wombat

So funny, I know people that fly at towered airports only and will refuse to go anywhere without a tower, and those that fly at untowered airports only and will refuse to go anywhere with a tower. Remember: All of the 'traffic procedures' and radio calls are there to prevent mid-air collisions. There are not all that many midair collisions to start with. Looking at the most recent ones listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_collision l Out of these 3 out of 8 might have been prevented if the pilots had and used ADS-B in and out or their radios. The other 5 out of 8 would not. In the Winterhaven one, the cub didn't have a radio and having the cub on the radio could have prevented it, as could have ADS-B in on either plane if both had ADS-B out. In the Dallas one both aircraft had and were using radios, but they were doing a bunch of close proximity maneuvering due to the airshow. I doubt ADS-B would have helped, due to the update frequency and known close proximity they were flying. So this would not have been saved by radio or ADS-B. In the Longmont one, it looks like the Sonex didn't have operating ADS-B out but since there are RADAR tracks (according to the article on cpr.org), and while they both had radios, they were not in a location where we would expect them to be on the same frequency. The Sonex did have a working transponder and was visible on RADAR, so if either plane had ADS-B in, both planes would have been visible. According to some comments on the avweb article about this accident, the Cessna did have ADS-B in. But despite having it and having both planes be visible to the ADS-B in aircraft, they failed to see and avoid. This was not prevented by having radios and ADS-B. In the Malibu/Cessna midair in Vegas in 2022, and regardless of ADS-B status, both aircraft had and were using radios. But since they were operating in known close proximity, ADS-B would not have helped. So this was not prevented despite having radios and ADS-B. The Key Lime & Cirrus mid-air in Arapahoe County in May 2021 is extremely similar. Such close proximity that ADS-B would not have helped, and both were on the radio, just that one wasn't flying what they were supposed to. In the Soldotna accident, one had ADS-B -out and the other did not. I didn't find anything to say if the ADS-B out equipped plane also had ADS-B in, but if it did (and the pilot had used it, AND the other plane had ADS-B out) that likely would have prevented the accident. The George Inlet midair in 2019 could have been prevented by having and using ADS-B in and out, but it doesn't seem like it would be reasonable to expect even above average radio use to have prevented this. Just out in the middle of nowhere, I don't make regular position calls on 122.75 (Air-to-air frequency) The F-16 & Cessna 150 was also not preventable by ADS-B or radios; the F-16 pilot was provided plenty of advance warning about the 150 and chose not to change their course.

@A64Pilot Let's say these are steady state temperatures and I achieve these temperatures by slowly approaching them from the 'cold' side of the curve, regardless of which side I'm on. (if I'm LOP, I approach it slowly from being too lean, and if I'm ROP I approach it slowly from being too rich) So there is no risk of anything from the lag between the actual in-cylinder or in-exhaust temperature and the measured temperature from the probe. If I do this, am I potentially damaging my engine despite the RPM& MP combo being an approved one and the CHTs and TIT are 'OK'?

Here is a question for folks about running a turbocharged engine.... If Cylinder temps are "OK" (Let's say 390, and redline is 470 on a Continental TSIO-520-NB) AND Turbine inlet temperature is "OK" (Let's say 1,600, and redline is 1,700 for 1 minute max, 1,650 max continuous) AND The manifold pressure and engine RPM combination is found as an acceptable power setting in the manual. (Let's say 32" and 2,400 RPM) Then: Am I running my engine safely regardless of where I am in relation to peak EGT or 'the red box', and what manifold pressure, RPM, and fuel flow I'm using? Asked another way, are the absolute value of those temperatures the sole measure I need to determine if I'm running my engine in an 'healthy' way? (TIT in order to make sure the turbine is safe, and CHT to make sure the rest of the engine is safe)

I took a look at the web page for this plane. A few things make me question the accuracy of much of the data. I am skeptical that this plane flies at 201 KIAS. Maybe 201 KTAS, but my Rocket only flies at about 165 KIAS at high power settings. But then they compare it to 178 KIAS from the Cirrus SR22T, that doesn't match any airspeed Cirrus claims. Umm.... What? Also, the useful load listed by Cirrus for the SR22T is 892 but n252q.com lists it at 820. The 'best range' listed for the Cirrus is 947NM, but Cirrus claims over 1,000NM. So......

