M016576

It probably couldn't hurt- it shows that you realize you made a mistake after the fact and that could be favorable to your case if you found yourself "at the end of the long table." I'm not exactly sure how these are handled these days.

Nope- that is forbidden by USAF and USN regulations if we are outside of a MOA. by military regulation, we have to fly IFR to the max extent practical, and we are held to the same IFR regulations as every other aircraft. We are allowed to proceed VFR if required by training, but unauthorized intercepts of unaware aircraft, and more specifically airliners (where we could unintentionally set off their TCAS) are prohibited. if you are flying in a MOA that has active fighters in it, though, you may be intercepted unintentionally (at least until the fighter pilot gains a visual tally); as they are possibly training against other aircraft in an air to air role- and your plane might be mistaken for "red air." If the fighter pilot sees you in a MOA, and identifies your aircraft- your safety as well as his/her own is their top priority... if an unsafe act were to occur; the ramifications would be dire to the military pilot (and they probably wouldn't be a military pilot much longer). Flight safety is not something taken lightly, and there is no room for unsafe behaviors and/or attitudes in our culture. Our job is dangerous enough as it is. what you might be seeing is an aircraft on a visual initial, or combat initial into the field. Most fighters talk exclusively on UHF frequencies, so you may not be hearing their conversations with ATC. I can't speak to helicopters. the question came up about transponders- when flying in the US, one fighter in the formation will always have a Mode 3/C transponder on. The fighter fleets are all in varying levels of modification to meet the 2020 ADSB requirements- we will all be required to have ADSB out... just like GA aircraft, and should show up on any ADSB traffic systems. The F-15C isn't ADSB out vetted yet (but it's in progress)- I can't speak to the F-16; which is the other fighter you might see intercept you (F-18's / F-22's don't perform ADS alert, and F-35's haven't been stood up for that mission yet). from a speed standpoint, unless I've got fuel to burn and a compelling reason to "go really fast", normally fighters fly a maximum range profile to and from the training airspace- that's about 320KIAS in the F-18 and F-15- so not really much different than most business jets. Of course, there are times where you'll see jets much faster than that- but over land we are restricted from supersonic flight unless in a dedicated training area.

Yes. We (I fly F-15's, but same difference) fly a continuous pattern around the 172/152... think of it like a moving holding pattern. If we need to get a pilot to divert or land somewhere, we attempt radio communication, and finally, if that doesn't work, we "headbutt" the small aircraft by breaking gently across their flight path, and possibly dispensing flares. the procedures are all outlined by the FAA, and should be a part of every private pilots training syllabus... there is a link on this board somewhere to the FAA section that has training materials on "what to do if you're intercepted," but I don't have that link in front of me. I'll see if I can find it. Edit: link to FAA intercept procedures https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2015/media/Intercept-Procedures.pdf

Did you actually read the entire NTSB report? If you did, it specifically sites the controllers poor separation plan. The F-16 pilot was on an IFR clearance for an approach and was complying with ATC instructions. He delayed 7 seconds in initiating his turn after being given a traffic point out. The turn instructions that the controller issued are what actually put the two aircraft on a collision bearing. The sad fact is this: 1) a pilot on an IFR approach was given a traffic point out, then a poor vector. 2) the controller realized her vector was bad, but by the time she figured it out, it was either too late, or she froze up (the ntsb report is a little fuzzy on why the controller didn't act) 3) BOTH pilots are responsible for visual lookout. Regardless of what type of flight rules and vectors they are receiving. Even when the information from the controller is bad. Both pilots, and the controller all had a hand in this tragedy. And it's all spelled out in the report. so I ask again- what's the point of this comment above: "Surprising that they can easily find the lost 172 in a TFR, yet the guy in SC didn't see it until less than a sec before impact. " The only addition I see to this thread is a cheap shot at the men and women putting their lives on the line to protect the skies, and people below them day in and day out. Have mistakes been made in the past? Absolutely. Will they happen again? Sadly, they probably will. If you're mad about TFR's, your aiming your fire in the wrong direction: I promise- the last thing any fighter pilot wants to do is intercept a Cessna that inadvertently flew into a TFR. But we don't have a choice; and we can't take the chance that you might not be a "lost 172" after all.

Is this a necessary comment? Do you know all the facts in either case? what would you propose?

