gsengle

Our opspecs say to use the lowest alternate minimums which is basically two hundred feet above lowest approach and 1/2 mile better, you have to have two completely separate suitable approaches to two different runways. Two rnavs wouldn’t count because they are the “same facility” same way as an ILS and localizer is, or ILS and it’s backcourse, etc. can’t use an approach to a runway where the winds are outside of limits either etc Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep fly an ILS coupled right to the runway in an emergency, even at RVR 1000 you’ll pick up lights on a bright runway by 100 feet and be able to flare. Just better have those needles centered. Fly it coupled. Go to a big runway. Imho use LPV. And ask for lights on maximum. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep alternate minimums are 95% to do with fuel planning / reserves... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have the 280hp version. My io550 is approaching 2100 hours and going strong. Just put a Harzell top prop on it. Made a great difference in takeoff roll and climb. Didn’t opt for the 310 hp work. Why? I fly cruise at a maximum 24/24 lop. Still fast and very efficient. Why? My engine is maybe a little less stressed and this helped me get so deep into TBO with mostly original cylinders. Why? Because if the take off performance was much better it would only help me to launch from airports shorter than I’m willing to land at anyway. So 280hp I remain and I still can climb at 1000fpm at max gross around std conditions. I’m happy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup that Id agree with. Our 135 opspecs are different from the part 91 standard rules in minor ways which I haven’t figured out the purpose for yet. But generally I suspect tweaks to the rule fall into 2 categories. 1) areas where your company has training and or equipment in place to make specific ops safe, like 1800rvr when flying a coupled approach. 2) areas where a particular airport is regularly problematic so you ask for a tweak that makes that airport work. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Often I’d agree, but when you fly a lot of IFR you actually see in practice that these particular rules are pretty good... imho Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally widespread low IFR is a no go in a single. No options in case of engine failure. It’s the one scenario that makes me dream about a twin as much as I love the Mooney. Usually widespread low IFR is certainly forecast well enough to make you have to look far away for alternates that meet the rules too... I’ve used Albany once as an alternate on a flight from HYA to ACK. Was only thing that fit the rules and made me carry 300lbs extra fuel on top of the 45 mins... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It basically says if the weather at your destination is anything other than “gentleman’s IFR” you need an alternate. This makes you carry enough fuel in addition to the 45 mins to get to your alternate, so it basically just ups your fuel reserves in the case the weather is the least bit low. Then you have to ask pick a suitable alternate so that your extra fuel reserves are somewhat related to how far you likely need to go. The forecast at your alternate has to be pretty good, so it might have to be far away, way increasing your fuel load. It’s all about fuel planning. When you actually divert you go to wherever makes the most sense at the time. And to answer your other question, no, the weather phenomena that make it that low tend to be somewhat localized like heavy rain, coastal fog, valley fog, etc. (My day job is a Captain at Cape Air - we know low IFR) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the early Ovation that is *not* a short field performer, the Harzell was a great improvement in takeoff and climb over the original 3 blade McCauley. Honestly think I picked up a knot or three in cruise but harder to tell... But sure looks cool Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For what it’s worth both the send and receive audio quality on my KX155 is superior to my 530, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t get replaced if it ever had serious problems... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d actually say the landing gear makes the more dramatic difference between a long body and a J sight picture. That difference disappears in flight. It’s very different in flight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just saw this one pop up on the Mooney pilot fb group https://www.facebook.com/groups/2226961823/permalink/10155734906216824/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, in my ‘96 Ovation, if my head is near the ceiling, the cowl limits the view and the panel is almost as high, but not the limiting factor. It does seem awfully high though when sitting on the ground. That said I wouldn’t give up the panel space, and those early Ovations are a great deal imho if they’ve been taken care of, like any airplane... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point is to get your head high not your butt so you’re all set there Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d go fly one, personally I think it’s overblown. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have they flown one yet? It seems much higher on the ground than in flight. Also the seats adjust vertically. Here is mine and I see cowl ahead in flight, not sure lowering it would change the view much. And of course even if it’s legal, I’d imagine it’s prohibitively expensive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends somewhat on the model Mooney. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The original Ovation panels with the 9 pack have a TON of space for upgrades, no? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m curious about that word “capability”. I know a g1000 has a lot of help for the pilot as does the gfc700. These are nice to fly with no doubt. But I think of the word capability as what can the airplane do. If two ovations have waas, and fiki, they can fly all the same approaches and weather and thus have the same capability... is glass really 100k or so nicer? Personally with so much shaking out I’d still be looking at older Ovations and considering a later upgrade, not looking at old G1000s with such rotten and expensive upgrade hurdles... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure they do cost more, but they are very efficient as well. I regularly go 175kts on 13gph, and can throttle back from there... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Name me an airline that doesn’t defer anything? Just one.... But I’d be happy to cancel your flight and leave you stranded for a burned out landing light for a day VFR flight if you like Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Airlines don’t fly broken. They use minimum equipment lists to defer non essential items. All the time. Safely. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you call yourself a pilot... If your crew can’t handle the airplane without an autopilot (like Korean Air in SFO) *then* you should be worried... I was joking a bit, but honestly, if you aren’t proficient enough to in the unlikely event of an autopilot failure, to bring it home... In fact we are required to have it off (powered down) for takeoff and then off when done using it on approach as a malfunction during a critical phase of flight is more risky than not using it in the first place. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fly for a regional airline. As an FO one day, I was required crew, as the autopilot was deferred. (aka inop). My captain called OPS to try and swap into an airplane with a working autopilot as it was lousy weather all week. The response came back, you have an autopilot sitting next to you. It was a long week! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk