Tommy

Why? For giving you guys the authoritative journal article on burn's prognosis? Done by Harvard, published by New England, with a title as grim as "Objective Estimates of the Probability of Death from Burn Injuries" Or for reminding people that this is an aviation forum that doesn't welcome freedom of speech in the following categories: politics, religion, and Cirrus?

Er... No thoughts and prayers to the specialists, nurses, physiotherapists, dieticians, pharmacists who are working around the clock, applying both their understanding of science and personal experience, to save Mark's life as well preserving his future quality of life??

Read, Hank. Tom (by the way, I am not Tom in case you are wondering) says "One of my degrees in in political science." And you said his definition of politics is unusual.... REALLY?! Ok obviously his explanation why he is not supporting this "banning" of political discussion has gone right over your and Mike's heads @201er Let me try to spell it out for both of you. 1) The definition of politics is very subjective and personal. So who's to judge? You? Me? Someone? 2) It's not the political discussion that matters, it the "bitching and dog-barking" of people who are defending their political views. These people include you, me, Mike, Scott, Peter, Bluewinglfyer, Shardrach, Tony Starke and the list goes on. 3) The difference is that I don't call for the banning of political discussion but you guys do. 4) That's because you guys can't help yourself ignoring people who talk opposing politics and "bitch and bark" but then have your views challenged or even ridiculed, which you guys can't stand but, here is the clincher, I can and happy to be challenged or even ridiculed. 5)lastly, you guys are notably silent or notably supportive when someone clearly injected politics into the discussions. For example, when Peter clearly injected the politics of gun rights into Tony Starke's post about how some Democrat is calling for the banning of recreational helicopter flight over NYC. So don't be so arrogant as to self-point yourself as the umpire of what the members can talk about and what can't. And don't be so hypocritical as to stay silent or even support a discussion with politics injected. If you think it's a political discussion (and a lot of time you guys label something as "political" simply because you disagree with it and just want to shut down the conversations), then just walk away / ignore. If you can't help yourself to interject then you don't get to call for the ban. There are people may think the discussion is of scientific or sociological or philosophical or economic or psychological in nature and not politics. YOU DON'T GET TO JUDGE. Especially not right after you called someone who has a political science degree that his definition of "politics" is too broad and unusual....

I think you should ask him "how is this knowledge going to make any difference to my flight training?"

I said I disagree that politics should be banned and found it utterly repungant to use a poll taken from 1% of total MS members to legitimatize the ostracization of people who talk politics (or, more accurately, opposing politics) on this forum. I gave my reasons : online, I use politicized science to tell who I should trust more and who I should not. Without naming a single person. Then. A whole lot of people triggered... Such is the quality of discussion... Let's start polls on asking people to "do so somewhere other than Mooneyspace." - Mike @201er2019 if they want to talk about Cirrus, Cirrus pilots, BRS, LOP, ROP, FAA regulations, tires, T&G, Aspen vs Garmin, landing/ take off configurations, accidents, airport re-development, recreational helicopter flights over NYC, Avgas price, Speed mod, BASIC med..... You know, for the sake of civility. But yes, religion, specifically, Christianity, is fine and dandy. No argument there. Maybe I will start a poll to rename Mooneyspace to Christianspace... Or Maureder'sFatGirlFriendSpace. Also no issues there. Lots of laughs at pictures of random obese women that we don't even know personally...

Education 1. the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university. "a course of education" the theory and practice of teaching. "colleges of education" a body of knowledge acquired while being educated. plural noun: educations information about or training in a particular subject. "health education" Can't read any where that says education is for making friends and influence other's opinions. I simply can't fathom how someone as educated as Andy could be so utterly clueless in understanding that education is not for making friends and influencing others' opinions. Also why you assume that every single person who joined an online discussion forum is to make friends? Is it really that difficult to understand that it's an online discussion forum not a dating website? Try Tinder, I believe it does a much job of making online friends if that's what you are after.

