Earl

I can tell you don't fly around Class B airspace very often if you consider that kind of request to be an "ATC error". I can't tell you how many times coming into Atlanta's airspace I've asked for lower and have been told no because of traffic. What do you want me to do, declare an emergency every time I don't get my planned descent wishes? I can also tell you don't fly for the airlines as they use spoilers all the time in managing their speed and descent. So I do "PLAN THE DESCENT AND ARRIVAL!" (emphasis added in response to your caps lock problem).........I just don't always get to have things my own way because amazingly there are actually other airplanes out there obnoxiously occupying the space I want to occupy when I want to occupy it. Dang it, I hate when that happens! Don't they know that their wants, needs and wishes should be secondary to mine?!?!? I had a plan for my descent and arrival and the world must obey my wishes. Just cracks me up when people act like the use of the tools given to us on our planes is somehow a cause for shame or a result of our lack of exceptional pilot skills. I usually go to the red board for this kind of lecture from the master pilots......

Gracias!

That's what I like about fltplan.com. When I go in and put a route, for example tomorrow I am flying from KRYY to KOLV. When I get to the form to complete the flight details it shows me recent planned routes and those recently approved by ATC between those two airports. To me that is a very useful tool and helps me avoid recreating the wheel. I will play around with the ATC approved routes until I find one I like which is usually the first or second I try. Like others, I also like the winds aloft numbers for the altitudes above and below my chosen altitude so I can adjust accordingly. The new features on Foreflight are nice but they don't seem to match fltplan.com as yet.

OK, I am a little dense as I went to the maps page and could not find recently filed/recent ATC approved routing. I see various routes but they don't seem related to any particular departure and destination airport that I am searching. Sorry for the remedial Foreflight request.

I looked into this in some detail and it is not a small project. First of all you will need to add an encoding altimeter. Then you will have to find the 297 and someone that can put it in. After calling around and looking around and hearing what was involved I decided it would be easier to sell my plane and buy one with it already installed.

That is a very nice feature for sure but what I like about using fltplan.com that I don't see on foreflight is a listing of recent planned routes and recent ATC issued route between the departure and destination airport. I really like that feature as it simplifies my flight planning and I can see what has been recently tried and what has been approved. Am I missing this functionality somewhere in foreflight?

I agree with the post above that this may be a squall line that is best to let go away. One thing for sure, I would not try to cross this front to the south where there will be more energy and hence a greater likelihood of convective activity. Problem with crossing fronts this time of year is icing if you try to go high. But I also question the usefulness of this tool other than to consider alternative travel methods some time out. But the way the weather forecasts change dramatically on almost daily basis I use the long term forecasts with a big grain of salt.

Update on the issue. Took the airplane to an avionics shop and they pulled the KX165 and bench tested it. Seemed OK. Then we put a replacement one in and tested it and it did not spike the load when I keyed the mic. Thought we had it solved but when I flew it home it did it again although not as bad as with my old radio but it still shuts the autopilot down when the mic is keyed. So now we are thinking maybe an antenna wire problem since the antenna had been replaced by another shop. So we are onto plan B which is to get the wiring for the antenna replaced and see if that solves the problem. Very frustrating. Will also get the WAAS upgrade while it is being repaired and hopefully will be set for a while......until something else breaks.

I had not seen this product but went and looked at it. Very nice features, etc. but the $15K price tag, even for a plug and play is too rich for my blood.

Already had the antenna fixed. Solved my reception problem but not the transmit.

That is step one when I get to the avionics shop. He has one that we can plug in. If that works then at least I know its not a wiring or audio panel issue. In one of the failed repair attempts I had the wiring checked and they replaced the antenna. That fixed the reception problem but not the spiking and poor transmit. If its in audio panel then I am even better off because that I can replace cheaper and still do the WAAS upgrade.

