DXB

I fear you're about to get slammed with a lot of doghouse fabrication requests (don't worry you're safe from me - I'm not quite ready to cross the Rockies to get mine fixed ). My engine is out for overhaul at the moment, and the guy doing the removal / reinstall on the field seems to be open to doing some sheet metal work - fingers crossed and wallet open. I even bought a doghouse from the same year C with most parts in good shape, so it should be minimal fabrication.

Sorry to keep pulverizing this particular horse carcass, but that's what the internet is for since no one puts up with me in real life To avert any ambiguity, I've not been saying "clear of all runways." I've been saying "MOONEY is clear of all runways" specifically at a field with multiple runways because it doesn't demand the listener to have been keeping track of what runway I was using - it just says I'm no factor for anywhere you might want to take off or land. At a field with one runway, I say "Mooney is clear of the runway." By your logic, the latter would be prone to the same confusion potential as the former - i.e. suggesting I'm declaring the one runway is clear, even though once I turn off, someone could have already have entered either side and I've stopped watching. I personally hate hearing "XXXX is clear of the active" for the reasons outlined by others above, so I don't use it. I suppose given dislike for my preferred options as well, I'll just start saying "Mooney's clear of 01/19" or similar going forward. I could also say nothing since it seems like all of this is nonstandard, but I generally find it helpful when others announce exiting the runway so I'd like to do the same.

still makes zero sense to me - i am only reporting my own position and i dont see how it could be construed otherwise. Here “Mooney’s clear all runways” is elegant shorthand for “Mooney has exited 01/19 and has not turned onto 10/28 in the process in case anyone is using that one”. If I had turned onto another runway in the process its my obligation to say so. There is no situation where reporting your own position leads to inference of anyone else’s at nontowered field so I fail to see why it would here.

"Mooney's clear all runways" NOT "clear all runways" How is that ambiguous?

Juggling the demands of multiple spouses and the overall complexity of his domestic life might leave him on the brink of insanity, making him particularly reliant on his Mooney outings for his emotional health. That might both cloud his judgement and make potential seizure of the aircraft even more devastating.

Interesting - those are pretty juicy background details about the individual that I wasn't able to figure out, but they might be irrelevant to the circumstances here. I've certainly landed at desolate private strip previously based on a phone call alone, but I'd never leave my plane there unsecured for any amount of time - obviously poor judgement. Regardless, the video is a good reminder to tread very carefully when landing on private strips. The complex jurisdiction issues related to landing on tribal land certainly don't help.

Super interesting topic I know nothing about. My brief internet “research” suggests that, in broad general terms, federal criminal laws mostly apply but civil ones mostly do not. State laws generally do not apply. They pay most federal taxes but are largely exempt from state taxes. However they have the right to vote in both state and federal elections. However, their voting power in state elections is limited by not having representatives in their legislatures (except in Maine). And they of course don’t get their own congressional representation like real states. So they are not really states and not really sovereign nations - hard to find a parallel for them. They do have a striking degree of sovereignty and thus appropriately a limited voice in state and federal government. It also becomes a big mess sorting out jurisdiction when tribal vs nontribal members commit crimes or have civil disputes on each others lands - this seems particularly problematic in Oklahoma, which is majority tribal land. More on topic, I wonder if he could find a federal criminal law that they violated in order to help make this all go away….

Last chance! Bid before Sept. 4 on Dan Gryder's beautiful DC-3, which is up for auction, I suspect as a consequence of his debts including the defamation civil judgement against him. Hopefully the buyer won't have too much trouble removing his stench and the livery advertising his scam "animal rescue." https://www.proxibid.com/Your-Chance-to-Own-a-Unique-Piece-of-History-1938-Douglas-DC-3A-Aircraft-N143D/lotInformation/86560545

Wow! This articulate and earnest-sounding guy flies an M20E and documents his outdoors adventures on YouTube. He shares a rivetingly bizarre recent account of having his plane seized at a private strip on tribal lands near the Grand Canyon after getting advance permission to land there. Granted it only tells one side, but the chilling story sounds like something that would happen in Central America, not inside US borders. I made a mental note never to land at a private strip for any reason inside tribal lands.

