GeeBee

The attitude of an aircraft has zero relationship to its angle of attack.

It is still dependent on the actual dynamic pressure in both direction and velocity which makes it a true AOA as opposed to LRIs which compare dynamic to static and thus are derived values. Regardless if the vane sticks out horizontally from the fuselage or is a on the leading edge it directly measures AOA without deriving AOA from inferred pressure differentials. The proof is I can walk up to both vane types on the ground, move them with my hand, and the AOA gauge will move. You cannot do that with LRIs.

Most GA AOA systems are not true AOA systems, but lift reserve indicators. That is why you have to calibrate them with test flights. A true AOA system uses a flying vane to measure true AOA. I have flown both and while a properly calibrated LRI functions just fine, a true AOA is so refined if you fly into rain, in level flight, you can see the AOA increase. The only true AOA for GA I know of is the SafeFlight system. That all said, I believe LRI units are a real plus and a wise investment.

A C/B protects your airplane from an electrical fire. You should not reset a C/B more than once and even then only if it is an urgent need. After one reset and trip leave it alone until the circuit is repaired. Never reset a fuel system C/B trip. Most airlines do not allow their crews to reset C/Bs unless a greater emergency exists. In fact many newer designs, the C/B are not available for crew access. You should not be constantly resetting this circuit, until the cause is investigated and repaired.

I also think there is a lot of money to be made in upgrades and mods. There are a bunch of G1000s that could be upgraded to NXi if the factory would create a program that they themselves could install. Equally so a lot of 231s that would like to be 252s. That plus interiors and paint the factory could create some income but more importantly certainty and value to the new products.

Many boat mfr's have of recent had dealerships aggregate together to form investment groups that would buy into the manufacturer. The result has been much improved manufacturing and a manufacturer more responsive to the market. The dealers understand the market, the consumer and the product and drive the factory. It is a model that would work in aviation.

Looks like it was a capital funding gap and it took longer to secure the funding than anticipated.

All of marketing success or failure comes down to the 3 P's. Product, price, promotion. My view is price. At 800k new there are a world of pre owned opportunities that are faster and more capable and some run on Jet A. When you are talking 200 to 500k people have a budget. When you talk close to a million, budgets are vastly more flexible and expansive.

12 passengers would be a pretty heavy lift even for a PC12. However the article said 2 were children so there might be "lap children". In any event, this airplane was heavy with that kind of pax load.

Still, it is appreciated. I had a rookie tower controller in KCAE once who could not keep his mouth shut, kept giving continuous RVR read outs outside the final. It would go up and down between 2000 and 1600 with an 1800 minimum. After two misses, the next time TRACON turned us over to tower with a reported 2000 RVR I told my F/O not to say a word until we were on final segment. Got'er done.

Well I have been flying 121 since 1979 and nope. Not questioning the veracity, lots of crews violate ops specs and regs all the time, the most common being accepting a visual approach too far out from the airport to be legal or under less than legal conditions (including being in continuous contact with a ground station). Just saying it was a "no-no" and if some FAA guy was on their jump seat they would get a welt on their butt.

Uh, no. That is not how it works for Part 121. A PIREP does not override an official observation. If that were true, every airliner in the world would ignore RVR meters when some Part 91 aircraft lands. FAR 121.651 b (2) is clear that the source of weather must be an approved source and PIREPS do not meet that criteria. If crews were ignoring an approved source in favor of a PIREP, that is a violation.

Do you think you would see anything at 1/4 mile? Believe me, I'v shot enough 1/4 mile CAT II's and III's to know what you will see and when. If you are shooting a 200 and 1/2 approach and you arrive at 1/4 mile flight visibility, you will not see anything at 200 HAT. Here is the thing. These minimums are visibility based because they have calculated at the DH with the lights full on what you will see if the visibility is right at minimums. Indeed even RVR is calculated based upon "lights on view out the window" conditions. Notice that as the DH increases in HAT, the visibility minimum usually goes up. You don't see any approaches with say a 500' HAT and a RVR 1800 minimum. IOW, if you are at minimums and you have the required elements in sight, you have the flight visibility, it's baked in the cake. I would suggest a look at Chapter 3 of TERPS paying particular attention to table 3-3-1 and that will demonstrate the correlation of minimum HAT vs visibility.

