cujet

My before landing checklist is about as simple as possible. Red, Blue, Green. That would be: Mixture, Prop and Gear down green lights. Midfield downwind or 2 miles out. My IO360 will misfire terribly if I have to add power to, for example, correct a sink rate. My intent was to keep things as simple as possible, while still using a checklist.

I hope they get the folks out before the wind blows and the plane falls down.

Sometimes there is a metal ID tag in the cremains. Make sure to remove that first.

The blue can of Clear View is probably the finest widow product available. Note: I'm DOM for a very high end Corporate Flight Department and Clear View "Plastic Cleaner Protectant and Polish" is our go-to product. Used correctly, it's extremely difficult to beat. It does contain a small quantity of Carnauba Wax and will fill micro-imperfections. Leading to a very clear window that repels rain. Another product that works incredibly well on plastic windows, and is amazingly fast and easy is Griots Garage 3 in 1 Ceramic Wax. In fact, it's probably the best "do everything" product I've ever used. The trick is to use 2 microfibers, spray and spread with one microfiber, immediately buff with the other.

The pricing structure of the aviation giants is stunning, with $500 O2 and N2 bottles selling for $20,000. It's no surprise Boeing won't keep Foreflight economical.

A connecting rod bolt is a great example of a part that "seems" to endure Three Hundred Million cycles! How is it that a lowly bolt and nut configuration can withstand so many brutal events? The answer is simply that the bolt only has to withstand one cycle. The torquing event stretches the bolt well beyond the load it will be asked to carry. For sake of this discussion, the bolt does not feel the stress of normal operation. It feels only the load required to keep the cap firmly in place. The idea that everything experiences fatigue is not correct, lightly loaded steel components have no fatigue limit. Lightly loaded aluminum components can last for millions of cycles. An example would be an aircraft piston, capable of 300 million cycles, no prob.

A connecting rod bolt is a great example of a part that "seems" to endure Three Hundred Million cycles! How is it that a lowly bolt and nut configuration can withstand so many brutal events? The answer is simply that the bolt only has to withstand one cycle. The torquing event stretches the bolt well beyond the load it will be asked to carry. For sake of this discussion, the bolt does not feel the stress of normal operation. It feels only the load required to keep the cap firmly in place. The idea that everything experiences fatigue is not correct, lightly loaded steel components have no fatigue limit. Lightly loaded aluminum components can last for millions of cycles.

A connecting rod bolt is a great example of a part that "seems" to endure Three Hundred Million cycles! How is it that a lowly bolt and nut configuration can withstand so many brutal events? The answer is simply that the bolt only has to withstand one cycle. The torquing event stretches the bolt well beyond the load it will be asked to carry. For sake of this discussion, the bolt does not feel the stress of normal operation. It feels only the load required to keep the cap firmly in place. The idea that everything experiences fatigue is not correct, lightly loaded steel components have no fatigue limit. Lightly loaded aluminum components can last for millions of cycles.

FAR 43, appendix D, very clearly outlines what the FAA requires. If you are N registered, this is your bible. Additionally and equally important are the requirements of various AD's that might apply. Manufacturers can make all sorts of claims, for example the "TBO" of an engine can be listed as 1600 hours. This is not law, nor is it a requirement. For you, it's a suggestion, even if it contains the words "mandatory" (in big red letters) by the manufacturer. You can do more inspections or more frequent inspections, but you must always remember, that's your choice. FAR 43 Appendix D and the AD's define what you must do. Note: If you fly IFR and/or in controlled airspace, there are regulations 91-411 and 91-413 for altimeter/transponder checks. Don't forget your oil changes! Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) components of the engine and nacelle group as follows: (1) Engine section - for visual evidence of excessive oil, fuel, or hydraulic leaks, and sources of such leaks. (2) Studs and nuts - for improper torquing and obvious defects. (3) Internal engine - for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs. If there is weak cylinder compression, for improper internal condition and improper internal tolerances. (4) Engine mount - for cracks, looseness of mounting, and looseness of engine to mount. (5) Flexible vibration dampeners - for poor condition and deterioration. (6) Engine controls - for defects, improper travel, and improper safetying. (7) Lines, hoses, and clamps - for leaks, improper condition and looseness. (8) Exhaust stacks - for cracks, defects, and improper attachment. (9) Accessories - for apparent defects in security of mounting. (10) All systems - for improper installation, poor general condition, defects, and insecure attachment. (11) Cowling - for cracks, and defects. (e) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the landing gear group: (1) All units - for poor condition and insecurity of attachment. (2) Shock absorbing devices - for improper oleo fluid level. (3) Linkages, trusses, and members - for undue or excessive wear fatigue, and distortion. (4) Retracting and locking mechanism - for improper operation. (5) Hydraulic lines - for leakage. (6) Electrical system - for chafing and improper operation of switches. (7) Wheels - for cracks, defects, and condition of bearings. (8) Tires - for wear and cuts. (9) Brakes - for improper adjustment. (10) Floats and skis - for insecure attachment and obvious or apparent defects. (f) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) all components of the wing and center section assembly for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, evidence of failure, and insecurity of attachment. (g) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) all components and systems that make up the complete empennage assembly for poor general condition, fabric or skin deterioration, distortion, evidence of failure, insecure attachment, improper component installation, and improper component operation. (h) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the propeller group: (1) Propeller assembly - for cracks, nicks, binds, and oil leakage. (2) Bolts - for improper torquing and lack of safetying. (3) Anti-icing devices - for improper operations and obvious defects. (4) Control mechanisms - for improper operation, insecure mounting, and restricted travel. (i) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) the following components of the radio group: (1) Radio and electronic equipment - for improper installation and insecure mounting. (2) Wiring and conduits - for improper routing, insecure mounting, and obvious defects. (3) Bonding and shielding - for improper installation and poor condition. (4) Antenna including trailing antenna - for poor condition, insecure mounting, and improper operation. (j) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall inspect (where applicable) each installed miscellaneous item that is not otherwise covered by this listing for improper installation and improper operation.

