danb35

OTOH, some other licenses certainly allow random inspections to confirm compliance. Restaurants, for example, can be inspected by the health department to confirm that they're operating within the regulations. What's the difference? I'm not sure--it might have something to do with the traffic stop being a detention by police.

That's correct, and it in fact does not mean that. The distinction between a "right" and a "privilege" is meaningless when it comes to due process. However, "due process" in most cases (including certificate actions) means that you're given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, and except in an emergency those have to take place before any action is taken.

Cujet, I reject your premise that "the inspector's only goal is to find violations." Any aircraft can be found unairworthy, and of course flying an unairworthy aircraft is a violation. Yet, somehow, most ramp checks don't end in condition notices being attached to the aircraft or the pilot being charged with violations. These facts can't be reconciled with your assertion. It's also false that the FAA can yank your tickets on a whim, and that you have no recourse. They can only perform an emergency revocation if you're demonstrably a danger to the skies (anything other than an emergency requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before they take any action), and you do have recourse, including (but not limited to) taking them to court.

In addition to midlifeflyer's post, I'd add only that it's a separately-identified requirement in the FARs, and best practice would probably be to log it separately when applicable. If the issue came up, I'd think that a logged ILS or GPS approach would probably satisfy the requirement, but having that fact logged would erase all doubt. Zululog has a checkbox for this, which I think is convenient.

The main difference is that no specialized equipment is needed to accomplish the required inspection--it's just a visual inspection to ensure that the lines are in good condition and properly secured. Minimal time, no equipment, minimal expense--especially if you de-cowl and re-cowl the plane for your mechanic.

I don't believe Bruce Jaeger is still with Willmar Air Service, but they're still a well-regarded MSC AFAIK.

I don't tip my mechanic. I work with him as much as I can (both to save money and to learn the ins and outs of the plane), and I make a point of paying his bill, right away, without complaining. I haven't seen him mark up parts, but I usually bring my own parts anyway, and he's fine with that.

To be clear: six approaches, at least one hold, and "intercepting/tracking courses".

Heavens, Allsmiles is agreeing with me. Never thought I'd see the day. Rockydoc, yes, we have many rights as Americans (though some of the biggies are eroding fast). Delaying a ramp check is not one of them. That's an FAA procedure, not our substantive right. Now, if you want to try it out, feel free. I don't think I'd have a problem with it myself, if I were truly short on time ("I'm sorry, but there's a meeting I really need to be at in about 10 minutes--can we do this another time?"). Keep in mind, though, that (based on what's quoted from that policy) this only applies in cases of time conflicts, and of course you can't lie about a conflict (or anything else) just to avoid the ramp check. I can't really imagine a scenario where I'd be flying somewhere on that tight of a schedule, but no doubt there could be something.

Rockydoc, I think you're missing something. You don't have a right to tell the FAA inspector to go away because you're too busy for a ramp check. His internal policies tell him that he should, and if he refuses you may have the basis for a complaint to the FSDO or the FAA IG, but that doesn't confer a substantive right on the pilot. I didn't exercise the "I'm too busy" clause when I was ramp checked, for a few reasons. First, I wasn't aware of it at the time. Second, even if I had been, I just wasn't that busy. And really, how many of us are? It would take the inspector about 5 minutes to verify the documentation. I suspect it's a fairly rare case for any of us when we can't spare 5 minutes at the end of a flight.

You're not required to carry your pilot nor aircraft logs onboard, so they can't violate you for not having them. They are allowed to inspect them, though, so if you don't have them they can require you to bring them to the office at a reasonable time. I'd strongly discourage lying about whether you have them--that's a felony under 18 USC 1001 (remember Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby?). I was ramp checked after my first unsupervised solo flight as a student pilot. Guy walked up to the plane just after I shut down and said, "Hi, I'm here to help you." Completely uneventful--showed him my logbook and medical, registration and a/w cert, and I was fine.

No 1-piece belly on '48Q. I'd like to have one, but can't even come close to justifying the cost to install it. Maybe if I gear up...

337s are only supposed to be used for major alterations or major repairs. If your installation was a minor alteration, why were 337s prepared? ETA: never mind, saw your post in the other thread.

Climbing at 120 mph is a good call, but forget 25 squared. Yes, I know, the POH recommends it, but keep full power throughout the climb.

The section I've bolded is simply incorrect--the limit is .04%, at least for part 91 operations. That isn't much, but it's more than 0.

bd32322, you're off by an order of magnitude or more.

Thinwing, not sure when you got your instrument ticket. Under the current PTS, you're required to use the autopilot for at least one approach, if you have a suitable autopilot. For the rest of the ride, it's between you and the examiner. Of course, many vintage Mooneys have a full-time wing leveler installed, which makes holding at least an approximate heading pretty easy.

I've also had Bob Bramble do work for me (a DG repair), and was very satisfied--he seems to specialize in the KI-525 system. http://www.aerolabaviation.com/

I know of four places that specialize in Mooney fuel tank work. Three of them, in OR, MN, and FL, use the original sealant, while the fourth, in IL, uses a polyurethane substance pursuant to an STC. Don Maxwell in TX does some repairs, but I don't believe he does full reseal jobs. OR is probably the closest to you, but still some distance away. The flaps are really pretty simple--there's a hand-operated hydraulic pump, a cylinder to operate the flaps, and a line in between. The system shares a fluid reservoir with the brakes, so if they work you have fluid. You might also want to check the line from the reservoir to the flap pump.

I don't know of particular aircraft for sale, but it would probably help if you were to quantify what you could afford.

Since I didn't see an answer to this: no. Absolute EGT values are all but meaningless, and EGT spread is entirely meaningless.

(emphasis added) This is simply incorrect, as is obvious on a moment's reflection--the examinee has to be under the hood/foggles except for takeoff and landing. The examiner will need to take the controls, at a minimum, to allow the examinee to don the hood. Further, the examiner will have to take the controls to induce an unusual attitude. The actual wording in the PTS is "any action or lack of action by the applicant that requires corrective intervention by the examiner to maintain safe flight." That said, you're correct that the examiner is putting his certificate on the line if he conducts the checkride in IMC, which is no doubt why it's discouraged--but it remains a legitimate option for the examiner.

I did. Really a non-event, and I was still under the Foggles, as there were some breaks in the clouds. Examiners are discouraged, but not prohibited, from acting as PIC during a checkride, and mine stated before we took off that he'd be fine with doing that. Didn't have to wait to get my ticket wet, either--I filed for the trip back to my home field.

No, no reason to need the FAA's "blessing" at all. The way I read it, they're just saying, "sorry you had a problem, let us know when it's fixed." Sounds pretty reasonable, and straightforward, to me.

N601RX has it right--if it's a major alteration or a major repair (the only reason you'd fill out a 337 in the first place), you must have "approved data" to support it. If you don't have an STC or other source of approved data, you'll need a field approval, which is the only time it needs to go to the FSDO for approval (that's what makes it "approved data"). ETA: The determination of whether the installation qualifies as a major or minor alteration is largely at the discretion of your installing A&P/IA (IA is not needed for a minor alteration). It's my personal opinion that a lot of unnecessary 337s are completed for things that just aren't major alterations.