DXB

Carb temp gauge is a pretty simple install and is nice to have. The O-360 configuration in our Cs is resistant to ice, but I still adhere to keeping carb temp above 40F in any visible moisture including clouds (except at full power when climbing down low). Having the temp gauge simply lets you keep some of the power you would lose by using full carb heat. Upon reducing power for descent, I usually use full carb heat simply because I'm usually thinking about landing and don't want to distract myself by futzing with partial carb heat. The gauge also show you that carb temps are typically quite high at low power in the pattern. For that reason, I turn carb heat off when turning final and performing my last GUMPS- one less thing to worry about if one needs a go-around. Doing so also limits dust ingestion close to the ground. Lastly note the hinges, seals, cable etc. that actuate the carb heat door and bypass valve in the C's airbox are a bit fragile and often need maintenance. Having a carb temp gauge can tip you off when something isn't right (this has happened for me).

This seems like sound guidance that may help keep others safe in the future, regardless of what caused this tragedy. Looking back now at the old thread, you did write "both the gascolator screen and the servo screen need to be removed and inspected for debris. You’re way upstream of where you need to be until you verify that the fuel system has not been contaminated." That seems like reasonable advice back then and is a bit chilling to read now. I think there's boost pump screen in the series also. It's not at all clear the A&P looked at all the screens downstream of the one you picture here.

I'm curious if there are any SOPs to guide exactly how far to go with such inspection and decontamination in Mr. Baber's fuel system contamination scenario. One adds some risk with all invasive maintenance, particularly that performed without a clear diagnosis up front, which may more than offset likelihood any safety dividend of an intervention not directed at a clearly identified problem in a component. I admittedly know little about these fuel injection systems, which my plane lacks, and so my comment may be completely off the mark in this particular case. However, if there is a more rational, systematic process for dealing with Fred Baber's fuel system contamination issue than what he did, it's certainly worth highlighting here so that others can learn from this tragedy.

Fred Baber's story makes me think of my own early days after getting a C model, 10 years ago now. Unlike him, I was an 80 hr newly minted VFR wonder who also knew nothing about aircraft mechanical workings. The plane was flying when I got it but had been underused and had a handful of gremlins. I was nervously hyper-vigilant about these issues and was reading Mike Busch's stuff voraciously. But my ignorance and inexperience at that point made me ineffectual and also drove A&Ps and shop owners crazy. My point is that even if one is thoughtful, cautious, and a rule follower, progressing in aviation means entering situations that are more tenuous than otherwise encountered in routine daily life. I recall the fuel pressure in my C had a habit of dropping to 0 during climbout once in a while, in the days before I had a fuel flow gauge. We chased that issue ad nauseam before concluding in was just vapor lock in the pressure line, in absence of any other viable explanation. That assessment could easily have been wrong and cost me my life - perhaps not unlike what happened to Fred Baber here.

I got finished reading all of Mr Baber's posts in his recent thread on here regarding the prior engine issue. He sounds like a thoughtful and humble guy who handled the event carefully and intelligently. The sediment in the left tank sounded like the culprit, the approach to addressing it seemed fairly meticulous. It's very sad his efforts and those of his A&P weren't enough to keep him safe. What an awful tragedy. RIP Also f*ck the folks who immediately want to point the finger at him without knowing sh*t.

Or the one related to his very recent arrest for pulling a gun on the ANN editor in chief https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66F80A08-3651-4567-8108-933258ADB965&fbclid=IwY2xjawN0vqZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETEwMmxGMnZSOGxpMGNkQ0N6AR6A_Y3oqRa-6C0O4fB8s9b7YmQKoS968UAjI0B2N116fWg6Jkypf4rMVvDHkw_aem_Sz3V3SjsBPW_11_CEQoxYA

DG is still a POS? What a surprise.

GPS outage should be of concern to luddites and non-luddites alike - Ive experienced it myself at an inopportune moment. But if my entire GTN650 box fails (which seems to be the concern driving need for a second com here), I'd sure rather have intact GPS with my 2nd com over an extra nav radio.

Get a second comm for the reasons elaborated. My backup to my GTN650 is an SL30 nav/com, but if I were building my IFR panel now, I'd get a GNC355 GPS/com. The backup GPS gives you a lot more utility in the modern flying environment than a backup NAV. Also don't discount the possibility of using your bird for more challenging IFR flying - it has its rewards and you're well on your way.