Aluminum generally does not, by itself, weaken over time. Properly stored aircraft aluminum sheet metal will have the same characteristics as new. Aluminum will weaken/fail with repeated high stress cycles. Obviously, bending a sheet metal part back and forth repeatedly, will cause cracking and eventual failure. This is not what happens when much lower loads are placed on parts. A Mooney wing might handle 10G, so 2G or even 3G's of turbulence is not stressing the part significantly. The wing is therefore able to handle millions of such low-stress cycles without trouble. Think of an airliner wing, the often turbulent conditions, and the 60,000+ hour lifespan. The Mooney 4130 steel airframe is, for our discussions, not much different. It is able to handle repeated minor stresses without any degradation or loss in strength. It is also repairable, by the simple act of welding in a new section. However, just about any aircraft sheet metal tech will tell you that various aluminum parts will crack due to any number of reasons, including vibration, repeated overload stress, overtemperature, corrosion and so on. The good news is that one can keep an aircraft flying nearly forever with good maintenance.

I don’t care for vacuum driven instruments. Please don’t take my post as “ancestor worship”. I’m simply pointing out some known downsides to TAA (technically advanced aircraft). The FAA recognizes TAA as having more “available safety”, while also recognizing that in many cases, glass cockpits reduce safety. The FAA has detailed statistics on takeoff, cruise, weather and landing accidents for TAA vs legacy aircraft, and it's nowhere near as promising as we'd like to think. Pilots are often unable to troubleshoot failures, there are often single points of failure, and so on. When the electrical smoke escapes (recently happened to me) the proper course of action in flight is to power down the aircraft. I suggest a backup instrument configuration that is 100% separate and independent (and if EFIS) on it's own battery. Our new Gulfstream G600 has 2 battery powered standby EFIS displays on the glareshield. Cool! Except, both LOSE airspeed and altitude information when main batteries are selected OFF. What engineer thought this was OK? Even the best designers and engineers can't seem to get everything right. As to whether a failure on TAA is more or less distracting is also the subject of FAA investigation. At the moment, it seems the answer seems to be “more distracting” and much more difficult to overcome.

It is not just the "big bore turbos" that require high octane. Any flavor of angle valve lycoming will require 100 octane. In fact, angle valve Lyc's can detonate on 100LL in some conditions. An IO360 angle valve flying during a Connecticut winter, at full rated power, can in fact detonate itself to death on 100LL.

It has always been the FAA's position that the FAA has authority on all things aeronautical. I suspect the FAA and EPA will have a urine distance contest of epic proportions on this one. Clearly, the FAA can argue that inadequate octane due to misfueling will result in actual lives lost due to catastrophic engine failure.

Just an FYI, dissolving carbon is difficult. Few products will effectively soften or dissolve carbon. Consider what it takes to clean an oven! Berryman's B12 will slowly soften carbon and remove some kinds of paint. As a very general rule, it takes a product like oven cleaner or paint stripper with methylene chloride (the stuff that burns your skin) to effectively remove carbon. As much as we'd like to think Marvel Mystery Oil will do it, it won't.

On a 2700 RPM engine, 5% over is 2835 RPM and 10% over is 2970. We've run our aerobatic AEIO 540's at 2800 for the last 25 years. Never an issue. Of course, they twist and turn, fly knife edge without oil pressure for up to 30 seconds and go straight up right after takeoff, so they are subject to more than just a momentary overspeed. They are subject to intentional abuse.

