Ibra

Best glide ratio does not change with weight, it's pure geometry: the B747, PC12, P51 have some nice glide ratios yet they are "pretty heavy" The propeller has lot of effect, I would say between 1:10-1:13 in M20J, however, I am damn sure it will not work if an engine fails unless I forgot to put Avgas Best glide speed Vbg increase with weight (like stall speed increment but one need to whole polar curve) and headwinds (decrease with tailwind), in thoery, one should calculate vertical speed (fpm) to ground speed (kts), then find indicated airspeed that maximise the ratio. I have done hundreds of hours optimising glides in Astir and Discus, none of that was relevant when engine quit in C172, I just glanced at iPad for my options, put it at 80kts and started looking outside. It's mostly about having a speed I mind and doing some planning, what matters is where your aiming point or selected field moves with respect to the horizon and the aircraft, if it goes up you won't make it, if it goes down you will make it, this applies irrespective of calculations In M20J, I plan to fly 90kias and plan 1:10 to arrive at 2000ft overhead my landing spot On a side note, I wonder what numbers go into "smart glide" by GTN?

I had one of these printed and attached to the wall of the breifing room at my school, it reminded students to do the long one in the room and keep it short in the aircraft ! See Note1 about “crane or tower” NOTAM

Even 1600hp on Jeskos with E85 on Octane < MON91 https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a27029039/koenigsegg-jesko-engine-explained/ Clever and innovative stuff (these words unheard of in aviation context) Then you have the problem of alcohol in fuel system, airframe…but again sports cars don’t have much of these issues (ahem, regulatory limitation or lack of imagination). On limitations, I think all non-turbos Mooneys should be able to run UL94 (assuming they can have variable timing) as long as one sacrifies some power and plan for extra more runway length on takeoff. We flew uncertified with IO360 using UL91 (MON91) and SP98(MON88), these have less octane than UL94 and 100LL, the temperatures were slightly hot on takeoff but other than that “it works”, yet they are not approved by Lycoming !

The Senate briefing from NTSB said ADSB on the Blackhawk was switched off and pilots were flying using NVGs. Does anyone know if such flight was still show as "synthetic ADSB" with no callsign and no flightID (as FAA still rebroadcast radar feeds)? Do avionics in airliners have ways to display such info or there is some "filtering"? (certified avionics do not show "some ADSB" with low integrity, e.g. SIL = 0) I recall seeing "non-ADSB" aircraft while flying in US (including military), this was using my iPad and ForeFlight, my understanding, they are radar feeds that are visible on ADSB because they get "rebroadcasting of Mode A, C, S" on TIS-A/B channels I was involved with one GA group in Europe, we tried to lobby for such interoperability between ModeS and ADSB (as well as other protocols), it a was a huge project that was ditched at the end (private funding, air traffic control, private radar feeds, military data, "pay as you go" mentality...)

Fly high my friend !

I feel this tragedy would have been prevented if helicopter was using ADSB-IN to get full traffic picture rather than solely relying on visual at night. My guess is they likely mis-identified wrong traffic with confirmation bias: ADSB-IN view of CRJ and AAL would have sorted any conflict and saved lives ! I am not talking ADSB-OUT (military aircraft, fancy avionic installation...), only ADSB-IN: where one only need an iPad that displays heavy airliners, this is more than enough to provide "lookout assist", especially at night in complex airspace: the ADSB-IN view like the one you have on 760 gives you a clear view on where heavy metal flies (not only for traffic separation or collision avoidance but also for planning wake turbulence in large airports)

You are right, I looked at VASA replay all traffic were on radar/ils initial, before joining visual runway1, some traffic was sent to runway33 (to allow takeoff on runway1? or crosswind?) The CRJ was at 1200ft on “own routing” to runway33 when ATC passed traffic info to PAT rather than “traditional circle-to-land”… Indeed, lot to be learned on how/why after this sad accident !

Thanks for the PIREP, I was discussing with co-owner if he is keen on stop at their shop later this year or next year (trying to reseal fuel tanks in middle of 10000nm trip )

They probably had wrong traffic in sight, AAL was behind CRJ on same closure angle, one will have to wait and see what comes from NTSB/FAA Yes, visual separation at night and visual circling at night squeezed low level does not sound healthy (one can compare to the tons of rules for same mixing of IFR/VFR under low ceiling).

My understanding they were circling with other traffic were on straight ILS, so them being at 350ft (MDH) during such manoeuvre is normal as long as they stay in 2nm circling radius Circling at night is a whole topic on its own, are the CRJ LPV equipped? are Part121 operators required to fly at say 400ft MDH and stay within 2nm radius? I mean is it ok to do instrument circling at 1000ft agl from 3nm distance if weather permits, like a pattern in good night VMC

I don’t know how visual self-separation works at nights with more than 3 aircrafts in vicinity of Bravo type airport with multiple runway in operation? then how that works when adding night IFR circling at 350ft-450ft MDH on wide 2nm circling area? then adding other things like tower staffing, crew fatigue after long night flight, 100ft bust of altitude, pilot errors, flight paths under engine failures…it sounds like that route was running with very tight margins (even if 200ft separation was deemed enough for visual “traffic separation”, it’s not enough for “wake separation” for helicopter to fly 200ft under or behind airliner on landing config). An instruction to orbit or delay crossing would have allowed helicopter to properly identify traffic or judge distance to traffic, both are hard to do at night, or even build a tiny margin, although, it’s easier to “over analyse” after events. A very sad accident, all my thoughts for civilian and military victimes and their families !

I think TCAS do not work (inhibited) for RA/TA bellow 1000ft/500ft agl both aircraft were under these heights, so beyond most TCAS specs

Takeoff is usually 200ROP-300ROP, you should see +14gph at 6000ft DA, the number itself does not matter much in high density as one will be leaning to find max static RPM while on breaks, then enrich slightly (1gph) At 6000ft, you can climb wide open throttle, RPM and LOP vs LOP sitting, however, one would go for 250ROP takeoff and 100ROP for climb (although, one can climb on anything that keeps good CHT)

Dropped Mooney for it's annual plus right side rank reseal at the MSC shop in Netherlands, it was a quick trip from France with 80kts tailwind (we had 940hp or 27.72" depression over UK), bumpy surface wind but aligned with runway: I probably used less than 400ft for takeoff and landing ! In the hangar, I saw what it looks like an unwanted child from an affair between GeeBee and J3Cub? flying is getting expensive: downsize from J3 to single seater version this one looked very cold and tiny

I enjoy doing it to students, also when not instructing and just flying with other pilots … Just to see how far one can go before one lose it or enforce sterile cockpit. Learned this from a lady who taught me to fly while ago, she was the kind who can’t stop talking, even during flaring