cliffy

Used to send new flight attendants to the rear lav with an air sick bag to get an air sample for maintenance before we landed.

Had a friend hit a deer at Grand Canyon Apt in Merlin. Bent the prop and engine mount. Didn't do the deer any good either.

Sabermech- now that I am retired and fly for fun I'm with you and I have been doing this for 54 years. I can remember flying over LAX in my C140 when there was no Class B, hell there wan't even a TCA. Just look at he TAC chart for LAX now! It's a zoo.

Just a note on the anonymous feature of ADS-B It is written into the regs that you can set up ADS-B for anonymous use but it has to be done on the initial install set up. It can't be changed afterwards in flight. If used, one can not receive ANY ATC services in that mode. Can't go Class B or C or A if you need ATC. No flight following, no pop-up IFR approaches, nothing that ATC has to respond to. Might as well not even have it. There will be NO anonymous flights anymore for corporate/executive aircraft period. THAT is BIG security issue for many companies. Think about oil companies or financial companies that fly all over the world that now have removed any identification from their airplanes (plain white paint jobs) and now block their N number from ATC. It's all about to stop for them. Full public disclosure is the official FAA mantra. Secondly, if anyone thinks that ADS-B will not be proposed for user fees in the future you'd better think twice. Absolute perfect records of airspace use is waaay too easy for some to gloom onto for money. As was said, precise identification (by N number)is not needed for ATC TIS services. Random codes would be just as useful for traffic depiction for all VFR traffic. IFR you have RADAR and you can be tracked that way for user fees if they ever want. A system proposed here a few posts back that just relays the satellite signals back to the ground for position processing would also work and be totally anonymous in nature. Can anyone say that this is not the start of user fees without Congressional action? Pay to play for everyone as the FAA dumps their upgrading costs onto the GA market. Again JMO

drapo- thanks for the correction to NavCanada Yes better service for Oceanic travelers hence only in the Hudson Bay area.

I once broke out at 200 feet on a rainy night and just as I was flaring the runway seemed to "lift up". Seems hundreds of seagulls has used the runway for a roost. The airport manager went out and picked up 22 of them. They were bouncing off the windshield like baseballs. I ducked below the panel as I was rolling out.

That doesn't mean I don't like YOUR system!

YOUR system would work IF the system worked that way but it doesn't. YOUR WAAS GPS takes the signal from many satellites compares the angles received from the base time mark and the variable time hack from each satellite (each satellite position is a known quantity) to compute a position in space of where the receiver is. That position is then displayed on your panel. A basic geometry problem to solve. All the angles when compared to the known position of the satellites converge on your airplane and from that your position is computed by your GPS receiver. Now with ADS-B they want us to re transmit that position to them for their ATC separation responsibility. They even have issues with has fast the re transmit function can happen. They have "latency" requirements for the signal to go from the WAAS motor to and through the transmitter and out the antenna. This is why ALL ADS-B equipment has to be certified with specific WAAS receivers, UATS or ES transponders as a complete system. We can't just take any WAAS motor and couple it to any UAT or ES xponder and hook it up. The timing of the signal through the entire system has to be certified to be within TSO limits.

If the satellites transmitted position to the airplane and the airplane re transmitted that signal to ground- Why not just have the satellite transmit the aircraft position to the ATC? Because it don't work that way

The GPS satellites transmit a signal with timing the receiver decodes the signal from numerous satellites to give a position in space, it doesn't just re transmit a position signal,

The video shows the tree he hit with the wing next to it. He hit it about 8 feet from the ground. The Fire Dept is washing down the gas spill off the tree in the video. Wing looks to be right next to tree. Energy was dissipated slowly by having various parts leave the airplane over an extended time period, relatively speaking, thus keeping G loads to a survivable level. Kind of like an F! race car, controlled demolition in a crash.

The TSO for ADS-B is long and tedious, I've actually read it all the way through. The FAA is tasked with traffic separation. Has to be absolute, no issues, no failures, period. (I'm not trying to defend them, only make a statement.) Right now THEY are responsible for the accuracy of THEIR RADAR systems to accomplish this task (even as limiting as it is in this modern world). They have decades of experience with it. Now they want to move to another platform as far as the PRIMARY data collection on aircraft location goes. From their own"in house" system (RADAR) to a system that they have no direct control over as far as accuracy goes in a failure state. They're wanting to go from a few hundred systems they control (Ground Based RADAR) to a couple hundred thousand airborne systems that they don't own (ADS-B transmitters), They don't give a hoot about the IN side of the equation, it's only fluff to make the mandate more palatable to us, the ones paying for it.) Now with them not having DIRECT control over the primary position data that they have to gather, they want/need it to be a closely "controlled" and accurate as they can so as to assure them that the position YOU transmit is accurate. Hence the WAAS mandate. More on this in a second. One item I have not read about yet, and the big hole in the system (and I could have missed it), is the issue of performance checks for the OUT data on a regular basis. For those going the ES transponder route "I presume" that the bi-annual xponder check will verify the ADS-B transmission accuracy. Again, I'm presuming this with no actual reference data that I have read. On the UAT side, I have seen nothing on an ongoing quality control program for each UAT installation. With the UAT being the PRIMARY device to show the location of the airplane, how long will it be before we have mandated UAT checks just like xponders now? Another expense. If the argument will be that they will compare RADAR target info to UAT received data for accuracy of target, which will they believe? If they fall back to RADAR, what have we gained with ADS-B? i feel (and it's only my opinion right now) that the only reason we have to have WAAS quality EPEs is for their need to locate GROUND TRAFFIC on major airports with pin point accuracy. ALL baggage tugs, fuelers, any and all wheeled traffic on major airports will be required to have ADS-B transmitters (think UATs) so they can be seen on ground RADAR on foggy days. Do they really need under 100 ft EPEs for airborne traffic? I doubt it. But they do feel they need it for ground based traffic. To cover their butt for accuracy on every use of ADS-B they went to a "one size covers all" system with WAAS AND a TSO for everything. It protects them legally and us retrospectively. Their responsibility for traffic separation and us "owning" their primary target position system (ADS-B transmitters) is why they will be very reluctant to make any changes to the program as mandated. Do you really think that all those ground based systems will cost a minimum of $5,000 or $6,000 ? Many of you are young enough to not remember when they went from the very old RADAR systems (WWII types) to the current (I believe it's call ARTS3) that they use now. The costs were staggering but they had to pay for it as traffic separation was their responsibility. They just shifted the cost of their responsibility to us, to the tune of over $2 BILLION dollars, that's all. If they want the system for their use, they should be paying for it! Sorry this is so long Rant over for right now. JMO

What condition are the elevators? any damage at all? I have a 64 D/C and I'm interested Let me check the part number tonight.

Lets see- How old are your landing gear rubber biscuits? If they are old they get hard and they don't dampen the rougher surface of a dirt strip as good and then you get more leaks in the tanks. Obviously you know how to add power slowly as you accelerate for T/O to avoid rocks in the prop but your Mooney prop is closer to the ground (9" or there abouts) so be extra careful. Keeping your nose in the air as much as possible when on the ground pays dividends to your prop also. As a new Mooney owner are you aware of the "third bounce and you buy a prop" issue? On landing if you porpoise and continue to the third touch down you will most likely hit the prop. Don't porpoise a landing. Also AANMO, speed control on approach and landing is critical. Keep your speed down. 10 kts extra uses 1,000 more feet of runway. On a rough surface it's critical to make sure your landing gear over center links are adjusted properly. Did your A&Pat the last annual check them with the correct tool and torque wrench to verify or did he just run the gear up and down to see if it worked? Most improved dirt strips should be OK with proper technique and care. Unimproved dirt is another story in a Mooney.Taxi very slowly as any holes or bumps are magnified by our gear and the prop comes close to the ground. What model Mooney do you Have? I'm in a 64 D/C an I'm in Page AZ,

Lood- give us some pictures!

He is an excellent rifle marksman! Very cool guy to talk with.

For those so inclined to check their airspeed indicator here's a way http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/articles/KP89JUL.pdf

Didn't someone say- "drill, drill, drill" a while back during an election?

There is a small but very nice county airport out in Texas (we stop there once in a while) where the airport manager was appointed by the top county official (the County Judge). They had a spat of gas stealing going on and the Judge had the manager handle it. He went out at night a concealed himself across the runway and when the perps came out again he put a couple of rifle rounds into the dirt right next to them. They took off in a cloud of dust and no gas was ever stolen there again.

Preflight is one thing Looking at the gauges when verifying the tank selector is another. I thought everyone looked at the gauges before takeoff- don't they? If the fuel was stolen the tanks would show empty. If one did a preflight and then saw (at a later time) both tanks showing something other than what was seen on the preflight why would one take off? Somethings not right here.