Another problem with holding, is, if there is a non-intuitive, commonly mis-applied concept- then perhaps the wording or clearances should be altered to make it non-ambiguous. Oh, and finally, holding is rarely executed "for real." Mostly just to maintain currency. I stand corrected, after some research the cardinal direction is indeed the geographic position in relation to the fix. I am happy to say that in my 16 year career I've never been issued a non-published hold, and while your scenario would not have gotten me violated, as the instructions are clear without the cardinal direction, it would certainly have led to me "questioning" the controller (I.e. Shining my butt).

What Would you call a non-standard hold (left turn) along the same fix? Hold north west, make left turns? Im fairly certain the cardinal direction of hold is based upon the direction of turn departing the holding fix.., so for the non published hold in this case, below the radial= south west, above (non standard) north west. Even though, geographically, both patterns are northwest of the holding fix. its a common error.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your graphic is depicting a hold "southwest", not "northwest" of the fix.... unless North is down in this graphic...

Wasn't the mobile 1 a fully synthetic, which meant it couldn't scavenge lead and combustion by products as efficiently as a semi synthetic or mineral oil? I should have been more clear- minus additives, the pma'd, like type oils are all pretty much the same thing underneath within their categories (AD vs mineral- except weight, obviously). What you pay for, and what is hotly debated, is the additive package (and the label): and some of the claims on which is "the best" are a bit subjective. I won't risk stepping any further down this hole- but that's the best I gathered from the knowledge bombs in the camguard/oil threads I've read here....

-a- I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I was clear: My point is more that we are all currently victims of the chart update cycle. The cycles (monthly) are based on the effective amount of time it takes to review, modify and publish (in print, not digitally) these updated procedures and charts (whether that be the NGA or the FAA's realm to decide the length of validity, I do not know). If we unshackle ourselves from printing these things, the whole process could be "disrupted" (that's what I hear the tech wiz kids call innovation, I think): and we could see a day where there are no longer cycle dates at all, per say, but some other method of keeping the systems, charts and NavData current and verifying the integrity of these systems. If I knew how to do that, then I wouldn't be flying jets in the Air Force, I'd be running that company and be busy putting jeppesen out of business. Sadly, I'm not that talented... because for what jeppesen charges for the service they provide- nothing would make me happier than watching them squirm. and I've never participated in the arts and crafts projects that are described using jeppesen charts: I've always been provided with entirely new charts every month... it's a massive waste of paper. I can't wait for the day that we all go fully electronic, or at least mostly electronic, maybe with a once a year paper backup or something. Again, I don't have the answers- I wish I did because I see this as an area ripe for innovation and improved efficiencies.

At risk of thread drift- Has anyone with a tempest filter on this board found a meaningful amount of metal (subjective, I know) on the tempest magnet, vice in the folds? i think the concept is based on the "chip light" found in turboprop gearboxes... but the difference is the light illuminates when metal shavings are detected that will/could lead to imminent failure... the tempest magnet is just collecting the metal that would otherwise be caught in the pleats, on the magnet instead- so I don't tend to value it. But I do value the fact that the filter is cheaper than a champion filter.

If that's true, then why does the faa insist on a cycle date at all? No reason to be forced to "update" all your charts/NavData to be legal on a time basis... most don't actually change from cycle to cycle anyway. Shouldn't you have the option to just verify prior to your flight that you're up to date for the day? And shouldn't the FAA or NGA keep a running database of procedures updated? The fact is, the NavData is essentially free (it's a government service): jeppesen has the monopoly on parsing it into a database for panel gps's. and the FAA facilitates this behavior because of the paper format that is still prevalent in some sectors of aviation due to the time it takes to print these things(I get my books of charts and then throw away the old ones every month in the military.... tons and tons of unused, wasted paper charts; continuously updated). one day, all charts and plates will be digital, and there will be no more "cycle dates", but that day, sadly, is not today.

In FlyQ you can select whether you want to download "all procedures" or just the procedures that have changed. It also shows the entire chart, including the cycle date. Im not sure about the legality of using a chart that has been verified to have no changes, but is out of cycle date. My hunch is that it is legal, so long as the points have been validated (which is probably why Garmin and other EFB's can have a setting to only download charts with changes). The precedence of my logic is that It is legal to navigate with out-of-date NavData using a GPS so long as you verify the points have not changed, and you are not shooting a precision GPS approach, so using an out of date chart, but with verified fixes/points *may* be legal as well. But I don't know for sure: just a guess about the charts. (The NavData piece is true though). Does anyone know the answer on this? It's a little tacky in my opinion, though for Garmin to cut off the dates (and probably only to eliminate questions from the crowd as to why some plates aren't in the cycle date).