Factor in 2 hours because they are not really that accessible to start with. If you have a wet pump, MAKE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT GASKET. The junior mechanic who replaced my pump used a wrong gasket and resulted in small but, luckily, detectable oil leak. There are numerous ATSB report on engine failure post pump replacement due to oil leak. Also change the vacuum filter as there might be some debris from the failure stuck inside.

Errr. you kind of did when you say "everyone." By "playing this game," you mean disagreeing twice with people on the identical post on an online forum? And that's not allowed? And thanks for the ill wishes. I will try my best to disappoint you.

I shall copy and paste my first statement: "The fact that you called yourself representative when you clearly don't have the number nor the mandate shows arrogance." Everyone? Like all 10299 members?

"We, the 87 participants out of Mooneyspace's 10299 members and the broader Mooney community that I think I represent even though I know probably less than 1% of Mooney Community, kindly ask that those who wish to engage in any political discussion or discourse of an opposing political view to me do so somewhere other than Mooneyspace." There, fixed it for you, Mike @201er The fact that you called yourself representative when you clearly don't have the number nor the mandate shows arrogance. The fact that you started a tongue-in-cheek "poll" that wasn't really asking for an opinion show disingenuity. The fact that you thought it's even remotely possible to not talk about politics on an online forum in an era when everything is politicized including science shows naivety. This is why we can't have sensible political - or any topics of controversy - discussion. So what's next? Baning the talk of religion on Mooneyspace? Well we don't seem to have that problem probably because most of us here share the same religious views. You can send your thoughts and Christian prayers all day long. What a surprise, when most of us share the same view, no arguments. But is that what online discussion forum is for? Bunch of online strangers having an orgy of thinking that everyone has the same idea / opinion? Don't you guys already have enough of that at work and home that you need more of that on an online discussion forum?

Moving goal posts? Not making a good faith effort to have a good conversation? Huh? I took up your challenge and checked out this Dr. Steel of yours - an astronomer with 5 google hits on climate related search and one unreferenced opinion piece in The Guardian back in 2002, in which he claimed global warming is real but it's good because it prevents ice age. Hardly an authoritative figure, right? I got to admit, I was initially hoping that you will give me a well known, well respected name within Mooney community who happens to be a climate skeptic and/or anti-vaxxer and/or creationist.

Ok, set aside the obvious fact that he is no climate scientist, take a look at his opinion piece in the Guardian back in 2002(!). First sentence: "There can be little doubt that global warming is real." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2002/dec/05/comment.climatechange Few red flags: 1) he didn't give a single reference in his opinion piece even though he made some extraordinary claims including "Global warming, then, is great because it protects us from the unpredictable big freeze that would be far, far worse." 2) A quick google search of Dr. Duncan in relation to climate change turns up with 5 results. Hardly an authoritative figure, is he? 3) He doesn't fly or own a Mooney. I didn't ask anyone to prove anything and I found your "trust no one" approach is rather grim. It's my own method of assessment of someone's credibility which is largely based on discussion of politicized science. Normally I prefer to look at someone's CV and talk to their referees but you can't really do that here , can you?

For someone who is unhappy to be judged and cries foul of some online stranger not knowing you, you sure love to judge and seems to have some rather unhealthy Freudian fascination of me. Let's see: "ideologically possessed," "unkind", "abrasive", "obnoxious", "argumentative", "overconfident", "goes out of your way to find conflict", "manage without you", "display of false humility", "expert enough on all subjects political", "You may be quite bright but you never showcase it", " contrarian ideologue consumed with hunting down and attacking your enemies." "particular pig." You sounded like the bitter whining ex that every one hates... But who are you kidding? Mate, you are Political with a capital P! How do I know? Because you were absolutely triggered when I replied to Mike @201er and Tony. I don't recall ever singling you out yet you were the only MS member who felt compelled enough to jump right into it. Your rage was palpable. You said I am a pig and told me to piss off? Why? Because I said that I don't trust advices on scientific matter - including aviation - given by a stranger on the net who don't know how science works and one of the few ways to quickly work that out is to discuss politicized science. Until such time there is another quick and easy way of ascertaining some stranger's credential, that will be my modus operandi. So if you don't like it, you can try to build a bridge and get over it.

