Bob - S50

After doing a little more reading it looks like I could probably stand to change my codes a bit. However, practically speaking, it won't matter to ATC because the US currently doesn't care about most of this stuff. It looks like I could probably add the S1 and O2 codes you were going to use. I did find something about the Z and NAV/ codes too. Can't remember where but it basically said you use that combination if you want to specify different PBN codes for different phases of flight.

Wilco. The shop won't get a chance to look at it until Tuesday so we should know the diagnosis my mid next week.

Not sure but here is my take: I assume you have actual DME for the D in equipment codes and whatever is special that is needed for SBAS for the Z code. Surveillance looks good. For PBN codes: I'd leave off the A1. RNAV 10 applies to oceanic navigation and according the AFMS I have, it only applies if you have dual units. Maybe you do. Same with L1 - RNP 4 I believe the O2 and S1 apply to Advanced RNP which, again according to my AFMS, the GTN does not qualify for because it only has 3 of the 6 required features. Besides, at this time there are zero RNP approaches in the US that are not AR (Authorization Required) which we definitely cannot fly. So that would leave you with B2C2D2. I personally just use C2D2

Thanks for the report.

I've been using ICAO through 1-800-wxbrief for several years now. One thing you have to do is remember to include DCT when flying direct from waypoint to waypoint. For example: DCT VPPMR DCT BONNR DCT YKM v4 BOI DCT (for direct to destination) I ran into two issues that I figured out. 1. Airport codes that don't start with a K. I knew to put ZZZZ in the departure or destination locations. However, when I tried to follow the guidance and put KS50 in the Other block like this: DEP/KS50, the system would choke. I figured out that I should not include the K so it needed to be DEP/S50. I still do that and it still works. They may have fixed that issue so you can add the K but I haven't tried it. 2. SID's. At my home drone we have the BLAKO departure. When I looked at the title on the departure it was listed as BLAKO1.BLAKO so I tried entering that in my route of flight. Nope. Choke. I figured out to use a space instead of the period so it would be something like this: BLAKO1 BLAKO DCT VPPMR DCT..... I also filled everything out the way I wanted it including departing from my home airport, a common cruise altitude, common cruise speed, and a destination that I picked at random. I put in a short route too. Once I had it all set I saved it as a favorite. Now I just load the favorite, change whatever is different and I'm ready to brief and file.

Our BK Ky197 is in the shop with display problems. Might possibly have made its last flight. I can only find two Comm radios that are the same height: Icom IC A220T and the Trig TY96/TY96A. Their KY97 version is 24 volt which I don't have. If we have to replace the KY197 I'm leaning toward the Trig but I can't find any reviews on line. I've found a couple on the Icom and they are generally not very good. Also, reading the manual, the Icom interface seems pretty complex/clunky, but to use if for just manually turning frequencies it would probably be fine. However, I don't want a radio that is poor quality and prone to needing repairs. Anybody here flying with these radios care to let us know how they are working?

No. I'm saying if he configures his GTX335 to report exactly what it is, 1090 OUT only, the system will not send him reports. If he configures it to say he has IN capability, which he has with his Stratux, he'll get traffic. But I now agree that he should probably file EB1. That tells the system he is ADS-B compliant.

From the talk on BeechTalk, it seems you won't need all that info for a pop up clearance. Worst case you have to call Flight Service. Every time I give them a call they already know my tail number. Since I use 1-800-WxBrief when I file, they already have all my info. Not saying it isn't a PITA, but we'll get used to it. I know some of my stuff but if it becomes a problem I can put the rest of it on a piece of paper and keep it in my flight bag or save it as part of a contact in my phone.

Yes it is. But if he reports no ADS-B IN capability (which his Stratux gives him) he will not get TIS-B (mode C and S) traffic unless he happens to be close enough to some other aircraft that IS reporting IN capability. Pretty hit and miss. He'll only see other aircraft equipped with ADS-B OUT. Depending on where you live and fly, you may be missing quite a bit of traffic information.

It's not that hard. You enter the data once and save it. From then on, whatever system you are using to file flightplans does it automatically for you.

