ragedracer1977

Infer was the wrong word. What I meant was “incorrectly state”. Knowing exactly how the process went, I can’t understand how it could be done any better to meet the documented method of OPP. I wonder if they know how it actually went. The only thing the owners didn’t do was press start on the machine or supply the raw aluminum. this whole thing meets OPP a whole lot closer than ordering a pre-fab cable from a vendor… Also, as I understand it, it’s the owner that determines the eligibility to install and the mechanic that confirms and signs it off. So hasn’t the eligibility been determined for those already installed and logged as OPP? I do not have any of these on any airplane I own, but I do have parts on my plane that have a letter just like this floating around. No one, including the FAA, has required removing them

They did infer that they don’t meet OPP, but as the whole thing was done, in my opinion it meets both the letter and spirit of the law. They were never offered for sale to individual owners. They were ordered by owners, to a spec provided by the owner.

I wonder when McFarland is gonna get a notice.. I remember ordering a throttle cable from them. I had to provide them the length etc of my old cable so they could “produce” it. The new one arrived in a bag with a manufacture date from before mine had even broken…

n. Owner/Operator Produced Part. Parts that were produced by an owner/operator for installation on their own aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier). An owner/operator is considered a producer of a part, if the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. Participating in the design of the part can include supervising the manufacture of the part or providing the manufacturer with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, assembly methods, or the quality control (QC) procedures. this is from the AC on approving parts. Since everyone who got one of these parts participated in providing design data and QC at a minimum, I can’t see how they don’t meet the standard. Now, it’s possible the company offered these for sale to others who didn’t participate at a later date, and that’s where the problem lies.

I’ve read the SB forwards and backwards. I can’t find where Mooney said you can’t use the tail tie down. It says it’s not recommended to use it to pull the nose off the ground during the jacking process. there’s 2 things there. #1 it’s a recommendation. Compare and contrast that to the other instructions in the SB that say DO NOT. #2, I believe they’re saying please don’t do what the OP is asking. Don’t jack the mains and then use a come along to pull the tail down. since it’s a recommendation, they’re actually saying it’s ok to do, but use caution. Further, if you’re doing it, secure the tail first. Don’t pull on it after the fact…. If they didn’t want you using it, they would have said DO NOT. Further, your method 100% does not comply with the SB. show me where it says to use an engine hoist with a strap on stuff they didn’t even mention…

It was. But there was a whole lot of other stuff wrong. How do you get plugs looking like this in 26 hours (and less than a month) with brand new cylinders?

Anyone else received this yet? A while back several of us experienced fine wire failures. I guess somebody crashed their plane and they found a broken center electrode and are interested in pinning the blame on tempest. Having read the entire accident report, I’m not sure I agree.

I didn’t say it didn’t happen, ever. I asked if it ever happened in mass numbers. when America talks about a problem, we always focus on the edge cases.

I don’t know if buy the “eating lead paint” thing. I’ve heard it my whole life. Now, with 3 grown kids, I can’t see how that’s a realistic vector. Kids are weird, but not pick paint off a house and eat it weird. did that really ever happen in mass numbers?

https://ibb.co/N3MY9XR Have a look at this chart. I believe this data was collected for the entire year of 2011 or 2012. look at the airports. how is it that a tiny airport with a 2600’ runway has nearly ten times the airborne lead as an airport with parallel runways, and about 5 times as many operations? How is it that the airports with the highest concentrations are all relatively closely located in CA? And no where near the busiest. If you know airports and operations, this chart alone heavily suggests to me that aircraft are NOT the cause of elevated lead.

None of the studies really say that the increase in lead levels has anything to do with airports. One I read (can’t remember the state, but maybe Tennessee or one of the Carolinas) studied an entire state. They found that kids living near airports had elevated lead levels. Unless you’re a pilot, or familiar with airports, you wouldnt even notice that kids living within 1/2 mile of the big class B had nearly identical elevated levels as the kid that lived within 1/2 mile of a grass strip in the middle of nowhere that has zero based aircraft and probably doesn’t see more than 20 operations a year. For some reason, the study authors left out how many operations there were and let a reader who doesn’t know a thing about airplanes believe an airport is an airport.

You can’t see the forest for the trees.

AC 20-24E. Add paragraph Z: G100UL is recognized to meet the requirements of TCDS requiring grade 100 and 100LL aviation gasoline. Done.

The question is “does it even require an STC? And if so, why?” The TCDS for every plane and engine I looked at includes 100 octane aviation gasoline. What is G100UL if not 100 octane aviation gasoline?

Question. Is an STC even necessary at this point? The FAA said It’s approved fleet wide. This makes it a de facto aviation gasoline that is grade 100. every TCDS I’ve perused, both airframe and engine, are certified to use grade 100 and 100LL aviation gasoline. So?

Sims are fun. You get to do stuff you can’t go in your airplane. here’s me spinning (VMC roll) a 310. Not a maneuver I hope to ever try in my actual airplane.

I think you have to be a paying member to sell stuff

Besides canceling IFR, I don’t know. I can’t even guess.

Same. Just interesting. I, right now, have airline captains arguing with me that it’s a departure planning requirement and not an in flight requirement.

Right. I just had no idea it was actually illegal. I was taught it was like VFR flight planning. As long as you planned to have that much when you departed, it was A-OK to land with 5 minutes of fuel.

I thought I did. I want to know if I’m an outlier or not. I was taught that, on an instrument plan, you have to plan to depart with enough fuel to fly to your destination, then your alternate, and then for 45 more minutes. Like VFR, as long as you planned it, but flight conditions were different than forecast, you were legal. I learned that is not true. If you plan for 45 minutes reserve, but the winds are worse than forecast or you’re giving holding instructions, a reroute, etc that cut into that 45 minutes, it’s illegal to continue to your intended destination if the conditions are 2000/3 or worse. Did you know that?

I’m going to make a post later. Preview.

Well, this kinda stuff doesn't bode well for reducing/removing TEL and increasing aromatics.... https://www.casa.gov.au/file/203356/download?token=5kUK1-c3 https://austhia.com/PDfs/AHIA-piston-engine-durability-report.pdf

Eyewitness account matches the video perfectly. I'm not sure why people think the wings folded between frames one and 2. They were already folded. For them to fold between frame one and 2 is a physical impossibility.