As DOM in a high end flight department, we have regularly overhauled engines and components. The results vary wildly. Our recently overhauled EC135 helicopter transmission is illuminating the chip light about every 5th flight. That's way beyond the MM allowances. However, when we pull the chip detector, what's on there is less than a whisker of particulates. Attempts to wipe it off results in a 0.010 dark smudge on a rag. Factory says to expect this for 150 hours. Brand New Pratt PW815 engines are also giving us chip lights! I don't get worried with modest metal in the filters in our piston or turbine engines, either when new or overhauled. I only worry when the trend is strongly the wrong direction. Heck, our new Extra NG with it's AEIO-580 engine is having low oil pressure indications on final, likely due to higher than normal cylinder head and oil temperatures! It will be interesting to see what ends up in the filter. In any case, the factory says "it's normal". It is very likely that "if" the engine has a failing component, you will know about it in short order. Disclaimer: I've not seen your filter. But from your description, I'd put it in the normal category.

I'd like to add the following thoughts. While aviation is not cheap, and neglect has traditionally been a real problem,,,, let's assume we don't neglect things and repair/inspect properly,,,,, It's still up to the owner whether maintenance is $4,000 or $40,000. The easiest example I can give is the not uncommon mid-time Lycoming 4 cyl camshaft problem. It is absolutely acceptable to replace the cam and lifters on an otherwise healthy engine. The parts are $1K, the labor can be as low as $3-4K. The result is an airworthy engine with (for example) 800 of hours remaining time before overhaul (which could be 10 years or more). And we get our investment out of the original engine. Or we can simply exchange the engine for a factory overhaul, and $40,000 later we have a healthy zero time roller cam engine, which may not be statistically safer. My point is this, your local IA is very likely more qualified and experienced than the low pay tech at the service center. He is not likely to try to make a big profit on selling you new parts you don't need. He also has a personal interest in your safety, as it's his signature in the logbook. But here is the reality of the situation:

As Director of Maintenance in a very high end Corporate Flight Department, we do use factory service centers when it's smart. Almost universally, Gulfstream service centers "can" with proper oversight, provide excellent service, with no squawks on departure and a year of trouble-free operation. As we go on down the line in aircraft prowess, each subsequent step is a step down in overall quality. The Pilatus and it's service center is far less capable than Gulfstream, and squawks upon departure are the norm. The Eurocopter service centers are the places to go if you want your lead-acid battery drained flat, your fire bottle blown, the wiring shorted by a careless young tech, parts changed due to misunderstanding of the "regs", parts on backorder for 18 months and so on. Move down to the piston stuff and the low-paid tech uses shop air to clean the composite elevator drain holes, blowing it up like a balloon through delamination. The small service centers nearly always damage something and try to hide it. However, over the last 25 years, when I do in-house maintenance with my IA and small crew, we have never missed or overlooked a required task, use 3 sets of eyes on each airworthy R-II item, every squawk is handled and the aircraft leave our hands squawk-free. In fact, I can't recall ever having to "fix" anything after the fact. I'm sure my day is coming, but 25 years is a great run, and the polar opposite of my service center experiences.

I'm thinking about the way a CCD chip scans the pixels and the high rate of speed the aircraft descends through the frame. Remember, we typically see objects move left to right in video frames. In this case the object moves top to bottom. We would need to know the CCD sensor used and how it was scanned. Looking at the pics above, I suspect those are artifacts of sequential or block scan, and a falling object. We've all see how odd a prop blade looks in video, and many of us simply chalk that up to the rolling shutter of the camera or sensor. Look at the prop blades in the pic below and notice the difference in the blade's horizontal movement and their vertical movement. http://resourcemagonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Effects-of-Rolling-Shutter-on-a-Propeller.jpg

Also of note, small-ish turbine engines with exhaust heat "recuperation" are (for this discussion) about as efficient as gasoline engines when at rated power. The link is for a RR250 that has the heat exchangers right in the ducts. They claim 50 pounds of weight. Exhaust heat is used to heat the compressed air prior to the combustion chamber, via a heat exchanger, thereby lowering the amount of fuel necessary to achieve a specific turbine inlet temperature. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2009-02-21/hot-idea-rr-250-could-cut-fuel-burn-40 https://frontlineaerospace.com/technologies/microfire-recuperator/

