hazek

It can, depending on the EU country. Germany and France for example are large enough where the typical flight might keep you in the same country. My personal favorite flight of 400NM or so has me fly through 6 countries though. So it will be interesting how Starlink will work for me.

I think so.. Will confirm when I test it. But it's funny for my particular situation as 15min (and as low as 5min) of flight in any direction puts me in 4 different countries from my home base. So I will basically always use it abroad!

Also just pulled the trigger. Also wondering where is the best location.

I went from PA28s and 172s with 180TT to my Bravo. I took one flight to get signed off demonstrating 3t&gs and 2 landings. The instructor, an airline captain, couldn't believe it and was very apprehensive to sign me off but could not find a reason not to. I'm now at +60h on my plane, exclusively VFR. I'm not special. In fact, I struggled to learn to land getting my PPL. But this struggle has caused me to analyse how to land incisively. Doing so I stumbled upon a technique that IMHO should be mandated how every CFI is supposed to teach landing. It's called the Jacobson flare. It does NOT rely on feel or experience but rather on geometry and math and an easily identifiable relationship between an aim point and a flare cut off point. It relies on power for speed and pitch for aiming mindset, flying by the numbers exactly. And IT JUST WORKS. There is no issue with landing long bodies. NONE. I'm proof of that. There are however issues with landing, period. People rely on feel and practice treating it as an artform, hence the bad results. We owe it ourselves to do better. The Jacobson flare is how we can do better. Look it up on youtube, the guy who put it together is an Australian captain, retired, and he put online a short demonstration for light GA and a 1h presentation about it. He also sells an app that has the technique explained in more detail with the calculator for various aircraft types but you don't need that. For us light GA he released a free PDF that has all the necessary and vital information. Find it on his website. This is the best way I have found to solve the problem of bad unsafe landings.

There likely is. I just did some pretty big work on my 18 year old engine that suffered from an intake leak a few months ago. It turns out the 12 year TBO is there for a reason and various rubber and other synthetic items, from hoses, to o rings, to gaskets just don't last that long. All my gaskets were near the end, if not already destroyed. We found a pretty badly worn fuel selector o ring that was replaced, some oil was leaking mildly in various places from stiff rubber hoses. And with this accident I'm thinking perhaps I didn't do enough and I should replace all the diaphragms in the fuel injector servo as well as in the flow divider. I'm a true believer in OC maintenance just like Busch preaches it. But I have now realized that some of this stuff has to be replaced in a certain interval and it's likely not advisable to wait for a problem to manifest itself. Luckily I noticed my intake leak only as a brief engine stumble on downwind to base turn on power reduction and it wasn't anything more than that.

Since the McSpadden death I sort of have made it my mission to look for this mistake and point it out every time it happens and harp on the fact that turning back is basically never the best option. Remember my posts in that thread about the power off 180s demonstrated by the youtube pilot with the Acclaim?: New “impossible turn” video - Acclaim S It's not an impossible turn. It's just a "very likely to kill you if you try it" turn. And the irony of this example is that he needed to have a instructor with him. And maybe I shouldn't judge a person who has survived a crash and another person died as a result of their actions, and I will definitely look as an asshole for what I'm about to post, but this CFI likely killed the owner. How can you start a turn back without even noticing how low you are and only doing so once in a bank dodging houses? Why the automatic reflex to turn back at all? Another failure of our community, blind leading the blind, and no standards adopted that are objectively safest. I bet I will get responses to this very comment by someone more experienced than me (and therefore presumably a higher authority, right?) saying how wrong I am. It seems like every pilot, especially once with the rating of a CFI is just an artist, who just gets to impart knowledge on to others without any real authority, doing it their own way, teaching their "techniques". What a load of bullshit we have in this business. In this story they had no business turning back at all. I checked! Look, the view they had in front of them (crash where the red X is roughly): Further along their flightpath: Why not go straight? Why not be prepared to go straight? Foreflight has this feature, I don't know if people know this, but you get to look at the 3D view of the airport with one click, so easy to do even just when holding short (something I do every single time): If anyone ever, this pilot, and especially this CFI, should have been briefed on what to do if the engine fails. Judging from where they ended up, it seem like going straight could have worked for both to survive. There was enough of a nice clearing right there just in front of them. A couple of S turns with full flaps should have made it possible to set it down there. But no, the CFI the insurance company demanded reflexively turned back only to see he's about to hit a house. And this damn idea to turn back just refuses to die. Thanks to all the youtubers making videos about the "impossible" turn, despite the many craters it creates, it just keeps on taking and it seems to me it has claimed another victim. This pisses me off to no end. /rant-off

I've read about so many different accident reports already in my short flying career that I rarely learn something new but this is a new lesson for me. Be weary of mechanical problems, sometimes the real issue might be something else or might be something in addition to what is found and could still be unresolved.

Locals on Beechtalk are saying it wasn't that bad and likely a no factor.

What is the harm? How about the community throwing away 10s of thousands of USD that could be spent more productively? You don't consider that harm if it's wasted?

It seems to me, a relatively new owner (since last year), that no one here really knows what's been going on at the factory. And while this is fun: No one can fix a problem that they don't understand. This is why I don't appreciate being asked for money. Because I don't understand the problem and I doubt it's money.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't need things "packaged" for me. I abhor PR. Lasar, guys, if you're really listening, and you want to win people over, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Give it to us straight, shows the numbers, show the plan and then lets see what you got.

I actually feel extorted. "Give us money or your plane will potentially be grounded because we wont sell you a part because others will be in line before you but trust us, without showing you any company information, it's all just a problem of money, so if you do make a donation, you'll be sure to get that part!" I don't react well to stuff like this.

And I hope OP and other willing subscribers are aware that buying stock from current owners is not even that!

Zero. I would never consider being a minority shareholder in a struggling company. It's a waste of money. The stock is worthless and I would have no power to change the management or the direction of the company. Never throw good money after bad. Exactly. Crowdsourcing would only be interesting if it meant the old owners would be gone completely, and the management of the scheme taking over would be ran by someone competent with a proven track record of results as well as that had a sensible vision for the future.

I could use a couple too.