Flash

The opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is unlikely to have much application to the FAA regulations that apply to us in flying and maintaining our Mooneys. The holding in Loper Bright is that judges should be the arbiters of what a statute means and that a judge need not defer to regulations that purport to interpret a statute even if the statute appears to be ambiguous (although if the statute gives a specific grant of regulatory authority and that grant is constitutional, Loper Bright says that the proper interpretation of that statute is to enforce the resulting regulation). I'm a tax lawyer, not an aviation lawyer, and I can name a lot of regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code that may be subject to challenge under Loper Bright. One reason for that is that there are a lot of statutes in the Internal Revenue Code, so there is a lot of statutory language for judges to interpret. Contrast that with Part 91. The authority the FAA cites for promulgating Part 91 is far more general than the Internal Revenue Code. It's just a handful of statutes: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534; Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); Sec. 828 of Pub. L. 118-63, 138 Stat. 1330 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). The statutes tend to contain broad regulatory grants of authority. For example, section 40103(b)(2) provides: "The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for— (A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground; (C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and (D) collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects." If you run afoul of the regulations that apply to buzzing your neighbor's house, you're not likely to have much success pointing to Loper Bright and saying that the regulations are not "law" because they are not the best interpretation of this statutory language. I'm not saying that there can be no challenges to FAA regulations under Loper Bright. Congress did set out specific statutory rules regarding ELTs, and enforcement via civil and criminal penalties, and a short list of other topics. But I would be very surprised if Loper Bright could be wielded to challenge most of the regs that apply to us.

If your money was on the master relay, you are a winner. It has been replaced.

No. 2 GI-275 has an internal battery that provides at least an hour of attitude indicator if the No. 1 fails. Thus, having it come on as an AI shows that it is working as it should but does not suggest that any power is flowing from the main battery.

Symptoms: Last few times I tried to start my M20J, I turned on the master switch and either (1) my No. 2 GI-275 came on as an attitude indicator, with no power to the No. 1 GI-275 or the engine monitor, meaning I wasn't getting electrical power from the battery to the panel (the No. 2 GI-275 has a backup battery that, apparently, is working as designed!), or (2) everything worked normally. When it worked, the plane started and ran fine. Is this probably the master switch itself (try a little contact cleaner and hope this solves things) or the master relay? Any easy way to diagnose?

Don, using FlyQ+ on my iPhone, I can click on the map near the airport, which calls up a screen showing the airspace, the airport, and a nearby LOM. I then click on my airport's name (not on the Direct, +FP, charts, or map icons underneath it), and that takes me to a screen for the airport. That screen allows me to choose Gen, Wx, Proc, A/FD, Notm, Svc, or Near. If I choose A/FD, it shows me an image of the appropriate pages in the A/FD for the airport. If you're trying to get to another section of the A/FD, though, I haven't figured that one out yet.

I resisted any avionics upgrade (other than an ADSB-compliant transponder) for my first 22 1/2 years of ownership and was perfectly happy. But I realized I'd get added performance from a WAAS GPS and decided if I was going to do that I should do some other things at the same time. I really love my IFD 540 and my dual GI-275s. I flew a DME arc on a recent IPC and felt like I was cheating it was so easy, even after I disengaged the autopilot with GPSS. The ability to fly LPV approaches was a real benefit to my upgrade, but it's not so much that I'm able to do more with my plane than I was before, and more about being able to do the same things more easily. Considering my missions can involve long days of flying, I'm probably getting a safety benefit because the flying is less demanding than it used to be. Like you, I thought about buying a faster plane instead of doing an avionics upgrade. I decided I don't need that; my plane gets me where I'm going plenty fast enough. YMMV. Choose additional speed/altitude/engines if that's what floats your boat. If you don't make that choice, an avionics upgrade will definitely make a difference in your flying experience.

En route MMQT-MMOX, I got a couple of shots of Mount Popocatepetl, which is southeast of Mexico City. There was a sigmet for volcanic ash downwind of this; I flew on the upwind side.

The pilot posted a full description on Facebook. He's 19, had a passenger. He has 370 hours, 300 in Mooneys, and used to be a student of Brian "Pinky" Lloyd. He seems to have done almost everything right. Facebook post.

After a presumably weather-related routing change north through Kangerlussuaq and Iqaluit, it looks like Pieter is headed to Montreal before flying home to New Jersey, where he started his round-the-world trip heading westbound on July 22.

Pieter, congratulations on your flight so far! Incredible trip.

Pieter is now in Crete. It looks like he had some weather to cope with between India and UAE. I'm eager to read about his travels once he has the time to update his site (which for now doesn't describe anything post-Japan).

@Beestforwardspeed I was able to get insurance as a first-timer, but that was 21 years ago, so I don't have any useful advice on your main point. However, I do have a routing recommendation. Either (1) land at BGBW and then go to BGJN, or (2) go straight from CYFB to BGJN, which is listed as an international airport. I did (1) because I had no idea about BGJN until I met a Greenland Air pilot at BGBW who told me about it and said I'd be making a huge mistake if I stayed in Kangerlussuaq instead of going to Ilulissat (and now I'm paying it forward). I also spent a night on the east coast of Greenland at BGKK; Kulusuk is a pretty fishing village but not a must-see like the ice fjord at BGJN. The midnight cruise through the ice fjord near BGJN is likely to be the best non-flying part of your trip.

"Clear of the active" presupposes that the listener knows what runway is active (if there is more than one). It also can be replaced by "clear of the runway" if there is only one runway and you have forgotten the number of the runway you just cleared.

Welcome! I hope you've been enjoying your plane, Paul. I wish you many great adventures.

In my case, the 275 gets the GPS signal from an IFD 540. But I would imagine that the KFC150 is oblivious to what GPS is upstream of the 275, and the 275 can take GPS input from (most?) GPS receivers.