wombat

I agree that this is the core issue with a bunch of other people, but I'm not one of them. I'm fine with people not having it and not using it (when it is legal to do so). It's very effective and useful for its primary task, which is to reduce cost for the FAA, and it's marginally useful at best for the task of traffic separation for flights not controlled by ATC. At this point, I don't think there is enough data to measure if it has had any positive effect on safety.

I wouldn't say it helps you look outside more, but I agree with you that it can help you look outside more effectively. And I also agree that if it doesn't help you be more effective at looking outside, you are doing it wrong. One training task that I give to students (only when they are receiving instruction, not when solo) is to fly the traffic pattern without the ASI. Also without the DG, altimeter, or any cockpit instruments at all. I do the reverse of foggles using some sheets of paper. It is still surprising to me how accurate they are on altitude, airspeed, and engine settings just using the feel and weight of the controls, the sound of the air flowing over the airplane, and the sound of the engine. Typically they will be +- 50' on altitude in the pattern and +-5 knots on airspeed, as well as +- 75 RPM for the engine. This doesn't mean I think people should regularly fly without those instruments but it does help them gain confidence to spend more time looking outside and use the cockpit instruments as an occasional cross-check. Chasing needles hardly ever results in a good flight. Human nature in this regard does not have positive dynamic stability. . As an example, as long as people are still above where they want to be, they push forward more on the yoke... So by the time they are back at the correct altitude, they'll have a high rate of descent. They blast through their altitude picking up airspeed... So they start pulling back, and as long as they are below, they'll continue pulling back.... This is pilot induced oscillation. I agree that you should use every tool you can for situational awareness. And ADS-B can improve situational awareness, but I probably wouldn't say it goes a 'long ways'. But maybe that's just me. And I agree with you yet again that people that stare at it are not actually getting as much benefit as they could. Maybe if the FAA mandated it and didn't allow exceptions that would help, but without 100% adoption, staring at the ADS-B data is likely increasing risk more than mitigating it. I agree. And I am trying to figure out what about ADS-B makes people be illogical about it. Perhaps if I had been more careful in my phrasing earlier I wouldn't have gotten people so defensive about it. A tactic that I often employ successfully is to ask questions to which I already know the answers and then try to clarify answers given to me by asking questions that will help the other person think through it logically when they try to answer. How would this have gone if I said "I have an airplane equipped with X systems, but doesn't have ADS-B in and out, and I've got a X dollars budget to improve my safety for this year, how should I spend my money?" And then when someone suggests putting in ADS-B, ask them about accident rates?

I know I'm in the minority which is why I started this thread. ADS-B is not a panacea to prevent mid-air collisions. There are mid-air collisions where all aircraft had ADS-B in and out. There is no affordable silver bullet to stop all mid-air collisions that also allows the current freedom we have to fly. Yes, having all aircraft equipped with ADS-B in and out *could* have prevented this accident. So could removing ADS-B in from both aircraft so the people would know to continue to look outside to see and avoid. As it is, they neglected to see and avoid each other. Underlying all of this is the real data about the relative infrequency of mid-air collisions and the fact that people fixate on it when the risk is so small to begin with. I suspect that many of the pilots that fixate on ADS-B as a 'solution' to midair collisions are a victim of the hazardous attitude of Invulnerability. They see the accident numbers and the relative frequency of accidents for pilot miscontrol, fuel planning, systems operation, and other bad decision making, but think "It can't happen to me! I'm too good of a pilot for this!" and fixate the mid-air collision risk is the biggest risk they face because they feel they can't control it, since every mid-air collision involved another pilot. This lets them acknowledge that there is risk but also avoid the feeling of responsibility for that risk since it can always be the other pilot's fault. Also the hazardous attitude of 'Resignation' as they think there is not only nothing more to improve in the rest of their flying, but that there is no use in trying to do anything more to mitigate the risk of mid-airs... they are thinking "I've already done all I can."

I don't know what else to say other than yeah, that's crazy.

