Sport Pilot Talk

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 09:02:38 -0400

This is my first time on the forum in a while. Although Dr. Paul is correct that the Sport rules will take some time to get changed, if they ever do, the changes to the regs made by adding Part 68 ARE already in effect.

This new section is more commonly called "Basic Med."

I speculate that a large majority of Sport rules participants are previously-rated pilots who had concerns about being able to pass a Class III so they just let theirs lapse and started flying Light Sport. Maybe I'm wrong but if I'm not, Basic Med may give these pilots reason to at least go get an "off-the-record" Class III preliminary physical from an AME to SEE if they could pass a REAL one. The AME's are routinely doing this now. They can advise you on those medical conditions that will require a Special Issuance and how cumbersome it would be to get that.

Once the AME helps you through the physical that single time, you are eligible to do Basic Med. If you are a pilot that held a Class III or above within the past 10 years, you are already eligible for Basic Med.

What Basic Med does for you sounds very, very similar to the possible changes to the Sport Pilot / Light Sport regs. You can fly an aircraft that has up to 6 seats, up to 6000 pounds, day/night, IFR/VFR, turbine/piston, and below FL180 and below 250kts IAS...Without an FAA Medical Certificate. Nothing related to you medically, is even sent to the FAA except the AOPA "passed" status every two years. You DO have to have a Driver's License and you DO have to certify on the AOPA quiz page that you haven't had a DUI, or drug-related incident since your last quiz.

A rated pilot who is eligible for Basic Med needs to do two things to be legal to fly under the rule. One - Take the simple quiz on the AOPA Website every TWO years that makes sure you have a very basic understanding of current "aeromedical" things. The quiz materials covers things like medications, alcohol and drug use, mental health, and conditions affecting your heart and brain. Two - Go to your Family Doctor every FOUR years get a regular physical exam and discuss your health and form an "informed medical opinion that you are safe to do the type flying you wish to do." Your Family Doctor signs a form showing that the checkup has occurred, the discussion has happened, and the opinion is there's nothing apparent that indicates safety will be negatively affected by you flying in your present health.

THIS FORM GOES IN YOUR WALLET OR LOGBOOK AND NEVER GOES TO THE FAA. YOU ALSO GET A LITTLE CARD TO SHOW THE DATE YOU PASSED THE AOPA QUIZ, THAT YOU NEED ON YOU WHEN YOU FLY.

Notice NO FAILURE results ever get in the FAA's hands. Your name only gets to the FAA when you PASS the AOPA quiz. Some would argue THIS IS A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. I say it is not. The only REAL FAA interaction in this process is their insistence on continuing to maintain a database of pilots who have a have a history of Alcohol or Drug Abuse. The AOPA quiz was the negotiated way to collect this information on airmen. Everyone would agree that addicted or alcoholic pilots do not need to be flying and everyone would agree that a short quiz every two years to insure pilots are not totally ignorant about medical stuff, is a good thing. Also, everyone needs a push to go see their Doctor more often and tend to their health better.

I know I'm long winded I know, but this Basic Med thing turns a lot of airmen into the equivalent of a Sport Pilot that can fly bigger,faster airplanes, in worse weather and at night, in all airspace except "A," without any additional logbook endorsements. Now a no-medical, Sport Pilot "equivalent," with enough money, can own and fly a Cessna Citation Mustang Jet, right through the Atlanta Class B, at 249 kts, in the clouds, at night, with five passengers.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 09:23:52 -0400

Bryan is completely correct about Basic Med, and in fact many people on this forum (including me) have gone that route. The process of approval for this very sensible set of rules is a case study in FAA inertia, in that it took two decades from first proposal to implementation.

I jumped through the hoops more than two years ago, when Basic Med first launched. As far as its impact on my own flying is concerned, I must say that it's been minimal. Yes, I could fly my old Beechcraft, or any other plane with up to 6 seats, and a max gross up to 6000#. Yes. I could fly at night, or IFR. But I haven't actually exercised any of these privileges. Why? Because for the past ten years I've very much enjoyed flying these little LSAs, and the SP limitations have in no way interfered with my pleasure, or my mission.

So, why did I even bother to climb that mountain? Because it was there - and it wasn't particularly steep.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:58:58 -0400

bryancobb wrote: Once the AME helps you through the physical that single time, you are eligible to do Basic Med. If you are a pilot that held a Class III or above within the past 10 years, you are already eligible for Basic Med.

Actually at this point it is 13 plus years. The FAA set a hard point of July 14, 2006. That means if you were under 40 and received a medical after June 2003, or if you were over 40 and received a medical after June 2004, and have not had one of the disqualifying conditions spelled out in CFR part 68 you can exercise the privileges of Basic Med after completing the training and exam.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:02:24 -0400

I missed out by 45 days. Bummer. However, even if I had qualified for Basic Med, I doubt it would have changed anything for me. At 71 years of age, I am perfectly happy flying LSA in VFR conditions in daylight hours.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:12:17 -0400

drseti wrote:I jumped through the hoops more than two years ago, when Basic Med first launched. As far as its impact on my own flying is concerned, I must say that it's been minimal.

Ditto.

But I’m just running into cases where BasicMed can be a benefit.

The owner of out TN airport just bought a very nice Citabria 7GCBC. He got his tailwheel endorsement years ago, but felt quite rusty. So I had a chance a few days ago to fly with him.

As an instructor, since he was legal to pilot his plane, I really didn’t need a medical to instruct him in it. But for my first orientation in it, I suppose having one helped avoid any issues as I acted as PIC in the front seat. I may also have occasional use of a Cirrus, and possibly a Maule, so there’s that.

Back to the Citabria - what a nice plane! I think it’s the first of the newer ACA planes I’ve flown and felt very new and solid. I had not flown a Citabria since 1996, but it all came back to me pretty quickly, both in the front and back seat. A couple of times I landed just a tad flat and fast, I think due to the increased back pressure needed in the flare compared to my Sky Arrow. And as a new example of negative transfer, shutting down the first time I instinctively just reached up and turned off the mags. When the owner said, “We generally do that with the mixture”, it actually took me a moment to get what he was saying!

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:55:09 -0400

For me, flying an LSA as a sport pilot using my valid driver's license in lieu of a medical certificate worked just fine for 99% of my flying. Twice, though, I had unexpected headwinds on a long cross-country flight and had to land at an airport only fifty miles from home and spend the night in a hotel just because it was getting dark. Flying under BasicMed lets me finish flights like that at night and also lets me rent 172s and 182s if I want to carry more than one passenger.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 17:13:44 -0400

I definitely wish I had been able to qualify for Basic Med. For one reason, I might be able to find something less expensive to rent than a $140 per hour plus $29 per month SkyCatcher, IDK.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:13:25 -0400

drseti wrote:Bryan is completely correct about Basic Med, and in fact many people on this forum (including me) have gone that route. The process of approval for this very sensible set of rules is a case study in FAA inertia, in that it took two decades from first proposal to implementation.
Q
I jumped through the hoops more than two years ago, when Basic Med first launched. As far as its impact on my own flying is concerned, I must say that it's been minimal. Yes, I could fly my old Beechcraft, or any other plane with up to 6 seats, and a max gross up to 6000#. Yes. I could fly at night, or IFR. But I haven't actually exercised any of these privileges. Why? Because for the past ten years I've very much enjoyed flying these little LSAs, and the SP limitations have in no way interfered with my pleasure, or my mission.

So, why did I even bother to climb that mountain? Because it was there - and it wasn't particularly steep.

Maybe I am remembering something wrong but I could swear you mentioned in some of your posts that you had an open heart surgery ( a bypass perhaps ) - I thought this sort of surgery was one of these automatically disqualifying conditions as far as basic med ... am I completely wrong here ?

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:26:12 -0400

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/basic_med/media/basicmed_faq.pdf

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:30:11 -0400

Warmi wrote:am I completely wrong here ?

No, Warmi, only partially wrong. I had vascular disease, which was treated successfully. I never had cardiac disease, which you're correct would have been disqualifying.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:58:10 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/basic_med/media/basicmed_faq.pdf

Thanks for posting that link, Tim. It seems to cover just about everything anyone could possibly ask about Basic Med.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by acensor

no_email@example.com (acensor) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 23:46:59 -0400

Although I could almost certainly pass a standard aeromedical III, at the time (7 years ago) when I was going to go for Private Pilot I was informed that if I ever had cancer the local examiner could not approve me... had to kick it upstairs. No matter that it was forty years ago ... FAA would probably make me take a bunch of tests to prove I was no longer cancer impaired. I was told by AOPA advisors this would take about 6 months, and if someone upstream click the wrong box I could fail the aeromedical. If so I could appeal and would undoubtedly win, but it would cost me about $1000 and take another six months.
(Today if I took the aeromedical that would NOT happen because FAA go some sense and now excludes skin cancers and a few other from the "local Doc can't approve you" box.)

But given the reality back then I opted to get a Sport Pilot certification and avoid the hassle of proving I wasn't dying of cancer.

Someone here wrote "A rated pilot who is eligible for Basic Med needs to do two things to be legal to fly under the rule"
One rule to basic med is you have to have passed a standard aeromedical in the past 10 years, so that doesn't help me or anyone who came directly into sport pilot flying (not via a Private Pilot license.

So, unless I want to take the admittedly slim chance of failing an aeromedical, I can't fly with basic med rules.

QUESTION: Am I missing something.... or is it true that IF I took and passed a standard Class III exam I COULD fly under Basic Med?
Of would I STILL be excluded.... that current Basic Med is just for Private Pilots.
Have to wait and see if FAA expands definition of what a Sport Pilot can fly.

================
All that said, I'm pretty happy flying LSA under Sport pilot. I really hardly care that I'm not supposed to fly at night or over 10,000 feet.
Only things I chaff at is currently I can't ever fly anything with more than two seats. Means I can't take a friend AND my wife up on a trip.
Also.... If I'm way away from home I can't rent an aircraft... There's hardly any FBO that has an LSA legal aircraft available for rent.