Guys, if you are part 91 it does not matter what they are reporting, you can start the approach. IF you arrive at DA or MDA and have the runway or its environment in sight, you can land, don't care what they are reporting. You see this often in areas near the sea where fog banks roll in and roll out. This is because at DA or DH you are still on "flight based visibility" which means it is your determination. You have to separate "flight visibility" and "reported visibility" . Reported visibility must be by an accredited observer and is valid for THAT LOCATION ONLY. Now someone quoted 91.175.. What visibility is required in para C (2)? Flight visibility. Who determines flight visibility? Answer. PIC. If you read Ops specs issued to 121 and 135 carriers, you cannot begin the approach unless "reported visibility" is greater than the prescribed minimums. However once you pass the FAF or on the Final Segment, para d (2) governs which says what? FLIGHT VISIBILITY. Now it should come as no surprise that approaches are designed so that at DA or DH the required elements are in view IF the flight visibility is at or above minimums. However you cannot determine flight visibility except from the cockpit which is why the rules and procedures are the way they are. The observation point for "reported visibility is often several thousand feet or even miles from the MAP. This is why if for instance you get a Special VFR clearance you can declare "VFR" the moment the wheels leave the ground. (If you want to be nice to the guy behind you waiting for clearance.) Equally so a very common condition is a small uncontrolled airport within a few miles of a controlled airport with Class D and E airspace. Say the controlled field is reporting 2 miles visibility. Do you need a special VFR to operate from the uncontrolled field. NO. The REPORTED visibility is valid only for the field for which it is reported. You can make your own visibility determination for the purpose of takeoff. Once your wheels leave the ground the entire need for a clearance is based upon FLIGHT visibility. Used to see that all the time when Sacramento Sky Ranch was next door to KSAC and the valley fog would move in. I'll give you another a classic "reported visibility" vs flight visibility. About three years ago I approached Amsterdam with a reported RVR of 1300. I wanted to set up for CAT III but the airport was unprepared to go to CATIII. So we bugged up at CAT II with minimums of 1000 RVR. Now we have to couple the autopilot for the approach, but at or above RVR 1200 we can disconnect and land manually. Ops specifications say if the "reported visibility is below 1200 we must auto land.We begin the approach at RVR 1300. At around 1000' agl the tower reports RVR less than 300. Can we continue? Yes, we are on the final approach segment and we are on a CATII. We arrive at DH, actually about 50' above DH we get the runway environment insight. Can we land? Yes, at or before DH we can see the runway which means the FLIGHT VISIBILITY is at or above minimums. Can we disconnect and land manually? NO! The "REPORTED visibility" is below RVR 1200 even though the flight visibility at DH clearly demonstrated that was not the case. Now the kicker. If we had bugged up for a CAT III we would have been obligated to go around because CAT III minimum are RVR 300 but operations specifications do not allow a "look see" under CAT III so when the reported visibility goes below minimums on a CAT III even on the Final segment you must go around. So the CAT II made it possible to land. I do not want to confuse it with touch down vs mid field vs roll out RVR but the story was designed to point out the differences between "reported" vs "flight" visibility. I have to thank Patricia "Mother" Malone for a lot of my ops spec education. She was so well versed even the FAA consulted her. No matter what conundrum I threw at her, she knew the answer, as we called it "The Pat Answer". Google "Pat Malone Ops specs" if you want to learn more about her.

Have you checked the filter?

