danb35

Exactly.

How many cars use 20W-50 oil any more? Much less straight 50 weight? Most specify 5W-something, and many are now calling for 0W-. Also, most auto engines still have cast iron blocks, which will expand and contract at a rate much closer to the crankshafts.

The two aren't very closely related, really. Over the last 6 months or so, I've flown a ~5-hour XC round trip every week IFR in the southeast (KY - SC). All but two or three of those flights included at least some cloud time, but only two included an approach. I'd already been planning on doing the MAPA PPP last month, so that covered an IPC. My experience may not be typical, but it indicates to me that instrument currency is something you need to actively work on.

Correct, unless he also has a hood on (unlikely, but maybe he's in scattered clouds or wants to make sure he goes down to minimums). The issue, though, is if he's on an IFR clearance but in VMC. In that case, if he wants the approaches to count for currency, he needs to be under the hood/foggles/whatever, he needs a safety pilot (91.109), and that safety pilot must be instrument rated (61.55(a)).

There's no requirement for your safety pilot to have any endorsements in order to serve as a safety pilot. The endorsements (HP, complex, tailwheel, etc.) are necessary only if the safety pilot will be acting as PIC (which is the only way the safety pilot can legally log PIC time). I see that AOPA says they have a letter of interpretation that agrees with this, but cautions that "some FAA divisions may interpret the regulations differently." I'd be interested to hear if any FAA divisions have actually done so, given that the only case where one of these endorsements is required is when the person is acting as PIC. However, the AOPA page you cite doesn't address whether the safety pilot needs an instrument rating when operating under IFR. If the pilot flying is not IFR current, then it's obvious that the safety pilot would need to be instrument rated and current, as that would be the only way the flight could be made legally (and he would have to be acting as PIC as well). If the PF is current, the PNF must still hold the instrument rating (see 61.55(a), quoted above), but need not be current.

Certainly. I recommend you do likewise: (emphasis added). Per 91.109, flying under the hood requires a SIC pilot flight crewmember. Further, 61.55(f)(4) makes it clear that 61.55 in general applies to safety pilots, excluding only subsection (.

The server is back up now.

There is no requirement in the U.S. to be using ATC as part of currency. You also don't have to be on an IFR clearance to be using ATC: "Anywhere approach, Bugsmasher 123, request VFR practice approach, GPS 23 somewhere" "Bugsmasher 123, proceed as requested, maintain VFR."

The safety pilot must be instrument rated if you are on an IFR clearance. See FAR 61.55: (emphasis added). As a required pilot cremember, a safety pilot is SIC (unless the pilot flying and the safety pilot agree that the safety pilot will be PIC instead, which is often said to happen in order to allow the safety pilot to log time as PIC), and thus is covered by this requirement. Obviously, if the safety pilot is going to be PIC, s/he must be instrument rated and current if the flight will be under IFR. Now, if you aren't on an IFR clearance and are shooting the approaches VFR, you're correct that the safety pilot need not hold an instrument rating.

I don't know for sure, but I believe it needs its own subscription.

It's here. Well, almost. It uses WiFi instead of bluetooth, but XM WX is supported in Foreflight on the iPad using the Baron MobileLink device. See here: http://www.baronservices.com/aviation/inflight/mobilelink Unfortunately, it's expensive, starting at $1100 for the receiver plus mobile link device, and then $50/mo for XM. The ADS-B options are cheaper up front, and no monthly fee, but show less information.

Careful, now. Your safety pilot only needs to be instrument rated if you're doing the practice approaches under IFR (that is, on an instrument clearance). You can shoot all the approaches you want under VFR without you or your safety pilot having an instrument rating (and if you're doing it at an uncontrolled field, you don't even have to be talking with anyone to do it). The weather conditions aren't the issue; it's the flight rules.