So DO look forward to the possibility of FAA cutting me slack at least to the point where I could rent a 152.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:15:36 -0400

Yes acensor...You ARE correct. If you had taken the physical 7 years ago and passed, you would now be able to do Basic Med. In hindsight however, there was no Basic Med then and you had no idea there would ever be, so stop beating yourself for decisions you made back then.

The bright side is, the FAA has a changed attitudes these days about many medical issues that were disqualifying back then. There's a good chance, an "off-the-record" visit to an AME MAY let you know that your past history is no longer an issue and you may be able to get a simple Class III physical now.

There's no harm in doing that since failing that pre-check is impossible.

Basic Med is NOT just for private pilots. It is for any pilot who wants to fly, but not for compensation or hire. An Airline Transport Pilot with Multiengine and Instrument skills can (without a medical) fly a Cessna Citation Mustang Jet on an IFR flight, in the clouds, with 5 passengers, without a medical, so long as they are not being paid to do it.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:21:28 -0400

acensor wrote: QUESTION: Am I missing something.... or is it true that IF I took and passed a standard Class III exam I COULD fly under Basic Med?
Of would I STILL be excluded.... that current Basic Med is just for Private Pilots.
Have to wait and see if FAA expands definition of what a Sport Pilot can fly.

You certainly can fly as a sport pilot using Basic Med. While most people choose to use a drivers ' license, you can exercise the privileges of sport pilot with a drivers' license or a medical. There is no requirement that you have a drivers' license, just a government issued photo ID. If you don't have a drivers' license you must have a medical.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:23:58 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
acensor wrote: QUESTION: Am I missing something.... or is it true that IF I took and passed a standard Class III exam I COULD fly under Basic Med?
Of would I STILL be excluded.... that current Basic Med is just for Private Pilots.
Have to wait and see if FAA expands definition of what a Sport Pilot can fly.

You certainly can fly as a sport pilot using Basic Med. While most people choose to use a drivers ' license, you can exercise the privileges of sport pilot with a drivers' license or a medical. There is no requirement that you have a drivers' license, just a government issued photo ID. If you don't have a drivers' license you must have a medical.

And a ride to the airport.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:53:31 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
acensor wrote: QUESTION: Am I missing something.... or is it true that IF I took and passed a standard Class III exam I COULD fly under Basic Med?
Of would I STILL be excluded.... that current Basic Med is just for Private Pilots.
Have to wait and see if FAA expands definition of what a Sport Pilot can fly.

You certainly can fly as a sport pilot using Basic Med. While most people choose to use a drivers ' license, you can exercise the privileges of sport pilot with a drivers' license or a medical. There is no requirement that you have a drivers' license, just a government issued photo ID. If you don't have a drivers' license you must have a medical.

And a ride to the airport.

I wouldn't need a ride.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by acensor

no_email@example.com (acensor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:46:50 -0400

[quote="bryancobb"]Yes acensor...You ARE correct. If you had taken the physical 7 years ago and passed, you would now be able to do Basic Med. In hindsight however, there was no Basic Med then and you had no idea there would ever be, so stop beating yourself for decisions you made back then.......

......There's a good chance, an "off-the-record" visit to an AME MAY let you know that your past history is no longer an issue and you .......

Basic Med is NOT just for private pilots. It is for any pilot who wants to fly, but not for compensation or hire.....]/quote]

Thanks....I was already thinking about doing that off the record pre check....Thanks for the push.
Frankly, I'm 99% sure I'd pas. 20/25 vision with no glasses, blood pressure and cardiac condition better than many healthy teenagers , etc.

At the risk of reasking the obvious:
So.....
if I take and pass a class III medical I can then go right out and , if capable of flying it... legally fly quite a few aircraft that don't fit in LSA, and carry more than one passenger? As long as I stay within basic med rules? Carry my Sport Pilot license and I'm good?
If so, great.

Then the practical question:
After basic med qualified, or even now, I can get my local CFI to check me out and give me some duel time on a 172.
But when I show up to rent a 172 at an out of town FBO and they see I have A sport pilot rating and tell me "sorry..the 172 isn't an LSA", are they going to buy it when I say "don’t worry I’m flying on the basic med?"

Alex

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:54:03 -0400

Alex, sorry to disappoint you. Basic Med satisfies the medical requirements for exercising Private Pilot privileges, but it does not automatically make you a Private Pilot (you are still a Sport Pilot unless and until you take the appropriate PP training, knowledge test, and practical test).

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:45:30 -0400

In other words, Basic Med does NOTHING for a Sport Pilot. Basic Med allows a Private, Commercial, or ATP who doesn't have a valid first, second, or third class FAA medical to exercise Private Pilot privileges (more or less).

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by acensor

no_email@example.com (acensor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:55:49 -0400

Paul...
That's what I thought all along.
The post I was responding to [b]seemed[/b] to be maybe be saying otherwise .....

What it was saying was I could fly LSAs under Basic med.
Which there's no point to st all ....unless it would allow me do SOMEthing I couldn’t do flying as I am now (such as. maybe fly legally at higher altitude...the 18,000 feet MSL basic med limit.)

Yeah.... I could go for private pilot. .In terms of hours ...including dual CFI, cross country (except night) and I'm way over requirements. The differences in skills and knowledge between the Sport Pilot and Private requirements are to my eyes small .... That's why with hindsight wish I’d gone straight for Private.
But, although I aced the Sport knowledge test, now studying for the Private knowledge test would be a PITA....
Not for the few additional topics (night, altitude, etc): But because I have deliberately forgotten many of the "I will never in reality need this item of knowledge" things* common to both tests.

So I’ll probably just wait the year or two and see if FAA is going to cut us holders of Sport Pilot ratings some more slack.

In the meantime...I'm doing fine flying LSAs.

Alex
* For example, in reality I'm never going to plot a course on a paper sectional map and plan to fly a unknown cross country route based primarily only on dead reckoning with magnetic compass.
I am.never going to need to read a raw METAR. Things I had to reluctantly waste my time mastering for the Sport Pilot knowledge test ....and would have to do again for Private,

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by Type47

no_email@example.com (Type47) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:32:25 -0400

But deciphering metars, drawing on paper charts, using the e6b slide-rule and the magnetic compass are all part of the hazing ritual that the in crowd uses to discourage people who won’t pay to learn the useless information.
I wonder why general aviation is dying?

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:06:04 -0400

Type47 wrote:But deciphering metars, drawing on paper charts, using the e6b slide-rule and the magnetic compass are all part of the hazing ritual that the in crowd uses to discourage people who won’t pay to learn the useless information.
I wonder why general aviation is dying?

I felt the same way about certain stuff they still attempt to teach - most of the stuff you learn is timeless and vital but these things you mentioned, pretty useless but since, ultimately in the scheme of things it doesn't really matter , it is easy to learn this info for the sake of the exam and then just as easy to forget it.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:11:50 -0400

Type47 wrote:But deciphering metars, drawing on paper charts, using the e6b slide-rule and the magnetic compass are all part of the hazing ritual that the in crowd uses to discourage people who won’t pay to learn the useless information.
I wonder why general aviation is dying?

Bingo!

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:38:33 -0400

Although I tend to agree with you, please don't blame the CFI or the DPE. We are all required to train to, and test to, the full PTS. We don't get to pick and choose.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by dstclair

no_email@example.com (dstclair) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:10:19 -0400

drseti wrote:Although I tend to agree with you, please don't blame the CFI or the DPE. We are all required to train to, and test to, the full PTS. We don't get to pick and choose.

I think DPE's are as frustrated as the rest of us. I was talking to a DPE at Oshkosh on the instrument checkride. He has been working with the FAA on relaxing the partial panel requirement and allowing the DPE to select an alternative scenario to test the students reaction to a system failure. One of his examples was there was no way to simulate a partial panel on 90% of the Cirrus fleet. It is also not a practical scenario -- no vacuum system to fail -- and you have two alternators, two batteries and a PFD battery backup. Best emergency situation you can do is fail the PFD, then have the student do a GPS approach with only their NAV.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:59:50 -0400

But there are still plenty of people flying Piper, Cessna, and Mooney aircraft that do experience vacuum failures. Many use VOR, ILS, etc with no GPS. The requirements and flight test ought to be flexible enough to fit the applicant and the airplane he brought. If he shows up in a J3 with paper charts and no iPad, he ought to demonstrate plotting and flying a course using pilotage and dead reckoning.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:39:02 -0400

The current batch of graduating ARMY Helicopter pilots would ball-up a piston helicopter in 10 seconds. They get their Primary training in a Lakota that practically has a pushbutton that's labeled "3' Stationary Hover." The concept of coordinating throttle to collective pitch changes is completely foreign to them.

Are they real pilots? Should technology be fully embraced and allowed to toss the old methods and machines onto the aviation trash-heap?

I'm 58. I think real computer people are those that are well-versed at MS-DOS and how it lurks in the background and Makes Windows 10 work.
I think real helicopter pilots can get in a piston machine with manual throttle control, start it up, engage the rotor, and go fly. I think real fixed-wing pilots can get in a slow, fabric-covered, tail-dragger with a control stick and go do wheel landings and 3-pointers before going on a 150 mile cross-country without an electrical system.

I realize my views are archaic. We are moving at the speed-of-light into an era where affordable composite airplanes zip around in airspace that has no airways, at speeds that can overtake the Blackbird. They have avionics that depict the most complex data sets in an instantly intuitive format that resembles Saturday morning Looney-Toons. Real-Time satellite views and high-resolution Weather Radar are superimposed on perpetually current Sectional Chart moving maps so pilots can weave between danger points by using MicroSOFT Windows-In-The-Sky symbology. All the while seeing every other aircraft's position and altitude, captured not by Radar, but by WAAS accurate GPS position AND Transponder/Encoder. If your entire electrical system goes Tango...You can quickly pick up your accelerator equipped I-Phone and have a full 6-pack of instruments, nav capability, and a great method of communication.

This new stuff is all great. Aviation will be safer and much more user-friendly because of it. I still believe every pilot needs the "cave-man" skills Jimmy Doolittle used to bomb Tokyo. Having the skies full of "pushbutton pilots" or autonomous aircraft just would not make me smile as much as reading that the FAA will not remove cave man skills from the syllabus to become a pilot.