The problem with the current #2 is when I key the mic it spikes the ammeter and is unreadable. Reception and VOR/GS work fine. I have had it looked at by 2 different shops and neither solved that problem. I fly the plane on business in IMC and not having a reliable #2 (even with my handheld) is not my idea of a long-term solution. I started out just wanting to replace the #2 with something new but was enticed to go the route of replacing the #2 with another working KX165 and getting the WAAS capability for the same price as a new SL30. Hence the question. As for a long-term avionics plan, I really don't have one. I am not real excited about plowing tens of thousands of dollars into new avionics in a plane that has already lost a lot of value from when I bought it at the peak of the market. For me, the plane is about utility, flexibility and safety. I am not one of those guys that spends every free moment at the airport polishing my plane and planning the next upgrade. The only plan I have relates to the ads-b requirement coming in 2020 and as of today the least expensive option is a new transponder but that also requires a WAAS GPS. So I am faced with the upgrade eventually either by purchasing a new unit and moving the 430 to #2 or paying for the upgrade. Who knows, maybe something new will come along. I am also concerned about getting service on the 430 as it ages. Upgrading allegedly means Garmin will continue to provide service on the unit. The more I think about the more I like the idea of replacing the KX 165 with another workable unit, go ahead with the upgrade and then in a year or two replace the KX165 (to be sold) with an SL30 and then eventually replace the transponder to meet the ads-b requirement unless something better comes along. In my opinion, adding another GPS won't improve the value of the plane.

Larry, you read my mind and that is why my initial inclination was to replace the KX 165 with the SL30. If I had my druthers I would do both but I don't have the cash today. I guess a variant on my question would be if I put in the replacement KX 165 today along with the WAAS and then a year or two from now had to replace the KX 165 with a SL30 would I be upset? I know I am already annoyed at the money I have already spent trying to fix my current unit so I don't know. If I put in the replacement unit and it works fine for the next five years I will probably be happy. If it craps out the next year I will be kicking myself........decisions.....decisions...... If I had the cash I would move my current 430 to #2 and put in a new WAAS GPS as my number 1, add Aspen.....heck, scrap it all for G600.....oh never mind, sell the plane and buy a new TBM-850, forget the TBM, I'll just get a Citation.......planes and boats.......

I think I am being bugged by Jepps as this showed up in my email this morning: WAAS up? Nothing is more gratifying for IFR pilots than flying an approach down to minimums, breaking out of the clouds at the last second and greasing the landing. This is especially rewarding when the approach you’re flying has a 200’ DH with ½ mile visibility, and you take it right to the bottom. Traditionally minimums this low have only been available for ILS approaches at an airport that is lucky enough to be equipped with such. But what happens when you’re at a smaller field, in bad weather and there isn’t an ILS available? You may be stuck with a non-precision approach that has minimums significantly higher than a precision approach, which may limit your ability to get into the airport. This is where the beauty of WAAS-enabled RNAV approaches comes in. WAAS is the Wide Area Augmentation System and we use it with RNAV (Area Navigation, mostly GPS approaches for GA aircraft). If you’re flying a newer aircraft, or an older airplane with upgraded avionics, you may already have WAAS—and if you do it’s an amazing tool in your IFR toolbox because you get a precision-like approach using only your WAAS-enabled GPS receiver. WAAS uses error-correcting and signal integrity monitoring to provide a computer-generated glidepath (note–not a glideslope and not a BARO-VNAV glidepath) enabling a vertical track and lateral track on an instrument approach. And WAAS delivers tangible benefits. First, WAAS approaches within the continental United States have signal coverage that allows minimums down to 200’ and ½ mile visibility, the same as an ILS. This doesn’t guarantee that a particular WAAS approach at your local airport will have minimums that low, but they can be when the approach meets the appropriate terrain, obstacle and missed approach criteria. Second, a WAAS approach flies just like an ILS. Outside of learning the particulars of your avionics suite, this approach will operate from a flying perspective just like every other precision approach that you’ve flown, which lowers the learning curve. How do you know if an approach has WAAS? On a Jeppesen chart it’s easy. Looking at the procedure name, you can see that the approach is an RNAV (GPS), since it has to be RNAV for WAAS to be even an option. On the second line, below the communication frequencies, you’ll see the first box identifies the approach as WAAS. Moving along the Briefing Strip sequence, you’ll notice in the minimums box it says LPV, which stands for Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance. These are the WAAS minimums. When you scroll down to the minimums section of the chart, note that the first set of minimums, if WAAS enabled, are LPV minimums. If the approach doesn’t have WAAS, LPV won’t be listed. Here’s one other item of consideration. If you don’t have WAAS or lose signal integrity, the WAAS LPV minimums won’t apply and you’ll need to find the appropriate minimums on the chart. Enjoy!