I haven't seen anyone mention this--in the US, paper charts aren't mandatory. In fact, you aren't required to carry any charts or other nav data on board at all. Canadian rules may differ on this, but it's a common misconception that current charts are required here when they aren't.

http://cancutter.com/

You are wrong. To operate under IFR (that is, instrument flight rules, irrespective of the weather conditions), you must be instrument rated, equipped, and current. And, for an approach to count toward currency, it must be under actual or simulated instrument conditions. If simulated (i.e., you're using a hood/foggles), you must have a safety pilot, and if you're on an IFR clearance for that approach (or otherwise), your safety pilot must be instrument rated as well.

My server went down about a week ago, just as I left on a week's vacation; I expect it will be up this afternoon. The data jack is a 1/8" mono jack; the tip is data (TX from the MUX-8A) and the sleeve is ground. Once I get the server back up, there's also a page there that documents the data format; it's a simple text (CSV) stream that just needs a little manipulation on the first (date/time) field. The project is still going--I'm needing to select a different DC-DC converter IC, and won't be able to get out to the plane until next weekend to determine the power requirements. Once I get that taken care of, I should be able to finish up the layout of the boards and order a few more.

Doesn't work that way. If there were significant flow throug the MP line, there would be a pressure drop across the restriction, and the size of the hole would make a big difference (because that, along with its shape and the rate of flow, would determine the pressure drop). However, in this case, there's no real flow through the line, and the pressure on each side of the restriction will quickly reach equilibrium. The reason it's in there (as M204ever posted) is that "quickly" isn't the same as "instantly"; there is a brief delay, which ends up smoothing the gauge response. If the MP gauge responds slowly to throttle changes, the restriction might be plugged or too small. If the gauge is really twitchy, the restriction might be missing entirely or have too large a hole. However, if the gauge reads inappropriately in a steady state, that couldn't be caused by the restriction.

This is not correct--they received FAA TSO certification about 6 weeks ago for their wingtip nav/strove lights and their red beacon. As for whether FAA TSO certification is necessary to make the installation legal, that's between you, your A&P/IA, and your local FSDO. My IA was satisfied with Aveo's statement that they meet the TSO requirements and did the installation (well, signed it off--I did the work) on a logbook entry as a minor alteration.

If weather and terrain aren't issues, generally at 6k-8k. It's my understanding that this is the most efficient altitude for a NA C-J. Turbos can of course fly much higher without losing power, and the big-bore NA engines have more power anyway, so may want to cruise a bit higher.

Air Parts of Lock Haven should be able to repair the gauge. I don't have any personal experience with them, but I've heard good things about them. If the gauge is reading zero at idle, and/or negative MP under any conditions, there's a problem with the gauge. There's no way the line could cause that--a leaky line would tend to make the MP read high under low-power conditions, and about normal at high power.

Nothing at all wrong with that. Go for it! Just make sure it complies with whatever the red arc is in your plane/prop (on mine, it's 1950-2350 and < 15" MP, so it would be just fine).

Or, upgrade to the blue flourosilicone O-rings that last a lot longer. See http://csobeech.com/fuel-caps.html. Bonanzas use the same fuel caps our Mooneys do.

Oh the irony--spam on a thread discussing the spam.

Lamont, I'm working on a standalone device to download the data onto an SD card--check out my thread in the misc. aviation forum if you're interested.

Absolutely agreed. However, maintenance is kind of like surgery--it's an inherently invasive procedure, and no matter how careful you are, there's always a risk of something going wrong. Doing more maintenance (or more invasive maintenance) is not, inherently, safety conservative. "Safety conservative" is identifying an actual problem and fixing it. Only when there aren't practical means to monitor an item's condition, and that item is critical to safety of flight, should the item be replaced/overhauled/whatever on some sort of schedule. That's not just financially conservative, it's also safety conservative. That said, there may come a point when you "lose confidence" in a part, and just want to replace it. That isn't a problem, necessarily, but it's much more of an emotional call than anything else. In this case, we have an engine with a known history and one known problem. The OP is proposing to replace it with a used engine of unknown history, with potential unknown problems. That doesn't sound "safety conservative" to me.