And that..."Is the rest of the Story!" Paul Harvey

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:26:16 -0400

It's called progress. Things change, hopefully for the better. We need to stop embracing the past and look to the future. Unfortunately, the FAA is slow in keeping up. When someone decides to learn to fly and get a pilot certificate, they choose what type equipment they will fly. If they will never fly an airplane that has ADF, DME, VOR, ILS, tailwheel, etc., there is absolutely no reason they need to learn about that much less demonstrate it on a flight test.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:00:48 -0400

I think a real pilot is one that can safely get in an aircraft and take off, fly enroute, and land, while being capable of dealing with any unexpected problems that might get in the way from weather, system failures, or other factors. Full stop.

I have a *really* hard time believing current military helicopter pilots are not trained in how to deal with a failure of the "hover button". It's a system that can fail, pilots are generally trained in how to deal with a failure of any of the aircraft's systems.

I'd like to be a real pilot, but my airplane has an electric system so I don't have to hand-prop it. Damn push button pilots with their electrical starters...

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:19:23 -0400

The first time I ever hand-propped an airplane, I was a 17 year old student pilot on a solo cross-country toward my Private certificate. I landed at a grass strip (intended destination) and no one was there. When I got back in the airplane (Champion Tri-Traveler), the battery was dead. So, I hand propped it. Fortunately for me, nothing went wrong.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by acensor

no_email@example.com (acensor) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:41:37 -0400

Type47 wrote:But deciphering metars, drawing on paper charts, using the e6b slide-rule and the magnetic compass are all part of the hazing ritual that the in crowd uses to discourage people who won’t pay to learn the useless information.
I wonder why general aviation is dying?

.... exams still contain questions about outdated technologies like loran, microwave landing systems and VHF/DF steer, etc.
At least they still did as recently as 2013. And at least AFAIK still do.

Seriously ....IMO rather than making the applicant use time and study to learn to read raw METARS, plot on paper charts, etc, etc.....the CFI and practical examiner might do well to train and determine, for example, that the student pilot realy has mastery of his/her GPS . Do they fully understand its powers and functions as well as its limitations? Are they adept enough with it that in an emergency deviation to the nearest alternate they are not going to be fumbling around to learn a previously unused function? Do they have reasonable plans of what they would do in the rare event have a GPS failure?
If they have electronic engine monitoring do they understand it properly?
If they have, as many of us do, synthetic vision in the cockpit, do they understand both its power and its serious limitations? Have they ever tried using it?

Fat chance? I can dream.

Along the same lines....due to FAA being 30 years behind reality...When my GPS starts up it says something "...not use this as a primary navigational instrument. It is only to be used for situational awareness." I'll wager that over 95% of pilots flying VFR, and many flying IFR, using this (iFly GPS) and similar ones are absolutely using it as their primaRyan navigational instrument.

Alex
P.S., I do not blame the CFIs and DPEs for teaching the obsolete skills (unless the really inappropriately emphasize and beat hard in them) ... They're required to, and besides the CFI needs to prep the student for what's in the test...obsolete items an all. FWIW, it turned out my particular DPE on my practical really didn't seem to demand evidence that I had mastery of plot-on-paper-chart. I was prepared to demonstrate that when he pulled the usual "your intended field has shut down by weather....divert to KXXX." But when I pulled up the alternate on the GPS and told it direct me there, he was perfectly OK with that , and blew off the paper chart ritual

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by acensor

no_email@example.com (acensor) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:06:09 -0400

Hi Bryan.

You wrote, in part .....
"...
I'm 58. I think real computer people are those that are well-versed at MS-DOS and how it lurks in the background and Makes Windows 10 work......."

At the risk of us getting even further off topic:
I've got a few years on you , and made my living doing computer support from DOS days through to Windows ten and iPad,

So, with my background, feel compelled to comment on those words.
My minor comment is DOS code has not been underneath windows "making it work" since way way back before Windows XP .
More important, doesn’t bother me at all that my clients and friends know nothing about DOS they use their computers. Except in very rare techie repairs it's useless skill for what they want or need to do. As useless as reading raw METARS is to me in my my aircraft.

What I am concerned about is their lack of mastery and understanding of actual OS they're currently using and its powers limitations. And particularly, especially with younger people their Inability to distinguish between reliable websites, Fake websites, and real but unreliable ones.

Similarly, I repeat my earlier point back on topic a bit more:
Given that everybody (student, CFI, FAA, DOE) has limited time and energy, why waste it on mastering the obsolete skills?
Why not apply that same energy and learning and teaching and testing time to mastering the relevant modern ones?

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:46:32 -0400

bryancobb wrote:The current batch of graduating ARMY Helicopter pilots would ball-up a piston helicopter in 10 seconds.

That is simply not true.

bryancobb wrote:The concept of coordinating throttle to collective pitch changes is completely foreign to them.

That is also not true. Current Army helicopter trainees (initial Lakota pilots) receive 'limited' training on manual throttle operations. Use of manual throttle operation is used during emergency procedures training (fuel governor failure).
The Lakota trainee may be a little sloppy at first . . . but within a couple of hours he would "get the hang of" collective/throttle coordination. It's not rocket science. However, the Lakota handles manual throttle control differently (than older Textron-Bell machines), because the fuel control governors use FADEC, not mechanical linkage.

Regarding your above assertion, is there a bigger point you wish to express?
Are you implying, newly minted Army Aviators are somehow 'inferior' or "less capable," than Army Aviators from a previous era?
They are far from that.

bryancobb wrote:Are they real pilots?

Seriously?

bryancobb wrote:Should technology be fully embraced and allowed to toss the old methods and machines onto the aviation trash-heap?

No. That withstanding, the overall goal is "mission accomplishment." Anything new and innovative to accomplish that is welcomed.
There is nothing "macho" about being from an era of manual throttle/collective coordination. Back then, it was "state of the art." Helicopter times have changed and thank God for that! With new technology, rotary-wing flight keeps getting better and better.

bryancobb wrote:I realize my views are archaic.

On the contrary . . . we just have a different perspective.

bryancobb wrote:This new stuff is all great. Aviation will be safer and much more user-friendly because of it. I still believe every pilot needs the "cave-man" skills Jimmy Doolittle used to bomb Tokyo. Having the skies full of "pushbutton pilots" or autonomous aircraft just would not make me smile as much as reading that the FAA will not remove cave man skills from the syllabus to become a pilot.

Just for the record, I could care less about "magnetic dip." That knowledge never got me out of a serious jam in anything I have ever flown. . .

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 10:38:25 -0400

Wm.Ince,

Your passionate response is both articulate and correct. It is, as you said, just a different perspective than I have.

Case - N - Point...My wife just asked me to replace all the old window locks in our house a few minutes ago. She had me a
bag full of new ones from Home Depot. As I was installing them, I realized I had 9 that learned to lock windows in a TH-55 and 2
learned to lock windows in a Lakota.

I would not install the 2 that was labeled "Bright Brass Finished Balls." I asked her to return them because I wanted the "real" ones that
were labeled "Solid Brass Balls."

I'm just an ol' fogey and usually find that "new and improved" is made more easily and cheaper, is more profitable for the manufacturer, doesn't
hold up well, and I just don't like it.

Another quick example - Years ago, I was at KVPC and a lady in her late 70's and her Collie flew in, in a L-4. She was going across America with only a compass and no electrical system. I thought "WOWWWWwwWwwWW! I was at the airport a few days ago when a guy landed with his Golden Retriever in a CTLS. He had 2 I-pads, ADS-B OUT/IN with real time weather depicted on a Sectional Chart with ForeFlight ($299/yr) with Synthetic Vision.

There is no doubt in my mind that the lady in the Cub was a much more skilled aviator than the pushbutton "techie" in the slick tadpole.
I embrace technology. I design stuff everyday using CATIA. I perform CMM inspections of finished advanced composite aircraft components using a FARO arm and the most advanced metrology methods. BUTTT...and that's a big but, I feel there ARE occasions where a micrometer and caliper would get the job done better and quicker and it ABSOLUTELY FRUSTRATES ME TO HELL when we bust a delivery and go delinquent when we send our instruments out for annual "re-certification" and no one can use the micrometer and caliper nor does our procedures allow it.

BC

Attachments

brass.jpg (44.76 KiB)

Not Real.JPG (43.89 KiB)

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 11:11:15 -0400

It's fine if you're stuck in the past, but don't denegrade those who aren't. Modern aircraft, and those who learned to fly them, are just as good or better than anything from the past. Your examples aren't relevant. Be careful or you won't be either.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 11:28:57 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:It's fine if you're stuck in the past, but don't denegrade those who aren't. Modern aircraft, and those who learned to fly them, are just as good or better than anything from the past. Your examples aren't relevant. Be careful or you won't be either.

I'm already not. I walk in to work and pass by 3 young engineers that have their VR headsets/goggles on and are reaching
up into the air and pinching their fingertips together in cyberspace. I just shake my head and say, I'm glad I'll be out of this mess
in 3 more years and it will be in their hands.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:20:29 -0400

bryancobb wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:It's fine if you're stuck in the past, but don't denegrade those who aren't. Modern aircraft, and those who learned to fly them, are just as good or better than anything from the past. Your examples aren't relevant. Be careful or you won't be either.

I'm already not. I walk in to work and pass by 3 young engineers that have their VR headsets/goggles on and are reaching
up into the air and pinching their fingertips together in cyberspace. I just shake my head and say, I'm glad I'll be out of this mess
in 3 more years and it will be in their hands.

I've been retired for 15 1/2 years. A bad day of retirement is better than a good day at work.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:24:52 -0400

bryancobb wrote:I walk in to work and pass by 3 young engineers that have their VR headsets/goggles on and are reaching
up into the air and pinching their fingertips together in cyberspace. I just shake my head and say, I'm glad I'll be out of this mess
in 3 more years and it will be in their hands.

