Tommy

Yes. They all can ruin your day.

Welcome to the new age of internet, folks. You can't have the cake - a massive amount of readily available and free advice + opinions - and eat it too - not to be offended every now and then. If it's too much for you then you can either grow a thicker skin like what Clarence saying or leave like what the OP did. Your choice...

Or better still, use a lighter.

You should've known by now that it's his site, he is entitled to make the rules - just or unjust. But it's internet, for goodness sake, no one knows you personally and vice versa. It's easy to dish out attacks and to receive some. So what?! But, one thing for certain, you stand to loose more if you leave, @Chupacabra ps. And it has nothing to do with right vs left wing, @Andy95W blaming on all the world's problems on the ideology you don't subscribe to on a non-political forum is a sure way to get a penalty point. Lol.

Question: what does one deal with this if it happens mid-flight?

I can vouch for Gee Bee. Perfect fit and comes with everything you need. And I kid you not, on my engine, it made at least 25-30degree difference! Money well spent!

Many factors in play 1) I believe the pilots were conducting a visual approach not ILS 2) the parallel runway 28L was not lit, making it possible to mistake the taxiway as 28R and 28R as 28L. 3) In this case, the bright lights from all the planes lining up on the taxiway actually gave the impression that it's an active runway! 4) the ATC didn't call for a go-around or call for further elaboration when the pilot questioned about flashing lights on the active runway. Personally, I found the last point disturbing. I would've thought if a pilot questioned about the runway - a go-around is almost a given especially considering it's flashing lights!

Unlikely. It's a genetic thing. Maybe he was never being tested properly? There are types of red/gree color blindness in which the brightness is different even though the hue is the same. People can learn to adapt to that and never have any issues.

There are many types of color blindness, some will stop you from flying such as severe red green - it pays to know exactly what you have before drawing any conclusion. It also pays to know how far are you planning to go with your aviation career. Surprisingly FAA is more lenient if you are only operating in a multi-crew environment.

That is assuming the voters know what they are voting for in the first place. And for the majority of these "basket of deplorables," they can't even get their hands off their own cousins let alone knowing the intricacies of ATC system...

Great news. do you have the part no. of the sensor? thanks

This thing is a re-badged product that took 4 years to roll out plus $7K price tag - all backed by BK's legendary customer service. I think I will pass and wait for STC on all the latest integrated avionics announced during Osh

Cool, thanks! @RLCarter 1986 this AD!

So it doesn't apply to never resealed plane?

Came across an incident in Israel on Mooney Facebook Page and someone dropped this bombshell AD 85\24\03. I have no access to the AD but it looks like an inspection and quite possibly drilling new drain holes on the outboard fuel tank to avoid pooling of water. I couldn't find anything with search. Wonder if anyone can shed some light on this? How it's done and how much time needed? Thanks everyone!

FC3 is twice almost twice as much as Air Hawk. Will it last twice as long?

Descent is the most interesting part. You don't want to be power down for too long but at the same time you don't want to fly in the yellow / red arc! So start your descent from the long way away and pick a nice day for flying. But like Clarence @M20Doc was saying, most if not all the break in were done the first couple of hours anyway...

That's also my experience with Air Hawk too. Recently I had to replace one but before I did that I have done a bit of research and found really no credible evidence to say it's any worse than the expensive ones. My A&P also recommended it and Condor. I was then very surprised to hear someone saying how great FC3 are and it's not worth the money saved when you have to change tires more often or, even more outrageous, repair landing gear damage!!

Ever so philosophical and insightful , @carusoam What you had said is exactly what I have been saying all alone. Every flies and maintains planes differently. On the issue of tires, where there is really no credible experimental evidence and the anecdotal evidence is also equivocal (half of the people said FC3, half said Air Hawk). One ought to be challenged to accuse others short changing or putting at risk of their planes by going for the cheaper tires. The issue here is that these people 1) think their own anecdotal evidence is better or more than everyone else's (I am sure many MSers here had changed more than 22 sets of tires that Byron claimed to have changed) 2) not knowing how to assess the validity and the power of an experiment 3) simply cannot take a dissent. And then along come Byron's friends... All lined up, hurling insults and innuendos. Laugh out loud. Is this how MSpace been operating? Someone makes a claim, we then all agree, huddle, and suck each other's that-thing-Mucci-was-referring-to. Then someone says "but wait, I don't think you are right" Bang! He gets roasted for not a "community person", not a "team-player?"

