I'm hearing differences in the status of the fuel system when a start is attempted. My electric pump was taking 10-12 seconds with ICO to get to the green. There also was a slight seepage so off to the rebuilder it went. The temporary spare took about 5 seconds or so and now the newly rebuilt one also about 5 seconds to green. I thought that was normal, but I'm hearing that some of you can get fuel pressure into the green after just a second of boost. What should it be? Have all my pumps been flawed, or are some pumps producing excess pressure/volume? Next observation. When I shut down with ICO, my fuel pressure stays up for at least several hours. Again, it sounds like some use boost before starting to get the gauge into the green. How long should the fuel pressure be maintained at ICO? Where does the pressurized fuel go? Back through the pumps? What is "normal"?

I've always thought that the flow divider (spider) diaphram was calibrated to evenly divide fuel to each cylinder only when the fuel pressure was within a normal range. I keep my mixture at ico until the pressure with the electric boost pump is in the green before opening the mixture to prime. I was concerned that at fuel low pressures, the fuel distribution would be uneven so the chances of the "correct" air/fuel mixture at all cylinders would be reduced. Works for me.... every time when cold....

Last time I put on an immersion suit, it took me 10 minutes or so to struggle into it and another to extract myself. I'd take the chicken way across near dover. Wouldn't it just take 1/2 hour longer to slide down the coast a bit? Maybe I'm just thinking about the frozen (or almost) lakes around here. I think the channel is mid 40's. Seems almost balmy in comparison.

Can anyone point me to setting up a poll instructions?

The controller gave a conditional turn request initially and then subsequently gave an "immediate" turn instruction. The pilot used the heading bug to initiate a standard rate turn. Paragraph 2-1-5, "Expeditious Compliance," states, in part, that controllers should "use the word 'immediately' only when expeditious compliance is required to avoid an imminent situation." If I'm in IMC, VMC, on an approach or in cruise, if a controller gave me a conditional turn for conflicting traffic followed shortly by an "immediate" turn, I'd be in that turn so damn fast that even 201er would be impressed.

in the case of a dead mag, I would pull the mixture to ICO to prevent a backfire and also pull the throttle back to prevent a prop overspeed.

The NTSB is obviously bending over backward to try and exonerate the military pilot by throwing the controller under the bus. Interesting that the NTSB in their report quote the AIM on what an "immediate" instruction means, and then ignore what they just said and then invent a new term retroactively (expedite). The NTSB has dropped a few rungs in credibilty in my eyes. Also, they find fault with the guy that got t-boned by saying he should have been able see and avoid a collision with an F16 approaching at high speed from the 9 o'clock position coming out of the sun. Bizarre.

19 NM is 9.5NM to either shore from the middle. My glide is >2NM / 1000 FT, so 5,000 would get me to shore one way or the other. Now mind you, based on the many channel crossings I've done on the surface, if you can ditch in one piece with those winter seas you're one lucky guy.

Is that a serious comment or just a joke? Popping over from Dover to Calais is only 19NM, well within gliding distance if you're above 5000 or so. The narrowest crossing of Lake Michigan is 42NM. We climb to 11k-12k and hope for the best in the middle 10 minutes or so. Amazing how the engine sounds rough over water..... P.S. Looks wonderful !

A question related to the very lucky outcome of the CO poisoning event we heard about. If CO is the result of incomplete combustion due to lack of oxygen in a rich fuel mixture, does that mean that CO production at LOP is minimal? Do the advancedpilot guys have CO results for LOP/ROP?. I'm a LOPer, and this may add an additional data point to my preference.

This is an amazing story I'm going to aircraft spruce next time I'm flying to get a CO detector. I'm getting one that doesn't turn off during a flight. I'd be nervous about the effects of CO not being able to remember to check periodically.

If I'm just toodling around, I agree. But I'm a chicken at heart. If I'm traveling reasonable distances in IMC I want to be able to go missed at my destination and then have 2 hours in the tank at my alternate. Carrying an extra hundred pounds of fuel while I'm in cloud is worth it for the peace of mind. YMMV

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SSP-112-2 Index of SB, SI, and SL.pdf shows the prop strike inspection was superseded with SB533 https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SB533C Recommended Action for sudden Engine Stoppage, Propeller_Rotor Strike or Loss of Propeller_Rotor Blade or Ti (1).pdf I'd be extremely happy with 1100lbs also.

716 lbs available with full fuel? That certainly blows my M20F capability. L163C is a sudden stoppage inspection. Any evidence of a gear up?

This corrosion under the tank sealant is very disturbing. I sincerely hope this can be resolved without a wing replacement. If we use a creeping anticorrosion treatment, would that migrate through the non-tank side of the spar to prevent corrosion under the sealant? I am planning to get a CorrosionX/ACF-50 treatment once the warm weather arrives and had hoped my worries were over... maybe not so.

I'm not sure if I understand the terminology correctly. If we're talking about corrosion, I thought that all forms of corrosion, including intergranular, required an electrolyte to begin. For us, that would primarily be water. If we keep water away through either a perfect coating (unlikely) or a water displacement treatment (CorrosionX or equivalent), wouldn't that eliminate the potential for corrosion?

Nobody "needs" to turn steep down low, unless you're vying for a Darwin award.

I thought that with your occupation, you'd be more detail oriented. Bonal didn't say it. It was quoted from a previous post. And it wasn't Clarence, it was me. And re: American document. Clarence is Canadian of Dutch origin and I'm a Scot living in Canada. Neither of us have access to US documents or the secret handshake.