Fifty years ago, we landed a man on the moon.
A lot of the work that went into that endeavor, was accomplished with a slide rule. Mission accomplished.
Could a mission to Mars be done the same way? Probably.
Go figure.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:31:28 -0400

Wm.Ince wrote:Could a mission to Mars be done the same way?

Absolutely! In 1953, Werner von Braun published a slim book titled "The Mars Project," laying out all the calculations for a mission to Mars. I have a copy. His only tools were a slide rule and a set of astronomical tables. His numbers still hold up today.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:39:38 -0400

As a freshman at NCSU, one of the first items I purchased was a Post Versalog. It was great. I also had an E6B. But, that was then, this is now. I'm sitting here now streaming high definition music from Tidal and Qobuz.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by chicagorandy

no_email@example.com (chicagorandy) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:47:47 -0400

Why......when I was in my 20's..... never mind, I can't remember my 20's - lol

Suffice it to say that IF the Sport Pilot rules allowed the Cessna 150/152 'or equivalent', or a 2-seat 172 type craft there is a flight school readily available not 15 minutes from my front door. Rental planes too.

A presently qualifying LSA? Not so much.

The new Sport Pilot rule makes flying affordable! :: Re: The new Sport Pilot Rule Changes :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:35:35 -0400

chicagorandy wrote:Why......when I was in my 20's..... never mind, I can't remember my 20's - lol

Suffice it to say that IF the Sport Pilot rules allowed the Cessna 150/152 'or equivalent', or a 2-seat 172 type craft there is a flight school readily available not 15 minutes from my front door. Rental planes too.

A presently qualifying LSA? Not so much.

You REALLY need to go fly somewhere/anywhere.

Introduce Yourself! :: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Author foresterpoole

no_email@example.com (foresterpoole) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:13:05 -0400

Well, as most of you noticed I disappeared for a time. News flash: I'm still alive! I've got a much better paying job (same company) and a 5 year old running around devouring all my time! Brief update on my flying, I've been flying an Arrow around for a while and trying to knock out my instrument rating, I pretty much neglected the Light Sport aircraft for a good year. Unfortunately, the FBO lost it's only CFII to the airlines so I'm back to VFR until they can find another guy (who knows when, it took them 6 months to find the previous guy). While my budget for flying has increased, so has my job responsibilities and who knew 1st grade had so much homework I have to help my son with??? So, I'm flying much less than I'd like. In order to maximize my fun, and be able to stuff a little cash into the piggy bank for a plane I hope to one day own, I hopped back into the Tecnam at the FBO with an instructor for a refresher and I'm loving the little plane, just like I always have. Also the 95/hour wet is crazy cheaper than the 200/hour wet i was used to paying!!! Hope everyone is doing well, I'll be back to checking in regularly hopefully.

Introduce Yourself! :: Re: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:25:57 -0400

Alive is good. My flying budget keeps shrinking while the FBO keeps raising prices. I'm down to about 2 hours per month. Flying up to KGMB Monday for a $300 burger.

Introduce Yourself! :: Re: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:52:51 -0400

Nice to hear from you. Ed. Enjoy as much time as you can get to spend with your son - they grow up damned fast, and there will be plenty of time for flying when he's off to college.

Introduce Yourself! :: Re: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 17:40:46 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Alive is good. My flying budget keeps shrinking while the FBO keeps raising prices. I'm down to about 2 hours per month. Flying up to KGMB Monday for a $300 burger.

KGMU actually.

Introduce Yourself! :: Re: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 18:31:31 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Alive is good. My flying budget keeps shrinking while the FBO keeps raising prices. I'm down to about 2 hours per month. Flying up to KGMB Monday for a $300 burger.

So what’s the rate on their Remos now ?

Introduce Yourself! :: Re: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 19:07:14 -0400

Warmi wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:Alive is good. My flying budget keeps shrinking while the FBO keeps raising prices. I'm down to about 2 hours per month. Flying up to KGMB Monday for a $300 burger.

So what’s the rate on their Remos now ?

The Remos is $110 per hour, no tax since I live in Georgia and it is in NC. The SkyCatcher is $140 per hour plus 7 percent tax plus $29 per month club dues and minimum balance of $250 in pre-paid account.

Introduce Yourself! :: Re: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Reply by foresterpoole

no_email@example.com (foresterpoole) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:21:24 -0400

Man for that Skycatcher price you can rent a 172 N model around here and still put change in your pocket! I thought that was a bit expensive, guess I'm complaining about nothing!

Introduce Yourself! :: Re: Not a Hello, but an I'm still alive message! :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:17:47 -0400

But I live here. I also have no FAA medical.

Hangar Talk :: Captain Al Haynes, UA232 in Sioux City, dead at 87 :: Author Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:41:29 -0400

I met him twice. Arnie Jackson (gone west), a neighbor and good friend of mine was also a UAL DC-10 captain, and they had flown together several times.

Al Haynes was a true hero, and had a great run. R.I.P., Captain.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/26/754458583/al-haynes-pilot-from-miraculous-1989-crash-landing-has-died

When the Sioux City tower told him he was cleared to land on "any runway," Haynes responded with a chuckle, "Oh, you're gonna be specific and make it a runway."

Hangar Talk :: Re: Captain Al Haynes, UA232 in Sioux City, dead at 87 :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:35:14 -0400

Scooper wrote:I met him twice. Arnie Jackson (gone west), a neighbor and good friend of mine was also a UAL DC-10 captain, and they had flown together several times.
Al Haynes was a true hero, and had a great run. R.I.P., Captain.
When the Sioux City tower told him he was cleared to land on "any runway," Haynes responded with a chuckle, "Oh, you're gonna be specific and make it a runway."

Capt. Al Haynes . . . a true professional and class act.
Rest in peace . . . on your final check west.

Hangar Talk :: Re: If this ever becomes sport pilot eligible :: Reply by rgstubbsjr

no_email@example.com (rgstubbsjr) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 19:00:02 -0400

Not comfortable for long trips, but fast as all get out.
Some consider them to be the Martin Marauder of home builts.

Hangar Talk :: Re: If this ever becomes sport pilot eligible :: Reply by foresterpoole

no_email@example.com (foresterpoole) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:02:05 -0400

Flew one, it's a handful unless you nail the airspeed and are out ahead of the plane!!!

Hangar Talk :: 2020 Compliant - A Simple Way :: Author bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:07:28 -0400

I thought I posted this yesterday but I don't see it now.

My need to get my Tomahawk 2020 ADS-B Out compliant, caused me to start learning about THE WIRELESS SATELLITE NETWORK that the FAA has decided is the replacement for RADAR as ATC's source for aircraft location and altitude in America.

Three capabilities are required after JAN 1. 1) You still need a Transponder with Altitude Capability (Mode C) 2) You need a WAAS GPS for satellite-based position. 3) You need an approved method of transmitting and receiving data over the satellite network.

FAR 91.217 requires whatever device you use to measure your altitude, and transmit that altitude to ATC, to be certified every two years and be correlated with your altimeter (which must be within +/- 125'). I'm not real clear if the Altitude Encoder/Transponder will continue to be the primary source for my altitude after JAN 1, or if the more accurate GPS will become the primary source for altitude sent to ATC.

My Tomahawk is already equipped to fly in controlled airspace B, C, D, and E so it has a Transponder with an Altitude Encoder so no new equipment there, so long as it continues to pass the 2 year 91.413 test. To meet 2020 requirements, I must add a WAAS GPS for accurate position after JAN 1 and even after RADAR eventually shuts down, and a way to send and receive data. I think I have decided on the thing shown below. I'll just have to remove the tail NAV light and replace it with the device. It has a WAAS GPS and a Transceiver built-in. I have to "program" it with my N-Number and personal info and it's ready to use.

I will conduct ONE 30 minute flight in the national airspace system, doing a specific series of maneuvers. I will request from the FAA, by N-Number and time and date. They will send me a form showing "PASS" or "FAIL." If I pass, I am 2020 ADS-B Out Compliant.

Attachments

Tail Bea.jpg (62.88 KiB)

Hangar Talk :: Re: 2020 Compliant - A Simple Way :: Reply by Sling 2 Pilot

no_email@example.com (Sling 2 Pilot) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:03:37 -0400

Yes Bryan, a simple and probably the least expensive way to go, IMO.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by rgstubbsjr

no_email@example.com (rgstubbsjr) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 18:57:02 -0400

Tres cool.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:55:54 -0400

I don't know how many folks on the forum fall as short on perceptiveness ...

...Somewhere on line, someone opened my eyes about ADS-B. Maybe this will help someone like it helped me. I'm presenting this as I understand it so I may be mixed up. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.

The central thesis of ADS-B is "FAA Is Quickly ELIMINATING Antiquated, Inadequate Aircraft Tracking System."

The secondary sub-title would be "A highly efficient, feature-rich, nationwide satellite network is quickly replacing RADAR and
will provide ATC and pilots very accurate, position and altitude information on every participating aircraft in the air."

As of JAN 1, 2020 every aircraft that flies in America will be **REQUIRED to have equipment that will transmit their precise location
and altitude...OUT...to that network, without using RADAR.

** Well, if you fly in airspace that has not required a transponder at all, you won't have to play along. If there has never been reliable RADAR coverage, the FAA categorized that as "UNCONTROLLED" airspace. Most airspace below 700' AGL has been uncontrolled (Class G) for a lonnnng time. If your Sectional Chart has had a "bluish" color all over for eons, RADAR could see you down to 1200' AGL. there. Around most airports, there's a magenta area that has a "fuzzy" side toward the airport. Within that area, RADAR can reach downward to 700' AGL. In a limited few areas, RADAR can see you all the way to the surface and this is called "Surface Area Class E." Having reliable RADAR is what has historically made airspace "controlled" and has made a 4096 Transponder mandatory. Mode C Altitude capability was made mandatory around 1986 or 87 if you wanted to enter Class B or C.

If your Sectional Chart hasn't had that bluish tint and instead has had a yellowish-tan color, the FAA could not see you on RADAR at all because they did't have it there. All that airspace, all the way up to FL180 was uncontrolled and the only way the FAA knew where you were, is if you told them and/or gave them information over the COMM about where you are, where you are headed, and how long you expect it to take you to get there.

