cliffy

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/07/seawind-3000-n8uu-july-02-2021-june-26.html Follow on of a current thread on MS Mind Set?????

Its all fun and games to toss around numbers but- The real figures are probably on the actuarial tables used by the insurance companies They're the ones paying out the money

Overconfidence is not a "cause" on any NTSB report yet it is the overlaying factor in most small aircraft accidents. I have said this many times over the years right here among other places- A pilot is not a safe pilot until he is "tempered" A pilot is not "tempered" until he does something in an airplane that scares the hell out of him and he realizes that he did it to himself! From then on flying takes on an entirely different perspective Some pilots are never scared of anything. That usually doesn't end well. Just like the sea, flying is unforgiving of carelessness. Even Wilber Wright, when asked about flying safety said, "If you want to be perfectly safe go sit on the fence". We can never eliminate risk in flying, we can only mitigate it as far as possible by our actions. Another old "saw" Those who forget history are bound to repeat it.

20+ years ago I did a study of all night time single engine accidents to see how safe it was to fly at night in a Mooney I looked at 10 years of accidents and out of all of them only 5 were for something other than running into the ground at night. Lots of them in hilly terrain They were virtually all CFIT accidents. Isn't that what the big numbers on the Sectional chart are for?

Or living in the airplane :-)

Night, weather, and low vis make C to L very challenging in a jet Used to have to do them in the sim for check rides at 1000&3 in a 757 at IND for one particular FAA designee. He was a real A** Nobody liked him. Ideally you cross over at 90 degrees to the runway and go straight ahead for the radius of the Circle (at 150 kts that's about 3/4 mile) Then you start your standard rate turn for 270 degrees so you end up on the runway center line. You also need to go downwind far enough past the end of the runway so you are far enough out to make a controlled rate of decent (stabilized approach. 300' per mile)to make the landing. So if you are 900' above the runway you need to be almost 3 miles out to start your decent (maybe 1 full minute in this case?) You might cheat by starting lower at the last 90 degrees of turn toward center line if the airport is well in sight. Right at visibility distance limit AND with 3 miles vis that doesn't mean that the airport will be CLEARLY in sight. Its probably out of sight in reality. And the runway lighting was not ALSF by any means so finding it in low vis and rain among all the other lights is a B^&*(%. Hence asking for the runway lights. Its a very precise maneuver in a jet We did it in practice in 20 and 30 Lears decades ago. All timed and under the hood. It works out if done correctly and with practice. Ad hoc? It ain't gonna work out to well In the 757 you draw a line out from the runway centerline on the FMC and see were you were in relation to it even if the airport wasn't too visible. Airspeed control in a jet is vital as is evident. Bank angles have to be maintained perfectly at low speed circling. Stall/spin turning to final happens all the time even in our small airplanes.

Why?

I don't know if it has been mentioned but- Just because one has TKS leading edges that does not make the airplane FIKI by any means. One can add TKS only for anti-icing but one still needs all the other stuff and a certification to be FIKI (Flight Into Known Ice) FIKI is a certification approval

Two avenues of thought open up- FAA and Viable Market FAA is playing a fiddle while Paris burns (safety last, no sense of urgency to get lifesaving equipment into legacy CERTIFIED airframes even though these basic autopilots have been flying in experimental airplanes for years virtually without problems). It appears to be CYA for anyone in the FAA before they sign anything off after the Boeing MAX debacle. Some of this was alluded to in the video Reluctance to think in new ways with new technology and reluctance to put one's name on a piece of paper (regardless of operating experience with the technology). - Just remember- legacy airframes are a diminishing market every year, they are NOT where the money is to be made at BK. Can anyone spell UPS or FedEx? Think about it. Likewise the Sport Plane market can use it with a growing market share with NEW airframes having it designed into the system BY THE MANUFACTURER and not having BK to have to design each and every legacy airframe installation (with that expense). Think of all the Dynon installs in this fleet of airplanes. Like it or not our half century old fleet (like them as much as we do) will be relegated to the dust bin of history just like the Model T. Just a few odd curiosities from the long past history. Enjoy it while we can for it is quickly going away.

My screen is at the shop going in next week maybe I'm gambling on the autopilot also but I have a couple Brittian A/Ps in boxes as stby just in case.

727s had nose wheel brakes on some specific applications. Strength of the nose gear is the limiting feature Weight is also. A proportioning valve (like cars have) might be a solution to balance braking action between mains and nose. . Braking affects tire slide Any braking friction is subtracted from tire turning slide so nose wheel steering might be affected. Especially in wet conditions. Correct speed control upon landing will have more of a safety affect than any nose wheel brakes could. Right now we can "get in" shorter than we can "get out" in distance (in most instances) if the airplane is flown correctly. Be honest What is YOUR over the fence speed? :-) How many times do we see Mooney drivers porpising down the runway, eating up landing distance, by being too fast over the fence. 50% of the time maybe? Reversing prop? The entire engine mount structure needs to be designed for reverse loads The engine needs to be designed to accept reverse loads on the crankshaft How much do you want to spend for what gain in performance? Just random thoughts

My distain for icing in light aircraft was brought about by my experiences in Navajos and the 737. I've carried more ice on those than any others I've only had a couple experiences with icing on a Mooney (less than 1/4 in) but it did slow WAY down with that. Icing is always a crap shoot Predictability and forecast is not a factor to count on. So again Why were the reversers on the -100 737 vertical and the -200 angled ? :-)

We're talking half a century ago for testing.

Tip of the hat! Basically correct The 737 (IIRC) had 4X6 lumber bolted to the LEs of the tail feathers and flown that way to simulate extreme ice accumulation and it didn't affect the flight qualities so no ice protection needed. You want extra points? Why were the reversers on 737-200s angled rotationally on deployment in relation to the ground ?

Just don't get complacent about ice! It can overwhelm your TKS capability when you least expect it. I've actually flown a Boeing into unforecast icing on and ILS approach from the FAF to landing where we accumulated so much ice we could not have made a missed approach. Couldn't have retracted the flaps and gear and had high drag from the ice. Normal approach FF 6.000 lbs/hr -on this approach at mins- it needed 9,000 lbs/hr to maintain Ref +10 50% more power just to stay in the air. AND all ICING EQUIPMENT WAS ON We were in the clear just before the OM and descended into the crap from there. No one else reported any ice ahead of us. 3 INCHES ON THE GEAR AND NEAR 2 INCHES ON THE STAB AND RUDDER. FLAP SLOTS WERE BLOCKED FULL, WINGS HAD ABOUT AN INCH. Play with icing at your peril. Conditions change quickly BTDT BTW Question for extra credit- Why doesn't the 737 have any deice on the stab and vertical fin?

When was the last time you had an engine problem that couldn't last until you landed if you lost all you engine gages? What's the chances of having an engine problem if you lose you engine gages between failure of gages' and landing ? Can't you fly to a landing without engine gages? Ever try putting a sheet over the entire panel and fly to a landing? It can be done quite easily. (remember you have stall warning if you get too slow) My instructor did that to me when I was just learning (60 years ago). If the gages fail - once you're on the ground the airplane sits until fixed doesn't it? Just the mind wandering among the possibilities. EMS failure doesn't seem to be a real problem

On the old red breakers one can power the system and ground a wire from the down stream side of the breaker to see if it pops and then reset it. If it works its good. leave it alone unless you really want the expense of all new breakers. Everyone has different desires.

Old Lycoming IO540 trick for leaking case halves Clean real well with acetone and use 5 min epoxy to cover the case seams. We stopped a lot of leaks that way 45 years ago when just retightening the bolts didn't work. Now, I just had a case leak at the top of my engine and retightened the bolts and the leak went away. If you are cleaning the engine and then flying hours before you try to find the leak you will never find it. Clean it good and run it on the ground, at most, once around the pattern. Uncowl the entire thing and find the leaks It ain't rocket science. If its leaking as much as you describe you will find it this way.

Good and cheap don't go together in an airplane paint job. I was shocked last year when I was just talking to someone about the cost of paint jobs. Hadn't looked at it in 15 years.

Congrats Come on up the KSGU (St George, UT) lunch is on me OR 1st Saturday of every month there is a hangar breakfast on the west side of the airport in the most northerly/west hangar starting about 8AM. Sometimes we see 20-25 pilots there.

OK go ahead and rub it in. Put extra tanks in and go to the main land. Add hrs that way. @120 hrs here but now down for new Dynon panel thru Jan. New Pics? OH wait this is an airplane forum and not the classic car forum but I guess if I have a 56 year old airplane I needed a 35 year old car to match it in the hangar :-) Today's new equipment is so mundane

Training is this case can be just referring to the the maintenance manual That would suffice the training level of scrutiny because of similar tasks on other small aircraft. If one is talking about composite repairs to a wing on a Cirrus and all the experience has been working on Cessna 172s then more formal training would be required. Required training is a broad brush outside of a 145 Repair Station.

Well not quite correct There is a difference between making a "minor alteration"( the correct wording) and using "unapproved parts" You may not be aware of the intricacies in the definitions and legality of various maintenance signoffs. An A&P technically has to adhere to the "approved parts" standard when making "Minor Alterations" Can't fasten a part ( or appliance in FAA speak) using hardware store stove bolts and call it an "approved minor alteration" because the bolts do not conform to any airworthiness standard like AN bolt and nut would. Can't replace the battery solenoid with a Ford Pinto one and call it a "Minor Alteration" All the pieces and parts have to have some authorization for installation on a certified airplane. AN A&P can sign off a "minor alteration" using approved parts (nuts, bolts, light bulbs, switches rivits, etc etc). He can't make unapproved parts , with the stroke of a pen, into approved parts. Two different animals. See "Definitions" from the FAA Even using the "Owner designed part" course the part HAS TO conform to some sort of approved design or process. Likewise an A&P IA can not magically sign something off as Airworthy" just because he "thinks" it looks good' He has to reference something showing that it is APPROVED for installation. That is why IAs go to school every year to relearn what is approved and Where to find the approvals to be signed off. Anything else needs a DER sign off. Now what actually happens in the field with some IAs may be a different matter. People will be people, legal may not enter the discussion all the time. The only time things might be discovered if there is an accident or FAA investigation and if you have never been privilaged to either be involved in one of those or watch one you have no idea the detail and regulations they bring to the fore. Trust me you don't want to be on the receiving end of a real investigation. You might search here for a Mooney owner who had a surprise ramp check when he wasn't around and the FAA grounded his airplane for "dents" in the leading edge and areas of surface corrosion saying that they needed to fixed before he could fly again. Some IA signed off on the last annual saying the airplane was "Airworthy" with the dents in the wing (making a determination that it was "airworthy") with no back up data available. IAs can't just make that type determination . Don't know if the guy ever fixed the airplane or sold it for scrap. In the Big Iron world we have "dent" books that list just about every type of dent imaginable and dimensions for same, anything bigger is a no go. We don't have that for Mooneys so any dent "can:" get you grounded if an Inspector wants to push it. IAs don't have the power to just say its an "airworthy dent" without reference to some legal document. SO if you are an A&P and think you have the ability to just make something "airworthy" without a reference back to approved parts you might just want to think again. Sorry but this argument had been going on for years here on MS. The answer has always been the same. Education will set you free! Now back to our regularly scheduled program

There is an AC that covers what parts an be installed on a "certified" airplane and included is AN, MS, Space Qualified, among other designations. Technically speaking even the little 1/4" audio switches that some use that used to come from Radio Shack (and are still carried by Spruce) unless they have the AN or MS qualification they can't be used. The above referenced MS switch is a direct replacement for the Parts List called for AN switch.