drapo

If you want to build time in your plane, I'd stick with the Cessna. Florida to Maine is around 12 hours in a Skyhawk while only 8 in a Mooney... Think about it, that's 50% more flight hours for a one way trip, at that rate, your could get to 500 in 9 months or so...

Carusoam, don't worry, it's going to be dealt with pretty soon, my annual is due in January and I don't fly much in December, except this year December is a very flyable month! Yetti, one of the hidden problem I found out with this situation is that my handle doesn't seem to latch the upper latch at all, could be a broken link or something, we'll see!

We were trying to find what was causing the drag on my Mooney as the performance were not quite what they used to be... We looked at the usual culprits, gear doors and likes, but it was not until I took a photograph of my new setup that I realized that my door wasn't properly shut. You can see it in the upper right corner of this picture as some blue skies appears through a space around the door frame... One more snag for the annual!

Yeah, me and my mechanic we call it the "maintenance mode" so we don't knock our head on it while we work!

Here's another example of an upgrade on a 1965 M20E panel. Not fully digital, but it does the job! Before: After

I had my IFD540 installed last spring and wouldn't hesitate to recommend Avidyne's GPS. Latest touch-screen technology plus knobs for those turbulent flights or when you feel like it. Very intuitive, compared to my GNS430 and troule free updates via USB. My GNS430 was for sale by my avionic tech, after he sent it for repair and upgrade to WAAS. I asked him about it and he sold it three weeks ago. Lately, with rebates, you can get an IFD440, which is plug-and play for your GNS430, for around $10k (US that is), around $2k more than a used GNS430W... Worth shopping around!

In my opinion, the best way to end up with $5000 to $10,000 annuals is to look for a $30,000 Mooney...

Last week with taxes, but auto fuel prices are coming up, so it could raise a bit this week-end

At my home airport in Lachute QC, were now down to $1.55CA/ltr. Converted to US gallons and US dollars, it adds up to $4.41US/gal! Time to go flying!

The biggest cost will be the installation, new, a no frill audio panel will be around 1AMU, a used one .5 to 1.5 AMU, depending on features. Installation, paperwork, etc... could reach 1.5AMU and up, depending on what you want to connect to the audio panel (intercom, comms, navaids...) I would sugges a new audio panel, sometimes they're easier to install than the old ones cause they have an intercom built-in, but it's your call!

Can't wait to follow her reality show along with Bruce.... eh Caitlyn

Hey Nobody, I don't want to stoop at the level you're trying to drag me to cause... Well you know!

Sorry Guys, by trying to prove that there is more in an accident that meets the eye and to let the investigators investigate, I demonstrated an example of what could have happened that wasn't based on fact either, since we don't have much to stand on. I convinced myself about the type of approach and the fact that the vector was to intercept an Arc, not a final approach course, but nothing tells me in the facts presented that the F16 pilot had already intercepted his DME arc. So I'll just listen to my own advice and shut up until the investigator comes up with a report, as a show of respect to the victims and those involved.

If we focus on this single situation, we can deduct that 35 seconds was enough to prevent the collision. But keep in mind that this pilot probably had numerous traffics pointed to him during the few approaches he made in his training flight. Some high, some low, some with no mode C and he was able to see and avoid without doing any changes to his flightpath. This time is no different, he is pointed to a traffic sqwaking VFR lower and he tries to locate it. The controller doesn't like what he sees and tells him to turn left IF he doesn't see the traffic. We don't have the tone of the controllers voice but we know the pilot wants to confirm the distance"confirm 2miles?". That's when the controller decides to insist and adds "immediatly" to his instruction and from initial findings, looks like the pilot gets off his approach and starts a turn. As he was established on his arc, so around a 310hdg or so, the pilot sems to follow the controller's instruction and starts a left turn and is observed on a 205 hdg just prior to impact, that's about 100 degrees left of his approach heading. So I say there is a lot of informations missing. My main question is around the presence or use of an airborne radar in the F16. The end result could be a unilateral blame on the pilot, a shared blame on pilots and controllers, a system fault along with individual blames or? But from this sketchy information, I don't think we should "hang" anyone and we should wait for the results of the inquiry before making judgements, but I realize that others have different view on this aspect.

If you look at the times and distance and where the collision occurred, there is no way the 260 hdg was to intercept the final approach course, although that's what the preliminary report says. My bet is that the F16 was flying the arc coming in from the East, since the collision occurred North-East of the field. Additionally, you give a 30 degree heading to intercept a final approach course, so 190hdg from the East or 130hdg from the West would do it. In this case, the final approach course being 157deg, it would be a 100deg turn to intercept and starting from 34 miles out, he would have never been in the area where the midair occurred. That's why I'm not putting blame on anyone right now, I could be wrong, but this looks like an accumulation of factors causing this regretful accident.

For ATC to monitor and intervene on every CTAF would be impossible. I work Montréal Terminal, which is not the busiest airspace in Canada, let alone America, but within a 15 miles radius, there are a dozen smaller airport, most with their own frequencies. Up here in Canada, we have an enroute frequency(126.7)that permits VFR/VFR and VFR/IFR communications outside class A,B, C and D airspace. But the best way to diminish the risk of a midair is by segregating airspace. I've worked on two groups that reviewed airspace around Montreal, and our main focus was to make sure to leave enough room for VFR flights while having IFR corridors that were free of VFR transit. That means altitudes and tracks of approaches have to be taken into account. Starting and arc approach 10nm east of the field and get the IFR down to 1600' is placing that flight in the path of many VFR aircraft while a 2500' intercept at 10DME out would be plenty.