Sure. Name me one. Don't insult our intelligence by presuming that you don't need to show us that you are believable when you made comments on highly technical and scientific problems that we have with our birds. That's not OK and it's more just being egotistical, it's downright dangerous and criminal.

A contribution that goes against your belief and ideology will always be deemed as negative just like how you called political views against yours "un-American." My biggest contribution to MS is to expose people like you who cherry pick science when it's convenient and whose "science" is dictated by their beliefs, yet have the audacity to offer technical advices that are well within the realm of science. MS members have the right to know how much they can trust advices given by people like you. Without a valid CV, talking about politicized sciences is one of the rare ways - if not the only way - to find out.

Venus, look it up. Again, I stand by my comment that it is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." when it comes to my defence of lacking contribution.

@Shadrach And yes you are absolutely right about my lack of contribution to the MS outside of my area of expertise of medicine. This is because I try to live by Lincoln's (or Twain's) wise words: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." And believe me, nothing removes doubts faster than talking about politicized sciences like climate change, vaccination, gun control, evolution etc with someone like you.

Triggered much?? You are screaming as if you owned this forum... Climate science is epidemiology?! Oh boy! Another one to put on my list of "MS-member-who-doesn't-know-how-science-works." Ok who's next? You see, @Shadrach, the problem of MS is not politics, it's that there are 100 opinions on the same thing when 100 people replied. Now tell me how do you work out whose opinion is better than the others when we don't upload our CVs? One thing I do know for certain is that yours is now way down on the score board after that "climate science is epidemiology" statement.

"It depends on the science they believe in." So science depends on what you believe instead of your beliefs depend on science... Oh boy... And this is exactly why talking about "politics" or, more precisely, politicized science is of paramount when you want to solicit advices over the internet. How much trust do you have of someone that says I can will science into my belief?

I think I am in a very different camp. Because I am not in living in US so I don't have the issue of needing to refrain myself from talking just about anything for the sake of saving myself from awkward social encounters. Lol. So MS, to me, is a place where I come and ask for advices - advices that may well be life and death. The trouble with MS is that we don't advertise our CV so one way for me to find out how much weight I need to place on someone's advice is to look at his or her political inclination - especially on the subjects of gun control, climate change, evolution, and vaccination, which are scientific matters that are, unfortunately, made political. Would you bet your life on advices given by someone who does not believe in science?

Anti-your-political-view-point is very different from anti-American. Know the difference and get it right, Jim... And, no, I am a Mooney enthusiasts but I don't brag about Mooney nor denigrate other aircraft. You are speaking for yourself.

That's what I read - can't find the reference now. The bathtub chart shows first 100 hours or so. Yes many people see oil analysis as a low sensitivity and low specificity test but I wonder if a new engine and an old engine's failure modes (out of tolerance vs wear and tear) are sufficiently different that oil analysis has different sensitivity and specificity when it comes to new engines. But we don't really have another test to compare to (certainly not one that's as cheap and accessible as the oil analysis).

Run it hard and not above 4000ft until oil consumption stablizes. Then you are good to go. But I wouldn't fly it over the mountainous range before 100hours plus oil analysis and filters all chekced out.

Echo the sentiment. The lowish normal oil pressure in isolation isn't a problem and can be easily fixed. It's the combination of high oil temp, high CHTs, and low oil pressure that is of greater concern. First we need to know if these are consistent with your previous readings on OEM gauges to see if it's a calibration problem. If it's consistent, then your engine definitely needs a bit of look at +/- tweaking. You never know, they might be all related (if you are lucky). And yes, high oil pressure is good for Lycoming.

It's very likely you have a grounding point somewhere. I had the same problem and traced the wire all the way from the switch to the cabin (definitely do this yourself because it can take hours). Don't fly with the breaker out. Stall warning is there for a reason.