Your theory certainly provides another possible explanation to the observation that I have made, namely, for every recommendation on an expensive tire, there is one for the cheaper version. I wonder if people who "cheap-ed out" on a tire also more likely to cheap out on the tube or more likely not to inflate them with the right pressure because they aren't too concerned (ie. these are what we called a confounding factor). All the theories about tread depth, tighter beads, thicker and harder rubber, etc etc are great and make sense but need to be tested. What Byron and Alan failed to understand is that they carried out what we call the observational study - conclusion drawn based on their own experience - its validity is right at the bottom of the evidence strength because there are lots and lots of biases and uncontrolled variables. Their "studies" will NOT be in any shape or from reproducible. And the simple observation again "for every recommendation on an expensive tire, there is one for the cheaper version" simply confirms the irreproducibility of their "studies." What about Aviation Consumer's test? A closer look at the article revealed the highly insufficient power (11 tires were all they testes), the seriously flawed methodology (there was no control, no blind, no statistical analysis, and using "simulated condition" which uses machines that are used to test car tires not GA tires), and highly sensationalized conclusion Goodyear TOPs. It doesn't surprise me at all. It's a consumer magazine not a science journal. It has a very limited budget and does not disclose any material support from anyone (*Goodyear, cough cough). Take a look at ANR headset reviews and it's the same kind of pattern! What can Byron do in this case? Well, couple of things. One, admit that he has just as much evidence on tires as every one else and every one flies / maintains the plane differently (surprise) and stop accusing people "cheap out" or "take risks" with their planes because there is simply no evidence to suggest that whatsoever or find more credible evidence than some magazine or, failing that, do some proper research himself (if it's going to be an observational study, it will probably take decades of meticulous collection of data). And certainly not these: "I don't think you're a pilot or an aircraft owner If its less, you go away from this board and never come back. Deal? You're hopeless. Good day sir." Case and point: there was a discussion on AC43.13 on Mooney Pilots Facebook group and EVERY ONE - including Byron - was opening champagnes to congratulate someone for narrowly avoiding having a much bigger tear down job on his spar except this one brave guy came out and said "wait a minute... what about this and this..." I learnt new things on my Mooney thanks to this HIGHLY experienced A&P aero engineer who was not afraid to speak out. THAT IS WHAT FORUM IS ALL ABOUT. FOR DISCUSSION. FOR DISSENT. FOR DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. IF WE ALL WE DO IS JUST AGREEING ON EACH OTHER. WHAT'S THE POINT?

Lycoming has a break-in procedure. Follow it. It does call for 25/25 power setting at the very least. Some people are even more aggressive. I flew mine between 25/25 and 27/27 - change every 15 to 30 minutes for first 20 hours or so. Taxiing with 15" or above (and apply gentle breaks). My workshop manager said Mineral the first 50 hour. Then Aeroshell 100 for next 50. Then Aeroshell W100 only when the break in is definitely complete. One very important thing is DO NOT COMPROMISE SAFETY ie. if you have to power down, power down. Therefore, it's best to have a very long run way to land on your first 20 hours so you only have to idle on the flare and not during the approach but you will be crossing the fence at 80 kt or above. Try to do it when it's cold outside to keep the temperature down. And don't forget your fuel burn will be a lot more! Watch your engine monitor like a hawk and fly like it's going to quit any minute... Tedious but it's well worth it when it's done right. Also was your engine affected by the latest SB?

Sorry I mis-interpreted. So how's variance in manufacturing, affect the safety and longevity. @jetdriven made a few comments on "stiffer" and "thicker" being better based on his experience of 22 sets. Then I heard @RLCarter said softer compound may give better traction and cushion but make sure your tire pressure is up there. I am curious how your variance in manufacturing - specifically "composition of rubber compounds, types of fabric used in plys, design of bead cables," - can affect safety and longevity. It's another set of variables.

I kindly disagree. I am still learning new things like, for example, the temperature cycle. And I am certain some MSers are too. We need not stop because some people are crying troll... Just like the United discussion, I was learning the statutory and contract law, then it got banned because few people were crying foul.

Agree on what you said (though I must confess, I will need to do a bit more research on the car tires) What I find a little bit unsettling is to extrapolate theories and data from car tires to general aviation. after all, like you said, the usage couldn't be more dis-similar! Thanks for the discussion on the temperature! Something I didn't quite consider but AFAIK, I don't think there is any manufacturers out there quote temperature data on the tires so makes it hard to decide what material and what made are best for the tire.

Lab results don't lie. Individual testimonies do. This is music to the marketing department's ear! I take issue with this approach. Cheap automatically means bad. There is simply no good objective evidence to say Goodyears is any better than say Condor or Air Trac / Hawk etc. I had a set of Air Hawk for 4 years, put on by the previous owner, also still like new (close to 400 hours of use) and also close to 500 landings. Unfortunately I flat spotted one with 40kt gust wind landing on a short strip couple of months ago which I am certain FC3 will have the same amount of damage Again, my own testimony, your mileage may vary! But I will be the first guy to rush out and buy FCIII if there are objective evidences.