It's fairly normal, though you don't want to get it so rich that it dies. It's good to make idle + carb heat the last step of the runup occasionally to check for this happening. You could enrich the idle mixture slightly if it is a concern. Also I actually turn carb heat off after my last GUMPS once on final - one less thing to do in a go around. It's nice to have a carb temp gauge - you'll notice that carb temp actually runs quite high most of the time while reducing power, so ice risk is very low with our setups (but not zero).

On the other hand, if it is overinsured, it can force you to fix something that you would rather have totalled... so it may be best to insure for the market value as best you can discern it

First one seems like best value given it already has some very solid avionics and may be a great IFR platform from day 1. I'd go down that road assuming no gotchas during an attentive inspection out of the airframe. The engine may have some life left still and you can fly it for a while as you look for overhaul options. The other two seem badly overpriced. I don't know when their overhauls were done, but that should impact value also. If >20 years ago, they should still be priced as run out. This thread makes me wonder if I should be insuring my '68C with very nice custom panel, lots of speed mods, and fresh engine and prop should be insured at more than the current 100k. The old wisdom was you can't price the vintage Cs much above that no matter how nice they are, but these prices seem wildly elevated compared to when I bought 11 years ago.

My #2 lasted 7 years before going crazy alarming whenever it wanted and not allowing me to silence it - this can lead to some in flight and post flight drama. It could not be remedied, and my avionics guy said this cheapest option often goes bad. I replaced with the slightly more expensive #1, which he recommended and has been problem free for the last 3.5 years. I hope it stays that way.

Basic Med is a FAR greater success than I predicted. I wonder if any physicians have caught blowback from signing off medicals they shouldn't have. I suppose not since accidents due to pilot incapacitation remain very rare events even in the GA world - which was predicable based on the (albeit limited) Sport Pilot experience. Honestly, physician liability and resistance to signing it off was my greatest concern when it appeared on the scene. Once the Canadians accept Basic Med, I'll probably go that route too, given my lack of aspirations to be in the flight levels, carry lots of passengers, or make money flying. Unfortunately US relations with Canada are at a new low at the moment, so that may take some time as yet...

It's great to find an occasional AME who wants to help pilots, but never forget they are accountable to the FAA Medical Branch, not to you. Carefully worded factual information from medical specialists can greatly help address nonissues capriciously flagged by the FAA in the medical record - I myself have played this role a couple of times to help pilots. However nothing stops a frivolous medical certification challenge by the FAA better than a lawyer showing them why they are about to create a bunch of work for themselves, only to arrive at an embarrassing outcome before an NTSB judge (or in extreme cases even a civil suit in federal court). I will never communicate with the FAA medical branch again except through one of a handful of attorneys they know well. No issue is too small to get a lawyer when dealing with these folks. Doing so from day one would have saved me a ton of hassle and worry - money extremely well spent. One can inadvertently dig the hole much deeper by going it alone.

Definitely don't sell your airplane or give up. Definitely do prepare for the very worst from the FAA Medical Branch and act proactively. If the process went smoothly for you without expert legal representation, you got very lucky. Like many if not most bureaucrats, the docs at the NTSB medical branch care much less about actual service than creating an appearance of usefulness - their priority is finding he path of least resistance to creating a facade of protecting public safety. Their fundamental laziness and indifference, which are the only things that would would make a licensed physician take that kinda job in the first place, also make them cave pretty easily when an astute attorney appears capable of creating extra work for them or exposing their rank incompetence before an NTSB judge. My message is not just that the NTSB Medical Branch is often capricious in its actions against pilots but also that they have vulnerabilities that provide a means to manage the serious threat they pose to your medical certificate. Also it is best to do everything possible to avoid the SI hellhole in the firstplace.

Once can and should write out a narrative for the clinician to document and sign if they are comfortable with its veracity. It's nice if someone with a medical background writes the narrative - I have personally done it for others in need. Also electronic medical records (e.g. Epic) do allow entry of edits and addenda well after the note is signed at the time of the visit - folks should not hesitate to ask for this to be done if necessary. It is also a very wise alternative to have one of the handful of lawyers nationally who are versed in aeromedical issues guide the clinician on the documentation the FAA wants to see. This approach costs money, but one should never leave anything to chance when dealing with the FAA Medical Branch - be as proactive as possible. They are not your friends - just lazy bureaucrats tasked creating a fake facade of protecting public safety.