More likely ADS-B and ADS-B fixation CAUSED this accident. People who don't understand what the system is and what it does are part of the problem. There was a radio call telling them where the other aircraft was. So they decided to keep flying towards danger and one person decided to stop looking outside and look at his iPad instead. And as @Hank says, ADS-B was not designed as a safety tool, it was a cost mitigation tool for the FAA so they could decomission some RADAR facilities. If they had wanted to mandate mid-air collision avoidance systems in aircraft, they would have mandated TCAS installs. Now don't get me wrong (although I expect you will anyway). ADS-B can provide some additional safety if used correctly. But this was not a correct use of it. Wow, it's amazing how almost everything you say is completely wrong. #1: I'm sorry, but you are the one that fails to understand the capabilities and limitations of the system, as well as mis-understanding the circumstances around this accident despite it being clear in the NTSB reports. #2: No, the pilot best positioned to see the Swift airplane was looking down at his iPad. #3: No, you are wrong again. If it matters, the airplane I fly most has ADS-B: (GTX-345R, 1090es out and 1090es and 978UAT in) and displays traffic on my G500, GTN-750, and iPad. The other airplane I fly frequently has ADS-B as well: out (uAvionix Trailbeacon 978 UAT) and in (Stratux, 1090es and 978 UAT) #4: What part of "the increase in safety by spending the same amount of money on other equipment would be higher than if we spent that money on additional ADS-B" is not coherent or logical? And as I addressed in (3), you are wrong about my personal choices on equipment. I'll also ask you to provide some substantive information to back up your claim I misused the system. The same with your statement on my impact on safety. Feel free to come to my home airport (2S0) and ask around to other pilots about what they think my impact on GA safety is.

I will re-iterate: While mid-air collisions are tragic and horrible, spending money on ADS-B in an attempt to prevent midair collisions at the current relative rate of midair collisions to other accident types is counterproductive. We'd save more lives by putting our money into mitigating other risks. In this case, it looks like the CFI in the Cessna was looking at his iPad for ADS-B instead of looking outside and consequently they impacted the other aircraft. Mistakes may have been made that day but the decision to equip either plane with more or less hardware was not one of them. Both planes were legal to fly in that airspace with the installed equipment and as I have said many times before, if we want to direct our limited safety budget toward producing additional safety, additional ADS-B requirements is the wrong decision.

The same law that gives them the power to prohibit flying with some specific Lycoming connecting rods.

I disagree... This is exactly the sort of thing the FAA can do. "Any type certificated engine or airframe that is authorized or certificated to use ASTM D910 is allowed to also use G100UL in addition to or instead of any ASTM D910 fuel." Signed, some-dude-in-charge.

Based on this data, I have a hard time convincing myself this could possibly be the pilot's fault through engine mis-management. Cylinder #6, that was the one that was damaged and experienced large fluctuations of exhaust and cylinder temperatures, was purely in the middle of the pack for CHTs before the runaway temperature event. (two above, three below Hottest: 411, #6: 386, coldest:353 And it was at that time the coldest EGT, at 1315 while the others were 1341 to 1446 (1341, 1370, 1375, 1392, and 1446 were the others) so it was not significantly out of the range of the others. The most notable thing that is likely a pilot control issue is that within 30 seconds of #6 going from 'middle of the pack' to 'hottest' the EDM-700 was switched from "automatic" to "LeanFind" mode. This indicates to me that the pilot was very likely messing with the mixture. While there is no mixture data with the engine monitor data that is available to us, there is also no reasonable mixture setting that would cause the other cylinders to have no significant changes but #6 to have done this. At 15:57:30 the engine monitor data switches from every 6 seconds to every second, but unfortunately that time frame is kind of critical. It would have been great to have single second resolution from 15:56:30 to 15:57:30. Oh well. I'm wondering if maybe he was experiencing preignition on #6

Does it often get too hot when you are using it in the dark?

I've got similar problems on my plane. Some rivets that are smoking a little, none too bad. But also button-head pop rivets on some permanently mounted access panels on the bottom side of the wing, as well as some countersunk pop rivets on the other access panels. Really worried about how those will affect the paint over the next 15-30 years after I get it repainted.

