Jump to content

MikeOH

Supporter
  • Posts

    1,936
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KPOC - Brackett Field, Pomona, CA
  • Model
    '70 M20F

Recent Profile Visitors

2,469 profile views

MikeOH's Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (13/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

1.5k

Reputation

  1. You have a seriously vivid imagination. Portraying the crime of the century with your hyperbole! There will be ZERO alteration to aircraft. It's the identical plane both before and after the purchase of a piece of paper. Yet, your contention is lawsuits if a downed plane is found with yellow fuel in the tank??? You do realize even a frivolous law suit has to be based in at least plausible fantasy? On exactly what basis would you connect the cause of the crash to the absence of a piece of paper? People fly, and crash, with expired medicals and insurance still covers them, yet your outcome is denied claims over a missing STC for a drop-in-replacement fuel? Not bloody likely. And, seriously, you think FBOs are going to start demanding you "Show your papers!" before selling you fuel? I guess FBOs will have to shut down self-serve fuel, too. Thanks for the laugh
  2. Well, I am very interested to see how that would really play out. To my knowledge there has NEVER been a "blanket" STC issued that requires ABSOLUTELY NOTHING be done to alter the plane and universally applicable to ANY piston aircraft that runs on 100LL. The rules are there, ultimately, for reasons of safety. If the FAA issues such a blanket STC, what is the safety risk of NOT having the STC? Unlike the 94UL STCs which required proof for each model issued an STC performs properly (some aircraft are not eligible for good reasons), my understanding is that GAMI is looking for "universal approval.". Where is the risk? And, criminal?? You must be joking...how often has the FAA gone after pilots criminally for violating an FAR? I'm just waiting to hear all of you examples. How many are still incarcerated? Tears are coming to my eyes thinking about the Feds cuffing a pilot when he fills up with G100UL without that precious STC! As far as 91.9, seems to me you are using aviation grade 100 gas in accordance with your POH. Not seeing the violation.
  3. Nah, but you can be certain a few of the 87,000 new IRS agents will be auditing you!
  4. With heavy, but not maximum, braking I can make the first turn-off at home field; 650 feet. How far does a gear up mooney slide after contact? I'd bet less than that. As far as float, I would be deliberately flying on, not waiting around for a full stall landing!
  5. @GeeBee Consider a context outside the U.S. Piston planes operate all over the world, many are of U.S. manufacture and certification, and some continue to fly under U.S. registry. Do you honestly think all of them are operating ONLY on fuel certified to meet the ASTM D-910 standard? If you are a realist, it is obvious they all do not. Is it your contention that those that do not are in violation of some law or regulation? Or, is it more probable they are operating on fuels that meet other standards or specifications (100 grade aviation fuel) of the countries/standards bodies in those locations? In the case of Braly and his GAMI 100UL do you not think his greater than a decade development efforts have not extensively tested his fuel? Likely well beyond the requirements of any one of many different aviation fuel standards out there. To my knowledge this is supposed to be a "drop in" fuel with NO requirements or alterations needed whatsoever to the aircraft. Consequently I can think of only two reasons he is not simply certifying to a particular standard (ASTM D-910 being one example): 1) He wants to shift at least some liability to the Feds; if he can get them to issue a 'blanket' STC he would have that. 2) He wants to profit from the sale of STCs (Beyond payments for royalties for the use of his 'recipe') I certainly don't begrudge him making a profit, but I do object to being forced to purchase his STC; we are going to be paying more (likely a lot more at retail) to repeatedly buy his product. And, if the Feds have their way (EPA/whoever bans leaded avgas), then we will be forced to buy his product regardless. Therefore, IMO, the FAA issuing a 'blanket' STC to his company is tantamount to giving him a monopoly!! Not exactly the function of the Feds! Or, these days, maybe it is If they ban leaded avgas he'll have a de-facto monopoly anyway! To be forced to buy an STC as well??? That's simple greed right there. Not that I hold the Feds in any high regard, but perhaps they actually have the foresight to know this and that is why no 'blanket' STC has been issued. The above is why I am so vested in the true legal necessity of an STC. If not legally required, we can thumb our noses at paying for his STC!
  6. How do I view 8(e) upon which you hang your hat; it appears I need to spend $54 to view it! Also, please explain where an AC (ADVISORY Circular) is LEGALLY MANDATED.
  7. That just sounds like that falls into the "sometimes you're just screwed" category. I'd be more worried about catching the gear and flipping. I've thought a good STC would be for seats with a 'crush zone' like helicopter seats often have. I'd think even an inch of a compressible material would greatly reduce the vertical 'G' force and reduce back injuries.
  8. IMHO, it would have. They would have slid to a stop quickly; even if they still hit that building the slower speed might have saved them. This accident video really has me thinking that landing gear up may be the smart play unless dead sticking into an actual airport. Previously, I've always thought I'd decide based on how the site looked whether I'd land gear up, or not. This situation with a hard surface road would have been one where I would have had the gear down....now, I'm not so sure that's a good plan.
  9. Damn! Looks to me like he was delibrately maneuvering left to avoid hitting the car on the right, caught the building, snapped around and slammed the nose/cabin into the solid brick. If that car hadn't have been there it would have been a perfect landing/outcome.
  10. Implied in your comment is that all objections are sexist. Personally, I am aggravated by them because they are a waste of taxpayer money! Is changing all FAA documentation to gender neutral really a good way to spend tax dollars? IOW, I'd feel the same way if they were changing from Airwomen to Airhumanoid!
  11. LOL! We built little "buzz boxes" with a 9V battery to do the same...the Pong reset circuit was apparently pretty sensitive. Never paid for a game. I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations has run out!
  12. Please provide a cite that requires "aviation gasoline" to meet ASTM D-910.
  13. Nah, Pong was the first VIDEO game I played. No computer in those; all TTL. And, Pong came out in Nov ‘72. So, yeah, I’m old
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.