Schllc

I can’t tell if that is sarcasm or not…. Going to assume it is. There are no claims of lead poisoning, the assertion is that stress from the noise causes bad diet, and leads to diabetes.

Well, I didn’t suspect it would be easy, or they would have already done it…. However, I have some experience with foxpro, and Visual Basic, and the finite amount of data on the site begs for a simpler way to search with in the subset. I don’t want anyone to interpret this as bashing the site. I’m thankful for the resource and willingness of all the participants to help others. My knowledge is limited, but I do what I can when I have something to offer. I don’t know of a site as responsive and thorough for any other plane genre..

Btw. Did you read the case brief? The developer had to pay Spur Industries for the expense of the moving of operations. that’s pretty interesting. I also think that type of public nuisance is considerably different from a cattle feedlot. The airport serves the public good. I doubt much of the precedent would apply.

If you are going to suggest a court ruling equates to invalidating idiocy then we are in bizzaro world! /sarcasm off… But seriously, airport noise causes diabetes?

I think all valid reasons should be stated. where I live there is one particular neighborhood that is in the predominant flight path. This neighborhood is responsible for the vast majority of the noise complaints. the neighborhood was built around 40 years after the airport. the people organize and say the most outlandish things, like the noise gave them diabetes and is ruining their lives. If something adjacent to my property, that existed when I bought the property, was making me miserable, I would move. In fact, that has happened, and I did! The airport authority and the town indulge this idiocy as if it’s as valid. I would ask one thing at the meetings, did the airportI exist and was it functioning when you purchased the property? If so….NEXT!!!! I don’t understand the mindset of the complainers or those who entertain the foolish complaints. But I know if airports aren’t not defended with the same tenacity and inexorable energy as the hyper vocal minority of complainers, they will disappear very soon.

Well, there are a few things in the country that are terribly inefficient but maintained for reasons other than efficiency. The mail is one of those things. I would argue that airports are another. In the event of a catastrophe or war, or some other civil unrest where the roads are disrupted, airports become pretty necessary. While it is easily argued that this is far fetched and tin foil hat, it’s just insurance. The argument over the roi is valid, but once they are gone and the real estate is absorbed, the cost to reestablish becomes impossible or prohibitively expensive, and when the need arises there are no options. Most of the airfields in this country were built during war time or in preparation for war. I don’t want to be cynical but thinking simply for now has gotten more than one society past the point of no return… It is a free market, and all the things about property value are valid, but few things in modern society are viewed holistically anymore because we have several generations who have not suffered for anything at all, and everything is about “now” and “me” today. This is not the normal human cycle. Strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times, and bad times make strong men. We are two generations into weak men and we are seeing the product. Buckle up.

Is there anyway to improve the search option? It’s bizarre that it’s easier to use google than searching within the site. is this an expensive thing to develop?

Lots of good guidance here. I went from about 35 hours in 172’s to an ovation and finished my ppl and instrument in the Mooney. “Easy” is a very subjective term. With little experience anything new can seem hard. 8 years and 1000+ hours in 20+ different airplanes, the Mooney is the easiest of them all to fly. Perhaps not as forgiving as a 172, but absolutely more responsive, intuitive and easier to be precise. A Mooney shouldn’t be intimidating but it should, like any airplane, be respected. Get good training, set good personal minimums, know the limitations and that fear will rapidly turn to true affection and confidence. The Mooney is like a sports car, when your hands and feet are on the controls, it does what your thinking as your thinking it, it really is an awesome machine.

Fractional owners who are the only users of the plane can be simply part 91. If it is “managed” by a company like net jets, where the fractional owners allow the charter company to operate the plane for revenue flights, it can be both a part 91, and a 135, but will have to maintained as a 135 all the time. The only difference is when the owners operate the aircraft as solely as 91, they don’t have to have all the same requirements of the 135, like some planes with two pilots, wet runway distance etc. It’s extremely convoluted, but it’s a great way for people who can own jets, to offset the cost of ownership. It is also possible to turn a profit, but that is very rare. you could operate any plane on a 135, just plane on 3-4x the insurance cost, about 6-12 months, an unbelievable amount of money for maintenance, just to get the plane on a 135 ticket and then 50 or 100 hour inspections on top of annuals, and an endless list of “timed out” components to continually change.

No Lyft or Uber when I went there but it’s been two years. Rental cars were available. the town isn’t real nice but it has ole t of hotels and restaurants.

Not sure where a newly minted ppl is going to get twin turbine time but sure, that would be better for a career as a pilot.

@LANCECASPER or @donkaye can answer this question accurately they are well versed on this subject. fuel burn per hour alone isn’t a fair comparison. You are flying considerably faster. I haven’t owned a bravo but I’ve owned ovations and acclaims, and the maintenance and operating costs are not different enough to be a deciding factor. a turbo provides options beyond simply speed. I can’t imagine it being ore than say 20% more annually to own and maybe 10% more fuel.

If you have legitimate business use for the plane, and could get some tax deductions and How you actually plan to use the plane is a pretty important factor as well. Renting isn’t practical if you actually want to travel. If all you want to do is get a $100 hamburger twice a month a rental will work, but if you actually use the plane, a rental isn’t really anoption. Rental insurance has changed, and you better make sure you don’t have to cover more than your rental fees is something happens. Safety and proficiency is another factor. Having your own plane that you maintain, know all the nuances and are comfortable flying is safer than getting into any random rental plane.

