dkkim73

Well, there have been some victories for individual rights in the last few decades. E.g. firearms rights, though that's 2 steps fwd and 1 back at times. Cities just won the obvious right to prevent squatters in public spaces. Etc. The main countervailing trends IMHO are 1. pervasive data collection and arguments to instrument everything, 2. the managerial mindset, where no robust distributed system can be tolerated when instead a Grand Design can be imposed ("So efficient!"), whose brittle weaknesses and negative externalities will only be seen much later. But who knows when it comes to ATC. I think there is a strong argument that it is a strategic piece of national infrastructure that needs to be overcome. And the federal bureacracy is probably evolving as younger, more institutional, minds rotate in. One thing that occurs: there have historically been some advocates for GA at the national level, e.g. James Inhofe back in the day. And I'm struck by meeting some fairly successful and connected people via GA. One of our potential next Senators from Montana made his mark in business with an aviation company (bringing ISR approaches to wildland firefighting) and has a GA background. So maybe it's a matter of good advocacy. E.g. the privatization proposal in the 1st Trump administration.... maybe it's a matter of who's ear the community can get. I would like to see a little less focus on unleaded gas and a bit more on a bigger positive vision for GA in the national advocacy groups. That's a subjective view.

I've had the "computers will replace people" discussion multiple times over a couple decades. In my opinion, it's actually a very complicated issue, more than just some proofs of concepts in heavily-resourced and controlled environments, and more than is going to be decisively argued in a few posts. Replacing human pilots in the complex soup of the current civilian operational environment seems like an untested leap of faith. Traffic detectors and good autopilots are a large step away from replacing the pilot entirely. I'm actually a little non-plussed at the AF Times quote of the Secretary about being willing to trust it with weapons release authority. Hopefully he means that in a limited context. I'd actually heard of this project for a while (obliquely know a guy involved). While it's a necessary avenue to pursue for competitive reasons, particularly in ACM environments where the human factors can be severe, it's still a limited context. I think there are a lot of people with so much neophilia that they end up with blind spots. And there's a huge profit motive to push skilled humans out of certain roles in multiple fields, replace them with less-trained people, automation, etc. So it's also not a neutral evaluation in the civilian world. That 2 cents plus $2.97 might get you a cup of coffee.... somewhere...

People still drop dead.

You have a nice practical line of offerings. I noticed your price on the Brightline bags looks pretty good, too. What do you think of them? A BatteryMinder and a number of requisite accessories (Y-connector, TSO'd connectors etc) have been on my "nice to have" list for a while... I'm spacing out purchases (it's called the "you already have an airplane" spending plan ;). How much of a discount is the Airventure discount? Thanks!

@ttflyer makes many important points. There are arguably may indirect benefits of GA and many intangibles (read: someone can't make a quick buck off of it). A pool of engineering- and flight-minded people is a non-trivial asset. I could write an essay on the value of people with tangible skills, mechanical sense, handiness, etc. People have noted that the toughness, character, and practicality of rural agrarian America feed our military readiness. I think a similar thing applies to engineering and operations. Making GA more of an elite thing than it is already become by ad-hoc fees will further stifle the community. Also, I frankly like being able to fly without worrying about landing permissions and fees at every little airport, and ATC fees I hear international folks complain about. It's kind of like being able to get in your car and drive where you want. Yes, it's subsidized in some ways (though, net of burning jet fuel on the USAF's dime, I've definitely paid a lot more tax than I've ever received back in peacetime economic services). Recall that airport subsidies are in large part to maintain infrastructure, not make a buck. But it's also one of the privileges of living in this country that a lot of people have worked for. If you want to talk about getting "freeloaders" to pay... well now that would take a bit of time now wouldn't it? There are a lot of people who want to impose mileage fees on cars, congestion fees, tax certain cars, and otherwise somehow extract every transactional dime they can for their firm/state/government entity. A lot of these people have a business to promote (eTaxation!) or a power angle. And I doubt they're going to give us a break from subsidizing other externalities in return.

This is a good reminder. I got a traffic call the other day (not a busy region) on VFR flight following, King Air passed over a few hundred feet up, 90 degrees. Took a while to see him, was grateful for the point-out and said so. I think TIS-B gives some false sense of security, as great as it is.

Here's pictures of the gauge box plumbed into the fuel lines:

FWIW I've experienced some nuance in getting this done. E.g. one very experienced local A&P checked my setup (done at factory early this year), verified the low end unmetered fuel pressure toward the lower end of the setting. However I'd had episodes of the engine quitting on taxi, was advised by others to set it towards the high end (one Mooney A&P said slightly above the high end). It took some mild persuading of another local A&P to do that. So also for increasing the max FF empirically (recommended by Paul) targeting <= 1350F TIT on full power climb (in my plane, prob. different on the Ovation). This gives a higher nominal FF than TCM spec as was stated above. The first guy also set the idle mix a little richer, and the second intentionally maybe a bit leaner. So there does seem to be some body English, and recommended settings for the Mooney I am told may differ from the TCM specs. So it's probably worth making sure whatever is done is well-communicated in detail, esp. if you have the benefit of some Mooney gurus on call (I was fortunate to have Paul K. via Savvy and Brian Kendrick as advisors). HTH!

