ShuRugal

I'm reading a fair amount of hostility in this post that I do not understand. I am not advocating for limit-pushing in general aviation; Quite the opposite: In the absence of documented limitations (I had not seen the supplement you posted, and the flight manual and supplement I have lack that item) I am attempting to establish my own personal limits. It was certainly *not* my intention to land with a 20kt crosswind: 1. When I was doing my flight planning, peak winds for the day were forecast at 15 knots, with roughly 10 of that as crosswind component. 2. While returning to home plate, AWOS was reporting conditions matching predicted and planned weather 3. In the pattern, the wind began reporting a bit less favorable, but not outside the limits of what I have previously flown and knew was within my abilities 4. On final I knew from the heavy foot I needed on the pedal that I was riding the limits of what I had previously experienced. I judged my performance in the moment to be on par with the task (holding centerline, on my desired speed and glidepath, nose alignment within limits) and so I continued to land. It was only post landing, when I flipped the radio back to AWOS that I discovered What I had been flying in. While I would not voluntarily fly in those conditions, I am glad to know that both the plane and I are up to the task. Based on the workload I experienced (heavy) and the quality of my landing (smooth touchdown, slight excess float, no swerving on rollout) I am able to use this information to establish real-world limits for both planning and execution phases. Am I saying I'm going to plan to fly with a 20 kt crosswind? Fuck no, that leaves no margin for the weather to get worse, and it requires me to be operating at the top of my game to pull off safely. I'm planning on using a "plan this differently" limit of 15kts, which I already know is comfortably within my limits. An AWOS report from the air of 20kts or greater will be my "find somewhere else to land" cutoff. Why have two different limits? Because you don't always get to fly in the weather you planned for. Are there other runways I could land at with significantly different headings? Yes, but only one within 50 miles, and even it is far enough away that the weather there may well be as bad or worse. The nearest airport which is perpendicular to home base is 50 miles away: by the time I get there, it may not be usable either, and if conditions are home get worse, I'm now stuck in the air. I'd rather land in ab15-20kt wind I know I can manage than divert 50 miles, discover an IFR ceiling, come home again and find that it's now 20-25 kts of crosswind. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Well, I have answered my own question today, and I agree with everything in Cam's post: Coming home from KSHD today, AWOS was telling me i'd be looking at winds 60 degrees from the right at 8G12 or 14... Not ideal, but firmly in the realm of manageable. On downind, AWOS was calling for more like 90 degres, 10G15, unpleasant, but still safely doable. Turned final and I didn't know what the wind at my altitude was, but it was definitely more than 10G15. Set it down without incident (lot of hard work, though) and flipped the AWOS back on... first thing i hear is "wind <perpendicular> at 12G20"... thank you, mother nature. But that does answer my question: C model can be landed at 20 kts crosswind, if you don't mind working your ass off to make it smooth. Not a fun experience, though, and definitely not a position I will willingly put myself in in the future. Going forward, I now know that my personal hard limits on crosswind need to be 15 kts at time of planning: if forecast xwind component meets or exceed 15 kts, plan for a different time. If I get to my destination and discover worse conditions than predicted, absolute limit is 20 kts crosswind, assuming no other compounding factors exist.

Doesn't look like it removed material, just smooshed it a bit? Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Rofl "steel bolt made of gravel". I'd've never guessed a rock could take that deep a chunk out without also taking a wider bite. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That's not pebble damage, that's a bolt. A pebble would shatter and move out of the way before it displaced that much metal, a stone with enough mass to do that would have left a wider mark. The only thing small enough and stout enough to take that deep a bite has to be steel. Go after the airport manager for not performing proper FOD checks on their runway. Donno if you'll get anything out of it, but if the airport implements a FOD walkdown each day, it might at least save the next guy...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not suggesting that the wheels would hold together without their through bolts, nor am I suggesting that bolts cannot be made to fail... This post seems to be attacking something, but I can't figure out what... Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

The clamping load on the bolt is going to be, far and away, the most significant force that those experience. Parts diagram for the Cleavland wheels on my bird call for AN4-22A through bolts, which appear to be 1/4-28. Not sure what SAE grad Mil-b-6812 specification translates to, but the assembly manual from Cleaveland says 75-90 in-lbs, which makes it at least grade 5, and gives us ~2,000 lbs clamping force. In short, there's around 3 tons of clamping load holding those wheels together. You could put the upper rim on a crane, and suspend the plane from the lower rim, and the bolts won't be what fail.

Good question. I will have to read them again looking for that in particular, now that you have posed the question to me. But not right now. Right now I've got some sleep to catch. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

So I have been told by people who I would expect to know (one IA, one DPE, one FSDO DPE-examiner) Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

And there's my answer: PP can set jacks, but cannot swing the gear. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Good point. I don't know if PP can legally remove the wheel fairing on a retractable... There's a question for someone better versed in the interpretation of that particular FAR/AC. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

The lateral bar above an ahead of the tire. This is the tow-bar point on the nose wheel, but it exists on the other two as well. This bar bears the full load that the wheel bears, so sliding a rod which just barely fits the inside diameter through it makes it a good jack point. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Chock the other wheels Tow bar through the hinge Jack up the bar (This is how my IA/previous owner showed me to do it) Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

And here we go: Favourite bike with Favourite (only) plane: 82 CX500T with 64' M20C Now I just need to work out a way to ride two motorcycles at once, so I can get the Turbo, Silverwing, and Mooney all in the same picture...