I have a mid 80's OEM KX165 and my original plan was to upgrade to the Garmin SL30, hence my call to avionics shops. I had sent one a panel shot and he asked if my 430 was WAAS and I said no. So his advice was exactly that, pull and replace the 165 and upgrade to WAAS for not a whole lot more than the price and install of the SL30. My 430 has been a great piece of equipment and all I really needed was a functional and usable #2 so I was intrigued by his suggestion. Hence my question here.

I agree with this although I do think a panel mounted gps is a close second.

OK, to summarize I have about 80% yea, 15% wait and see, 3% nay and 2% that are trying to talk me into spending three times what I was hoping to spend. Actually this has all been helpful and while my home airport has an ILS I frequently fly to airports only with GPS approaches and thus I think the upgrade would be beneficial.

You and I think alike but the difference is one of us would have to pay for the 650. That is a pretty good idea but I just don't have the scratch to pull it off. I am looking at a $2K replacement radio and $3K for the WAAS upgrade which is about 40% of the cost of the 650 (with install). But I like the way you think!!

I will definitely need WAAS by 2020 in order to upgrade my transponder to comply with ads-b but had planned to wait. I fly a lot of IFR and have flown a number of gps approaches where having vertical guidance and lower minimums would have been nice and a few times essential to getting in without an ILS. But at the end of the day I have not had a problem finding an ILS close to where I want to go. I think this falls in the category of being nice, but not essential. As for trading my current 430 for one on ebay, I almost hate to do that because this unit has worked perfectly since install. Hate the idea of starting over with a different used unit.....paranoia runs deep.

I have finally decided to bite the bullet and get my #2 NavComm replaced. After multiple attempts to get it fixed I am giving up. Have had a strong recommendation from the avionics shop to upgrade my 430 to WAAS while I am having the radio replaced. Have flown IFR for 5 years without it and I am wondering if it is really worth the money it will take. Unfortunately I put my 430 in a couple of months before the WAAS upgrade came out and my avionics guy missed the window of opportunity to upgrade cheaply. Opinions from those that fly with WAAS, is it worth the money?

I currently use XM on my 696 and think it is worth every penny I spend on a monthly basis. I have looked at all the various ADS-B alternatives, read everything I can and just don't think it is a viable alternative for me right now. As the system gets built out it may make more sense but right now I view the $65 I spend each month on XM to be well worth it. So I am not going to switch as of right now and will wait and see what transpires with the technology.

When I bought my 252 I went for that model specifically because of a recommendation from a long-time Mooney veteran specifically because it fit my mission of speed and economy. I needed a fuel efficient IFR platform for business travel which is almost always just me so I don't need the additional carrying capacity of some other models. However, I am seriously thinking of doing the Encore conversion for the added gross weight and performance. I need to replace my #2 Nav/Comm as well and may do both concurrently. Unfortunately I bought at the top of the market and have watched the 252's drop in value. Has not been a pleasant experience but I put a lot down so I have plenty of equity in the plane so I am not worried......yet.

So far knock on my wooden head I haven't even come close to a gear up. Like weather and other stupid pilot tricks I absolutely believe it could happen to me. I do a gear down check three times on every approach. One when I put the gear down by looking at the light on the annunciator panel and the floor indicator. Second one is when I put in my final notch of flaps and third one is when I am on short final when I check my floor indicator again. And I always say out loud, gear down, when I confirm. By doing this three times it will hopefully lessen the chances that I am so distracted on three separate occasions that I forget to put the gear down. If I forget the first check I will hopefully catch myself with the other two. Agree totally that there is no good reason to land gear up but plenty of very qualified, experienced pilots have done so proving to me that to think it can't happen to me is to invite disaster.

Mike Busch has written a lot on the issue of TBO. In one of my EAA mags he laid out a very good plan for proactive maintenance and monitoring that assuming no warning signs should allow you to fly safely past TBO. Was pretty adamant that you do all the suggested monitoring faithfully. And I thought not filing a flight plan voided your insurance and it had nothing to do with being past TBO.......dang it! I had it all messed up........ I hate when that happens.

In my 86 252 with about 600 SMOH I lose a quart every 7-10 hours depending on the type of flying. Like many others, any oil over 6.5 qts just blows out on the belly so I usually wait until I get to 5.5 to add one unless I am looking at a longer leg in which case I'll add up to 7.