toto

Not a Continental or ECi engine (I don't even know what an ECi engine is), but I installed four nickel cylinders in a Lycoming engine and had a pretty negative experience with it. The engine was 2500smoh and running perfectly. Finally decided to do the overhaul just because it seemed like tempting fate with 500 free hours. The shop was really pushing ECi cylinders as superior to the factory cylinders, but I was reluctant because I'd read a lot of bad news about the Classic Cast series. The shop convinced me that ECi had addressed all of their past problems with the new Titan line. Anyway, four new Titan cylinders in a newly-overhauled engine produced worse compression and double the oil consumption as with the Lycoming cylinders. Then about two years later a nice AD on the cylinders requiring an inspection every 50 hours. This was all a decade ago, and it may be that the new products from ECi are free of problems. But if I were to do it over again, I'd buy the Lycoming cylinders in a heartbeat.

I use an app called “Tiny Scanner.” Available for iOS and Android. Costs about 5 bucks but produces a very readable PDF copy. I scan everything from logbooks to 337 forms to flight manuals with that app.

Hi all - My radio master switch has started acting up. When I turn on the master, power is immediately supplied to the radios while the radio master is off - this is consistent with the expected "fail closed" master relay behavior. I encountered this on a recent flight - on initial engine start, I thought it was acting a little strange, but chalked it up to flipping the radio master on sooner than I had planned. On engine start for the return flight, the radio master actually worked correctly and the flight was uneventful. But on shutdown back home, flipping off the radio master did nothing at all and the radios went off only with the master. My avionics shop says that it's really strange for a radio master relay problem to be intermittent -- they said that if it fails, it fails, and that the units are normally sealed and unlikely to collect dirt or other gunk that might impact movement. The plane hasn't made it into the shop yet (just spoke to them over the phone). I dug around under the panel and found a relay P/N 6041H202, which may or may not be the radio master (I don't really know what I'm looking for). Is the intermittent relay a symptom of some other problem? Or do relays sometimes do this? It's nice that the relay fails closed, but I don't trust it until there's a more definitive answer. Hoping to get it in to the shop tomorrow, but would love to hear from others who have experienced similar behavior. TIA for any advice.

What's the title of the new AC article? I couldn't find it on their website. (I'm excitedly watching for any news on this, and the Avweb thing just seemed to confirm everything we have heard here.)

I'll just point out that "J" comes before "K" alphabetically

I know that @Eric W. Gray probably can't comment, but does anyone knowledgeable about the process think it's realistic to have Mooney models on the AML in calendar 2018?

Nope, sorry - my SL30 is installed.

Oh - interesting. I was mistaken, mine is an SL30. Never heard of a Garmin GPS in this form factor until now

I have a Garmin-branded SL-50, but it's just a nav/com with no GPS. Does the Apollo-branded unit have built-in GPS?

Thanks. I used an oil sump heater for many years, but started supplementing with a space heater and was blown away by how much warmer the entire engine compartment gets. But the space heater is a DIY job and I don't leave it unattended. The Hornet apparently was designed to leave running 24x7 if you like, with no part of the heater getting hot enough to damage anything. I think my biggest fear would be critters making a home in the warm cowl, but I dunno what other shortcomings the Hornet might have.

So do you leave the Hornet on all the time? Or do you turn it on before a flight? The documentation suggests that it might be much slower to heat vs other options. I'm also curious which models will fit a Mooney cowl (and particularly a J cowl). The video from the manufacturer shows the heater going somewhere on top of the engine, which seems like a really small/narrow space. Best guess is that only the smallest dual-fan model would work. Which one do you have?

@AaronDC8402, did you end up buying the Twin Hornet 22, or did you go with something else? I've been curious about the Hornet products, but have never actually seen one.

Minor threadjack, but.. has anyone ever actually used a handheld transceiver to fly (even a simulated) localizer approach? I've carried a handheld for years, and used it once in a complete electrical failure at night about 10 miles from the airport. I was happy to have the handheld, but I've never even bothered to attempt an approach with one. Given that this is safety gear, I really should be competent with its use. But I'm not (at least where the localizer/gs function is concerned).

I flew for years with a DC H10-13S headset that I updated with a Headsets, Inc kit. In many ways, I think it was the best combination of comfort, durability, and noise reduction of any headset I've owned. Total cost at the time was about $300 for the headset and about $100 for the kit. I'm sure it's more expensive now, but I'd guess you could still get into it for $500 or so.

PPS will put him in touch with a local attorney at AOPA's cost. (After a brief initial call with an AOPA staff attorney.)

Might also be worth filing an ASRS form.

Cirrus Jet..

+1 Big fan of ADLOG for many years. Agree that it's just a fancy filing system, but it's pretty inexpensive (0.04 AMU) and I much prefer the format to the factory logs. Their annual summary is nice, and they always beat the FAA to my mailbox when a new AD is issued.

If you want to go the CB route, get to know the guys who fly for local charter operators. It's not at all unusual for them to take people along on reposition flights (i.e., with no paying passengers aboard). Probably not loggable time, but it's certainly possible they'd let you sit up front. And you take an Uber or whatever to get back home.

The question didn't seem cut-and-dried to me. I made the assumption that the Cessna was on a practice approach terminating full-stop at the uncontrolled field. Whether or not the pilot takes off his Foggles, he's on a long final leg, and the kernel of the question was whether a VFR aircraft in the pattern at an uncontrolled field can turn base in front of another aircraft established on a long final. The "VFR practice approach must terminate" scenario, as I imagine it, is the nonprecision approach that sends the aircraft directly in conflict with VFR aircraft already in the pattern. (Thinking a VOR approach that crosses midfield below pattern altitude.) The pilot should definitely terminate the approach and enter the pattern instead. But if the pilot intends to land at the field, and is already on the final approach segment (even if a few miles away), terminating the approach might reasonably mean proceeding on a VFR final. So he's still got the aircraft on downwind in front of him, and a decision still has to be made. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse - happy to be educated.

I think that this is a perfectly acceptable outcome ---- the name of the game at uncontrolled airports is communication. The right-of-way rules exist primary to provide a default action in the event that the aircraft can't work it out (e.g., because one or both is nordo, or one is talking to approach). If it were me in the 152, I'd tell you to please go ahead and land -- and if I were downwind, I might ask the 152 to confirm position and then ask if it's okay for me to scoot in ahead of him. I will say, though, that without visual verification of position, crazy things can (and do) happen at uncontrolled fields. I've heard people report 10 miles out and seen them clearly about to pass over the field. And I've heard people report short final when they were nowhere to be seen. So I usually try to be very very conservative if I hear a position report and don't see the aircraft.

@Vance Harral, I would think that the previous sentence of 91.113(g) would apply (quoted in the brief I linked above): "Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach."

AOPA published an ASI brief earlier this year on non-towered operations. Pretty much just a re-hashing of the FARs, which I think would say that the aircraft on final has the right of way (even if you're closer to the runway). https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2017/Jun/Non-Tower_Airport_Comms.pdf FWIW

@Buster1's book has a pretty comprehensive discussion on this topic. Well worth a read.

Not sure whether it was posted to MS, but I saw this article about a month ago and thought it was interesting.. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/08/radio-navigation-set-to-make-global-return-as-gps-backup-because-cyber/