Yes, if you want to be able to fill up with all three fuels. It'll feel like you are in a race car with sponsor stickers all over it. Or plan your flight around where your preferred fuel is available. Or don't apply the placards and say 'sorry' if you get caught without the STC being applied correctly. Or see if you can convince a friendly A&P that removing those placards and tags constitutes a 'minor modification' that can be logged in your aircraft's maintenance records.

I approve of this. (Well, the altitude won't work for me given my location, but taking the post as I think the author intended, which is 'find an altitude that gives you plenty of opportunity to get specifically DOWN out of icing' I wholeheartedly agree) This is what I've been trying to do over the last 18 months of owning my TKS Rocket

Was there actually anything going on with the engine at the moment other than hours? Temps? Oil consumption or color?

I was thinking that maybe some people were getting a factory rebuilt engine or something like that.

How many people here actually have any manufacturer warranty on their airframe or engine?

Do you have a warranty on your engine or airframe? Or reply if you are expecting to soon have a warranty.

If the positions were swapped and we were being forced to switch from G100UL to 100LL right now, the whole pilot community would be up in arms, not even counting the TEL's health effects. Lead fowling in plugs? 100LL is a non-starter! 100LL's performance per volume? 100LL is a non-starter! Can't use modern oils? 100LL is a non-starter! Sure, G100UL isn't perfect and by switching we are trading some flaws for other flaws. (I don't want my paint stained!) But overall I think G100UL is a better solution than continuing to use 100LL. Mostly because of the perception of the health effects of the TEL in airplane exhaust. And we are unlikely to ever have as much data on G100UL as we do on 100LL in terms of engine performance and longevity. Piston powered aviation has passed its peak; even if we magically switched everybody to G100UL now, there will never be as much avgas burned in the future as there has already been burned. Unless someone can state a specific testing metric and threshold that would be sufficient that we have not met, and why the current testing is insufficient, I am not going believe any arguments that 'more testing' or 'more time' is needed. I think this is just resistance to any change. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/20/the-nirvana-fallacy-an-imperfect-solution-is-often-better-than-no-solution/

This is close, but not completely accurate. They have said that their warranty will not cover damage CAUSED BY the use of G100 fuel. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is clear that companies can't void your warranty or deny warranty coverage solely because you use a part made by another company or because you get repairs done or other services from someone not associated with the company. (Unless the company provides the part of service for free under their warranty). This was litigated and then settled in 2022. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2022/07/ftc-says-companies-warranty-restrictions-were-illegal From Lycoming directly: "Lycoming’s Limited Warranty does not cover damage caused by operation outside of Lycoming’s published specifications or the use of non-approved fuels or lubricants." You can choose to run this fuel if you want to but if this fuel causes damage the damage is on you. GAMI says it won't cause damage. (Naturally they say that!). This is IMO pretty standard. You can use your laptop as a plate to eat lunch off of, but if doing so causes damage to the laptop, that damage will not be covered by warranty. But even if you do eat your lunch off of it if the manufacturer installed bad components and those fail they are still obligated to honor the warranty they provided. One tough part as a consumer is knowing that they all have a legal team and a strong motivation to avoid paying out on a warranty claim. At most you are likely to get the cost of a repair, but if they pay out a warranty claim, there are likely hundreds or thousands of other claims they are much more likely to have to pay. So even if the individual claim is a net loss to them (e.g. they paid $250,000 to defend successfully against a $25,000 repair) they will have a net positive by not having to perform another 9 repairs. And determining the cause of engine damage can be tricky. Did it get run outside of manufacturer's guidance? Too hot? Did you overspeed it? Why did the cam spall? Really hard to tell. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/reid-hillview-airport-launching-sales-of-g100ul/ https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/lycoming-clarifies-g100ul-warranty-impact/ https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/june/19/cirrus-advises-g100ul-use-may-void-warranties (Or more directly: http://servicecenters.cirrusdesign.com/tech_pubs/SR2X/pdf/SA/AllAdvisories/2024ServiceAdvisories/SA24-14/SA24-14.pdf) Also very interesting to note: (From an email list with my co-workers) Michael S. wrote: There's a decade-old consent decree where a number of California FBOs settled a lawsuit by saying that they will sell the lowest-lead avgas that is "commercially available". As long as 100LL was the only option, that was a no-op. There's later litigation about whether G100UL being available for sale at the refinery makes it "commercially available". Braly says that if RHV sells some to pilots tomorrow, as they intend, that pretty clearly meets the standard. This is overreaching in my opinion, since the settlement defines "Commercially Available" as being available "on a consistent and sustained basis at prices and on terms, in quantities and at times sufficient to meet demands of the customers of that Settling Defendant in California". But you can see where things are moving here. If G100UL is "Commercially Available", then the settling parties have 90 days to start distributing it. Check the actual settlement for details; there's a lot of confusion about it, probably some in bad faith. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/judgments/2012-00204J2440.pdf

