HXG

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

HXG last won the day on March 10 2018

HXG had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

119 Excellent

About HXG

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Longmont, CO
  • Interests
    Flying, mountain biking, skiing, climbing
  • Model
    M20T

Recent Profile Visitors

798 profile views
  1. Bob, I think you are correct. That was my original understanding, but the article I quoted below confused me on that point with their commentary in the last paragraph I quoted below. “FAR 61.57 (c)(1)(2) in part says: “A person may act as pilot-in-command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimum prescribed for VFR only if: (1) Use of an airplane, powered lift, helicopter or airship for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered lift, helicopter, airship as appropriate for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view limiting device that involves having performed the following. (i). Six instrument approaches, (ii) holding procedures and tasks, (iii) intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.” As a result of this wording, the pilot is considered to be current any time during this six-month period. Therefore, the non-current period begins after the initial six months. Further, FAR 61.57(d) states: “…a person who has failed to meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument currency only by completing an instrument proficiency check.” The key here is the fact that failure to meet the experience requirements begins after the initial six-month period in which the pilot is current by definition. Thus, a full twelve (12) months exist between the initial time and the need for an instrument proficiency check (IPC). One needs to be aware of the statement “Within the six months preceding the flight.” This means that if you are planning to fly in December, the six months preceding ends in November. This is a change in how the months are counted.“
  2. I believe this to be correct. July thru December is the the 6 calendar months “preceding”. You would lose currency January 31st. “Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight,”
  3. The IPC makes you IFR current for the next 6 Calendar months. But, you will need to meet the instrument experience in paragraph (c) to be current to fly IFR after that. So, if you haven’t met the 6 approaches etc. or simulator requirements in the past 6 months and another 6 months has lapsed since your experience met the requirements, an IPC (as apposed to simulator or safety pilot approaches) is your only option to regain IFR currency.
  4. If you look online at the FAA electronic FARs, the more recent list of date changes are not included at the end of FAR 61.57 for some reason. But, changes were clearly made since then. The actual FARs text is current, updated and correct. My ASA Paper copy FAR AIM 2020 has a much longer list of changes with dates from April 4, 1997 thru June 27, 2018. I like that the ASA paper copy has vertical bold lines adjacent to updated text for easy identification.
  5. Correct. “In summary, this new wording makes no significant change to the experience requirements. What has changed is the fact that currency can be maintained using a flight simulator, FTD or ATD and an instructor sign off on such activities is no longer required. In addition, now it is necessary to count the six-month period to conclude in the calendar month before the month of the intended flight.”
  6. A few subtle changes described as well as I could describe them in the link I provided. The wording changes are in the current FARS. https://midwestflyer.com/?p=12958
  7. https://midwestflyer.com/?p=12958
  8. I hope nobody else has any further issues with the Aspen Max. Most do not have problems with the Max Aspen upgrade. In my case, the EA 100 or wiring issue was suspected, but never confirmed as the cause of 2 of my 3 unit failures (frequent random in flight reboots). A third unit just completely died and resulted in loss of altitude transponder reporting in class Bravo. At that point, I had enough and went back to my old reliable pre-Max Aspen Pro 1000, which has always worked well for me.
  9. Thanks for the write up Alex. I had 3 separate Aspen Max unit failures in less than a month in the fall in my Bravo including one complete fatal failure. 2 unit repeated failures were on IFR flights. While Aspen customer service was very good, I went back to the older trouble free pre- Max Aspen 1000 pro. No problems with the older unit. Personally, I lost all trust in the Max in any IMC since it’s failure modes render it useless and take away my autopilot. If the Aspen Max works for others, that’s great, but my experience with the unit led to a lot of canceled trips, cost, and frustration. The only benefit is that I became quite adept anticipating Aspen primary failure and flying on my backup instruments.
  10. Don, You’re probably aware of the BeechTalk thread regarding reported GFC500 oscillations in the F33As, which Garmin reported they were working on. Some reported increased tension settings and replacing elevator control rod ends as a possible fix. But, I don’t know why your oscillations only occur in approach mode. Hopefully, this will get sorted out as more Mooney long bodies get the GFC-500 install. Hopefully, before my planned Bravo GFC 500 install this spring.
  11. Personally, I go right to the manual trim wheel on a go around or whenever quick big trim changes are needed. Unlike the slower acting electric trim button, immediately turning the manual trim wheel allows for much quicker trim changes that may prevent a departure stall.
  12. I agree. It’s a last resort with primary and backup instrument failures. I have practiced it with a safety pilot in a cessna 172 once. It worked well in the low stress practice environment. It’s a fun exercise in a simulator when you add bad weather and other system failures. I will say that it takes practice to do it well (i.e. activate legs on approach to use Ipad HSI etc.).
  13. Consider practicing a worst case scenario Ipad Emergency approach with Synthetic Vision in a safe environment.