Please don't take any of this too seriously, but.... I already know both tanks worked before taking off, because they worked last flight. What happened while the plane was on the ground that would have caused it to work the previous time but not this time? If the answer is 'nothing' then you gain nothing. If the answer is 'something', then... What the heck are you doing to your plane? The thing is, there will be a first time that it fails. If we assume that there is a 0.0001% chance of failure any given time you use it, it's just as likely to fail in flight regardless of if you tested it before. If testing it before is good, why not test it twice? (Left, Right, then back to left)... You only tested it one direction if you just swap the one time! If testing it once is good, I should probably test it twice. If twice is good, more is better. To be extra safe, I should sit on the taxiway and swap fuel tanks until I run out of gas. If the selector valves have an average lifespan of 10,000 movements, and an average flight has 2 changes in flight, then by doing a fuel tank swap before each flight reduces the life span of your valve by 33%. If I landed and dropped off a passenger, should I test again before taking off again? What if I just did a stop-n-go? What if I stopped for lunch? What if I stopped, took a nap in the hangar and then took off again? What if I went home in the meantime to nap? How does the selector valve know if I went home or not? Seriously, I don't think there is single perfect answer here. Follow the regulations, evaluate the risks, and mitigate them until your mitigation costs and risk acceptance level are good for you.

I actually do like how you did that, a LOT. Do it within easy gliding distance of a long runway, at significant altitude. If you someone is uncomfortable with this, they should probably practice their engine failure procedures until such time as they are comfortable.

I would prefer an airport with a car available than one with a hotel nearby. I should really get an electric bike or some sort of 'better/faster than a folding bike' transportation I can put in my plane. Currently I have a couple of super old and cranky folding bikes. While they are way better than walking for any distance of more than about 1 mile, they are quite unpleasant to use for anything more than 5 miles or on hills. Electric scooters are quite small, don't have a steep learning curve, and are very affordable. Best Buy is offering a 20MPH one with 31 miles of range for $559. Their biggest downfalls for me are: The size of the tires and their inability to handle rough terrain, rocks, pavement cracks, and soft surfaces like sand. The weight (40# or so) The industry is full of cheap knock-off brands and the price premium for well established brands doesn't seem to come with a quality premium.

Thread drift to a funny story.... I was flying down to Miami from Seattle this summer on an airline and one of the FAs had a medical emergency (She ended up being fine) so we diverted. Sudden descent and loud noise in the cabin as they started dumping fuel. One of the pilots gets on the radio and says we are diverting to Boise. I get on my iPad and watch our progress as we approach and land at Bozeman. As soon as we are on the ground, everybody gets on their cell phones and starts making phone calls to loved ones, telling them we are at Boise. I corrected a few of them, but quickly gave up. It was pretty funny.

Or flying an instrument approach or any of the visual approach indicator systems on final approach.... If your engine quits, you will not be landing on the runway this time. But it's all about the different risk profile that different people are willing to accept. Some people are confident that their engine will not quit in cruise flight, therefore their assessment of the risk of night flight over mountains is low. Some people have low confidence in their GPS hardware, so a second GPS makes them feel safer. Probably worthwhile to look at what the causes of actual accidents are and mitigate those rather than perceived risks that have negligible actual accidents.

