Ibra

I went for some night IFR practice after work in foggy conditions, this time lights were working but I asked ATC for favours: I did 1×takeoff without lights: nothing special on heading until radar identified 2×approach without runway and approach lights: Crikey not a chance ! 2×approach with lights: I got in but only on ILS end with HI-ALS For landings, I think I need one of those LED from the "brightest LED" Mooney thread or from "US trucks forums"

I forgot there is no such thing as "flight/journey logs" for aircraft flying in US only hours at mods, inspections, ovefhauls...are endorsed on aircraft logbook. I was assuming things are like this side of pond, where aircraft keep separate "flight/journey ourney logs" (from current owners and previous owners), this would have a list of flights logged with all details: pic name, departure, arrival. From that aircarft history one can get some feel easily: training flights are usually: A to A, 1h- 2h max, 2-3 per day (weekday, different name, writing), private owner flights tend to be A to B (weekend, same name). One can still download last years of ADSB logs to see latest trends, no idea about pilots but it give an idea of the missions flown The good news with Mooneys they are not used for school training and are more "owners platforms", so number of TTAF hours are usually on lower side !

Obviously condition matters but when you open the logbook you are looking for a consistent record of 50h-200h per year, then it's likely a good one. For 30-40 years old aircraft one is looking to see TTAF from 1500h to 6000h, the distribution over time matters a lot as well... * Under 50h/year, it's not used that much, so watch for corrosion or lack of love (no money, no time...) * Above 200h/year, it's used too much likely school or training, so watch for abuse... Check if it's same pilots or zillions of pilots, same pilot or two others regular pilots fine? if it's +200h/year with new name every day, well it's likely to be in a bad state (I saw an Arrow like that, I felt sorry for the owner who bought it but he was happy). I am assuming logbook history is authentic, that has to be checked later I noticed from playing with numbers that Vref depreciate price with total airframe hours (TTAF) without taking into account manufacturing year (MFY): the model assumes that 40 years old aircraft with 0h TTAF is worth more than 40 years old aircraft with 3000h TTAF maybe they should adjust price toward the mean TTAF for given "fleet/type/mfy"? anything under 40h (1h per year) or above 16000h (1h per day) is dodgy !

Yeah, not this week: the "Artic Air has reached Texas" While ago I saw a non-turbo aircraft with TKS + AirCon (and not much useful load left), I can see now why someone needs both...

If you are not after turbos then: C, J, R are sweet spots of short, medium, long bodies. It’s like buying the latest product at the end of it’s cycle On topic, Diamond Aircraft managed to convert DA40XL to DA40TDI then DA40NG using JetA, these aircraft are efficient and well designed, however, Diamond Aircraft lost track on two items: integrated cockpits (it’s a bottle neck versus modular avionics) and they produced DA50NG which is basically “Diesel Ovation” that is heavy as hell and costs 1.5m$, who buys this stuff? There is a nice comparison of XL & M20J here (as well as SR22 and Arrow), the NG is far more efficient than XL (I used to pay 20$/h for fuel), I wonder what M20NG will do but I bet it rocks ! https://www.mooney201.de/why-a-mooney-.html The numbers speak for themselves,

Interesting discussion about 0-0 takeoff, I have done load of these under VFR in Pitts as forward visibility is c***p Never under IFR, my lowest takeoff was 600m (1800ft) RVR and my lowest approach was 800m (2400ft) RVR For weather minima on private IFR operations here: * If RVR is not published, there is not much, you still get lot of reminders from ATC: "check your minima?," "what are your intentions?", "are you doing it for the fun?" If RVR is published, * Takeoffs are limited to 400m-550m RVR by day (1200ft-1800ft or 1/4-1/3 sm) and 800m RVR by night (2400ft or 1/2 sm) depending on airports * Approaches are limited to 550m RVR (1800ft RVR or 1/3 sm) For takeoff: even when ATC RVR < 400m (1200ft), the pilot is still allowed to interpret PIC RVR by going to runway and calculating light bulbs × 200ft, we call it "VIBAL RVR", if he swears that he sees 7 lights bulbs, he is good to takeoff. However, there is no such thing as "zero-zero" takeoff. For landing: one need ATC RVR > 550m, there is "no approache ban" on private operations in Europe when RVR > 550m (in FAR Part91, there is an "approach ban" when RVR is lower than the plates?). I recall one reason for this is that: one is allowed to descend on ALS/HIALS lights only down to (in FAR Part91, I understand one is limited to 100ft agl unless they see runway, threshold, or touchdown...but Part91 are allowed this when doing Cat2/3?) My personal planning minima are usually way higher, especially for alternates and fuel planning. However when flying, I tend to fly legal minima: I am happy to take off as long as visibility exceeds my takeoff roll and ok with landing in 550m as long as I have approach lights and official glide. My last real approach was in December 100ft ceiling and 3000ft visibility as easy as it gets with wind <5kts. I rarely get the chance to go lower than than this? these occurances are once in 200h of flying and "I love flying weather at my homebase" (my goal is to fly away when weather is c***p at home to somewhere sunny, usually south, then return even when weather is still c***p at home).

