M016576

That's exactly right. The buck does stops with The PIC- ATC is there to help a pilot achieve and accomplish their mission, but they shouldn't be "taking orders" from them, knowingly putting themselves into potential danger just because ATC said "ten right for traffic" or something. ATC understands that you are the one up in the airplane with the first hand situational awareness- what you ask for, they will honor within the limits of safety. You're a team. my favorite example of this is regarding IFR flight is the pilot, in VMC, that is on an IFR clearance that never looks outside the aircraft, or stops scanning, because "they're IFR- it's not my responsibility." But the fact is, if you're VMC, it certainly is the PIC's responsibility: ATC may not see a VFR target, it may not have a transponder, or they might just make a mistake. And if that pilot sees a traffic conflict that ATC isn't talking about, what then, run into it because ATC says turn right 10? Of course not. But that illustrates the relationship... at least that works for me.

Sage advice. I've been delayed in receiving a deviation due to two factors: traffic and terra firma (really MVA). If you're going in VMC on top, requesting deviations right and left of course, and stating "I'm VMC" goes a ways towards helping. You can also cancel IFR, pick up VFR+FF to stay on a strip, if you're VMC on top, and below class A, and pick you're way around the weather (and traffic) that way. Then once you're ready to come down or resume your flight plan, it's simple to re-activate your IFR flight plan (i.e., get a new clearance). but if you're trolling in IMC already, the best way to do it is just say the E word, if it's safety of flight related, or you fear it could be.

Just a technique, but I try to make all my communications of desired work over the phone and then confirm with E-mail- so I know that we both have a written, traceable account of what the shop is supposed to perform. I got bit early on in plane ownership due to a similar experience, where the shop didn't perform the work I was expecting, at an extra cost to me. Once it's all written down, both parties can reference the request, so there are no "interpretations."

Now that my Navy days are over, my odds of making it down to Buenos Aires are slim... but if I do, I'll hit you up!

That's the smell of agriculture, my friend! You really do get used to it... be thankful for the people whose livelihood is rooted in that environment, and for what they bring to your table. The porterhouse at Harris Ranch really is a succulent work of art!

University of Spoiled Children. Hah!

This is true. We have a 'crisis fighter pilot shortage' right now. It's been well documented in the news: but the gist is we've been tasked to ramp up production as much as possible. A big part is the airlines hiring, but some of it is to make more JSF pilots: its much cheaper to re-train a current fighter pilot to new platform than to make a bring up a brand new pilot in the same platform.

WOW! Finally- a company that "gets it."

Not bad for a lowly airbreather, right? ... and all on a measily 11.3 GPH...

Here we go again...

Best steaks I've ever had were at Harris ranch. That place is one of a kind.

That's a fast mooney!

A big portion of whether it's "do-able" or not, is how much time and dedication a student is willing to put into learning to fly. the military flight schools start pilots in the T-6 II: a 250kt turboprop, after a very brief stint (10 hours, I think?) in a Cessna. The "kids" are able to learn.... and thrive... as student pilots. But that takes the dedication and time of someone that is doing this as a job. And while some of the students really do enjoy that kind of pressure cooker, I'm not so sure those training methods would carry over well to the civilian side... where you're paying... to learn a "fun" hobby. not sure what the answer is, but a tiered approach can't hurt. I think it lets students dip their toes in before they "commit." A mooney, after all, is a bit more complicated than a 152 or 172. Maybe the M10 would have been a nice gateway to other mooney ownership. Either way, it's sad to see a new GA offering disappear.

That's totally legit, in my mind. If you were to go IFD440, the big reason, to me, would be for the ifd100 app, and the interoperability with FlyQ (foreflight, whatever). If you're trying to get away from an iPad in the cockpit, though, a GTN750 or ifd540 would be the way to go. I think you made a smart decision, though, and the most cost effective for what you want, and the capital you want to outlay.

I understand this argument, but really while it "feels" like you are helping the situation, and you may be, standard IFR separation *should* cover you in the piston aircraft. I put stars there because, sometimes, you're right- the sequence is set too tight by the controller. Ultimately, though, there are other ways to slow down that are similar in effect, and/or, "unable." And the difference in time airborne is negligible. Again, all this is just my subjective option- some guys love them- and that's totally cool- I just don't think they are necessary. But I do see your point, and if you see this situation often (I don't), then maybe you do need them. I am not under a B/C umbrella at my home field, so take that with a grain of salt. I do fly the missile into these airspaces on a regular basis, and I've never had a problem controlling descent rates or speeds. I have received a slam dunk once going into Henderson: 13k within 10nm of the field, but I recognized the situation, and configured to be in a long descent all the way down and around to short final. Speed brakes would have been ok for that scenario- but I was still able to make the approach happen without penalty vectors. Observing other pilots, in different types of aircraft, I have witnessed a disturbing trend, though... I see pilots deploy speed brakes, then add power. When I've pointed this out, most of the time, they don't realize they've done that! I do get the impulse there, too: you're going too fast, or need a descent- you deploy the boards. You start picking up too much rate of descent, or the rate of speed loss is too great. You add power. There are times, where, if you've slowed down, though, or just let the aircraft stabilize, you might find that while it's not as "quick" to reach your target FPM descent rate, you'll get there without the speed brakes nonetheless. they certainly have their place, as you know, and as Don's PDF explains. I just don't, personally, find them necessary based on the weight penalty and cost of installation they incur. But, if you've already got them..., might as well use them!