Not sure I'd call it minimizing, but I don't do it every 30 minutes or less. My GPS currently has a 30 minute "Switch Tanks" timer that I should get rid of because I mostly ignore it. My perceived risk for this failure mode (valve failure in flight) is very low so I typically don't think about it at all as a risk, although I do watch the fuel flow during and shortly after switching, for perhaps 10 seconds. My typical pattern would be to switch tanks maybe every hour, so every 20 gallons out of 52.5 per side. There are incidents & accidents for throttle linkages failing in flight as well but not enough that I make fewer throttle changes to minimize the risk and I view the fuel valve the same way. Overall I think the risk of some sort of failure that can be identified on the ground through a pre-takeoff fuel tank switch is high enough that it's worth doing, but the overall risk mitigated by this is still quite low and if someone didn't do it my concern would be much more about what else they are failing to do rather than this specific risk. Is all of preflight not worth it to them? What about annual inspection? Medical? BFR? IFR currency? Being licensed at all?

On the original topic: Changing tanks. I think it's useful to understand what risks you are mitigating by doing so at times other than when one tank is about to run out or when you want to balance the weight of the aircraft, and also what risks you are increasing by doing so. As someone pointed out earlier, there are a few reasons to test it on the ground: Make sure that you are drawing fuel into your engine instead of something else (e.g. water) Make sure that the valve is not stuck and will not get stuck in a position that does not allow fuel to flow to the engine when you try to switch tanks. To comply with operating instructions. If you have not added fuel to the aircraft since landing and it has been sitting in a private and locked hangar for a single night and during the previous flight you used both tanks, the probability of #1 is low. If you are the last pilot to fly it and it worked in the last flight, the probability of #2 is low. That being said: What I do every time is what I'll do *this* time too. So if I don't switch tanks while on the ground normally, I probably won't do it when I left the plane outside for a week and there was heavy rainfall. So I should do it every time. If the valve does stop working, it will stop working at some point where it worked the time before, but will not work now, and I'd prefer that to happen in the ground. Switching on the ground doesn't mean it can't fail in flight, but the chances are a little lower. It's possible that when I switch it this time, I might cause a failure where it starts leaking fuel at a rate bad enough that I exhaust my fuel before I reach my destination. This could happen in a mid-air fuel tank switch too. Overall, I think the benefits outweigh the risks and I switch fuel tanks before takeoff for the first flight every day. On my checklist it's shortly before the runup. If I've just dropped someone off or something I won't do a full Before Takeoff check through and don't switch tanks.

When travelling for the Army on contract flights, we all carried our weapons, with ammunition. M4's, M9's, etc. But they made us take our multi-tools out of our pockets and put them in our luggage.

Galvin at BFI has had a Mooney in their fleet until recently. Several of their CFIs have significant Mooney experience. Or at least they did when I worked there in 2020 and before.

I think your impression is correct, he just wants someone else to fly his plane, not to transport him or any of his stuff.

You can buy a portable aerox system like one of these: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/aeroxsys.php?clickkey=4346 I've flown my E from the midwest to the coast in a single day. It was a long summer day, so a 3 day trip sounds like a highly successful plan for the winter. Perhaps call the places you plan to overnight and make sure they've got a place for your plane that is inside in case a storm comes in?

Why make it an either/or situation? Why not both?

In the particular case I was talking about, the ground wire was only part of the work to be done. We were actually installing the uAvionix wingtip ADS-B. So there was a bunch of other stuff to be done; mostly paperwork. But actually physically mounting the unit and getting the power and ground hooked up was also included. I think I paid for 8 hours of labor to install a 'plug and go' unit. And I expect the A&P spent that much time on it. Really minor stuff like reading up on if the strobe portion of the wingtip unit is required by the STC to be connected or not. (It's not) and if any additional placards are required, like "NAV lights must be on during flight for ADS-B" which dozens of people have told me is mandatory, but it turns out is not. The placard is not mandatory, having the nav lights on is mandatory. If I'd done a dozen of these before, I could probably make the physical labor part of the install as low as 15 minutes. Walk out with a pop rivet, scotch brite, wire, crimper, ends, spray can of corrosion X, screwdriver and new wingtip light... But these folks are not doing 10 ADS-B installs a day. They are doing something different every day, every month, every year. So you have to pay for the research time.

I'm only barely complaining. I want folks to understand that there is unlikely to be a 5 minute fix for anything. Even a simple ground wire takes a bunch of time.

