Tom

To any CB, MMM already means Mr. Money Mustache...

The sky around airports is small, smaller around fly-ins, and smaller yet around fly-ins without so much as a theoretical frequency to use. Personally, if departing from such a situation, I'd pretend I was Doolittle getting out of Tokyo and would have skipped the customary pass. There's a video somewhere on youtube of a midair that occurred from aircraft leaving a fly-in I believe off a dry lake bed in CA.

I think the common man watching this on the news might be a bit disgusted at watching "rich people" complain and appeal for sympathy. If one believes in the science around disgust, and it's economics implications on this matter, then making the common man disgusted is probably not a good idea.

Am I the only one who misread this?

Now that is funny. Lol indeed.

Any GDP created by loans (e.g. foreign holding of US assets) that we have no logical way of being able to pay back shouldn't be counted as GDP in my book. If GDP means "increase in transfer of US property to foreign interests" then yes, the GDP has kept up with the debt. GDP intrinsically becomes increasingly proportionate to the loans that props up the activity afforded by the funny money.

Just like the big FBOs? There are no market forces in a monopoly. This position neglects to appreciate regulatory/deep capture, diseconomies of scale, or really the history of large organizations of any type worldwide--in particular government contracts. ATC is a critical infrastructure item that will be subsidized to any dollar amount necessary to keep it up. And as the bloat increases, so too will the fractional user fee contributions. I'm reminded of the guy down the street with a $40,000/year job bragging about his big house, quad-cab truck, and his flat screen TV.

Globalist conspiracy folks would opine that big money is doing whatever, wherever it can, to privatize historically public sector operations. The current administration has pledged to do this with bridges, highways, and all types of infrastructure concerns. I don't know why this phenomenon is happening, but I agree that it is happening worldwide. The Hegelian dialectic explanation is that people have been conditioned to distrust or just generally dislike public sector operations, and welcome the privatization efforts. I'm not familiar with any historical references where people ended up liking the private sector radical monopoly over the public sector radical monopoly, but we nonetheless continue to sell off the public good, likely forever.

It's a very touchy subject that deserves a lot of conditions and qualifiers, but I'm nearly as concerned about maintenance induced failures as I am about complying with certain types of disassembly/inspection practices. On a related note, we've known for a while that doing routine health checkups for people doesn't seem to help them live longer, but this doesn't stop physicians from encouraging the practice or dissuade people from seeking such exams. Superstition and folklore over science.

Are you available for owner-owner-assisted annuals? What might you charge?

Even good people can have a bad day. I'm concerned, though, that there were several discrepancies. Perhaps they let the new guy loose on your plane but didn't provide enough oversight? For me, this is all that matters. If you have other options, I'd see if this shop tried to earn back your trust. If so, follow your instincts and conscience. If not, exercise your options. Otherwise--if you have a hangar, or can find an A&P/IA with a hangar, I'd highly recommend doing your own owner-assisted work and learning everything about the plane. No matter how much maintenance people like you and your plane....you like you and your plane even more.

I have a couple sleeping bags in the hangar that go aboard when cross country or in cold weather. [Edit: the bags, rolled up and placed behind the *front* seats effectively fills the void between the back of the front seats and rear seat thigh rests...this combined with a thin pad covering the rear seat thigh rest continuous over the sleeping bags makes a space large enough for two friendly labs]. On a related note, you might consider trying Mutt Muffs for hearing protection. One of my two dogs tolerates them without issue, the second kicks them off no matter how they're adjusted. Edit addendum: I have to imagine that the muffs attenuate the sound somewhat, even if they slip partly off. At the same time, Google says that a dog's bark at 4 feet distance can be so much as 95dB. The dog that doesn't like the muffs is a barker. Maybe she was born with protection? [kidding] She's also rejected the $10 Amazon dog sunglasses and is not a fan of Thundershirts. The second dog goes into a coma with the Thundershirt on. YD'sMMV.

Thinking aloud: In the reflexed position the OP's ailerons might effectively be in a lower-induced drag position. If this is so, all else equal, adjusting the ailerons to trail in the "correct" position might slow the plane. A quick net search found comments suggesting that reflexed control surfaces on the Mooney's 23-215 may not have much of an effect, though users of certain airfoils will specifically set up a reflex position in cruise to decrease drag/increase speed.

There's an old joke in surgery about leaving sponges in the patient. You always count the sponges before closing the skin to make sure you don't leave a sponge in. But, still, rarely a sponge is left in. So, when a sponge was left in, what was the count? [of course it was normal] The Aero-glass technology seems like a nearly fool-proof manner to run checklists. In the meantime, I'm flow first, checklist second kind of person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMRNMLFlfP0

+1 for Halo. Prior to the Halo I used foam plugs (seated deeply in the ear canal) under a non-ANR DC headset. As best I can tell, the plugs+headset may have offered a little better noise reduction than the Halos, though I have no intention of trying anything after the Halos (except for a wireless version if/when available). Note that using tinnitus as a measure of the effectiveness of the hearing protection used can be problematic as ambient/inner ear pressure changes can increase the tinnitus independent of the noise exposure.

For what it's worth, Mike Busch's take: "As a general rule, if the damage is deep enough to expose fabric or cord...the tire is unairworthy and should be replaced before further flight." https://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/The-Savvy-Aviator-12-Tire-TLC-188586-1.html Personally I'd make sure to have a replacement available and just check that spot every pre-flight (in addition to the other side and making sure the brake wasn't hanging). No need to replace it until it gets worse, though it's reasonable to do now if it makes one more comfortable.