Since your Stratux can pick up both, my personal opinion is that you should have the 335 set to show you can receive both UAT and 1090. That will prevent you from getting ADS-B AND ADS-R reports on the same traffic. With it set to show you can receive both, the only traffic the ground system should send you would be TIS-B (non-ADS-B) traffic.

Yes, at least for now. However, here is a quote from John Collins over on Beechtalk. He is generally very accurate: "ERAM does care if you have ADS-B Out specified and SUR/ and CODE/ specified in field 18. But it will not cause a flight plan rejection if they are not specified. I can see some benefit to specifying SUR/260B for 1090ES or SUR/282B for UAT, as these designate that the the installed ADS-B Out system is 2020 compliant and can be used where routing may require ADS-B Out. It might be needed in the future to file into or out of rule airspace, but currently it only helps on routes where radar coverage may not exist or is out of service. Flight plans provide the capability indication before the flight, so can affect clearances. Once underway, the equipment self identifies its capabilities and compliance information. I have been told by the FAA ERAM specialist that specifying the CODE/ is of value to ERAM, but the only rational offered has been that it affects transponder code assignments, as these are limited resources in ERAM and duplicates occur in different airspace. These values are 6 character hex codes using the characters A-F and 0 to 9. You can look up the CODE/ value in the FAA registry in the "Mode S Code (base 16 / hex)" field and it has a one to one relationship with the N number. All US registry aircraft are assigned codes in the block A00000 to AFFFFF. Just search on your N number in the FAA registry."

Once you get airborne, you are correct that the transponder self identifies with the capabilities set in the configuration. However, I think your understanding (or maybe mine) of TIS-B may be faulty. ADS-B traffic is traffic that your receiver picks up directly from other ADS-B OUT equipped traffic. ADS-R traffic is traffic that the system sends out to you if you can only receive on one system. That is, if you can only receive UAT traffic, ADS-R will send you data on 1090 traffic but it will send it to you via UAT so you can receive it. TIS-B traffic is non-ADS-B traffic that you can't see regardless of your ADS-B reciever. That would be Mode C or S traffic without ADS-B. So even if your transponder reports it can receive both UAT and 1090, the system should still send you TIS-B. If you set your system up to report that it can only receive 1090 for example, but you can really receiver UAT too, I'm thinking you might risk the chance of getting some targets double reported. You'll get the one that your equipment gets via ADS-B and also one from ADS-R.

Assuming your Stratux has dual band reception I'd use EB2. That tells the system you can receive 1090 signals. If you use B1 the system thinks you can't receive data so it won't send any. The only traffic you'll see is other ADS-B OUT equipment. You won't get TIS-B traffic. In the Other block include SUR/260B and CODE/(your hex code)

If you follow Interstate 90 from Billings (BIL) to Missoula (MSO) it's very doable. I've done that in my J and once you get to Livingston (LVM) the views are beautiful. The highest pass is just east of Butte (BTM). I've never done it, but it looks like more or less following V231 north out of there to Kalispell (S27 or GPI) should be pretty easy. Have fun.

Hank. The same thing applies to ROP, you just can't use fuel flow to determine power. You have to use 'the numbers' as you said. I don't know the C numbers, but my J numbers are 47 = 65% and 50 = 75%. 70% would be in between those numbers. But to get to 47 I can run 24" and 2300 RPM, 23" and 2400 RPM, 22" and 2500 RPM, etc. Higher MP and lower RPM will still result in higher peak pressures and higher CHT's even when running ROP. Personally, were I to run ROP, I'd still prefer 2600 RPM and 21" to get 65% rather than something like 2400 RPM and 23". In addition to keeping my CHT's lower, my personal experience is that the further I run from square, the less oil blow by I get.

It is your decision, but as I imply in my posting, I don't worry about the red box. I just make sure my CHT's stay below 400F. And since higher MP and lower RPM both move peak pressure closer to TDC, at lower altitudes I tend to run higher RPM and lower MP, generally 22-23" and 2600 RPM. At higher altitudes I run WOT and 2600 RPM. Since I always cruise LOP, I'm fine with anything below 10 gph which would be 75% from my engine. I'm usually in the 8.7 to 9.5 gph range depending on altitude.