While I agree with you not to use Home Depot, I have yet to find anything at all that takes an A&P less than 30 minutes. Example: Switching my left position light from one that had frame ground to one that had a ground wire, grounding that wire on the aircraft structure about 2" away. Just doing the ground took about an hour and a half. Not even talking about mounting the new light or the paperwork for that. JUST the ground wire. And as a favor to me, he didn't bother to make a logbook entry for the ground wire. Here are the steps he took: Remove wingtip, disconnect position light power. (8 phillips screws, 2 zip ties and a electrical connector) took about 10 minutes. Review install manual for position light, notice that it has a ground wire instead of being self-grounding on the frame. Try to look up the ground wire size. Find install manual for new position light & search for appropriate section then eventually determine that there is no specification in the install manual. Next he found the maximum draw of the light, which was in the manual. Then over to another document to determine the wire size based on maximum draw. This part took about 20 minutes. After that, he went to find a bolt, nut, washer, lock washer, wire, and ring terminal to use, ensuring that all are the correct size for this application. This took perhaps 10 more minutes. Cut the wire to length, strip, and crimp on the terminal connector. Then over to the aircraft with supplies, and note that the structure doesn't have any holes appropriate for the grounding wire post. Back to the books to get the drill bit size for the bolt, then over to the bench to get a drill bit and drill. Back to the plane to drill a hole in the rib. But the metal is old, so go back to the tool bench to get some scotch brite, and 5 minutes of work on that section to get rid of any surface corrosion and debur the hole. Oh, but now there are shavings in the wing, so go get the vacuum. Vacuum up the mess in the wing. Then put the drill and vacuum and scotch brite away. That was 10 more minutes. Then back to the plane, assemble the post, washers, nut, lock washers, and ground wire. Go back and get a screwdriver and ratchet with appropriate size driver for the nut. Guess at torque values and tighten them down. Another 15 minutes. Now back to the bench and get some corrosion-X and spray down the area that we scuffed clean so it doesn't corrode since the raw aluminum is exposed again. Total time was about 90 minutes and the end result is we've added a ground wire about 4" long.

I've flown an E (and a K, and a 182) over the Rockies multiple times in the Northern United States. Yes, it is practical. As practical as any light GA flight can be, anyway! My advice: Take Oxygen. Plan a route that doesn't leave you without any good landing spots for very long, particularly IFR or night flights. Be prepared to shift your schedule by a day or two for weather.

Everybody has their own projects they want everybody else's money spent on. They have those that they think don't get their fair share, and those that they think receive too much. Why, if it was up to me, we'd have..... nevermind.

What I had been planning was that there is no tow bar, the nose wheel will go up on a platform like the Aircraft caddy: https://www.djproducts.com/product-category/aircraftcaddy/ or the Best Tugs Bravo line: https://www.besttugs.com/bravo The main difference in what I was planning was that when loaded, the platform the nose wheel was on would rotate so I'd be able to turn the aircraft sharply without exceeding the nose wheel turn limits. Loading the nose wheel onto the device makes the traction problem much easier since the tires will have significantly more weight on them and there will not be further rolling resistance from the nose wheel.

I have strongly considered it and did a few sketches on a design for how it would work. The biggest problems I faced were: How to pick the nose of the plane up without throwing a strap around the nose gear and pulling it up onto the platform. How to then swivel the platform the nose wheel is on, while keeping the nose wheel held on. How to force the nose wheel back off the platform. Some things I decided were not problems: Load limit of the chair; while the Mooney nose might be heavier, it's unlikely to get as much rough use as a 350# person rolling down a random sidewalk. Traction/force/battery power; the Mooney will be on mostly flat ground and it doesn't need to go fast. I could even give it an assist with my body. Basically, it'll only ever be easier/better than it is right now with just me pulling it by hand.

My expected total 1st year budget, which includes acquisition cost. I was talking to a guy I work with that has a meridian... He had a $100k annual in 2021. That really turned me off of the Malibu/Meridian line and back to Mooney.