Very sorry your dad had to go through that. He had a very typical SI encounter - nothing has changed. Some of their most absurd SI requirements are imposed through the HIMS program - a glimmer of hope there is a bill before congress to force FAA to reform that program. But the key is never to get dumped into an SI or HIMS bin in the first place - that will usually make you give up (or put up with living permanently inside a Kafkaesque dystopia if one is an airline guy). One more glimmer of hope - the NTSB judges that hear appeals to medical denials/deferrals have gotten more pilot-friendly in the last year or so for some reason. Their longstanding MO had been only to rule in favor of pilots if the Medical Branch had made an egregious error in applying their own oppressive written rules to pilots, resulting in very few reversals. Now they seem to be actually looking at the details of the situation, resulting in more rulings in favor of pilots. The downstream effect is much more hassle for the Medical Branch buffoons in defending their actions in front of an NTSB judge, making them more likely to cave up front if you lawyer up with someone experienced in communicating in the language that might produce a reversal by an NTSB judge. For this reason, I can't emphasize enough the importance of (1) extreme caution in communicating with any physician, and being very proactive in influencing how they document any issue in the medical record - for instance the "sleep apnea"diagnosis might have been averted up front here through reframing the semantics, using a different diagnostic code (2) Doing everything possible to avoid getting put in the special issuance category in the first place (3) Getting a lawyer IMMEDIATELY at the first sign of trouble with the FAA - there are a just handful of individuals/firms nationally that are particularly facile at dealing with the Medical Branch, which suddenly tends to act more reasonably when all communication is on their letterhead, not directly from you. (4) DO NOT SEEK HELP FROM AOPA PILOT PROTECTION / MEDICAL SERVICES. They often align their "advocacy" with the positions of the FAA Medical Branch, to a degree that one top tier aeromedical attorney described to me as legal malpractice.

I assume you mean sleep apnea - one should be able to get around that. But remember the FAA Medical Branch is a bureacratic meat grinder that will casually end your flying career for no real justification at all. It is run by bottom barrel physicians with almost zero incentive to understand the detailed reality of any medical situation. They will not do the right thing unless forced to do so. GET A LAWYER WITH EXPERIENCE IN AEROMEDICAL MATTERS IN DEALING WITH THE FAA. I can recommend a couple of excellent ones and share my related experience with the medical branch if you want to PM me. THIS CAN CERTAINLY WORK OUT IN YOUR FAVOR, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE VERY PROACTIVE IN DEALING WITH THE FAA.

Try this one - cropped a bit, adjusted contrast, circled with red oval. You'll have to take my word for it that it is the only oil to be found on the engine or anywhere under the cowl.

Prop was IRANd 140 hrs ago, same time as engine overhaul. Back of blades appear immaculate.

I’m requesting a little diagnostic input on the first oil leak to arise on my engine post overhaul. It is at 140 hrs and just under 11 months SMOH and has functioned flawlessly so far. Today, when I reduced power to idle just before landing, I got a sudden little spritz of oil mist on the middle of the windscreen. Upon landing, I noted a tiny bit of oil running back along the front of the top cowl. Upon examining carefully under the cowl, it appeared immaculate – no oil to be seen (so it must not be a big leak). The only exception is in the picture attached. There is oil that appears to be running down from the fitting connecting the prop governor oil line to the right front of the case. This is a strip of oil from the fitting down the right front side (pic attached). I don’t see oil anywhere else. Can one be confident the leak is from this fitting? If that’s the case, I’m a bit surprised there’s no oil blowing back across the base of cylinder #1. What is the best course of action here? I also wondered if the leak might be from the front crankshaft seal, but I would expect oil on both sides of the engine in that were the case.

A bit slow for a stock E. I take a strong principled stand against the folks here saying to put up with it - you didn't buy this thing to putt along at 143 - 148kts! You wanna be seen getting outrun by my well-modded C??!! How's that for a motivational pep talk? Cheapest speed mods are rigging it perfectly and waxing the wings. Make sure gear doors close fully. Timing advance in cruise from a Surefly will give you a clear benefit also for not too much money. The powerflow helped my C a good bit but may not do much for the E's engine/exhaust setup. The cowl closure looks nice but does nothing. Brake caliper rotation and flap gap seals are cheap mods that actually help a bit. Most other mods do very little. The 201 windshield is hard to find now and is a very expensive way to get a couple extra kts. Same with a 2 blade top prop. The windshield does make the cabin feel more spacious, improves visibility and perceptibly decreases prop noise.

I bet one of the major engine shops could help you source one...

My only exception to gear down then flaps, which makes it very unlikely to forget the gear, is FISK arrival into KOSH. Half flaps with 2300/18" and gear up gives you a stable 90kts in the C with a bit extra stall margin when putting along at slow speed.