While I think I understand what you mean, which is don’t buy airplanes expecting to make money, I do not agree that they are simply depreciable assets. Perhaps when they are bought in a boom and sold in a crash, but I have sold every single one of the planes I have owned for more than I paid. They cost money to maintain, but they also aren’t really making them anymore, and the ones that are made cost more every year. I’d agree there is a lick taken by the first guy who buys one, the rest seem to relatively hold their value, as long as they are used and maintained. Many of the older one still sell for well above what they cost new. They definitely are not like cars, but I’d say they are a unique asset that is more likely to just remain static in value than depreciate.

A very wise mentor told me a long time ago, that you should never buy anything on credit, that you can’t afford to own for five years if your world went to crap. theory is that five years can see you through any cycle. The advice has served me very well, and applies to any large purchase, but especially so for discretionary ones…

Actually, this is probably more important than the first two.

It’s hard when you start out because you don’t really understand the vernacular, you don’t know the models of avionics and which ones are to be avoided and favored. Not to mention the customized details, updates etc. so many things affect real value and get conflated with sales price. I would give two pieces of advice, One, get a friend who has owned a few aircraft, or preferably a Mooney for a few years at least, to help you avoid easy pitfalls. Two, buy the newest, nicest plane you can afford.

No, I add 50’ so my minimum alert annunciates BEFORE i hit the minimum. I’ve only had a handful of approaches where I was even close to minimums, and have never had to get below my additional 50’ threshold. Im pretty sure it has to do with how I plan. I would not say it’s what everyone should do, or that it’s better. It’s just my prerogative. I don’t have to get anywhere bad enough to break my minimums. To each their own.

I don’t want to wade into the argument of the legality, I just try to stay so far on the legal side that there isn’t a debate. I think for the average Mooney pilot, the better question is how far should the issue be pushed, and will obviously vary based on experience, proficiency and equipment. The subject of personal minimums and risk/reward should be factored in to these situations. When I am loading my approach and inputting the minimums on my g1000, I always add 50’ to the minimum DA to keep me from getting below. My personal reason is simple, if the edge of clearances is what they predicate the minimums on, I don’t want to be that close. I consider it a little bit of insurance. Just the amount we know for sure in this incident, reads like so many accident reports. It’s seldom one large foolish mistake. It’s a series of small decisions that stack and accumulate. Remember that thing we were all taught in the beginning, if you don’t know what your going to do next, you are already behind. I am very thankful they survived with minor injuries, and hope we can all learn from their mistakes. W

As absurd an example as that is, I would think there could be an indemnification agreement, or a rider on the insurance that could satisfy the liability, …. They can’t reimburse you for the expense of the plane anyway right? I’d buy a first class ticket and submit for reimbursement, then fly my plane!

I’m heavily biased, being most of my time is with the g1000. I obtained my multi rating in a Comanche with an aspen, and I absolutely hated it. I never got used it it, didn’t find it intuitive or well organized. I would never purchase one of them. But people tend to like what they get proficient with, and I’m no exception. if you have no experience with either, decide on one and get proficient with your choice, you will likely be a fan forever. I’m currently putting a complete panel in my Aerostar and I went with all garmin except for the autopilot (didn’t have a choice). Get the popcorn and watch me get raked over the coals!

Oh yes, I agree. The factory service center was the best experience I’ve ever had in aviation. I will be bringing mine there for annual when due!

Can’t wait to figure out which shop that would be!?

I always listen to the traffic ahead of me on approaches. What better information could there be at our disposal than this? My own personal minimums do everything I can to avoid any actual instrument approach much less a low ifr approach. I would have diverted upon hearing the conditions. Not saying I am right, just those are my personal min… Single pilot ifr, low ifr, in a single piston, at night, after a long day of flying, would be too many risk factors for most pilots. Like someone said earlier, he was fantastically lucky to survive, and hopefully he is sufficiently “tempered”, in the future.

The state of our genre is tenuous at best, manufactures can’t get sales to a meaningful number. Is it the cost or is it the interest? The FAA is almost the enemy of GA. Maybe not it’s not intentionally, but by design, they frustrate innovation so thoroughly, that by the time it’s “certified” its 10 years old. Where else does this occur? I mean there is nothing, not even pharmaceuticals that is this obtuse and onerous, and that has far worse consequences. As far as meaningful data for experimental vs certified…. I don’t see how useful data can be collected to be anymore specific than the aggregate. Certified will likely always be safer, just by the nature of the barriers to entry. This doesn’t mean a diligent, conscientious, competent and thorough person can’t build an experimental as safe as a certified aircraft. The can, and they do. Man’s natural state however will dictate that is the exception, not the rule. I think the best idea I’ve heard in a while was the suggestion to allow us to decertify our planes, even if you take the hit on value.. I know I can do most of what the average AP can do, and better than many of them as well. Especially if it was on the plane I planned to fly! But I am not legally allowed to, so I pay and then I check for myself after. I’ve found oil rags left in the cowling, spark plugs not tight, leaking injector lines…. Humans are fallible, it’s just natural law. It’s overdue for a serious revision/rewrite to part 91, and the rewrite to part 23 that was supposed expedite innovation needs to be given real latitude. The reality is that once a government agency gets its grip on anything, they eternally feel that the only way to justify their existence is to become more controlling. They have no competition , no oversight and no consequences for bad decisions. Look at the premise of the lawsuit the FAA brought against warbird adventures. The potential Impact it has on Experimental and LSA is huge. And all to punish something they don’t want, which people flying vintage planes. Who gave them the right to bring a suit against us? Bureaucrats should never have this kind of power.