I don't think you are wrong.

As far as I know, the CAV Ice systems are the only TKS option available for the Mooneys. And performance and coverage wise, they are equivalent between the FIKI and non-FIKI systems. Both systems cover the windscreen, prop, wings, and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Where the FIKI is different is that it's only certified on the 24V systems, it has a different thickness of titanium panel, and it has a backup pump. @CAV Ice please correct me if I'm saying something wrong here.

I've flown my Mooney (with TKS) through some ice. Not a lot so far, but some. The TKS does not work the way I thought it would. Ice still forms. But then it breaks free rather than continuing to build up. Across most of the wing and what I can see of the horizontal stabilizer, it never has built up more than about 1/16" if the TKS is on (and has been on for more than about 3 minutes before - This is important). There are spots that build up more or take longer to shed around the stall strips but they are small and don't seem to negatively impact performance much. At the speed that I've seen ice accumulate when I go through a squall with heavy of severe ice accumulation I wonder how well it'd work.... I have seen 1/4" build up in about 30 seconds. I've never experiences prolonged flight in this sort of condition though. The heaviest buildup I've let accumulate was about 3/8". But this was WITHOUT having the TKS on. I knew I was flying into clear air with temperatures above freezing soon so I just let it build. My cruise speed at the same power setting was about 5 to 8 knots slower with the ice. I would assume my stall speed was a lot higher too. But for moderate, which is < 3 inches per hour? That would be 1/4" every 5 minutes.... From what I have experienced while this would have slight negative effects on aircraft performance due to ice on the primary surfaces they would be relatively minor and the TKS would keep that up as long as the system was operational and you had fluid. I'd start to get worried about the ice on the unprotected parts though.... Cowling, the elevator counterweight, antennas, etc. Ice intensities as defined by the government: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/05/07/03-11237/icing-terminology Icing Terminology and Definitions Icing Intensities Light The rate of ice accumulation requires occasional cycling of manual deicing systems** to minimize ice accretions on the airframe. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is 1/4 inch to one inch (0.6 to 2.5 cm) per hour * on the outer wing. The pilot should consider exiting the condition.*** Moderate The rate of ice accumulation requires frequent cycling of manual deicing systems ** to minimize ice accretions on the airframe. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 cm) per hour * on the outer wing. The pilot should consider exiting the condition as soon as possible.*** Heavy The rate of ice accumulation requires maximum use of the ice protection systems to minimize ice accretions on the airframe. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is more than 3 inches (7.5 cm) per hour * on the outer wing. Immediate exit from the conditions should be considered.*** Severe The rate of ice accumulation is such that ice protection systems fail to remove the accumulation of ice and ice accumulates in locations not normally prone to icing, such as areas aft of protected surfaces and any other areas identified by the manufacturer. Immediate exit from the condition is necessary.****

This is why you can't have fewer than two airplanes. One for XC flights. One for making holes in the sky. Also, one for landing on water. One for STOL. One for maintaining multi currency. Keep going like this and the money will start to add up though.

Larches and fresh snow in the North Cascades, as well as a I think it's the Entiat river valley from last Sunday

I just replaced the door seal on my 231 with a new non-inflatable seal. It was previously a non-inflatable as well, but very old. I doubt the new one will leak any time soon. But there are many possible points for water to get inside the cabin and if you have to leave it outside I would recommend a cover regardless of what door seal you have. My door seal was < $250 even including stripper for the old seal and new adhesive. This is trivially cheap in the airplane world. The labor though... Whew! I spent probably 15 or 20 hours on this project. Some door seal threads: