redbaron1982

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.

Yeah, that's absolutely right. When I did my Night XC during my PPL training it was scattered and you could only tell there were clouds because the dark holes from the city lights.

From a practical point of view, Night VMC can be as bad as IMC. I think the US is one of the few countries in the world that doesn't require special training to fly at night. I wouldn't be mad if they change the regs and make Night VFR a special endorsement. Although you might not require the procedural part of IFR training, at least for sure you need to be able to aviate and navigate using the instruments.

Everyone talks about VFR into IMC, but I agree, the real killer is VFR into VMC!

I know nothing about lawsuits or laws, I'm an Engineer and I want to stay away from courts as much as possible. My question is, reading at the claims made by the plaintiff, it looks like that is *very* easy to win for the defendant, I wouldn't even hire a lawyer. I would reply, item by item, with my own knowledge. For instance, the plaintiff claims that the defendant, on purpose, flew circles over his home but looking at the ADSB data is clear that it's just regular traffic patterns. The same goes for flying at an altitude lower than 1000ft, it's clear that the pilot was in the landing or taking off part, which allows for altitudes lower than 1000ft AGL. You can make the same statements for using lead fuel. G100LL is only available at a very reduced of airports, it has an ongoing investigation from the FAA regarding material compatibility, and requires a major modification to the aircraft (STC). I know, the STC is just placards, but technically, and STC implies major modification. And I can keep going, some of the claims are merely opinions, such as "the pilot and operator doesn't care about people", that you can easily make your case that those are opinions and not facts. Am I completely wrong?

Yeah, this only makes sense if you have a C/B shared by multiple loads, and then each load has its own fuse. I don't get why we have a C/B for Elev Trim and then a fuse as well for Elev Trim. That seems to be a bus with only one load, why two protections?

It seems that Mr Scott Iceberg is addicted to lawsuits: https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-brookstone-landscape-design-llc, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-whole-foods-mkt-grp-inc?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-martin?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, and many more...

Something that I don't like about US justice system is that the person that losses a suit doesn't have to automatically pay for the winner reasonable defense expenses. That's why you have completely illogical lawsuit like this one.

I've updated Wikipedia's AvGas article to mention the concerns around material compatibility