NickG can speak to his original meaning, but I took it to mean that the 1500 hr requirement has resulted in an emphasis on quantity over quality of flight experience. With the increased cost of GA flying in the last couple decades, I might imagine some trade-offs would be made. But I haven't walked that path, and the devil is in the details. Maybe someone here has done that recently and can opine. An insider I asked said Rwy 10 at that location is an unusual assignment. Also speculated that wind shear and/or rain would be additive factors. Also asserted all speculation is premature. Also: My own comment on the DEI issue was editorializing on a potentially dissynergistic trend, not asserting that it was directly contributory in this case. I'm just very skeptical of upending traditional standards in high-reliability fields (aviation, medicine, critical infrastructure engineering, etc).

It took me a while to figure out that my plane only has one of those radios, XM I believe... Is this decommissioning coming soon? I flew home in an area with widespread convection and I appreciated having the satellite info vs. just FIS-B.

Yeah, restricting the pool of applicants to "chosen characteristics" seems like a bad idea for several reasons. It seems that, with all the motion in that vein, the burden of proof is shifting to them to prove it isn't material. On a humorous transition from the above: https://babylonbee.com/news/airlines-offering-100-upgrade-where-youre-guaranteed-an-old-male-pilot-named-steve

Oh my, oh my. This is perfect.

Niice short field landing. That did not look like much extra energy at all. I didn't hear power changes either. I would imagine you need to have the profile just right, maybe set up speed and then "grab" the slope with just the right power setting and ride it in? Still leaving myself a lot of room in the Acclaim...

That is super-helpful, thank you!

Think about how much fuel you are saving with the CG not so far forward!

Thank you guys! @Utah20Gflyer @Air pirate Do you or anyone else have any opinions or info on Cornerstone Aviation? They look like a 61 or 141 school, based on student preference. Their FAQ and info are pretty thorough, which seems like a good indication.

Thanks @GeeBee, what did you use? I just ordered a Novus kit from further up this thread..

I never noticed.

#3 cylinder issues, makes me wonder about a ring flush. That and valve lapping can make a huge difference. Maybe get some advice from an AP and have them review borescope photos.

Well you really took your time sending me that, didn't you? That's great, picture ~= 1000 words, ty!

Yeah, that's what I'm working on, a more robust flow. It's the exceptions to flow that scare me. Had something similar though less ridiculous (#8, is that today or tomorrow? :)) recently and was very aware of the gear. I was low and far from the field and trying to manage power and guess what speed would help the traffic flow. Canonical points to lower gear for me so far are: -FAF or cleared for the visual on IFR -abeam the threshold on a standard visual pattern Beyond that I'm working on it. The "UPS" checklist on short final has been helpful so far as a cross-check on gear status. And the LHS is there, though a lot of places I fly have big drops prior to touchdown.

I'm still wrestling with the question of how best to do this procedure. My understanding is that it's more of an issue on the long-bodies, and the balance seems to be forward a lot of the time in my Acclaim (though I've started purposely loading as far aft as I can on commutes, which just feels better). Techniques I've heard of: -trim into the flare to keep forces low -trim up on the transition but push forward, so trim is set for the flare portion, kind of an alternative approach to the above (you're moving the muscle-y part earlier in the process where you're higher off the ground, almost a reverse flare) -keep trim more moderate and use more force in the flare Pros of more trim: -Weber's law says our perception threshold is 5% of the force we are holding, e.g. so trim to neutral gives much finer feel than 10 lbs of force against a faster trim setting. So much quicker to feel and react to changes in force (feedback from flight surfaces), able to be more precise with force applied, less mentally-distracting Pros of less trim: -Less dangerous on a go-around (the trim is way up for me, to be neutral at 70-75KIAS, and required forward pressure is significant; not crazy but a lot of force and should be applied quickly) -Less risk of tail plane stall. I've felt this about 3 times, once very notably where I had to push forward a bit to stop the bobble. My transition instructor warned me this can set me up for a sudden pitch down and a prop strike. Also, it feels... "not right" to be so close to a limit of primary control authority. Overall I'm seeing better control and awareness with more trim than not, but I'm still very aware of the potential problem. Tips appreciated.

At the risk of asking you to tie my shoes for me, when you're at the plane next can you send me a photo of where you put the index marks? That's a great idea and I think I'll add that. Did you use touch-up paint or some kind of marker, or something else? The horizontal stab trim is a big safety focus item for me, too. It's a really elegant engineering solution (movable empennage) but slow to move in this plane and generates a lot of force.

Thanks. I had a similar thought. Asked about adding a connection to one of the main masts, but Jeff at Mooney thought it would be a trade-off of signal quality for the affected onboard COMM. Maybe he was talking about a splitter rather than a switch-over. In any case I didn't think the juice was worth the squeeze. Bought years ago as in-flight backup but agree mainly useful for on the ground stuff. I recently started carrying it again when I saw a twin Beech taxi out at a field I was visiting with something hanging from the bottom. I had to run to the ship and wait for the G1000 to fire up to call him. Realized it would be nice to have more comms on the ground in general. I wonder what the appropriate callsign is for a handheld aviation rig. "Mooney Nxxxx mobile"? "Mooney Nxxxx remote"? "Mooney Nxxxx"?

Hi All, This thread: made me wonder about polishing my ice light. The ice light lens is hazy, and the factory (where the pre-purchase/annual was done) said it was actually a fair bit of trouble to replace it, requiring some interior disassembly and paint work. I deferred, and since scarcely use it, more in the habit of shining a bright flashlight out the window. But, it occurred to me that maybe it would get better with some polishing, like old auto headlights? I haven't done that in the past, but assume it is essentially a fine abrasive process to reveal the plastic underneath. Has anyone tried this, or have thoughts based on transferable experience? Thanks!