If you are flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace, ALL fixes and waypoints are Compulsory Reporting Points and you MUST tell them when you get there. You could literally be in the clouds with many other aircraft and no one would know exactly where EXCEPT YOU and the people who hear you say your location over the radio airwaves.

Now, after ADS-B OUT becomes mandatory in 2020, your PRECISE LOCATION AND ALTITUDE will be known on the network no matter how low you are, because satellite network receivers are not limited by mountains or terrain like ground-based RADAR was. Line of sight no longer limits ATC. ADS-B equipment (A Transponder, A WAAS Capable GPS, and a passive Network Transmitter) will send your precise information to the network satellites every fraction of a second so the network has very accurate data on every aircraft playing along.

Only legal aircraft getting around in UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE, legal ULTRALIGHTS, and ILLEGAL AIRCRAFT will not show up on the network in their precise location and altitude. THIS CONSTITUTES ADS-B OUT.

Now...Just imagine all the useful stuff on the internet that would be extremely useful to pilots if instantly available in real-time. THESE THINGS CONSTITUTE ADS-B IN. If the FAA allows the information to be on the ADS-B satellite network, pilots can access it in their cockpit while airborne. They just need the equipment with those capabilities. ADS-B In IS NOT MANDATORY on JAN 1, 2020, ADS-B OUT is.

This is a fast transition to ABSOLUTE FREE-FLIGHT that is taking place. Soon, all airways will be eliminated. All VOR/VORTAC/TACAN's will go bye-bye. No more ILS's ... No NDB's... No Outer/Middle/Inner Markers! Just imagine, every aircraft will have a "windows-in-the-sky" (a-la Microsoft FlightSim, thanks Bruce Artwick) display that presents them a curving path into and out of airports without procedure turns or airport traffic patterns. Separation distances can be decreased a LOT! Capacity of the airspace will increase tremendously. Mid-air collisions will almost be non-existent. Every pilot will know accurately, where each aircraft near them is. Avoiding each other will be easy. Eventually the two pilots will automatically be able to talk or "voice synthesized chat" directly to each other over the network, without anyone else hearing.

IT IS TRULY AMAZING what ADS-B will lead to, how much money it will save on NAVAID and RADAR maintenance, and how much safer flying will be.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:13:02 -0400

Beginning 1/1/2020 ADS-B OUT will be required in Class A, B, and C airspace and within the 30nm veil around certain Class B. It will also be required flying above Class B and C and in Class E above 10,000 MSL if above 2500 AGL, and the Gulf Of Mexico. If your aircraft was certified without an electrical system, then ADS-B OUT is not required. Anyway, that's basically it unless I missed something that someone will surly correct.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:41:49 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:within the 30nm veil around certain Class B.

I thought the 30 nm veil now existed around all class B.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:59:59 -0400

drseti wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:within the 30nm veil around certain Class B.

I thought the 30 nm veil now existed around all class B.

It might, IDK.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 17:49:12 -0400

Class E airspace starts at 1200 AGL most places. It is typically lowered to 700 AGL at airports with an instrument approach procedure. They are trying to protect the airspace for IFR traffic.

The altitudes of the airspace have absolutely nothing to do with radar coverage.

Our little airport is in class G airspace. we have an instrument approach, so the class E transition brings the class E down to 700 AGL over our airport. The class E airspace in the area surrounding the transition is 1200 AGL. For us radar coverage doesn't start until about 3500 to 4000 feet MSL or 3000 to 3500 feet above the ground.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:12:50 -0400

And some have Class E to the surface depicted on the VFR chart by dashed lines around the airspace. That's to prevent the 1 mile, clear of clouds, VFR traffic from interfering with IFR traffic making an IFR approach to the airport.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:59:04 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:And some have Class E to the surface depicted on the VFR chart by dashed lines around the airspace. That's to prevent the 1 mile, clear of clouds, VFR traffic from interfering with IFR traffic making an IFR approach to the airport.

And you still may not have good radar coverage in the class E airspace to the surface.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:02:02 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:And some have Class E to the surface depicted on the VFR chart by dashed lines around the airspace. That's to prevent the 1 mile, clear of clouds, VFR traffic from interfering with IFR traffic making an IFR approach to the airport.

And you still may not have good radar coverage in the class E airspace to the surface.

Every Surface Area Class E that I have looked at was at an airport where a Flight Service Station is. I think FSS's have airport surveillance radar (ASR) if I'm not mistaken.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:59:47 -0400

bryancobb wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:And some have Class E to the surface depicted on the VFR chart by dashed lines around the airspace. That's to prevent the 1 mile, clear of clouds, VFR traffic from interfering with IFR traffic making an IFR approach to the airport.

And you still may not have good radar coverage in the class E airspace to the surface.

Every Surface Area Class E that I have looked at was at an airport where a Flight Service Station is. I think FSS's have airport surveillance radar (ASR) if I'm not mistaken.

The class E to the surface is generally at airports that have a higher level of IFR traffic, and maybe some larger commercial flights. Some of those airports may have or had a flight service station, but not all did. We have one near here (KMVN) that has class E to the surface, but it has never had a flight service station. I don't think they have radar service to the ground.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 01:41:33 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:And some have Class E to the surface depicted on the VFR chart by dashed lines around the airspace. That's to prevent the 1 mile, clear of clouds, VFR traffic from interfering with IFR traffic making an IFR approach to the airport.

And you still may not have good radar coverage in the class E airspace to the surface.

I don't think it has anything to do with radar service. It has to do with giving IFR traffic more protection from VFR in marginal weather. Class G airports might have VFR flying around with 1 mile visibility and clear of clouds. The increased protection for IFR traffic seems more appropriate when there is no radar coverage.

Hangar Talk :: Re: My ADSB in solution :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:19:33 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:And some have Class E to the surface depicted on the VFR chart by dashed lines around the airspace. That's to prevent the 1 mile, clear of clouds, VFR traffic from interfering with IFR traffic making an IFR approach to the airport.

And you still may not have good radar coverage in the class E airspace to the surface.

I don't think it has anything to do with radar service. It has to do with giving IFR traffic more protection from VFR in marginal weather. Class G airports might have VFR flying around with 1 mile visibility and clear of clouds. The increased protection for IFR traffic seems more appropriate when there is no radar coverage.

Exactly! That is why I said, "They are trying to protect the airspace for IFR traffic.", in one of my above post.

Hangar Talk :: Towered Airport Endorsement :: Author motorman1974

no_email@example.com (motorman1974) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:20:55 -0400

To make a long story short.....Started my PPL training at a Class D Airport in a Cessna 172. Did around 21 hours including a solo cross country talking to a tower. Decided I wanted to go the sport route, had all the "requirements" knocked out, finished up and received my SP certificate at a non-towered field. My question would be...Do I actually need the endorsement for towered airports or does my 21 hours of training at a towered airport suffice to be able to fly in Class D airspace?

Hangar Talk :: Re: Towered Airport Endorsement :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:35:07 -0400

As a Sport Pilot, you absolutely need that logbook endorsement. But, if you previously met the FAR 61.325 requirements as to requisite number of landings to a full stop with taxi-back in a Class Delta, you have satisfied the endorsement qualifications. Just have your prior CFI give you the logbook endorsement. The exact language can be found in my samples, here:

http://sportpilotexaminer.US/endorse.htm

Hangar Talk :: Re: Towered Airport Endorsement :: Reply by motorman1974

no_email@example.com (motorman1974) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:37:15 -0400

Awesome....Thank you. I sure was hoping my time would count.....

Hangar Talk :: Charity flights :: Author Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:40:44 -0400

I just discovered a program called Pilots N Paws that rescue dogs from kill shelters. Is this something Sport pilots can participate in?

Hangar Talk :: Re: Charity flights :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:45:50 -0400

Just to be clear the only passenger will be of the 4 legged variety.

Hangar Talk :: Re: Charity flights :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 19:08:39 -0400

Yup, I've been a member for a few years now. It's a charity flight and you are not compensated for anything. You are donating your time, your airplane, your fuel, etc. to Pilots-n-Paws. You are not sponsored or compensated in any way. It even states on their website that a sport pilot can fly for them.

Hangar Talk :: Re: Charity flights :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:49:36 -0400

Awesome. I'm going to do that once i get my certificate and wings. The only problem i can envision is my wfie keeping all the dogs. We already have 3.

Light Sport Aircraft :: A look forward at the LSA weight rule adjustments. :: Author stevem

no_email@example.com (stevem) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 01:38:33 -0400

A look forward at the LSA weight rule adjustments.

From the Vicker’s Aircraft web site:
“After many months we can finally announce that Vickers Aircraft has received our FAA weight exemption for the Wave™ LSA. This will allow a MTOW of 1850lbs, so we can incorporate additional safety features, that will set the Wave apart and help us achieve our long-term goal of moving aviation forward. Some of these safety features include, water manoeuvring thruster, CrossOver Landing gear, increased horsepower and the required fuel capacity to ensure the Wave™ is operated safely and can perform its mission.

We have designed the Wave™ for this increased MTOW and have incorporated the required additional structure. This sets up the Wave™ to transition into the LSA rule changes that are on the horizon, that will include adjustments to the LSA weight rule.”

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: A look forward at the LSA weight rule adjustments. :: Reply by Sling 2 Pilot

no_email@example.com (Sling 2 Pilot) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 08:26:44 -0400

stevem wrote:A look forward at the LSA weight rule adjustments.

From the Vicker’s Aircraft web site:
“After many months we can finally announce that Vickers Aircraft has received our FAA weight exemption for the Wave™ LSA. This will allow a MTOW of 1850lbs, so we can incorporate additional safety features, that will set the Wave apart and help us achieve our long-term goal of moving aviation forward. Some of these safety features include, water manoeuvring thruster, CrossOver Landing gear, increased horsepower and the required fuel capacity to ensure the Wave™ is operated safely and can perform its mission.

We have designed the Wave™ for this increased MTOW and have incorporated the required additional structure. This sets up the Wave™ to transition into the LSA rule changes that are on the horizon, that will include adjustments to the LSA weight rule.”

A link for those interested in this Icon clone...

https://www.vickersaircraft.com/

It appears to be a well thought out design, maybe more so that the other amphibian. Tentative price from another article is $180,000. If they even come close to that, say $200k or so, it would put Icon out of business, IMO.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: A look forward at the LSA weight rule adjustments. :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 08:33:39 -0400

Yes, a 180hp $200k Icon-like plane would certainly put Icon out of their misery

On the other hand, Icon guys started the same way - a semi-affordable modern carbon plane etc .... if they couldn’t make it work pirce-wise with just Rotax engines I am not sure this new company can make it work with a much more expensive engine but who knows ...

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: A look forward at the LSA weight rule adjustments. :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 22:02:18 -0400

stevem wrote:“After many months we can finally announce that Vickers Aircraft has received our FAA weight exemption for the Wave™ LSA...”

That doesn't necessarily mean that heavier LSAs will be allowed across the board, only that Wave (like Icon before them) has convinced the FAA that there's no reason to have a level playing field. Once all the other manufacturers request and receive weight exemptions, the rules (which were established to ensure safety) will become irrelevant.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Why are 162s so cheap :: Author Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:44:38 -0400

I'm looking to buy a plane an just plain hate the looks of high wings. I don't want to start the conversation about there are no low wing birds blah blah blah. I have been following the values of aircraft and 162s seem to be taking it on the chin. More so than other LSAs. My question is why? I would think that because it is a Cessna it would not be hit so hard. They still will make replacement parts right? They are butt ugly to me so that is why they aren't worth much to me. But 36k asking price for a name brand plane???? Why?

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:53:17 -0400

Atrosa wrote:I'm looking to buy a plane an just plain hate the looks of high wings. I don't want to start the conversation about there are no low wing birds blah blah blah. I have been following the values of aircraft and 162s seem to be taking it on the chin. More so than other LSAs. My question is why? I would think that because it is a Cessna it would not be hit so hard. They still will make replacement parts right? They are butt ugly to me so that is why they aren't worth much to me. But 36k asking price for a name brand plane???? Why?

It's an orphan airframe. Cessna literally crushed all the remaining airplanes, and they're not making parts or even really supporting the 162 anymore. The only option to keep one running is to go experimental, and even then you might have to fabricate replacement parts at some point.

Savings on the front end, cost on the back end.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:28:31 -0400

That is pretty rotten on their part. I've always thought Cessna planes were hit with ugly sticks but i thought their customer service would be a bit better than that. Don't get me wrong they are the Toyota Camry of the sky.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:44:03 -0400

Atrosa wrote:That is pretty rotten on their part. I've always thought Cessna planes were hit with ugly sticks but i thought their customer service would be a bit better than that. Don't get me wrong they are the Toyota Camry of the sky.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly , I have yet to see a good looking single engine classic Cessna - especially if you combine that weird-misshapen boat-like-thing-with-wings look with their usual mid-70s color paint schemes. Frankly that’s why I always though LSAs, for all their faults, at least looked like something designed and manufactured within our lifetimes.

Actually, imho the C-162 is probably one of the best looking Cessnas out there and combined with the low price - I mean, it is a risk given lack of commitment from the manufacturer , but it is a pretty good deal if you are handy and not afraid of maintenance work.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by WDD

no_email@example.com (WDD) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:34:35 -0400

I think you also need to look at the performance. How much will it carry, speed, etc. It has an empty weight of 830 lbs., which means 2 grown male adults and a few misc items leaves only 90 lbs available for 15 gallons of fuel - or 2 hours with 30 min reserve. And that is at 110 kts per the spec sheet. Not outstanding.

As stated before, it is orphaned. Which means that besides no one at Cessna answering the support line when you call, if your widget goes out and they don't make that exact replacement, you'll never get a letter from Cessna that another widget is acceptable. Which is why you need to take it experimental, which lowers the cost.

And there is still the echo of the two prototypes crashing during development.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:09:22 -0400

I suspect most people who like to bad-mouth the Cessna 162 have never flown one. Like most things, ever aircraft has it's strengths and weaknesses. Not every pilot is looking for the same things. For me, it's an all metal airplane with a Continental engine. The useful load is not an issue and all LSA are basically slow.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:56:25 -0400

I think just about every LSA sold these days is somewhere around 830 or so empty lbs - my Sting S4 for instance is but the difference is that I get to 830 lbs with a ballistic parachute and a few other goodies that the 162 does not have.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by ryoder

no_email@example.com (ryoder) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:47:40 -0400

Spend ten hours or so in a rental 162 and report back.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:56:13 -0400

ryoder wrote:Spend ten hours or so in a rental 162 and report back.

Yep. I have a couple hundred hours in 4 of them, all identical. I love the SkyCatcher and I've flown a lot of light aircraft over the years. Mooney M20C is my favorite, but not an option for me now.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by WDD

no_email@example.com (WDD) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 23:28:41 -0400

Don't get me wrong - I don't have a dog in this fight either way.

I'm just speculating on what buyers may be thinking, and thus what could be driving the low demand and low prices.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by ryoder

no_email@example.com (ryoder) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 06:31:36 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:
ryoder wrote:Spend ten hours or so in a rental 162 and report back.

Yep. I have a couple hundred hours in 4 of them, all identical. I love the SkyCatcher and I've flown a lot of light aircraft over the years. Mooney M20C is my favorite, but not an option for me now.

Cool. The M20C was my first airplane and I still have access to it. I love the feeling of manually retracting the gear and flaps and slipping through the sky swiftly. The 162 is so spacious and cool inside so it is my choice for hamburger runs or helpijg a friend learn to fly.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:22:43 -0400

WDD wrote:.....I'm just speculating on what buyers may be thinking, and thus what could be driving the low demand and low prices.

Regardless of what people think of the airplane personally, I believe that when the manufacturer throws in the towel and crushes it's remaining inventory, that should be a very clear sign as to why demand and prices are in the toilet, just my 2¢. They would make a great E-LSA for someone.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:29:45 -0400

ShawnM wrote:
WDD wrote:.....I'm just speculating on what buyers may be thinking, and thus what could be driving the low demand and low prices.

Regardless of what people think of the airplane personally, I believe that when the manufacturer throws in the towel and crushes it's remaining inventory, that should be a very clear sign as to why demand and prices are in the toilet, just my 2¢. They would make a great E-LSA for someone.

Well, pretty much the same thing happened with the Piper Sport line right ? Who do Piper Sport owners go to for parts etc ... ?

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:32:31 -0400

Warmi wrote:
ShawnM wrote:
WDD wrote:.....I'm just speculating on what buyers may be thinking, and thus what could be driving the low demand and low prices.

Regardless of what people think of the airplane personally, I believe that when the manufacturer throws in the towel and crushes it's remaining inventory, that should be a very clear sign as to why demand and prices are in the toilet, just my 2¢. They would make a great E-LSA for someone.

Well, pretty much the same thing happened with the Piper Sport line right ? Who do Piper Sport owners go to for parts etc ... ?

The thing is the Piper Sport was basically an existing design that was supported by a different company both before and after Piper's involvement.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:45:22 -0400

Warmi wrote: Who do Piper Sport owners go to for parts etc ... ?

They go to Czech Sport Aircraft (formerly Czech Aircraft Works) who still supports all Sport Cruisers, regardless of how they were labeled. (I understand CSA has not been particularly forthcoming with LoAs, but that's another matter.)

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:48:14 -0400

drseti wrote:
Warmi wrote: Who do Piper Sport owners go to for parts etc ... ?

They go to Czech Sport Aircraft (formerly Czech Aircraft Works) who still supports all Sport Cruisers, regardless of how they were labeled. (I understand CSA has not been particularly forthcoming with LoAs, but that's another matter.)

Correct, the PiperSport was always supported by CSA, not Piper, it was only badged as a Piper because they wanted a name in the light sport market. That whole marriage only lasted one year, 2010, and Piper wanted out as they could not deal with CSA. I think the divorce papers state "irreconcilable differences". The non-existent LOA's are another story for another day.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:38:07 -0400

ShawnM wrote:
drseti wrote:
Warmi wrote: Who do Piper Sport owners go to for parts etc ... ?

They go to Czech Sport Aircraft (formerly Czech Aircraft Works) who still supports all Sport Cruisers, regardless of how they were labeled. (I understand CSA has not been particularly forthcoming with LoAs, but that's another matter.)

Correct, the PiperSport was always supported by CSA, not Piper, it was only badged as a Piper because they wanted a name in the light sport market. That whole marriage only lasted one year, 2010, and Piper wanted out as they could not deal with CSA. I think the divorce papers state "irreconcilable differences". The non-existent LOA's are another story for another day.

Haha .. the stories you tell about how inflexible CSA can be in terms of supporting their users, sometimes it sounds like it may as well be managed as a dead product , the way C162 is

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:44:31 -0400

WDD wrote:And there is still the echo of the two prototypes crashing during development.

I would not hold that against the airplane...that is actually what development is for. The tail was redesigned to solve the issues, and IIRC the crashes occurred in spins...I don't even know if spins are allowed in normal operations.

The primary problems are both related to Cessna's engine choice: Weight and fuel burn. The engine is 80-90lb heavier than a similar Rotax 912, and burns more fuel, which magnifies the weight problem be requiring more fuel to go the same distance. Most real-world C162s I have seen have a useful load around 480-490lb. That's fine for solo flight, but with two normal Americans in the airplane it doesn't leave much left, especially for travel.

Other than that, I do think the airplane is a good one and has some nice design elements.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:50:21 -0400

Warmi wrote:sometimes it sounds like it may as well be managed as a dead product , the way C162 is

Not if you're willing to fly and maintain them *exactly* as the manufacturer intends, with no deviation. That's kind of how the S-LSA rules are meant to be, but many manufacturers are more accommodating of the realities of operating an airplane. I have to say Flight Design has been very good in thie regard, I would have been perfectly happy to keep my CTSW as an S-LSA, if I didn't want to do my own maintenance as a cost and convenience matter.