Any day now- supposed to be released by the end of the month. There is a thread here somewhere that was comparing the two: it degraded rapidly into Garmin lovers vs avidyne lovers (my box is better than yours!). If you're looking for objective reviews, you may have to look elsewhere!

That video is outstanding. Thank you for posting that!

30% cheaper, hard to beat that. At risk of starting a huge flame war...like oil itself, the filter is pretty standardized. Pleated paper, a spring, a few seals, and it's all held to a PMA. If this filters weren't working, we would have found out by now

The cost to install that ea100 once everything is already torn apart should be minimal: they are building you a new wiring harness anyway- so I wouldn't expect more than 5 hours labor difference.... I would expect the 2500 unit cost though! might want to check out that Garmin G5 standby gyro- I think that might be worth the extra charge over a mechanical, electrically driven gyro- especially since you're installing the EA100. Wish I had an EA100.

Hah! It might be more cost effective to find a closer shop- or at least one that takes GB sterling!

I guess it all depends on how "long term" we're talking. If the op is thinking 5 years to never on the GPS, then I he should upgrade the audio panel. If he's thinking next year, probably wise to roll it all into one install, so the wire harness only needs to be built once. edit: with that KMA-20 and sigtronics intercom, you're looking at about $2000.00 to purchase and install a used GMA-340 or PMA-8000BT. I'd try to find the panel on your own (eBay, Barnstormers, etc) then find a shop for the install. chief aircraft has a flat rate install in audio panels- only 950 bucks install cost.... they do nice work- prices aren't too crazy either (they are in southern Oregon)

The PS engineering PMA7000 series is a plug and play replacement for the KMA24 I think. There's one on eBay right now for about 1000 bucks. Those things are no longer being made- all the new audio panels are now about 2000, and incorporate some over the top features, like positional audio. Hard to go wrong with a GMA340 or PMA7/8000 series audio panel, but if you don't get the plug and play model, expect about $1000 install cost on top of the unit cost. there is a kma24H that includes an intercom. Haven't seen many of them out there, though.

That's too bad... seems like that would be a simple software addition- and would be a very desirable feature.

Anyone know if this thing can drive a KAP150?

To all those that got their Avionics units well below retail, and what I would call "reasonable";I think we need to start a thread about actual shops, where they are, and costs you could expect to be quoted. My experience has been similar to the OP's in the hunt to install an ADSB transponder... if we had a list of reasonable, friendly shops that would certainly help the "hunt around" approach that some of you suggest. as for installing 20K of Avionics in a 40K airplane.... it would be worth a look at the used E/F and J's to see if you can find one near your budget that has the stuff you want already installed. I sure wish I had done that with my first J..... would have saved me a bunch of money...

I've heard about some of the mooney spacers getting free updates to their GNS firmware, and also some getting deeply discounted prices on Garmin GTN installs (like 12K for a 750, installed). I looked all over and was unable to find either of these options. I would love to hear where these shops are, and whom to talk to to get these deals. Most of the time, what I've seen is 100-200 bucks to update firmware (and yes, I'm painfully aware of how simple it is), and maybe a slight discount to a Garmin over retail.... anyone have the name of a fair and reasonable shop (Don, maybe? You said you got a pretty screaming deal on a gtn install).

Nickel and Diming in aviation. initially I wanted to blame foreflight for going to a subscription model in 2009. then I remembered, it's more Garmin's fault for their NavData/obstacles/terrain for their GPS's! but actually, precedence was set by Jeppesen first for their charts (and later navdata). Then I realized it's the FAA; with their mandatory inspections! no... it goes further back than that- its Lycoming and Continental... thoss things nickel and dime me out of oil AND AVGAS! wait... I got it: it's Mooney's fault. That entire thing has been doing nothing but nickel and diming me since day one!!! But seriously- foreflight and Garmin play so well together through the flightstream because they both love to (over)-charge pilots. Enemy of my enemy and all. At least that's my theory.