cnoe

LOTS of close airports here, some towered, some uncontrolled; 25 within the mode C veil. No need to land at Hobby unless you're getting worked on there. This is a primary airport for SWA that includes international operations. Really sad and hits home 'cause I fly that route frequently (Houston/ OKC) and live under the KHOU 04 ILS. While typing this I've heard several 737s pass overhead. Just too congested for an inexperienced/unconfident new pilot to take on. I still want to know who popped the chute, her or emergency crews? In all pics (news and personal shots) the hatch is blown, the harness is deployed with the rocket motor clearly visible, but no chute open. NTSB should provide those details sometime. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm no expert in these matters but I live 1.5 nm outside the FAF for Rwy 04 and at times the SWA 737s are stacked up in a line on arrivals. It's also one of the two longest runways. I imagine sticking a GA plane in there is tough for controllers (and pilots). 12L is a GA friendly runway but is parallel to 12R which is also high volume. I've landed there only twice and keeping up one's speed is important. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here's the audio. Pilot struggles with basic airmanship. RIP. KHOU-Jun-09-2016-1800Z.mp3

http://www.khou.com/news/local/3-killed-in-small-plane-crash-near-hobby-airport/238125980 This is a weird one. Class Bravo. Good weather. On 3rd VFR approach (1st two instructed to go around by ATC due to high approach) the plane apparently stalled and crashed in Ace Hardware parking lot. Chute appeared to be deployed (hatch popped and harness out) at crash site in photos but was likely too low to open. I imagine the whole thing is on liveatc.net but I haven't heard anything but a small clip just yet.

Thank you George for responding to this thread. It does mean something to me that you have the cajones to come on this forum and address the angry mob. With that being said, I read the AOPA article/annual report last night in my AOPA Pilot magazine and have to say that a certain amount of it sounded like lip service. While I appreciate the desire to stay "positive" I'd hardly agree that "the future of GA again looks bright" as stated in the article. Most of us DO support the AOPA's legislative efforts with regards to 3rd Class Medical reform, FAA reauthorization, Non-TSO and Part 23 reform, saving airports, and keeping avgas relatively affordable with the transition to unleaded fuel. These issues are important to me and are a primary reason I'm an automatically-renewing member. But I"m still concerned about what I consider to be a loss of focus by the organization. First on my list of things to drop would be the AOPA Online Flight Planner and the AOPA Go Mobile App. These resources have been in a constant state of change for as long as I can remember and I have to wonder how many people actually use them. I'd bet that the vast majority of us either use Foreflight, Wing-X Pro, Garmin Pilot, or similar to plan our flights. Next thing is the National Aviation Community Center. Why does the AOPA "host weddings, social gatherings, corporate meetings, Cub Scout camps, and paper airplane contests"? I appreciate the effort to engage youngsters with aviation but the EAA's Young Eagles program seems much more productive than any AOPA effort. And when the AOPA states that you have "a group of dedicated staff members... to solidify corporate partnerships and other relationships" it gives a lowly Mooney driver like me a cause for concern. If the "corporate partnerships" influenced Garmin to sell G3X Instrument Suites to M20 owners at Experimental prices then I might say okay, but it sure sounds a lot more like time-on-the-golf-course to me. Another cause for concern regards drones. In addition to advocacy for the "safe integration of drones" the AOPA is now "expanding on those efforts with plans to offer educational resources for drone operators under the banner of its You Can Fly initiative." I'm not sure that teaching people how to fly toy aircraft should be an AOPA mission. And if they're flying them commercially they should certainly pay for their own training. This post is getting long so I'll end by addressing the issue of salaries. I've met Mr. Baker a couple of times now and he seems like a fine man and a good advocate for aviation, but I'm not sure that a similarly good advocate couldn't be recruited from the pilot population. Perhaps someone such as a successful retiree might be interested in representing our interests for a lesser wage. If the ~$800,000 salary quoted is correct that accounts for nearly 5% of membership dues and subscriptions, and is almost 17% of AOPA's entire management and general expenses (as reported in the 2015 financial statement). Lastly, I don't begrudge corporate America from conducting their business utilizing a fleet of sophisticated and expensive corporate jets; I believe their existence is a net benefit to aviation as a whole. But I do believe that AOPA devotes a disproportionate amount of resources to keeping corporate aviation out of the public's cross-hairs. Meanwhile us little guys who simply love flying, and who pay a sizable portion of our monthly income on planes, maintenance, hangars, insurance, and avgas are left wondering why we keep getting weekly mailers from the AOPA PAC, etc. begging for more cash.