Light Sport Aircraft :: Re: Why are 162s so cheap :: Reply by ryoder

no_email@example.com (ryoder) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:44:41 -0400

Cheap is good. Get one and enjoy a great airplane at a low cost.
Or don't. I bought my Mooney cheap too. Got some hate for that.

Light Sport Aircraft :: In praise of CKT LSA exhausts AND their customer service :: Author acensor

no_email@example.com (acensor) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:42:20 -0400

Having occasionally been guilty of posting a rant about disappointing aircraft parts and customer service culture (or lack of it) from makers (particularly about Rotax’s dismal customer-unfriendly policies) it seems only fair to offer positive feedback when it’s due.

Back in 2015 after our Rotax manufactured exhaust system on the RRotax 912 on our Skyranger ELSA broke we purchased one from CKT Engineering (https://www.cktengineering.com) in England. (They custom configure them for various different aircraft, as headers, etc., don't always run the same in different cowls, etc.) If I remember right, Paul at Flylight uses CKT's exhausts on Skyrangers.

We got the optional cabin heater shroud/system. A bit more costly than the Rotax... especially with the optional heater kit.

On the customer-service part of this story, we got a good taste in our mouth right off the bat: About the time we installed the new exhaust Rotax had slightly increased the length of their oil filters such that it became impossible to spin on the new filter without removing the exhaust header closest to it. This waspretty much a Rotax caused problem. Yet CKT re-fabricated a new header pipe for us with the slight extra clearance and didn't charge us for it or even shipping.

As for our experience with the exhaust itself: It is very noticeably quieter than the Rotax system it replaced. And though we can't objectively document this, it seems to give us a tad more power. The heater doesn't have much output...at least in our install...but keeps my toes from freezing and the cockpit about 10 degrees F higher than outside.

You only really find out what sort of company or service provider you're dealing with when there's a problem.

Well, months ago on our 912ul we detected very slight seepage of coolant right at one joint between the header and a rear exhaust manifold port on the header. (With hindsight it appears what happened is perhaps the joint where the exhaust header entered the muffler that joint froze {insufficient anti-seize?} allowing vibrations to go up to where the hard stainless steel header entered the head, and slowly gouged/shaved its way into the softer aluminum seat and put a pinhole into the water jacket.) It looked like this was going to be expensive and slow to remedy ... likely a rebuilt head. Worst case a new $3000 head from Rotax.

I contacted CKT with photos and description of the issue. .. at best hoping they'd supply a new header pipe as its top end was a bit worn.

An engineer there replied promptly. He said/recommended that we install a stainless steel sleeve in the exhaust port of the head.
After several emails and more photos revealing the pinhole they recommended we put a particular JB-Weld type epoxy under the sleeve when we seat it, and ,for good measure, use a high temp copper/silicone gasket compound between the header and and the sleeve. Held our hands all the way.

They assured us that they had personally actually used the Gorilla-Weld epoxy on other occasions similar with success.

They promptly shipped us a new header pipe and the sleeve at no charge. (Can you imagine Rotax doing that? Or even being able to talk to an engineer there?)

It was a pretty challenging job to get it all together (mainly because the rear facing exhaust port had little clearance and visibility between it and the firewall and we had to carefully lightly polish the head's exhaust port seat before seating the sleeve.)

Bottom line is the repair worked perfectly (as evaluated many hours later still), and it was CKT pulled our cookies out of the fire. Total cost to us basically one tube of Gorilla-Weld and one tube of high temp copper silicone sealer.... Under $25.

If that isn't enough to convince you CKT's support is off-the-charts, take a look at this reply I got when I posted the above praise in the rotax-owner.com forum:

"Me too! After hearing thru a third party that my tail pipe broke off at a weld at the slip joint where it attaches to the muffler CKT proactively reached out and I was sent a new tail pipe free of charge. Thank You CKT!"

Alex

Training :: LSA training/rental near Spartanburg, SC :: Author cbkent

no_email@example.com (cbkent) — Sat, 31 Aug 2019 12:49:42 -0400

Can someone help?

Training :: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Author Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 09:45:46 -0400

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/new-student-lands-152-after-instructor-blacks-out/

His wife and kids were on the ground watching. The controllers did an awesome job talking him down to a safe landing.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:52:43 -0400

I would find another CFI.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:10:26 -0400

The rest of the story:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-02/emergency-plane-landing-pilot-credits-study-for-saving-him/11471140

Mr Sylvester said he had previously had two lessons in a different plane, but it was completely different and he had never landed an aircraft before yesterday.

His instructor, Robert Mollard, has been a flight instructor since ...wait for it... August, 2019.

https://au.linkedin.com/in/robert-mollard-a1809824

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:46:06 -0400

Scooper wrote:His instructor, Robert Mollard, has been a flight instructor since ...wait for it... August, 2019.

Not completely factual, Stan. He got his CFI certificate way back in Aptil. He just got hired by that particular FBO in August.

Mollard did say that Sylvester was the best student he's ever had. Small sample size, though...

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 15:53:53 -0400

I was expecting his CFI to be an old geezer like Paul, Eddie, or ...... me.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:17:20 -0400

drseti wrote:
Scooper wrote:His instructor, Robert Mollard, has been a flight instructor since ...wait for it... August, 2019.

Not completely factual, Stan. He got his CFI certificate way back in April. He just got hired by that particular FBO in August.

Mollard did say that Sylvester was the best student he's ever had. Small sample size, though...

Oops! Mea Culpa; I was going by his chronology on LinkedIn. I wonder how many students he's taught since April.

In any case, I hope his incapacitation isn't serious and that he has a full and speedy recovery.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:59:54 -0400

Incapacitation is a disqualifier for all classes of FAA medical certification in the USA. It can take quite a while to get it reinstated. I think you have to have two years without a recurrence or something like that. I suspect Australia would have a similar situation.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:59:50 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Incapacitation is a disqualifier for all classes of FAA medical certification. It can take quite a while to get it reinstated I believe.

This happened in Perth, Australia, so the authority would be the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), but I'd guess their aeromedical certification requirements are similar to the FAA's.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:01:27 -0400

Stan, you quoted me while I was editing my post when I remembered this was in Australia.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:58:59 -0400

Every CFI ever has had a first year of being a CFI. I don't see this as a problem.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:15:53 -0400

MrMorden wrote:Every CFI ever has had a first year of being a CFI. I don't see this as a problem.

True. But passing out in flight during your first (or in fact any subsequent) year, that is a problem.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:59:34 -0400

drseti wrote:
MrMorden wrote:Every CFI ever has had a first year of being a CFI. I don't see this as a problem.

True. But passing out in flight during your first (or in fact any subsequent) year, that is a problem.

I've simulated passing out as an simulated emergency.

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:21:53 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
drseti wrote:
MrMorden wrote:Every CFI ever has had a first year of being a CFI. I don't see this as a problem.

True. But passing out in flight during your first (or in fact any subsequent) year, that is a problem.

I've simulated passing out as an simulated emergency.

Hopefully you told the student you were doing so and didn't just slump over!

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:31:50 -0400

Haha ... like this guy - that was just damn cruel ...

https://youtu.be/i3urAaTnNOs

Training :: Re: Student taking first lesson lands 152 after CFI passes out :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 17:28:07 -0400

MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
drseti wrote:
True. But passing out in flight during your first (or in fact any subsequent) year, that is a problem.

I've simulated passing out as an simulated emergency.

Hopefully you told the student you were doing so and didn't just slump over!

Nope, I didn't tell them. I might say I'm not feeling so good and that we should head for the closest airport before I slump. It is a good learning experience so they know that they don't have to go out and fly the whole pattern in an emergency.

I only normally do this in prep for the checkride, so they understand the examiner can give them any type of emergency.

Training :: Sport pilot hood training :: Author chumash

no_email@example.com (chumash) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:33:57 -0400

Hello,

I am getting closer to finishing up my sport pilot training, hopefully in the next 4-6 weeks. My question is if it is ok to go up with a cfi to do hood training ? I would like to have the training for safety sake. While I don’t plan on VMC into IMC, if it does happen, I don’t want that to be my first time relying on gauges. Is this even legal to do as a sport pilot? Thanks for the info.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:38:40 -0400

You should have had this training before your first solo cross-country if you're flying an LSA with VH > 87 knots.

From 61.93

(12) Control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight instruments, including straight and level flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives. For student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate, the provisions of this paragraph only apply when receiving training for cross-country flight in an airplane that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 07:39:35 -0400

What Tim said plus my CFI logged 1 hour of Simulated Instrument time in my log book which will show up in my 8710 when submitted.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 08:24:14 -0400

chumash wrote:Hello,

I am getting closer to finishing up my sport pilot training, hopefully in the next 4-6 weeks. My question is if it is ok to go up with a cfi to do hood training ? I would like to have the training for safety sake. While I don’t plan on VMC into IMC, if it does happen, I don’t want that to be my first time relying on gauges. Is this even legal to do as a sport pilot? Thanks for the info.

Regardless of regulations .. do whatever you think will make you a better pilot - hood training, go flying at night with your CFI to familiarize yourself with night flying ... I have done all of that , it can never hurt to be know more.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 09:23:54 -0400

JJ Campbell wrote:my CFI logged 1 hour of Simulated Instrument time in my log book which will show up in my 8710 when submitted.

Excellent, JJ! From the DPE's perspective:
When someone schedules a Sport Pilot checkride with me, I look at the IACRA application beforehand. If the aircraft has a Vh > 87 knots, and I don't see any instrument instruction listed on the experience matrix, I have to kick the 8710 back to the applicant to rectify that oversight. The FARs don't specify any particular number of hours of hood work, but there has to be something shown. This is touched upon in my webinar "Adventures in Examining," available at:
http://avsport.org/webinars/videos/dpe.mp4

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by chumash

no_email@example.com (chumash) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 11:21:54 -0400

Thanks for the replies. I will ensure I get the training before going further. To satisfy the regs, but also for the experience and safety aspect. Good idea about night flying as well. I have always thought that a Sport pilot was limited to training on what the sport rating is allowed to do. I am truly enjoying the process of learning as much as I can and seeing forward progress with my flying. I want to become as proficient and safe as possible and see that there is always something to learn in this endeavor.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 12:26:27 -0400

A student pilot in dual training is only limited by his CFI credentials and limitations of the aircraft. You could go get dual training in a Lear Jet if you want to.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:42:45 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:A student pilot in dual training is only limited by his CFI credentials and limitations of the aircraft. You could go get dual training in a Lear Jet if you want to.