The inquity is closed, for some reason the flight plan was mis-labelled as "scheduled flight/public transport": such flight should not have taken place from that airport (even by day) and someone decided to flag and follow up. I also got the radar traces, I am impressed someone check some obscure fields in ICAO flight plans and how long they keep this stuff, I don't even recall what was filed...

Thank you all for info/confirmation.

I guess it’s Echo that starts at 700-1000agl? It’s the same here, uncontrolled takeoff in Golf then join airspace above (usually, runway heading to 3000ft but sometimes THR assign SID/OMNI to some RNAV fixes). I guess the runway having light or not won’t change anything to the clearance delivery for takeoff? (or say an approach for landing?)

Thanks for the confirmation, AFAIK, it used to be the same rules here for night VFR: no difference except higher weather minima, 5km visibility, and higher obstacles clearance in cruise, I did my training under older rules. After 2012, the designations “Night VFR approved” and “Day VFR only” were introduced for airports. I assumed these do not affect night IFR takeoff which in my case was nothing extraordinary: plenty of “day light” even with night (here it’s sunset +30min). I did not even notice it was night: I had CTOT (sort of delay/release) on my flight plan, I called sector ATC by phone for clearance, he asked if it’s public transport flight? told me airport is closed but he will need to check, later come back and gave clearance to depart.

That's similar to European rules (lights are required for CAT airlines operation but not for NCO private operation) I am not sure which rule was violated? If it's something along FAR91.13 (or SERA.3101 here), then it's fine

Hello, Not a Mooney question, Anyone know if there are rules for IFR takeoff at night at untowred airfields without ATC? anything in Part91, FAR, AIM, TERPS that mandate or require runway lights (or taxiway, airport becon, obstacles...) for takeoff under IFR What about departures at night VFR from untowred airfields in US? Asking for myself, I have to reply to an inquiry regarding night departure while ago from untowred airfield following the standard departure (sort of SID), the airport has omnidirectional departures (sort of ODP)...

Happy new year to all Mooniacs ! First flight in Mooney (second flight of 2025): quick trip to Amiens (LFAY), cold weather here in Normandy but nothing compared to “freezing bones” in Chicago The first flight of 2025 was Wing-Shift ULM (sort unregulated LSA), takeoff on skis at 9500ft elevation on top of Alps, a very short flight though: at -15C, this is the best fun one can have with LOT of their cloths on, it did not last more than 15min my wife complained about flying in freezing cold on “something that looks like motorcycle”, I reassured her that it makes us younger: the cold help to preserve meat for long conservation, this analogy did not go very well

That's nuts, you won't be able to land once ATC is privatised (I know how medium/big airports works in countries with "private ATC"). In Europe, the only places with thriving GA and public ATC are France & Germany, the airport are still accessible to light GA (most of the rest has gone into the turf) For 38m$ from Avgas seems on the low side? from some "100LL transition" discussions, I understand 800mUSG is sold annually in US (100mUSG is sold in Europe where Avgas tax vanishes instead of going back to GA ), that's 5cent on gallon in taxes, it seems low? I would have expected 160m$ with 20cent on gallon and maybe 80m$ once the whales had their share Infrastructure is not supposed to make money, it's a money hole when you look at direct costs and revenues, the only benefit you get from it are the indirect economics around: tourism, pilot training, airtaxis, accessibility, flying schools, helimeds, jobs, council airports...most GA Part91 operators, don't require traditional airport services that cost dozens of millions per year, you only need a gate to get in/out from ramp, the "the user pays for what he uses" is a good logic instead of "the user pay to acess": for private comany owning airport GA is viewed as nuisance without much profits: not much money anyway compared to Public Transport

Is that automatic? they read fuel invoices, tail numbers and ADSB tracks They should at least do some smart work when the “user already paid” such as “hangar rental” and “fuel taxes”. How does it work for say based operators with hangar rental? are they are on some “exclusion list”? What starts as “user pays” does end up very ugly: there is not much money to make charging Part91 under 12000lbs, the next step for light GA is losing runway access and ramp access (loss of ATC, FBO monopolies, made up security rules, mouvements restrictions…). I know how it works for airports outside US The use of ADSB data outside flight safety or managing traffic is rather odd…