Thank you George for responding to this thread. It does mean something to me that you have the cajones to come on this forum and address the angry mob. With that being said, I read the AOPA article/annual report last night in my AOPA Pilot magazine and have to say that a certain amount of it sounded like lip service. While I appreciate the desire to stay "positive" I'd hardly agree that "the future of GA again looks bright" as stated in the article. Most of us DO support the AOPA's legislative efforts with regards to 3rd Class Medical reform, FAA reauthorization, Non-TSO and Part 23 reform, saving airports, and keeping avgas relatively affordable with the transition to unleaded fuel. These issues are important to me and are a primary reason I'm an automatically-renewing member. But I"m still concerned about what I consider to be a loss of focus by the organization. First on my list of things to drop would be the AOPA Online Flight Planner and the AOPA Go Mobile App. These resources have been in a constant state of change for as long as I can remember and I have to wonder how many people actually use them. I'd bet that the vast majority of us either use Foreflight, Wing-X Pro, Garmin Pilot, or similar to plan our flights. Next thing is the National Aviation Community Center. Why does the AOPA "host weddings, social gatherings, corporate meetings, Cub Scout camps, and paper airplane contests"? I appreciate the effort to engage youngsters with aviation but the EAA's Young Eagles program seems much more productive than any AOPA effort. And when the AOPA states that you have "a group of dedicated staff members... to solidify corporate partnerships and other relationships" it gives a lowly Mooney driver like me a cause for concern. If the "corporate partnerships" influenced Garmin to sell G3X Instrument Suites to M20 owners at Experimental prices then I might say okay, but it sure sounds a lot more like time-on-the-golf-course to me. Another cause for concern regards drones. In addition to advocacy for the "safe integration of drones" the AOPA is now "expanding on those efforts with plans to offer educational resources for drone operators under the banner of its You Can Fly initiative." I'm not sure that teaching people how to fly toy aircraft should be an AOPA mission. And if they're flying them commercially they should certainly pay for their own training. This post is getting long so I'll end by addressing the issue of salaries. I've met Mr. Baker a couple of times now and he seems like a fine man and a good advocate for aviation, but I'm not sure that a similarly good advocate couldn't be recruited from the pilot population. Perhaps someone such as a successful retiree might be interested in representing our interests for a lesser wage. If the ~$800,000 salary quoted is correct that accounts for nearly 5% of membership dues and subscriptions, and is almost 17% of AOPA's entire management and general expenses (as reported in the 2015 financial statement). Lastly, I don't begrudge corporate America from conducting their business utilizing a fleet of sophisticated and expensive corporate jets; I believe their existence is a net benefit to aviation as a whole. But I do believe that AOPA devotes a disproportionate amount of resources to keeping corporate aviation out of the public's cross-hairs. Meanwhile us little guys who simply love flying, and who pay a sizable portion of our monthly income on planes, maintenance, hangars, insurance, and avgas are left wondering why we keep getting weekly mailers from the AOPA PAC, etc. begging for more cash.