Nope - false equivalency! The runway you are using is obviously relevant to others while you're still in the air before landing or when you are about to depart - so that info is important to convey despite the chance of mis-speaking or being misheard. After you've landed and exited, simply saying you're "clear of the runway" or "clear of all runways" depending on the field avoids any chance of mis-speaking or misinterpretation, while also conveying more information without extra breath. Specifically it declares that you are now no longer factor for all takeoff and landing operations considering your position, irrespective of runway. Hopefully both you and the FAA will embrace my guidance on this critical matter, and next edition of the AIM will contain this revision

If you're not on any runway, then which one you're not on is irrelevant. Thus omitting the information related to the one you landed reduces chances for confusion and error on part of both the speaker and the listener.

Hmm - maybe "Mooney's clear of all runways"

Or "clear all runways" at fields with multiple

Interesting discussion. These days I try to behave to some degree by AIM guidance but more so by what I myself find useful and courteous from others. My related two cents: (1) I say "clear all runways" after landing because I find it useful when others do similar. Entering and exiting a runway generally seems worthy of announcement to any other traffic that may be landing or waiting to depart. I only mention runway number when departing or when crossing a runway during taxi. Saying "the active" seems unhelpful. (2) Despite what the AIM says, I think announcing tail numbers on CTAF is mostly useless; by contrast, I find knowing the general aircraft characteristics useful (e.g. Citation vs. Mooney vs. 172 vs. Cub) so I always announce that. If there are multiple aircrafts of the same type around, one might use additional identifiers e.g. "second Mooney," "blue and white Mooney," or "10mi straight in Cirrus Prick" . At a busy nontowered field, I want to hear something that's easier to keep straight than a full tail number! (3) My first call when approaching a desolate, radio-silent field where I'm lined up with the runway is something like " Blah Blah traffic, Mooney 10 mi east, landing straight in rwy 27 IF there's no one's near the pattern at Blah Blah" I'm not asking anyone to make additional calls specifically on my behalf (like the despicable "traffic in the area please advise" ) , but if there's someone in the pattern not making position reports, it's a nudge to start so I can consider a standard pattern entry (4) @midlifeflyer's responses to "any traffic in the area" (It’s bumper to. bumper on Route 1) and "last call" (two bud lights please) should be codified as favored phraseology in the AIM, and I will use them going forward. (5) My opinions on (1) (2)& (3) can be altered by reasoning and evidence. However, it is a fundamental and unalienable truth there are only two kinds of pilots on earth: those who say "meow," "let's go Brandon," "hawk tuah," or similar on 121.5, and those who do not

If you fit in a 172, you'll fit in a Mooney (and find a ton more fun and utility in flying the latter). The seating position is just different - think kitchen table vs. sports car. It's not an ideal plane for getting a PPL - it certainly can be done in one if you find a competent instructor who is willing to give you primary training in it, but the added complexity will slow down your progress.

What a bummer, not many of those wood wings still flying. Im glad pilot is ok. Wonder how he managed the gear. Up would be the way go for that kind of field.

Sure would like to know if there's a easy way to convert the C to open baffle and if there's any cooling improvement - the C with the doghouse is a piece of dogsh*t for cooling, and it also makes maintenance access harder. That said, I'm not sure why Mooney converted the E to open baffle in '68 and left the doghouse in place on the C until the bitter end in ~77 (?). Key differences with the E/F include the C's oil cooler location on the left front of the cowl and of the carb heat air intake in the back top right of the doghouse.

