Jump to content

rbp

Basic Member
  • Posts

    1,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by rbp

  1. Lol. Where did I say it was the cause? I am looking at the torque numbers with and without oscillations.
  2. I do know because the data is the logs and have analyzed them. That’s not the problem.
  3. If you’re going with the remote transponder, you might as well go with the remote audio panel too. I know there are some people on here who prefer the PS, but I have the Garmin audio and it works just great. I have the audio playback button as one of the soft keys on my gtn750, and it’s super handy when I miss a call
  4. 14 CFR § 91.169 (2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR. the way i read this is that if the destination airport has no IAP, you must file a legal alternate did you have an alternate in the original FLP?
  5. to be clear, when you are given a clearance, its to the clearance limit in CRAFT. eg, you can file to a VOR where its reported to be VOR
  6. Now calculates head/tailwind, weight of fuel, and a link to the position of the departure
  7. here's another one departing Palm Beach North county with full fuel, 70# of luggage, one soul
  8. I wrote another program today that looks at the log file and calculates the take off distance for that flight. for example, here's the results from a departure from HPN. Since I almost always put in full power before releasing the brakes, that's how I choose to determine where the beginning of the T/O roll is, and this most closely mirrors what one would do for a short-field takeoff it took 1314 ft the air/data computer hadn't yet calculated the windspeed, so it spits out 'nan', but you can tell that it was about 8kts based on GS - IAS
  9. its the other way around. for each combination of power settings (MP, RPM) and altitude, it tells you what TAS you got in that configuration send the logs!
  10. when I picked up the plane from the dealer back in 1998, they demonstrated this to me as an innovative way to keep the battery from going dead. did you turn the sound on? you can hear the little generator
  11. Finally got these installed. turned them on approach back to linden. hope someone saw them!
  12. here's a video. can't really see the light, but its getting brighter every time I press
  13. I did this one last year for the northeast there really needs to be an map overlay, just like the one for fuel. https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBfqR9fVX7UHAcXLA?g_st=i
  14. If you have a logs from a Garmin, EIS, I wrote a program to analyze them and show actual performance. I’ve only ever used it with my own logs but I’m happy to try someone else’s.
  15. Did you just go for the day? $250 burger?
  16. An update on the CEIS fuel sender issues. The readings have been unreliable since installation. thanks to Jeff R's (can't find his member ID) recommendation, I took it to the shop where he had his successfully installed. a list of problems: 1. the senders were improperly grounded -- they were going to the "Garmin" avionics ground, not to a local frame ground IAW CEIS installation manual 2. a leak in a loosely installed sender 3. only 4 calibration points in a 44.5 gal tank (0, 15, 30, 44), so the readings were blocky from interpolation. it has been recalibrated now every @ every 5 gallons. There is still an issue with the right tank, where one of the senders seems to be rubbing and causing a dead spot. they are going to try to fix it though the filter neck, but if they can't the lower access panel will have to be removed and resealed, which will some time to cure. so I am going to live with the dead spot, and run through some tanks of fuel to see if they readings are better It seems like the installer was just lazy and didn't read the instructions or follow CEIS's instructions when they tried to fix it Hoping to get it back tomorrow.
  17. literally any A&P can do an oil change
  18. yes, fair point. I shouldn't have said "only", although goong missed at an untoward airport is effectively "lost comms" because you have no one to give you alternate missed instructions until you switch back approach freq
  19. I read in r/ATC that the published missed in a RADAR environment is only ever flown for lost comms, or in training.
  20. 5-9-1 VECTORS TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE Except as provided in paragraph 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course: At least 2 miles outside the approach gate unless one of the following exists: When the reported ceiling is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the visibility is at least 3 miles (report may be a PIREP if no weather is reported for the airport), aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course closer than 2 miles outside the approach gate but no closer than the approach gate. If specifically requested by the pilot, aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course inside the approach gate but no closer than the final approach fix. EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft being vectored for a GPS or RNAVapproach ------------------------------------------------------------ so, on a ILS, you could get vectored inside the gate under certain conditions, but 15-20 miles seems excessive
  21. can you actually get it? I asked for the KABE VOR-A, which was in the database, but they said its no longer available
  22. ANother difference between LPV and ILS is that the MAP procedure on an ILS is usually a VOR, so the VOR has to also be working, and because a VOR signal is a “cone” the obstacle clearance surface for a VOR-based missed is wider (depending on the distance to the VOR) and therefore might be higher than for a GPS-based missed (which is a “tube”) oh, and on an LNAV approach, as you get closer to the airport, the sensitivity of the needle goes from being a “cone” to being a “tube” (a “funnel”?) an LPV can be established on both side of the runway, and the crosswind. its not unusual to have 1 ILS and 4 RNAV approaches to a “cross” configuration pair of runways. (are there still any BC approaches??)
  23. I can’t believe we don’t already have a topic
  24. The UL increase should be coupled with the LT tanks! all in for 4pax bravo with 1000nm range at 75% power (swags, people) of course you need a 5,000’ runway
×
×
  • 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.