I thought I'd chime in as a PC-12NG operator and former RR250 powered helicopter operator. (MD520N and MD600N) . We also operate a G550, G600, EC-135 heli, Extra 300L+NG (yes, the new one) and a Stemme S-10 motorglider. Turbine power is absolutely wonderful, smooth and reliable. The increased fuel burn is often partially offset by the lower price, that part is lost on no one. A post above mentioned a derated engine and it's benefits. This is the right way. A properly engineered turbine configuration will give a superb climb rate, at a high ground speed. As getting into thin air is what makes turbines viable. The G600, for example will climb at M0.86-0.87 and still make 2000-3500 FPM (or even 4000FPM if light), then settle into a cruise speed of M0.90-0.91 (or about 600+Kts TAS) So, in climb the nose is not high, the ground is moving by very quickly, and much time is saved. The bottom line is this, thin air makes a turbine worthwhile. The G600 engines burn a touch more fuel than the G550 engines (about the same thrust) but the speed difference is enough to fully offset the fuel burn. Miles per gallon is the same as the G550. The turbine advantage in helicopters is simply the weight savings. Our twin 700HP engines weigh about 250 pounds each. We can safely fly up to 2 hours, or about 275 miles in real world terms, on 160 gallons. Imagine the weight of 2 piston 700HP engines!! We'd have no useful load, and remember, we don't often top off, as our missions are 45 mins max. Here is a great page showing BSFC numbers for various engines. (and efficiency numbers) Notice the piston vs turbine efficiency. And always remember, aircraft operate by weight, not by gallons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption#:~:text=Brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC,divided by the power produced.

Nonsense. The FAA and industry, have been addressing safety using the very method you claim does not work. That is, looking at the causes of the most crashes, then actively working to reduce that risk. They actively avoid 'low hanging fruit' and go for the worst issues first. The result has been the safest airspace in the world. The FAA publishes good information, it's a great tool for us. https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=21274#:~:text=Loss of control remains the,accidents involving amateur-built aircraft. Loss of control in flight remains a top problem for GA pilots. The FAA has some valid guidance. Industry is providing solutions. One such solution is autoland. Another is a "save me" button. It's not just a matter of yelling at pilots and saying "don't do that", it's a matter of providing valid options. Our fuel hungry Airbus/Eurocopter EC-135 has a very interesting method to manage fuel exhaustion, for example. The single fuel tank has baffles configured to provide one engine 15 minutes more fuel than the other. It adds no real weight or complexity. It will operate just fine on one engine. It's saved a few lives already. Twin engine helicopters are really tough to autorotate such as during fuel exhaustion, as the design relies on the extra engine and not a high inertia rotor system.

It's been a decade since I've looked carefully into the statistics. Back then, single engine, amateur built aircraft had a 6x hourly crash rate, vs their type certificated counterparts. Unfortunately, the hours were estimated. More careful examination really did not help the cause of amateur built experimental aircraft. As they tend to fly far fewer hours and much shorter trips. Whether it's 4 to 1, or 10 to 1 depends on how data is chosen.

I work in high end corporate aviation and have some minor involvement in smaller aircraft GA. I lost 3 friends in crashes in the last 2 years. 1) Joe crashed his OV-1 Mohawk at the SUA Airshow practice (looks to be a broken elevator cable) 2) Guy crashed somebody else’s Wheeler Express (unknown cause, speculation, he may have been doing aerobatics and blacked out) (control integrity was verified and he was observed doing rolls) 3) Dan crashed an Aerostar due to misfueling I’ve also known others in the past who crashed and died. 2 friends died in Midget Mustangs within months of each other. The first takeaway is that experimental aircraft are much more likely to crash. Although the fatality rate per crash is about the same as type certificated aircraft. The second is that aviation is unique in that common causes of crashes can be easily avoided. CFIT, VFR into IMC, Fuel exhaustion, maneuvering screw ups, and last but not least, experimental aircraft. The same incredible ability to mitigate risk cannot be said of motorcycling or automotive deaths.

I use daily contacts that are about +1/4 diopter (or a touch more) too powerful. I wear them all the time. As we age, our focus accommodation reduces from 10 diopter to about 1 diopter at age 50. It’s possible to utilize optics to “bracket” the accommodation you still have and be able to see relatively near and far with good clarity. This is not for everybody and it does take about 2 to 3 weeks for the eyes to adjust to a different “distance” focus. But the end result has been 15 years of not needing reading glasses. (For all but the smallest of things) I’m 57 I’m finally getting to the point where I need a bit more help reading, but it’s been a glorious “glasses free” 15 years. To help understand what I’m saying, I’ve configured the optics so my eyes have to focus a little bit one way to read and a little bit the other way to see distance. Instead of not needing to focus to see distance. This puts my prime focus at about 4-5 feet. Also note, I’m a amateur astronomer and have a basic understanding of all things optical.