This is exactly the f*cking idiocy I keep ranting about with the FAA medical branch. I've personally helped create and compile accurate, ironclad-appearing documentation from the medical record as a favor a couple of patients who are also pilot friends. I've written well organized notes summarizing all relevant background radiology, pathology, evaluations of other specialists, and also provided copies of those documents. I explicitly created a summary on the record why their condition added no risk to their operation of an aircraft and likely never would, writing at a level that any MD should instantly grasp and leaving my direct cell phone contact for questions. It's ridiculous that people need a "special issuance" for so much of this stuff, and a casual glance at many of the situations by someone with moderate expertise should lead to immediate approval. Instead, both instances I describe led to 6+ month delays, and in one case a request for more documentation (!). I'm not sure I really helped either of them. I think what they need is an up front expediter for the large fraction of trivial stuff, allowing for thoughtful and timely focus on the subset meriting more careful consideration. Even for those cases, the goal needs to be to HELP the pilot find a reasonable and timely path to a medical certificate if at all possible. Instead, everyone is getting put through the same glacially slow bureaucratic meat grinder.

There's little incentive to be an AME - no economic incentive to support going to the trouble, and ones obligations in the AME role are highly codified, leaving little discretion in the exam to make a positive difference for pilots. Still, the folks who do it are providing an important service and deserve to be treated as such, particularly given they generally aren't making much money off of it.

I'm very glad you're getting back to flying and wish you a safe journey back to full proficiency. Reading the story about your medical made my blood boil. As a physician myself, I have pained to watch multiple other pilots go through the same ridiculously ordeal, although yours may be the worst of all. Like so many others, I suspect you were perfectly safe to keep flying from the day your medical was denied going forward - in many (most?) such cases, any physician with real expertise in the condition in question would find it patently obvious upon looking at the details that it did not pose any special risk for incapacity in the cockpit. I am stunned by the absurdity of some of these cases; sadly, I have also seen the loss of proficiency while waiting many months or even years to clear this stuff up itself become a safety hazard. The "physicians" who choose to work for the FAA medical branch are a disgrace to both medicine and aviation - it's a "special" kind of individual who would want to make the transition from practitioner to regulatory federal bureaucrat.

That is one damn nice F that checks all the boxes. Assuming corrosion free and no other gotchas on prebuy, I'd say that price is completely reasonable. For me the appeal of the J bar and hydraulic flaps over electric gear/flaps and substantial cost savings over a comparably equipped J would make me leap at this purchase! I'll be a little jealous if you end up with it. This is pretty much the exact plane I'd try to buy if I could do it over again.

I’m thinking of switching to ground only + liability next time around - it seems like a sensible way to save a few bucks, given constantly rising premiums. I think a ground loss is much more likely than in flight, other than gear up, and one can try to be committed to putting the gear down. Also many in flight hull losses are relevant only to one’s estate, which is not a major consideration for me.

I have the engine overhaul blues for my C model - it's gonna be down until at least October. Any recommendations for a tailwheel instructor/aircraft combo in the Philadelphia/central/south Jersey area? I figure a tailwheel endorsement would be a nice new challenge to help pass the time, but I'm striking out on finding someone. Any other ideas if that doesn't work out? I don't think there's a good spot for gliders nearby. I thought about working on commercial, but I have no "need" for the rating, I'd get more benefit out of doing the maneuvers in my own plane rather than some crappy flight school trainer.

These are two VERY different men. Juan Brown is an ordinary Youtube accident "expert" who engages in 80% early factual dissemination combined with 20% premature speculation that by its very nature is prone to miss the mark. At least from what I've seen, he is generally not disrespectful to the injured and deceased and also tends to correct errors in later videos. By contrast, Dan Gryder is a rare and special form of scumbag who has zero regard for ordinary human decency and humility. He not only promotes wild speculations as fact but also repeatedly engages in exceptionally nasty personal attacks against people involved in accidents as well as anyone in the aviation community who dares call him out. The guy also has restraining orders for stalking women in the aviation community ( https://casetext.com/case/angelle-v-gryder ) and a million dollar defamation judgement against him. Part of DG's routine strategy is putting up such scurrilous sensationalist content briefly and then taking it down when it is about to get him in trouble. Dan Millican, who I think is mostly a class act among aviation Youtubers and has been a target of DG, has taken a particular interest in documenting how evil this guy is:

Somehow DG managed to sneak onto the grounds this year anyway I'm told. I hope they prosecute him for trespassing. I've no clue how the other folks got banned.