Ibra

I agree, even higher winds were challenging (beyond what one would go for when flying with passengers, maybe ok when flying alone), the cloud were building up by 1000, then things grow fast as the sun raises and likely unflyable at all by midday The Alps require good VMC for VFR crossing. For IFR, one need pressurization to fly VMC on top and maintain vectoring levels that Swiss ATC like. The backup route for return from Croatia VFR or low IFR is usually via Corsica, it needs Avgas, this has extra costs in terms of money and time, however, it's way bellow the entry cost required for aircraft equipment to fly in Alps that day: that SigWX chart seems to indicate one need +FL250 aircraft ! The valley flying in such marginal eather is better left to those based in those corners, someone transiting the area does not have enough elements and experience to judge how far actual from forcasts in unfamiliar ridges and valleys... The pilot holds an FAA 61.75 based on FOCA PPL without FAA instrument ticket, he likely was not legally rated to fly IFR, I am not sure if he is rated or trained to fly IMC at FL95 or how much VFR valley experience he has? this point is likely moot because the aircraft is not the right one and he was not properly equipped for that route at that time, it can't fly fast and high above the cloud tops and can't fly low and slow under the cloud bases...

This one is an Ovation, it has EASA TCDS and can be moved into EASA-reg with no issues Yes sometimes it make sense to keep N-reg because of certification or modifications, for instance, the 310hp STC by Midwest for Eagles and Ovations is approved by FAA but not yet approved by EASA in Europe or CAA in UK, it's a lengthy path to get this one validated, so the pilots will have to stay with de-rate engine at 2500rpm as they transfer registration to Europe. In the other hand, some standard modifications can be done on EASA (CS-STAN) by pilot without requiring inspector signoff (337). These are examples out of many,

Thanks for what you are doing for fellow Mooniacs ! I don't have family contacts, but the pilot name was released to press today, https://www.observatoiredeleurope.com/le-contributeur-suedois-de-la-baie-de-pirate-de-pirate-carl-lundstrom-decede-en-slovenie_a65169.html

Historically yes as FAA rules for licensing, operation and maintenance were lighter and pragmatic for private operations, the JAA/JAR required compliance with airline rules. Less advantages now as new EASA rules were tailored for GA operations and they have mirrored FAA rules when it comes to non commercial operations (NCO, Part-ML...are now in force since 2020) Pilots can have N-Registered aircraft based in Europe as long as they have "dual papers" for EASA & FAA licences

Picked aircraft from it's annual, and flew VFR the afternoon in Belgium and night in France, finally I bited the bullet and installed new LED to replace old bulbs, following advice from Mooniacs here ! That's a nice call sign (goes well with "OH-FBI") Sunset over Amiens (LFAY)

Have personal minima, test them, adjust +/-, rince and repeat There is more to it than just visibility and ceiling numbers, variable currency and past experience? home-base vs unfamiliar places? limit utilitization tells you how restrictive or aggressive? long story short, there are more factors than a single number and single limit, it's multifactor and ideally you have to stay in the middle, if you go near the edges pick one thing at the time, don't be that guy who is on low fuel going max crosswind with low visibility on tighter runway because he is coming fast with no flaps due to icing... For terminal weather, most private IFR pilots will regularly fly in typical SVFR conditions with occasional CAT-I landing 2 to 4 times per year depending how much they fly. Don't bust system minima: some even normalize it, then one day luck teach them to stay clear, if they are lucky to have a lesson and walk away. For en-route weather, I don't think it's easy to have hardcoded minima? some have VMC en-route, others would fly in anything not frontal or bellow freezing point, then few ones will fly frontal weather in winter and summers bellow freezing levels. No matter what you choose, have plan B and C, even flying in same cloud twice with same forcast 2h appart give you two completely different experiences ! Some pilots rely on planning information to mitigate weather risk (cancel trip, depart early, depart later) others deal with it dynamically as more airborne information comes during flight (have a look with plan to divert), if you have plan and process you can call this "risk-reward appetite", if not you are relying on luck and "hope is not a strategy".

While ago someone asked me this question as example of "not much you can do about it" (single runway middle taxiway with slow traffic departing and fast traffic going around) I pointed out that he can fly offset on go-around to "the pattern deadside", keep 1nm and visuzl then fly behind him on crosswind, he was puzzled, it did not seem obvious to him...

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 )