I can hearken back to flying 3 holers down the ILS laying a black trail of dinosaur meat at the rate of 9000 lbs/hr at flaps 30/gear down. Nothing was "advanced" Even the CAT III autolands were manual throttles. We push it to 88 MACH (89 and the clacker came on), it would move but so did the fuel. More dinosaur meat gone. Now we can fly the same number of pax with half the fuel and half the "sound of freedom", as has been said of the old turbojets. We do have advantages today with the advancements in technology that those before never even dreamed of but we still have the responsibility to be able to fly without all the trick stuff. Everyone now is just watching TV and monitoring systems, not really flying. Lots of "heads down" button pushing and relying on automation for everything. The main job now is to know how to program AND CHANGE the FMS or other such goodies. The most common comment in a 757? What the hell is it doing now? Sometimes it needed a reboot so we stopped on the taxi out and shut everything down. and made the plane dark for a minute and then fired it back up. Seemed to work ever time I tried it. Electronics can fail. One of the first things I was taught when we got flight directors was- 'never trust the damn thing, always, always compare to raw data". That saved my life twice. I'm with Jim now that every day is Saturday. Take off and shut off the radios and look out the window and enjoy flying as it was meant to be. Been there, done all that fancy weather s^&t. Don't need it no more BUT I'm lucky. For those who want to enjoy that stuff have at it but don't forget that all that electronic stuff will, not may, fail someday. It's nice, it's cool stuff, has all the TV screens anyone would want right there in front of you BUT, someday you'll be looking at a black screen. BTW (for those here who fly in the high thin air) we now have an entire cadre of pilots in charge of sweep wing jets who have never hand flown one of them above 280 because of RVSM regs. I don't care how good the sim is, it ain't that good up there in recreating the actual feel. Some day an A/P is going to fail up there and someone is going to get a surprising wake up. Those of you who have chimed in here, I, for one, am very impressed with your stories. There are some sharp pilots on this board.

Rather than hijack a thread on FF systems I'll start this I find all this new computer stuff fascinating. But then again I may be a Luddite. Us old farts flew for decades without all this stuff, blissfully unaware, using the same engines of today with few problems. I know my engine burns 10 gallons the first hour, 9 the second and 8.5 following hours. Checked it on many flights during my 1400 hrs in it BUT I do have an EI FF system installed just for reference. GPS is nice but it doesn't replace charts or, then again, it may become the standard way of things in time. Luddite again. Autopilots are nice but many are losing hand flying skills because of them (autopilot cripples we used call them in the 121 world). Eddie Rickenbacker (famous WW1 fighter pilot) who ran Eastern Airlines would never install A/Ps in the airplane because he paid his pilots to fly and not just sit there. I liked the panel presentation on the 757 (Aspen display) but the G1000 loses me. Luddite again. Steam gauges and round, smoky, oil drippin' motors are for real. BTW, the 757 had something like 352 computers somewhere inside.

The problem with fire fighting out in the engine compartment is the volume of air moving through the cowl at flying speed. It disperses the fire fighting agent faster than the agent can work at denying the fire oxygen. That's all the agent does- deny oxygen to the fire long enough to have it cool down below ignition point. On a 757, if a certain engine door (6" X 6") is missing you can't put out an engine fire in flight, too much air flowing in the cowl. You can only stop a fire 3 ways Deny it fuel Deny it heat Deny it oxygen We fight the fire by denying it fuel- Shut off the main fuel valve. No fuel no fire. Oil is a problem if it catches fire out there. The days of separate oil tanks and hoses are gone for the most part (old Bonanzas the exception) We can't cool it below combustion point because we can't throw enough water on it to cool it (classic house fire fighting). We can't deny it O2 with our little dinky fire bottles as there is too much good air coming in the inlet. You have deny it O2 long enough to cool it below the burning temp point (take the heat away) Cabin fires are another story all together. Electrical, fuel and "trash' fires are all possible in the cabin. Trash can be from smoking in flight (yes some still do) and igniting charts or other "trash", the interior fabrics. Fuel could be from a primer line, FF gauge line or even oil pressure line breaking in the cabin and igniting (oil low risk, fuel higher risk) Biggest risk, electrical fire. We fight it by shutting down the electrical system but that doesn't stop the fire from continuing by burning the "trash", the wiring coatings themselves. That is why the specs for aircraft wire have changed since our older airplanes were built. That and toxic fumes from the burning wire. Fire in a confined space (our cabin) doubles in size every minute. second minute twice the size, third minute 4 times the size, 4th minute 8 times the size, See where i' going? You gotta put it out as you can't get on the ground fast enough. Fire in the cabin is a BIG deal if it happens but thankfully its not very common.

I suspect that your premise is wrong in checking your speed. I believe it's the power setting you chose You really need to check it with WOT, 2700 RPM and at 2500' full rich mixture before you do anything mechanical. Get a couple of data points at 5000' and 7500' also with WOT and 2700 RPM 50-100 rich of peak mixture. Also (IMO), IAS is worthless for this. You need to figure TAS Either do a 3 way GPS average or get out the old wiz wheel and figure it with that. Even using IAS instead of CAS will give you good data within a couple of MPH. Also your ASI may in fact be wrong making the GPS test even more applicable. Do it both ways and if large errors show up check your ASI out for accuracy.

As far as Canada goes- After reading all their government agency has to say, they are ADS-B in the Hudson Bay area only above FL290 AND right now, they have no plans to expand it to other airspace. If anyone can find anything else from their government, I'm listening.