The problem with the PA 32 is again wings. The new wing spar attachment AD affects it as well as the PA28. Again you have to spend well into 200 AMU to get out of the serial number range of affected airframes. As it is, a lot of used PA32 have scab patches on the wings to take care of cracking. About everyone of them north of 3000TT usually have cracks. It is a real hauler, but the airframes are sagging under their age.

I considered an A-36 before purchasing my Ovation. I love Beechcrafts, worked for a Beech dealer. They are well made and comfortable aircraft, especially if someone else is paying the bills. However, that all said, the Bonanza spar web AD was a deal killer for me. Every 500 hours having to dig into the center section is pricey. It surpasses 5 figures if cracks are found and installation of the reinforcing kit does not eliminate this routine. If you buy an early model you also got wing bolts in the bath tub fitting which is also a 5 figure issue. The only way I would buy an A-36 is to buy one beyond the serial numbers covered, which I believe is '96 or model or later. Bottom line is you can't beat the Mooney structure. It is stout as a brick you know what. If you are regularly going to carry 4 people, hang the check book and buy an A-36. Every 500 hours, rub your neck and write them a check. If it is just two people with and occasional 3 or 4 get a Mooney and enjoy low cost efficient aviating. https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/regulatory-brief-raytheon-beech-carry-through-spar-cracks

The municipal hangar where I am at has a generator connect box to the CB panel. So you can open the door, but only one door at a time.

I have 6 type ratings all useful, but in the totally useless department, I have always wanted to go to Coulson and get rated on the Martin Mars http://www.martinmars.com

I have to agree with others that if it is running good and has good analytics, no reason to pull it. That said, I consider Gann Aviation in Lafayette, GA to be the best boutique shops in the business. Might call them for a quote. Carlus has built two engines for me and they are incomparable.

Credit cards, your phone, internet usage they all leave a trail. AMEX has one of the best heuristics systems out there which is why you never have to call them to tell them you are going to a foreign country. All those loyalty programs, etc all feed data to Google, Facebook et al who distribute it to anyone willing to pay for it and it is amazing cheap. I buy Facebook ads and I can target an audience down to the street and what for instance what type of pilot certificate they hold. It is unbelievably cheap. Your N-Number is displayed on a variety of sources VFR or IFR. If you parked transient, airports often log the information for ADAP funding purposes etc. Your assumption is less perfect. Go to any website, BestBuy, Amazon whatever and look for a product. Then go to Yahoo.com and see what ads pop up. I keep telling people, there is no privacy anymore. You can be "off the grid" but it is really, really hard. If you have any mobile device, forget it.

Why do you believe filing IFR made a difference? Is it possible credit card data? FBO list. etc? Big Data is everywhere.

There is no privacy anymore. ADS-B is the least of your problems if you are looking for privacy.

Having worked 27 years at a company that declared Chapter 11 it can either be a great process, or it can be a path to the SOS. My company came out of Chapter 11, promptly revamped its product and it methods. Today, it is the leader in the world, the most profitable in the history of its industry, both feared and loathed by its competitors. I retired after 40 years with them and while my pension was handed over to the PBGC, I also made a good amount of money in the latter years thanks to profit sharing. With good management, bankruptcy can often be clarifying and solve a lot of structural defects built up over the years. In GA one of the best parts is to end the lawsuits and payouts. If Mooney declares Chapter 11 I hope they use the process wisely, not just to scrub their balance sheet, but to revamp the entire company.

The three rules of marketing. PPP. Product, price, promotion. Failure on all three fronts. Beech failed for years on price, but stayed alive. Cessna has failed on product, but still manages to keep the 172 and 182 alive. Mooney, needed to amp the product, overpriced it and only let dealer do the heavy lift on promotion. You can sell freezers to Eskimos, it is just a matter of PPP. I also find the CAPS argument interesting. Amsafe makes the "airbag seatbelt" retrofit for every Mooney and indeed most GA aircraft for a very modest price of 2500 dollars. Other than a CAPS, it represents the most bang for the buck safety retrofit you can buy. How many of you have purchased that system?