I tend to agree with you. I'm going to say a few things that would probably result in rotten tomatoes being thrown at me if others were close enough to do so. 1. The concept of the red box was born out of the idea of keeping the CHT below 400F. It may not have been called the red box but it was implied (even graphically) in this John Deakin Pelican's Perch article: Mixture Magic 2. While I cannot quickly find the article, I've read at least one article by either Deakin or Busch that says the closest thing you or I have to measuring internal cylinder pressure is CHT. The higher the pressure, the higher the CHT, all other factors being equal. 3. So if the goal is to keep the CHT's below 400F (some prefer 380F), then however we do that should theoretically be outside the red box. 4. My airplane has a -D engine. I'm pretty sure that those of us with those engines tend to see higher CHT's than those the two separate magnetos. That's because our engines are timed to 25 BTDC while many if not most of the non-D engines are generally timed at 20 BTDC. That pushes our peak pressure closer to TDC, which in turn increases max pressure, which increases our CHT. 5. In my personal experience with our airplane (others may have different experiences) I used to struggle to keep #3 CHT below 400F at higher altitudes, say 10,000 or higher. That's because of fewer air molecules to carry the heat away. When I used to cruise at 2500 RPM and full throttle, I would have to go deeper LOP than I wanted, with a resulting loss of speed in order to keep that CHT lower. I could watch the CHT vary from about 385 to 399 as I flew through updrafts and downdrafts that caused my IAS to vary while I maintained altitude. For quite some time now I've been cruising at 2600 RPM and my CHT runs about 10F lower. I keep the CHT's lower, make more power, and cruise faster. Is that what you were implying?

For your mission I'd go with the Mooney M20J. It sounds like you have the money to buy any of the planes you mentioned, you just want to spend your money wisely. I'm wondering why you are worried about useful load if it's just you and your wife, but here is my reasoning: M20J. Summary: Relatively inexpensive to buy. $4000 - $5000/year fixed costs not counting hangar. Plenty of payload for 3 typical people or 4 FAA sized people. Most efficient 4 seat production airplane ever built. Pretty nice cruise speed. Cruise at 155 KTAS at 9000' +/-. That means your 450 NM trip is 3 hours and will burn about 30 gallons. You will find J models with a useful load of just under 900 to just over 1000. Ours is currently 985 but after we swap out the KFC200 for a GFC500 and remove the vacuum pump I expect us to end up around 1000 lbs. 30 gallons plus 10 gallon reserve is 240 pounds of fuel at engine start. That leaves me with over 700 lbs of butts and bags. 800 NM non-stop (if your butt and bladder last that long) would be about 5+20 and a burn of 51 gallons. With 10 gallon reserve that still leaves me with over 600 lbs of payload. Bonanza. Summary: Feels bigger than the Mooney. Better for grass/dirt runways. More payload. Faster than the Mooney. Fixed costs probably about the same as the Mooney. However... Aft CG MAY limit your ability to use all that useful load. Fuel burn will be about 40% higher to get an extra 10 - 15 knots. Six cylinders are smoother than four but cost more. I've never flown one, but from what I gather on forums, I think a typical V35 cruising at about 70% power will give you about 170 KTAS. That's 15 knots faster than my J, but fuel burn will be about 12.5 gph instead of 9 gph. The V35 should get you to your 450 NM destination about 15 minutes quicker but cost you about 6 gallons more fuel. And instead of landing with 10 gallons you'll want to land with 13 gallons. That means you'll have to carry an extra 9 gallons in the V35. That's 54 lbs out of your payload. So to match my 985 UL, you'd need a V35 with a UL of about 1040. Even worse on the 800 NM trip. Many, but not all, V35's have an aft CG problem. Some put 25 lbs of ballast in the nose to solve the CG issue. That 25 lbs comes out of your useful load. I almost bought into one until I worked a sample loading and found I could not put 4 normal sized people into the plane without exceeding the aft CG limit. When it's time to overhaul the engine, it will cost about 50% more. And most 6 cylinder Continentals are more likely to need a top overhaul between engine overhauls than your typical Lycoming IO360. That's money. Beech Sierra. Summary: From what I've read, the only redeeming factor for the Sierra is cabin size. Slow. Weird landing gear. Costs are, once again, probably similar to the Mooney and Bonanza. Same engine as the M20J but about 25 knots slower. That 450 NM trip will take about 30 minutes longer and burn an extra 4.5 gallons of fuel. That's 27 lbs of payload that's gone. And don't forget, that's 30 more minutes of run time on the engine which gets it closer to overhaul quicker. While it is in good company (Spitfire), watching the mains retract outboard just looks wrong. And a nose gear that has to rotate 90 degrees as it retracts and extends? I honestly can't think of a good reason for a Sierra. I'd much rather look at a C177RG with all it's gear and CG issues or a 250 Comanche. Might even consider a Piper Arrow over the Sierra, and that's saying something.