There's a legitimate need for vulture capitalism. There's also a legitimate need to keep vulture capitalism in check. No one should be discouraged from trying to protect widows and the like.

Vans is an OEM. The Part 23 re-write that did occur would allow the RV-10 to be certified relatively easily. Today you can have a shop build your RV-10 for you. I think the going price is still less than 300k, all-in, with new engine and glass panel. A new C-172 runs $350-375k. A new C-182 runs $500k, cruises at 145kts. RV-10 cruises at 165kts in a larger cabin, shorter T/O landing distances than the 182, and with a higher service ceiling. If I were current Mooney management, I'd buy the RV-10, certify it under the new 23 standard, keep the Philippines operation going, then do final assembly in Kerrville. This plane would absolutely own the 4-place new aircraft market. With economy of scale considerations, it should be very feasible to sell a new RV-10 for less than a new C-172. This has nothing to do with love of the RV-10, or disrespect for the M20, but rather non-emotional appraisal of the market. Off-topic: For those who are interested in what happens when the humans are no longer needed for the production of goods and services (and/or when we have sufficient production capacity such that there is a surplus of human labor), the general term for this is the post-scarcity economy. Fascinating and controversial topic. Some argue that we are already in it...that this is the root cause of modern voodoo economics that purports to allow for the accumulation of wealth where, in reality, only the perception of wealth is created...

,

It's not a pipe dream. Vans has kit components built in the Philippines and then has these components shipped to the US then on to kit buyers in the US. Today, quasi-legally, you can buy a fast-built RV-10 kit and have it built for around 250-300k with a new engine/panel.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item39/et/ From the AME guide, instruction on performing item 39: Item 39. Anus Digital Rectal Examination: This examination is performed only at the applicant's option unless indicated by specific history or physical findings. When performed, the following should be noted and recorded in Item 59 of FAA Form 8500-8. If the digital rectal examination is not performed, the response to Item 39 may be based on direct observation or history .[bold text is my emphasis]

You nailed it. Certainly I'm sympathetic to your case. For what it is worth, AOPA does have a webpage for physicians to review on the subject of BasicMed: https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/pilots/medical/fit-to-fly-physician-guide Of course the webpage states: "Pilots, in discussion with their physician, should consult available aeromedical resources to understand potential flight hazards associated with any medications being taken, such as whether the underlying condition the medication is being taken for makes flight unsafe, or to understand side-effects that may be unnoticeable before flight but could impair the ability of a pilot to make sound decisions." My point is that an aeromed doc knows which rhythm issues are considered to be customarily associated with providing a serious threat to safe flight, according to aeromedicine research, and which rhythm issues are not thought to be a problem. Like it or not, agree with it or not, the aeromed community has determined that the aviation environment is sufficiently different from the driving environment to merit different standards and rules. Again, in a malpractice case, claiming ignorance to the science of another medical specialty with which you've dabbled in is not an effective affirmative defense. As to creating alternative documentation in the same medical file, this runs afoul with other basic medical record principals that are actionable from the medical board, etc. Furthermore, the BasicMed form states: NOTICE: Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willingly falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or who makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or entry, may be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (18 U.S.C Secs. 1001; 3571) The 3rd class still exists, doctors are saying no (a phenomenon that logic tells us will get worse with time), pilots are finding the 3rd class easier, AOPA and EAA seem to be content, and you call this success?

Respectfully, here is what I think that you are missing: in the medical world, there are physicians who are experts in aviation medicine who have developed and practice by a specific set of medical standards. They have their own specialty--aerospace medicine--and their own board certification standards. If you are a family doctor and you want to play cardiologist for a patient with an unusual rhythm problem, you can do so. But if the patient has a bad outcome, and the medical record shows that you did not provide the same care that the average cardiologist would provide, then you cannot claim "ignorance" as a malpractice defense. I can appreciate that a non-physician pilot may not see much difference between flying and driving, but there is no comparing physician responsibilities in the two activities. For example: -physicians may approve of people with dementia to drive cars on the road -AMEs cannot allow a pilot applicant with psoriasis(!) to fly without relatively extensive medical review True. But one doesn't have to go to hell to know that it's hot there. And to me, it is a moral hazard issue.

The existence of a medical condition that would prohibit being issued a 3rd class medical is de facto evidence of the presence of a medical condition that the government believes "could interfere with the ability to operate an aircraft." Should anyone fly under BasicMed and God forbid have an accident, and anybody sues claiming medical impairment, any AME or aeromed doc (subpoenaed or hired gun) can testify that the preceding sentence is correct and the BasicMed doc will be toast. BasicMed isn't like a scuba or school physical. Try walking into any doctor's office and telling them that you have diabetes and high blood pressure and are looking to get a pre-operative clearance for bilateral hip replacement--and the clearance is to state that you have no medical conditions that, as currently treated, poses a risk to a successful surgery. See what kind of response that engenders. It's morally questionable to take advantage of a physician's ignorance on this new subject (BasicMed) that is fraught with genuine risk. To answer the blood pressure question: -If your top blood pressure number is still over 155 after three checks during the same first visit to the AME, then you have other problems besides just a bad morning -No visits required to your primary doc -No letters required from your primary doc -No letters to required to go to FAA -Assuming you didn't receive a 3rd class on the first visit, you should walk out the door of the AME's office with a 3rd class at a visit seven days later On a related note, this aviation insurance agent states that "some companies" will not accept BasicMed for "older pilots." The bottom line is that the 3rd class needs to go.