And while we're scrutinizing Paul's panel... did Regional Approach vector you all the way over to the Cedar Creek VOR or were you already flight-planned for that? Just curious as that's a regular waypoint on my trips north from Houston. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm only 25 miles away and STILL haven't seen 201EQ yet. The weather's been awful here for days! He put a LOT of work into the prep and I'm certain it looks even better in person! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I had the pleasure once of watching an instructor/student unexpectedly pivot a C around an un-removed wing tie-down on grass. After I got their attention I crawled under the wing from behind and set them free. I'll admit to jumping a nose-wheel chock made of 2"x4" on purpose but never a true chock, and never where my prop-wash could be detrimental. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here is one that can do 160 LOP. Only one I have been able to do it in though Could you comment on your weight on this flight? You're showing only 14.1 gallons of fuel remaining at 158 knots TAS burning 8.5 gph (definitely LOP). It's certainly better than I can achieve. At 9,500' you're only turning 2,400 rpm which makes that speed even more impressive. At 2,600# I usually flight plan at 150 when running LOP.

A dirty garter filter on the vac regulator can cause high vacuum. Replacement is on the Annual Inspection list IIRC. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think its your brain. I don't even look at the light, I look at the J-bar. I find nothing about the J-bar to be intuitive, and a couple of times I found my mind sorting it out on approach. Maybe it's just me but I think the label by the gear switch on my latest plane is more definitive. I also have a rule to "silence the warning horn". Never let the thing blare except when practicing slow flight at altitude. A verbal warning system would be a great addition but on flights when she's aboard my lovely wife fills that role automatically every time a warning horn chirps. And still I realize I'm not immune to mistakes.

Dude, I have to say that I truly admire your willingness to post openly and honestly about your training experience. And you've demonstrated great perseverance in your pursuit of a pilot certificate. I commend you for all that. I believe that many, if not most, students would be somewhat discouraged having that much time without soloing. The upside for you is that you've already accumulated the 40 total hours required for the rating. The curriculum you're following is much different than what many of us are familiar with. I believe that most students solo by 20 hours or so, but as long as you're learning, and not growing frustrated then it really doesn't matter. You could still have your PP certificate in less time than most! So again, best of luck with the weather this weekend.

Paul, this has been posted for 30 hours now and only has 28 views. How 'bout posting it to the General Mooney Talk forum? Chuck

I don't mind paying for the yearly AOPA membership; the online safety courses/videos/etc. make it worthwhile. And I believe they're trying hard to pass the 3rd class medical reform. But... I DO grow weary of the constant barrage of solicitations for donations to their PAC. I call, write, and sign petitions to my representatives but I don't believe in "paying off" my congressmen/congresswomen to pass sensible legislation. Call me naive. I shouldn't have to outbid the opponents of GA in order to fly. And it bothers me more than just a little that there is NO accounting of which politician receives the AOPA PAC money. I fear that they'd be getting my money in spite of the fact that I may disagree with 90% of their other political agendas. One last thing, the EAA got the STC for putting inexpensive backup instrumentation in legacy GA aircraft, and for that alone I became an EAA member last month for the first time ever! When I can put an awesome and affordable panel in my Mooney like those in the Vans fleet I'll reconsider who deserves my money more, AOPA or EAA.

This method of becoming a pilot is all so alien to me. If you don't mind, could you tell us what your current logged hours is? No offense intended at all; I'm just trying to grasp how one could be so close to earning their PPSEL and still haven't soloed. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you know something that we don't? This whole thread reminds me of The Truman Show.

It's Friday. So???

I've got an eye-poker as well (and know first hand why Clarence has concerns). I wonder if one could "t" into that without frying the beacon receiver. That would be an easy connection with easy access, and no effect on my comms. I may ask my avionics guy when he does my pitot/static checks in October. Anybody on here already know the answer? Like you say, anything would be better than the attached whip (which I figured would require sticking out the pilot window in a pinch to be useful).

I agree wholeheartedly, that's the reason for items 3 and 4. But I still value opinions and seek further info. Training and practice are good. And amazingly I can still fly the plane without the AP (even on an approach).[emoji846] I've yet to experience vacuum loss in IMC but I've had the good fortune to experience it during a dark night flight (in another plane). Lights on the ground made it easy enough to deal with so its a far cry from IMC. Keep the comments coming.