You guys don't know how many times in a day I point VFR squawking trafic to IFR aircrafts on approach, on a converging track, both with and without mode C. My book says to point out trafic and, if pilots requests it, give vectors to clear trafic. You can also suggest a heading or an altitude to the pilot to clear the potential conflict. It sometimes happen that I decide it's too much of a close call and use vectors before it becomes too ugly, as this controller did. The problem with this sad situation is that there was a collision. So here we are trying to put blame on the F16 pilot or the controller while were seated in front of a computer and looking at the minutes and seconds and thinking : 18 seconds for that kind of a turn is a rate one turn and why was he so leisurely turning! Take into account the doubt the pilot has about the distance of the trafic *Confirm 2 miles* and add three seconds for him to react to the second instruction where the controller uses *immediately* and the fact that he starts on a 310 hdg or so and ends up on a 205 hdg within 12 seconds or so, given input and control reaction times, and you end up with way more than a rate one turn. I feel for my controller friend who must be reviewing the whole situation over and over again, questioning his actions and also for the pilot who must also be asking himself what if? Nothing will bring back those two who died in this accident, but we must make sure the inquiry will teach us something.

What if? Based on no facts but just to convince you that the investigation has to do it's job. What if the collision occured because the pilot was following ATC instructions as he was turning to the assigned heading? Remember the last SuperBowl? People are still questioning the call to try a pass so close to the end zone. But in the end, is it Carroll!s fault for a risky call, a Wilson poor execution or a superb defensive play by Buttler? That inquiry is still going on and probably will be for years and years!

MyNameisNobody, We agree on one thing: This should never have happened. But as Bob said, read through the initial findings to understand what was going on. This is not a joy ride, it's an IFR approach under ATC supervision. If you extrapolate from the timing of the different phases of the flight, you can deduct a few things. First, here's the plate of the Tacan15 in KCHS. As you can see, this not a straight-in approach but rather an arc approach where you are on a constant turn towards the final approach from a fix located abeam the airport. The fighter pilot was given a 260 hdg to intercept the arc, and as he intercepted, he had to turn right to a 320 hdg(+/-) then back to the left to follow the 10 DME arc. That's about when he was given the traffic information at his 12 o'clock, and 2 miles. The F16 was travelling at 4 miles a minute, the Cessna 1.5 miles a minute, the two paths will cross in under 30 seconds. I don't know the limits of the onboard radar, but given the bank in the turn, I'm pretty sure he couldn't see the Cessna. Did he initiated the evasive action as dictated by ATC or was he just flying the ARC? Was he relying on the mode C read-out to justify spacing? On the ATC side, should he have climbed the F16 without really knowing if the Cessna reported altitude was 1400' or any other altitude, higher or lower? Was trying to separate laterally the two trafics with a vector the way to go? Did the Cessna pilot try an evasive action that put him back in the F16's way? Those are some of the questions the inquiry will investigate and I'm sure they'll have a few more. There is never one single factor in all accidents, the Swiss cheese theory is that when holes in swiss cheese slices align, they create a path for an accident to happen, and this one is not exempt from that theory. As an ATC, this is THE absolute nightmare. Midair happen, and sometimes ATC gets involved. On a bigger scale, Zagreb around 1980 comes to mind and so does the Skyguide (Swiss ATC) over Germany a few years back, but US history is not exempt of such accidents, as we remember the San Diego collision between an airline and a GA plane in the 80's. Don't point fingers yet, it is way too early in the process. Let's mourn the loss of two person and try and learn from whatever mistakes the inquiry will reveal.

It doesn't do anybody any good to spread accusations towards the F16 pilot, the controller or the Cessna pilot at this point. There is an inquiry going on, and from what I can see, they are trying to show that they are transparent by sharing initial facts and informations on this tragedy. Two people died in this accident, may they rest in peace, but we won't achieve anything by shouting and pointing fingers at this early stage of the investigation. Let's show some respect and let the investigators investigate!

The only use for ADSB in Canada is around the Hudson Bay and the northern Atlantic coast, where airliners flying in the upper flight levels (FL290 and above) can have their separation reduced by ATC and be given more direct routing. As far as plans for installing more ADSB to the south, NavCanada is saying that their radar coverage is sufficient. WX and other informations are given via radio by FIC and ATC.

Personal experience: the only way Garmin will work on GNS430 28v is that for +/- $3500 they will transform it into a GNS430W and then charge you a $1500 fee for repair. When all is said and done, around $6500 all included.

Maybe a combination of factor, could be the KX155 itself that was interfering with the GTN650 or a compatibility issue with non-Garmin equipment, all he knows is that the $7000 cured his problems...

Marauder, one of my fellow Mooney pilot here in Lachute had a similar problem after the installation of his new GTN650. He tried everything including changing antenna location, cables, connectors and finally invested an additional $7000 to replace his KX155 with a Garmin GNC225A. It's now working fine... That's part of why I decided to give a chance to the underdog and went with Avidyne...

If you really need to replace the engine: http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=1030026 I have no ties to that seller and don't know the details, but if I had to make that decision, it would be worth a call!