GeeBee

I like this unit. Remove the plastic hat and clip it to a ball cap, which I wear anyway when flying. Works great. If you want to take it off to simulate "break out" for landing just pull it off the bill of the ball cap. https://www.sportys.com/super-hood.html

Sounds like an AI answer. There are no screws around the lens. As noted above you have to approach it from the back or socket side on the kick panel inside the the cockpit.

I must say, last week I called Lasar and bought a toothbrush.

ALL the data is government. Jepp and Garmin just takes that data and interprets it. A Jepp chart is nothing more than the verbal description of the procedures contained within Part 97 in a visual form, or for a data base in electronic form. Jepp has cornered the market because they make their presentation easier and more convenient. Everything that a Jepp chart is available on a government chart, just not as good a presentation. For instance much harder to determine T/O and alternate minimums with government charts vs Jeppesen. With that said, it is the primary job to make sure the data from the government as contained in Part 97 is correctly translated into chart and digital formats. That is what is behind the costs of charts and data bases. It is a very big job with skilled people and several layers of verification. I look to Boeing to shed Jepp, ForeFlight and Aviall. Just a guess about a CEO who needs to re-focus the company.

You should have seen when the only plant to manufacture carbon discs for carbon brakes on the 757 burned down. Actually had to send letters out to ATC that 757s would be rolling out long.

Dogs bark....the caravan moves on.

I know for a fact at RHV the fuel farm behind the old AeroTrends building has a 1000 gal Mogas tank for the trucks. It also has two 10K gal tanks originally for 80 and 100. One has been converted to JetA. I know this because I used to run that fuel farm.

I think we are all heading that way and I am about 4 years behind you...so I feel your pain.

That was my suggestion too. Go to the lawyer who created the trust. He/She knows best the wishes of the client.

Because it is not just the operation. If you have CAT II and CAT III in your ops specs it cascades to a whole other set of ops specs. For instance monthly autopilots checks that have to be accomplished during maintenance routines. Monthly avionics calibration checks, the airplane has to accomplish a real auto land every 30 days which means you have to track that and get your crews to do it, or you have to remove the airplane from CAT II/CAT III status until you accomplish an extended autopilot check. You have to expand your training footprint and create the simulator time on each PC to demonstrate the approaches for each and every pilot. It is not just having CAT II and CATIII capability and "use it when you need it" like having an ILS receiver in your airplane. It is a whole eco system from maintenance to training to dispatch and it is costly. An airline has to decide if the cost is worth it. SWA ultimately added it for competitive reasons. Hard to explain why every one is landing and you can't.

I think you mis-understand how it works. The FAA Master Ops specs is like the car in the commercials. It has every bell and whistle you can hang on it. The airline decides what operations it wants to do just as you decide if you want 4 wheel drive on that new truck. If you select a given operation the FAA sets out the maintenance, training, dispatch and manual requirement for that option. Otherwise, the operation is not in the Ops specs. For instance for years, SWA did not perform CAT II and CAT III operations. This despite the fact that their airplanes were capable of such operation., the airports they flew into had CAT II and CAT III approaches. They were not in their ops specs because SWA decided not to choose that option to be placed in their ops specs. If they had chosen, they would have to do all the same things as other operators. That all said, the requirements to perform CAT II and CAT III operations were no different than any other airline because the language is directly from the Master Ops specs template. IOW, they give the same 4 wheel drive to everybody who asks for it.

That's it. The proper tools make all the difference. Do not use standard drill bit or counter sinks. Get the right ones for acrylic.

Actually it is because we run into some similar stuff in a Mooney. For instance, with an STEC 55x autopilot you can fly a CAT 1 approach but not to 200 and 1/2. It is 240 and 1/2 because the FAA approved minimum engaged altitude is 240'. To go to 200' you must disconnect the A/P and hand fly the last 40'. Makes sense right? But it is what it is.

The company's opspecs are governing however, they cannot be more permissive than the FAA template. IOW, if an inspector issues ops specs more permissive than the template, "Lucy you got some splaining to do!" Obviously if you think about it, if airline A got a better deal than airline B that would be a competitive advantage and the howls would be heard all the way to 800 Independence Ave.

Basic turbo jet minimums. 250' 3/4. FAA ops spec template C054.

You would be illegal to do it anyway. As for gusty conditions, I find manual thrust much safer and more comfortable. A/T can get behind the airplane real fast.

The dam has burst. There is a lawsuit settlement between some eco groups and the FBO's in CA that says they have to sell unleaded when it is "commercially available". Until now the FBO Association has said that is not the case, but with the RHV delivery that will be a hard sell in a motion before a judge. G100UL will be rolling into CA literally by the truck loads. Once CA rolls, the whole obstruction program to G100UL aka "EAGLE" will collapse quickly or they will suddenly discover their leading candidate fuel "works just fine" Hang onto to your hat, the roller coaster just hit the apex.

With respect to this particular situation, which was the greater threat? Continuing on having to manage the thrust manually and landing in VMC weather at JFK or landing the airplane at night at SFO 10% overweight on Rwy 28 with the missed approach performance issues that entails (Mt San Bruno). It is highly likely there could be some overheated brakes (maybe even brake fire) and tires, maybe even fuse plugs melting. Would continuing on be a safer course of action?

Are you implying if you hand fly the airplane in other than require A/P circumstances it is less safe? Two situations same error: You are cleared to FL 360. You are hand flying. You begin level the airplane at 360, but note the F/D bar say "fly up". Then you note the MCP altitude actually says 380 (one bar segment on the display). You are cleared to FL360, airplane is on autopilot, PNF calls 1000' to go. As you approach 360 the airplane does not level off, you hit the red button on your stick, curse and then notice 380 in the MCP (1 bar segment). Before you can save it you go through FL363. ATC inquires because he just lost separation with FL370 traffic. Both circumstances involved the same error and in fact the most common error (the difference between "6" and *8" on the MCP panel) and the most common error crews make, altitude bust. Which circumstance had the greater consequence if not trapped?

Because then the PNF has to handle the MCP (heading bug and altitude selector) as well as make the changes to the FMS (nav computer) on top of his other duties.

I used to hand fly to cruise and down regularly. I would turn everything off on the Airbus if I was hand flying. Too easy to get out of synch with the auto thrust if you don't. PNF's don't like it because it increases their workload, but it is good exercise for them.

That is basically how they would have to operate this airplane without a TAT probe.

They had started their duty day in SFO after a proper rest period. They had plenty of rest (if they used the rest opportunity) and they both signed the dispatch release document which states their physical state including medical and rest was/is adequate. That is why the Duty pilot in dispatch was saying they really don't want to return saying they were not rested because they have indicted themselves with an admissions against their own interest.

No engine anti-ice also protects the lip and inlet duct so ice does not come crashing off into the fan blades. The fan blades themselves are anti-iced by engine rpm.. A "no-ice dispatch" concerns itself only with forecast icing conditions which is visible moisture and temperatures near zero.

Yes, the failure of the TAT probe caused the A/T disconnect (because the A/T computer can no longer calculate engine limits) however, the only requirement in the case of TAT failure is to avoid icing conditions. If you listen the dispatcher amends his release to "no ice" and tells the crew they are good to go "no ice". based upon forecast conditions along the route. Flown that kind of release a thousand times. Not a big deal. As to engine limits, all that is needed is to refer to manual and manually set the EPR bugs to reflect the limits.