redbaron1982

That's my understanding... AFAIK an experimental aircraft does not have a type certificate... so how would get a supplement to something you don't have in the first place.

Is there any news re FAA investigation into this? Is G100UL still available at the two Kali airports? Are there any new aircraft having issues?

If you have the data from the engine monitor, you can calculate your GAMI spread (the FF at which the leanest cylinder peaks - the richest cylinder peaks). Anything 0.5 gal or lower is ok and will let you run LOP smoothly. GAMI spread is what really matters to know how well "tuned" the injectors are.

The SA states: "While some aspects of the initial Cirrus testing of the GAMI G100UL fuel are encouraging, Cirrus has identified specific concerns regarding material compatibility. Lab and on-aircraft testing, in coordination with FAA representatives, revealed degradation of tank sealant when in contact with GAMI G100UL fuel that could result in airworthiness concerns." So I guess this information is not new, but GAMI elected to push G100UL forward I assume trying to get 100LL banned. It is borderline criminal, I really hope that we don't end up with a fatal accident as result of G100UL.

Those would be fuel samples? Or samples from the panels / sealant that were damaged?

I'm glad we have people like @mluvara that take the time to do this analysis and videos. I wish we would have a few more to dissipate concerns about "it's just one person. The results were not replicated by anyone else" I wish I would have the time to do some tests myself.

Related, but unrelated, do I need an X account now to keep updated on NTSB investigations? I know I can access X without an account, but it seems that the posts are not sorted chronologically, so it is kind of useless.

The FAR's states for mode C transpoder (91.217 (a) (2)): "Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft" A serviceable mode C transpoder (I understand that's the altitude reporting equipment on board of the black hawk) would have an error of +/- 125 ft.

Yes, 100%; it doesn't make sense to have a published helicopter route that crosses the short final of a class B airport in the same altitude block as any aircraft landing. If everyone had been flying with 0 deviations and with a perfectly accurate baro height, then the helo would be at 200ft and the landing traffic at ~300 ft and descending. 100 ft is the altitude granularity that the controller sees on their screen; it makes no sense at all.

Yep, this doesn't make sense to me either. The RNAV RWY 33 shows a 3 degree slope.

Yeah, I think it was down for everyone. I was having issues posting messages, too. And I didn't see any new message like in 18 hours, so I guess everyone was having issues.

It is amazing that they allow non-IFR operations to cross short final on a class B airspace. I never thought they would clear someone to do that. Forcing all operations to be IFR within 5 miles and below 2000 AGL of any departure/arrival runway end in a class B airspace makes sense. I'm not sure if 5 miles and 2000 AGL are the best numbers, maybe smaller, maybe larger.... but doesn't make sense at all to have VFR operations messing around in short final to a class B airport.

@CAV Ice might help

That's odd. If that were from 100LL, I would expect to see some blue staining, but instead, there is some brown residue. It is disturbing that the same photos are in the PAFI document of Lessons Learned. Providing the source of these pictures could help clear up the confusion.

What you have missing there is a Camloc. I don't know exactly the size for the M20R, taking a look at the IPC. You can get the Camlocs from Aircraft Spruce. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/categories/aircraft_parts/ap/menus/ha/fast_1camloc.html If you don't feel comfortable going through the Illustrated Part Catalog, I guess many here in MS or your AP could tell you which size you need.

First, it was a joke. Second, it's a bit different. Why the insurance companies don't start to randomly audit roof repair claims instead of just raising premiums? I'm sure that with all the data available today is quite easy to score the likelihood of a roof repair claim being a fraud. In my neighborhood most, if not the repairs, happened not after a hurricane or storm. So how come that a 10 year roof, without any natural event such as hail or destructive winds needs repair? How comes that it needs to be completely replaced? It's funny some roof with real damage were repaired rather than completely replaced.

I hope they do the same here in Texas too (I mean, the law). Home insurance prices went through the roof. In the last year, I think at least 5% of the neighborhood houses changed their roof when it was perfectly fine (all 10-year-old houses). I told my wife, that if the insurance doesn´t go down or, at least, stay the same, we will also contact one of this roof companies and at least get some many back.

Yeah, that's correct. It happens with a lot of services nowadays: Mooneyspace for starter, airnav.com, skyvector, google, gmail, etc. I think free doesn't equate to "they are somehow stealing from you"... I'm not advocating for Foreflight insurance fair price tool, though.

They do ask some of this information (like how much coverage you have, or if it is hangared or not). Having said that, I'm sure it is not including all the small details (like emergency landings without damage to the airplane). I agree that Foreflight most likely has a business that needs this information. As long as it results in lower insurance prices, I'm ok with that.

Hey, have you guys seen ths? https://blog.foreflight.com/2025/01/21/foreflights-insurance-fair-price-tool-brings-transparency-to-aircraft-insurance/ It looks a nice tool. In my case, is telling me that I'm paying above the normal range.

So can I shoot down a drone that's lower than 300ft? From time to time we get roofing companies here with drones flying 20ft above my home taking pictures.

As I read this, I remembered the guy who hung the Mooney in the high-voltage transmission lines. I guess not everyone gets wiser or more risk-averse with age.

You're absolutely right. There are risk factors that you don't want to stack together against you: night, IMC, single-engine, single-pilot, mountainous terrain, icing. Can you successfully make an XC flight in IMC, at night, single-pilot in a single-engine airplane, in icing conditions, in mountainous terrain? I bet you can. Is it wise or safe? I'm sure it is not.

You might be the first one with an autoland M20J... otherwise I do find the transition to visual at the end of instrument approach more challenging at night. And not to mention having an engine failure with the ceiling at 500ft and dark below... Dark = more dangerous IMC = more dangerous Dark + IMC = much more dangerous I'm not saying it is unsafe, but you're stacking your odds against you.