The supplemental antenna is one thing I lack. I carry the handheld radio along with headset connection and remote PTT, but nothing more than the whip antenna at this time. Can one "T" into an existing antenna run or does it have to be independent? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I must confess. I've been absent from MS for multiple hours; I just finished reading a 23 page thread on BT regarding the recent loss of 3 souls in a V-tail Bo following what appears to be a vacuum system failure (and possibly more) in IMC. I bring this up as I ponder much of what I read there (lots of strong opinions). From a redundancy plan for IFR flight my plan(e) includes the following: 1. Vacuum primary AI and DG (sadly controls my AP as well). 2. Standby electric vacuum system/pump (hopefully restores all the above). 3. Standby electric backup AI in place of original TC. 4. Yoke mounted iPad with Stratus 2 driven AHRS/AI. 5. Mounted iPhone utilizing same Stratus 2 driven AHRS/AI. Even with all this gadgetry it appears that the challenge is in recognizing a gradual loss of the vacuum instruments, identifying the failed instruments, and then making a successful transition to the appropriate backup. Because of this I intend to be more diligent in including my recently installed vacuum gauge as part of my regular scan while flying in IMC. I also carry sticky instrument covers in my seat pocket to block a failed instrument as needed. So you ask "where is this going". Nowhere really other than to ask for your opinions on how I might stack the odds further in my favor without spending a bunch of cash on more panel candy. Thoughts? Opinions?

In further tribute to Bill Wheat I'd like to share this tidbit I stumbled across on the website www.mooneymite.com. I'd never seen this before, but it may be of interest to some. Test Flight of the Mooney M-19 You may recall that the M-19 was a specially modified M-18C-55 which Mooney developed as a counter-liaison aircraft they called the "Cub-Killer." It featured a 90 h.p. engine with a Flottorp constant speed propeller and .30 caliber machine guns in the wings. No one seems to know where the M-19 is now -- even photos of the plane are as rare as hens' teeth. Only stories remain. Here is a good one from long-time Mooney man, Bill Wheat.... "The photo is definitely the M-19. The pilot is Bill Taylor [Mooney's general manager]. Due to the quality of the picture I cannot be certain as to whether it is as presented to the Military or repainted and cleaned up as a company run-about. The original was a dull olive-drab all over and was as ugly as all-get-out." "Taylor's first flight lasted about an hour and a half. Normally, the first flight of a proto-type was about 15 minutes. Everyone was in front of the factory and getting worried. When he finally taxied up and got out, someone asked him what he was going to name it. He stood on the wing for a moment and finally answered, 'Old Puss.' Al Mooney asked why and Bill replied, 'It's the only thing I can think of that looks so bad and feels so good!'"

I got my PPL at KAXH which is under an area containing TWO class bravo airports and five class deltas inside the mode C ring. One mile from the field you have a 2,000' ceiling, and there are 7 towers within 5 miles that are all ~2,000' AGL. I was over 50 years of age (i.e. feeble minded) when I started my flight training and am in no way related to Chuck Yeager. Still, after 14.9 hours of dual my instructor hopped out of the plane and told me to go do some touch-and-goes. It just seems to me that requiring PPL checkride proficiency before allowing a student to even SOLO is not only excessive, but is also discouraging for the student. Solo typically means pattern work from what I understand, and busting SFO's airspace shouldn't be a big concern. The slow progress might also be the usage of a Cirrus for training rather than a more traditional trainer. After these $0.02 my tab is approaching a dime. Sorry; I just want to see SH solo!

Not only does it result in one less instrument to scan, you can visually see your intercept angle instead of needing to visualize it or do math in your head. Thanks for the comments Bob. In spite of my not having an HSI it appears they do lessen the workload some on an IFR approach. But I'm curious about your "intercept angle" statement. I assume you're referring to a course interception outside the FAF, and that inside the FAF you're flying the needles just like me? I'm just trying to get a firm grasp on the advantages here. Outside the FAF the 530W does a fine job of depicting my course intercept visually on the default NAV page. In any case I can't see dropping 5-7 AMU on a used HSI to replace my GI-106. Besides I plan to replace all my avionics with Google's new "Autonomous Flight System" in a couple of years anyway!