I would disagree with "much more utility and efficiency." Maybe a "little utility." When I calculate the difference in using speed brakes to drive in to 5nm vs slowing at 10-15nm and deploying the gear, the difference is under a minute of time. Over the course of 2 hours of flight I don't classify that as "much more utility and efficiency." Penalty vectors and the "slam dunk" are the other arguments I hear for wanting speedbrakes. Both of which can be mitigated by forward thinking through the approach/ entry to the field. I feel like we've discussed this before. I do tend to agree with your PDF, for what that's worth. Any time a pilot deploys speed brakes, they are intentionally causing an inefficiency. They are adding drag (or disrupting lift, similar net effect once stabilized). So that in itself must be offset by a substantial gain in efficiency elsewhere to make up for the disruption. Bottom line- trick / tool for the box. Not necessary to me in a GA single where you've got a huge speedbrake on the front of the plane, and three smaller ones that come out the bottom. To me, I'd rather have the useful load. all just my humble opinion.

Not worth the weight penalty, imo. Plenty of other options to get you slowed down and descended.

Or the principle of the matter... that flightstream is literally $20 in parts. And it sells for more than a iPad Pro- Avionics cost... go figure. edit: if you're replacing or installing new anyway- I'd weigh the cost of desired features and go from there (IFD440 or ifd540), but if you're upgrading specifically for the wifi transfer, then the cheapest route is certainly sticking with the 430w and adding a FS.

I was interested in Seneca's until I flew one. Not interested in those anymore! I love the looks of a P-Baron, but once I started doing the math, the costs far outweighed the benefit of my missile. insurance was quoted at 3K vs 1200 in the missile fuel burn is about double (24gph vs 12.5) annuals are 2-3x as much (3-5K avg vs 1500 or so) speed is faster on the baron (I normally fly lop at 175KTAS), but over he course of a two hour flight we're only talking a 10-15 minute difference. the Baron has 6 seats, but the useful load isn't much better than the 1010lbs on the missile (mines TKS'd) with all that in mind, I can't justify it. But..... if I do hit it big time.... then I certainly would pull the trigger on a P-Baron- would be a great ride if money was no object....

Yeah, I don't like it either. I don't normally buy year subscriptions- just a once a year navdata update.... apparently if I want to use this "free" app, I'll have to start throwing away a bunch of money. Jeppesen.... even bigger crooks than garmin. Rant over.

I've got a missile. two years ago, the motor had sagged down close the engine mount in one spot, requiring a repair. Rocket helped to arrange the repair and powder coat. I replaced the lord mounts- not expecting to see something go wrong with the mount for another 20 or so years, if ever. the exhaust, and the modified cowling are the other custom parts. All three can be maintained by a capable A&P/fiberglass shop/welder. I'm not worried about the missile conversion, even if Rocket goes TU (which I doubt they will: they are making all those sweet jetprop conversion). as for why the STC got discontinued: I think they only did 40 or so missile conversion. About 3 times as many rocket conversions... but once the bravo and ovation came out, the cost to acquire a J/K, and add the 100K mod didn't seem to make sense vs buying new.... I bet now, though, that the cost of a new O or Acclaim is over 600K, that the economics might actually make sense again... the key would be finding some potential customers to inquire with the company....

Funny- I had only seen the O2 GX... it has 14V at the outlet, so I assumed all O's were the same! My bad....

I bought a dual charge 2.4 amp USB adapter that I plugged into my cigarette lighter... ahem... "accessory port." It charges my iPad and runs my stratux. Cost 15 bucks.

They may be listening- but their business model is a tricky one. they build aviation gps retrofits. These retrofits can be placed in anything from a Lear to a cub. That's a HUGE price variation and exceptionally wide target demographic. They do their best to make a profit- and in order to do that, they evaluate the cost of their product and the price owners would be willing to pay- and they see what the competition offers. Part of their business model has been keeping their systems proprietary- coded formats, etc. they don't make autopilots, but if they did, I'm sure their higher end units would be limited to their own products. Since they don't make autopilots, and they target markets based on economics, I would find it unlikely that they would add autopilot outputs to this unit; strictly because it would rob from their more expensive installs on aircraft where 20k is less than 1% of the hull cost (king airs, matrix, etc). The way it looks to me is that while we like the gtn750/ifd540/gns530 display sizes and features, these "higher end" gps's are so expensive because the hull values of the target aircraft are expensive- and all these companies are looking for a profit. The cost of components surely isn't the driver for the expense, nor is the technology. The certification costs a bit, but that gets displaced by units sold. so, I'd say that the typical <100K aircraft probably isn't Garmin's target audience for the 750. More like the 650. And while they are happy to sell you a super expensive (relative to hull cost) setup, they were most likely aiming at more expensive airplanes... hence the reason to not add features that would directly compete with their own, higher end Nav and panel systems. I wouldn't hold your breathe for GPSS/autopilot outputs... at least not until it's explicitly stated, as opposed to implicitly "implied" I should add that I'm not in any sort of retail/wholesale or marketing type business... I'm but a Lowly, opinionated pilot that flys to put food on the table.

That's a valid point- but if it's between an Aspen that has the possibility to interface to a century autopilot, and has upgradeability, or this solution in a mooney, for similar cost, i'd go with the Aspen. bit then again, I'm biased, because I already did....