Yep. That's why we decided to not fix our KFC200. Our pitch servo quit and it was going to cost $4000 to get it fixed. Keeping in mind we also had a roll servo, trim servo, KI256, KI525A, KG102 and flight computer that would also be expensive to repair we opted to scrap it all and spend close to $30,000 to replace it with dual G5's and a 4 servo GFC500 (to be installed in October). More reliable, more capable, lighter weight, cheaper replacement parts. Had we been assured that it would never cost more than $2000 to fix any of those items we might have stuck with the KFC200. Might have even bought the KI300/KI310 if that price had been more reasonable.

As for the old animal on the runway excuse, it would take a pretty precise combination of aircraft speed/configuration and animal location to make a go around a better option than stopping. I would have to be fast enough that I could get airborne in less runway than it would take to stop, the animal would have to be too close to me to stop and far enough away to be able to get airborne and clear them. If I can't stop or get airborne I'd rather hit the animal at 20 knots trying to stop than 60 knots trying to get airborne.

And use the Murphy's law for time estimation. Divide the number by two and increase the units by one. So if you expect certification to be done in 4 weeks, plan on it really taking 2 months. Six months becomes 3 years, etc. I think it is always better to under promise and over deliver than the other way around.

Keep in mind that the AIM is not regulatory but the FAR's are. While I cannot find a formal definition of "landing", "touch and go", "stop and go", or "low approach"; the terms are used fairly frequently in the AIM. Additionally, the AIM talks about the "option" several times and in doing so it references full stop, stop and go, touch and go, low approach, and missed approach. So it appears to me that the AIM (and likely the FAA) view them as different operations. I cannot find anything in the FAR's that give definitions of any of those terms. On the other hand, FAR 91.123 requires compliance with ATC instructions except when a pilot exercises their emergency authority. FAR 91.129.i also requires Tower clearance to taxi, takeoff, or land. I think most people understand "cleared to land" to mean full stop. I would think that doing a touch and go when you were cleared to land might be construed as failure to comply with and ATC instruction. If I were a betting man, if a pilot was 'cleared to land' and they did anything different than a full stop, I'd guess that at the least they would be given a tongue lashing or a number to call after they landed. Repeated failure to comply would probably result in a violation and I think the FAA would agree. If a pilot claimed they 'had to go around' after they landed, I'm thinking they might be asked to explain in writing what event happened that forced them to use their emergency authority to deviate and go around after they had landed. Such an operation is rude, potentially screws up a controller's planning, and possibly results in a loss of inflight separation. While we all make errors while we fly, in my opinion there is no place in aviation for a pilot like the one Robert referred to. While I could understand an error being the result of inexperience from a student pilot, intentionally pushing the limits on the rules based on a technicality endangers us all and invites the creation of new restrictions. Rant off.

I think the airlines are getting waivers for the WAAS part. I think they still have to have ADS-B but will use IRS/DME/DME/baro-nav for input until the manufacturer can get a WAAS source approved.

No.