I very much doubt this. After all, haven't pilots been saying the same thing about Airbus for decades? I don't see them folding because fully-automated aircraft didn't "take off". Right now, we have no shortage of human drivers who "go nuts and hurt someone". In the US alone, we manage to kill 40,000 people a year using human drivers. the existing automated driving features have shown themselves to be an order of magnitude more capable than human drivers. Even if one in ten suffered a catastrophic failure that killed someone, we'd still be at the break-even point with death toll relative to human drivers.

Mine has a bird-strike and sheet-metal-repair on the left leading-edge in the logbook. The IA who did my pre-buy spent 20 minutes trying to find it, couldn't. Previous owner showed me the only visible evidence last time I had the plane at his place: a thumbnail-shaving-sized notch out of the edge of a neighboring panel that had to be taken to make room for bucking a rivet during the repair. Other than that, good as factory. tl;dr version: If the damage was repaired properly, there's no reason it should be a consideration beyond "make extra sure it was repaired".

I wouldn't be embarrassed about that either particular piece of ignorance, it's tolerably specialized knowledge. Outside of actual systems engineering/support, I wouldn't expect anyone to know how a computer can be made to perform tasks like that (though I do enjoy explaining it, so thank you for giving me a chance to spread the knowledge). The bit about the GPS signals being self-correcting is also pretty obscure: Only reason i have that piece of trivia in my head is from learning about GPS theory of operation in my MI Systems Maintenance course.

The AD lists hub model numbers, and serials-number suffixes which are impacted (presumably based on metalurgical batching data??) This AD applies to Hartzell Propeller Inc. ()HC-()2Y(K,R)-() series propellers with nonsuffix serial number (SN) propeller hubs and propeller hubs suffix SN letter ''E'', installed on Lycoming O-, IO-, LO-, LIO-, TO-, LTO-, AIO-, AEIO-, and TIO-360 series reciprocating engines The older ADs requiring hub inspection are both by model number, but the newest is by model number and serial-suffix.

that one's easy, "traction control" computers have been solving that problem on human-driven cars for decades now: 1 - ABS rotor for each wheel 2 - torque-sensing at each wheel 3 - active differential 4 - if rate of RPM on any wheel changes abruptly, reduce torque to that wheel With an auto-driving car, we add a few more steps 5 - check traction every <n> milliseconds by polling for unexpected RPM changes at the ABS sensors 6 - reduce power output if a traction loss is detected 7 - reduce maximum safe speed until traction is restored 8 - add additional safety buffer to predicted stopping distance, turning forces, etc etc, until traction is restored Even if we completely ignore the leaps and bound in self-learning AI, any problem that a human driver can overcome can be scripted into a computer. If a human can imagine a scenario, then a human can imagine a solution to it. Steps 1-8 above are not any different than the way a human handles that problem, with the exception of we can't monitor the individual RPM of each wheel in real time, so we can only detect a loss of traction after it has manifested other symptoms (the steering feels "squirrely", the car is going sideways). In fact, humans often completely fail to detect a loss of traction until it is too late, and frequently apply "corrections" that make the problem worse. Whereas a computer which faithfully executes steps 1-8 above each time, and suffers no malfunction, is guaranteed to catch the problem before it can manifest in any secondary effects, and will correct for it properly. not 95% accuracy, 95% confidence. GPS signal contains self-diagnosis and self-correcting components, and any measurement that does not pass the confidence test is discarded. For a properly working GPS receiver (not some Chinesium throwaway part) to produce significant errors in position, a great many successive measurements must fail. If a high-end GPS receiver is sampling at 100 hz, the 5 samples which are discarded due to failing error-checking are completely irrelevant, the other 95 which passed provide more than enough good data points to produce a new accurate fix every second. In fact, since GPS needs a minimum of only 1 good signal each from 4 satellites to provide a fix, this combination of sampling rate and confidence interval would allow for a minimum of 23 fixes per second.

Same way that AI pathfinding in videogames has worked for decades now. The car certainly has a GPS nav database with roadmaps, it knows the expected position of each road down to a couple feet (in 2016, actual GPS accuracy for civilian applications was observed at 2.3 feet, with 95% confidence). That alone is more than enough to navigate a 6' wide car within the limits of a 10' wide lane. After that, the car has loads of sensors: LIDAR and milimeter-wave radar chief among them, to say nothing of plain-jane optics. That car has a clearer picture of its immediate surroundings than a human could ever hope to, knows exactly where the road should be, even without the active sensors, and has a brainbox that can process all this data a hundred times over before a human can process it once. The more interesting question, to me, would be "how can it it fail to do a driving task better than a human could do?"

Looking at the diagram of the scene, it looks like she was jaywalking in a blind curve, having stepped off a landscaped median? I saw the article mentioned there was a safety driver in the car, and he never took any action either, so I would assume that the police report is dead on for this one. Unfortunately, this will still likely be all over the news, and bandied about as evidence of murdering robot cars by everyone with a bone to pick and a drum to beat on the subject...

As many cameras as the cars are covered with, and the ability to continuously transmit data home... it'd be one dumb son of a bitch to hijack a smart car....

"One of the self-driving cars was involved in a crash a month later, after a car failed to yield to the Uber vehicle and hit it" Seems like a common theme: If you drive (or bicycle) into a car, you end up in a wreck with that car, regardless of who (or what) is driving it...

IFR = "I Fly in Rime+"?

Every time I see this subject come up, I realize how big a bullet I dodged on this AD... Previous owner (and IA) of my bird swapped the hub for a hub that is exempt from the AD by serial number...