Unless the LearJet required two licensed pilots, IDK.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:55:46 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Unless the LearJet required two licensed pilots, IDK.

I believe any aircraft designated Heavy (12,500 max gross or greater) requires a crew of 2. The Lear 23 was certified at 12,500 exactly, and the Lear 24 was bumped up to 13,500. So no, it would appear they are not single-pilot aircraft.

FWIW, when the EAA got the experimental airworthiness certificate for its restored Ford AT5 Trimotor, it specified a max gross weight of 12, 499. Gee, I wonder why...

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:55:47 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Unless the LearJet required two licensed pilots, IDK.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:56:14 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Unless the LearJet required two licensed pilots, IDK.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:05:45 -0400

Then, he can go get some dual in a twin Seminole ... at night. Also, put on a hood for his instrument training.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:08:13 -0400

Over 12,500 pounds requires a type rating, but does not necessarily require two pilots. A Beechcraft King Air 350 has a gross weight over 15,000 pounds and can be flown single pilot. The requirement for two pilots is determined by the aircraft's certification.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by Nomore767

no_email@example.com (Nomore767) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 11:29:38 -0400

The idea of instrument training in an LSA is both good and required as pointed out previously.

I would add that’s it’s also good to train specifically in the avionics panel you use
My Dynon SkyView panel can be configured to use altitude/airspeed “tapes” displays or you can select the basic six-pack display. Both are GPS generated as I have no pitot static instruments in my plane.
Which leads me to suggest have some training as regards losing the display/instruments you have and use of backups. I had a faulty SkyBiew which suddenly went dark one day. Fortunately I was near home field but all I had was a radio and my experience to guess power and airspeed setting from engine sound. It does happen
Regarding night flying which is prohibited for sport pilots it’s still good to experience night flight and even more so at sunset and into civil twilight.
As someone said whatever makes you a better pilot

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:29:46 -0400

Nomore767 wrote:Both are GPS generated as I have no pitot static instruments in my plane.

None? Really? How does that work?

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:46:05 -0400

That sounds problematic. Reminds me of Bernath.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by Nomore767

no_email@example.com (Nomore767) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:55:51 -0400

Everything is on the SkyView screen. No altimeter or airspeed dial type back up instruments. Altimeter, airspeed and rate of climb come off pitot static system displayed on screen.
It all works great!

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:10:44 -0400

The Skyview manual (Table 1) describes which inputs and sensors are used within the ADAHRS module to generate the different displayed instruments. It clearly shows the aircraft pitot system is used for airspeed, AoA, turn rate, attitude, TAS, winds, and synthetic vision. It shows the aircraft static system is used for altitude, airspeed, turn rate, heading, attitude, density altitude, TAS, winds, flight path marker, and synthetic vision.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:13:54 -0400

Nomore767 wrote:Everything is on the SkyView screen. No altimeter or airspeed dial type back up instruments. Altimeter, airspeed and rate of climb come off pitot static system displayed on screen.
It all works great!

Ah.. I misunderstood your earlier post; I thought you meant everything was GPS derived and the Skyview didn't need no stinking pitot-static system.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by chumash

no_email@example.com (chumash) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:25:51 -0400

Thanks again for the response. No Lear’s or twins just yet, maybe later. Right now just doing what I can to be safe in this LSA. But a jet does sound fun....

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by chumash

no_email@example.com (chumash) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:27:28 -0400

Also doing homework on the different panels in the planes, 2 have Garmin and the other MGL. A bit of difference between the two.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 14:52:29 -0400

Nomore767 wrote:Everything is on the SkyView screen. No altimeter or airspeed dial type back up instruments. Altimeter, airspeed and rate of climb come off pitot static system displayed on screen.
It all works great!

So you do have a pitot static tube and are reading airspeed, not GPS groundspeed. That's good. The Skycatcher is the same. The Remos I fly has both airspeed displays via glass panel and traditional airspeed gauge. I like looking at the traditional gauge during landing. It seems easier to see to me.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 15:08:25 -0400

Scooper wrote:Ah.. I misunderstood your earlier post...

No, you didn’t misunderstand. He really said “...I have no pitot static instruments in my plane.”

Glad that’s cleared up - I was quite sure they were required equipment.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by Nomore767

no_email@example.com (Nomore767) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 15:15:00 -0400

Sorry I meant no traditional round dial pitot static driven instruments. Although some LSA models do add the traditional round disks as backups Van’s didn’t choose this for my RV-12.
On SkyView you can select a display of the traditional six pack instruments if that’s your preferred option.

Training :: Re: Sport pilot hood training :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 22:36:45 -0400

Nomore767 wrote:Sorry I meant no traditional round dial pitot static driven instruments. Although some LSA models do add the traditional round disks as backups Van’s didn’t choose this for my RV-12.
On SkyView you can select a display of the traditional six pack instruments if that’s your preferred option.

Regardless of how it came out, most of us knew exactly what you meant. No worries.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by rcpilot

no_email@example.com (rcpilot) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:46:12 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:I use flight following in case I have a problem, I'm already talking with someone who knows where I am. Flight following does not provide guaranteed traffic separation. With flight following, I don't feel the need to file a VFR flight plan.

Problem is here in the NE you sometimes cannot get flight following because they are too busy. I've been dropped twice. Not too mention last week it took me a good 5 minutes to get their attention all the while doing circles to avoid the class C.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:26:30 -0400

Warmi wrote:Well, ADSB and related technologies won’t replace Flight Following services like being automatically cleared to proceed thru some or other airspace

Just to be clear for those who don't know: Flight Following is great, but it provides advisory services only, on a workload-permitting basis. It does not automatically clear you through airspace - you still have to request clearance into or through a B or C. And they won't necessarily be able to vector you through (or even warn you about) TFRs, Restricted, or Prohibited areas. That's all on you, the PIC, per FAR 91.3(a).

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by JJay

no_email@example.com (JJay) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:04:21 -0400

plus “B2” (for 1090 MHz ADS-B “out” capability)

B2 is actually ADS-B "in and out" capability. I've been specifying B1 - ADS-B "out" - for the ICAO form. But that raises a question: I do have ADS-B "in" using a Garmin GDL-39 and an iPad with Garmin Pilot, but as those are portable devices I assume I can't actually report having ADS-B "in" capability - is that correct?

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:08:35 -0400

drseti wrote:
Warmi wrote:Well, ADSB and related technologies won’t replace Flight Following services like being automatically cleared to proceed thru some or other airspace

.... It does not automatically clear you through airspace - you still have to request clearance into or through a B or C. ...

Yes, it does not happen automatically but they will sometimes coordinate for you and let you know that you are cleared thru space D or whatever ... I have seen it happen.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:20:44 -0400

Flight following is just another set of eyes helping you avoid other aircraft. It's still up to the PIC to "see and avoid." You can request clearance through class B or C airspace and you may or may not get it. I've never heard of or tried getting cleared through class D airspace.

Flight following is available on a work load basis. What I like about it is having someone a "button click" away in an emergency. If I lose an engine, I would rather tell them I'm going down than to rely on a VFR flight plan. Of course, you can do both if you want.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:18:13 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:You can request clearance through class B or C airspace and you may or may not get it. I've never heard of or tried getting cleared through class D airspace.

Just for the record, "clearance" is not required to enter Class C and D airspace.

ATC clearance is required for Class B, but for Class C and D airspace, only two-way radio communication is required prior to entry.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 21:40:36 -0400

JJay wrote: as those are portable devices I assume I can't actually report having ADS-B "in" capability - is that correct?

An excellent question, JJ, to which I'm afraid I don't have the answer. I know a GPS receiver doesn't get listed unless it's permanently installed, but I can't find any FAR specifying whether the same applies to datalink receivers. Can anyone here give me a reference?

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:14:04 -0400

This is posted on the FAA's ADS-B FAQ page, does this help?

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/resources/faq/#q40

Will the FAA allow portable/handheld units, or will they have to be panel mounts only?
Installed transponders and GPS units must meet certification standards. Handheld devices and displays that serve only for situational awareness have more flexibility and are not certified installations. In order to comply with 14 CFR § 91.225 and 91.227 aircraft intended to fly in ADS-B airspace must have installed and certified equipment. Portable installations are not compliant to the rule and would only be usable for receiving FIS-B services for situational awareness. The FAA is in the early stages of investigating a portable device for glider aircraft.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by JJay

no_email@example.com (JJay) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:39:23 -0400

Not sure that actually answers the question. Those FAQ's refer mainly to the 2020 mandate for ADS-B Out. I don't know that it specifies that a flight plan should list ADSB-In equipage if such equipage is not permanently mounted in the aircraft.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:49:10 -0400

JJay wrote:Not sure that actually answers the question. Those FAQ's refer mainly to the 2020 mandate for ADS-B Out. I don't know that it specifies that a flight plan should list ADSB-In equipage if such equipage is not permanently mounted in the aircraft.

Correct, I just posted this because to fly in ADS-B rule airspace you need installed, certified equipment, not portable equipment. I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that the FAA would want some uniformity between rules using the same equipment. They (FAA) just dont put a lot of faith in portable equipment for one reason or another. Since they say it's only good for "situational awareness" and if on a flight plan something oges wrong they want to be able to find you quicker.

You ask a great question though about portable vs panel mount because I have both. My GDL-82 is a certified OUT unit but my GDL-39 is a portable IN unit but it's hardwired into my avionics.

It's just not complicated enough yet.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:56:00 -0400

ShawnM wrote:It's just not complicated enough yet.

You're right! We're not happy if you're not... confused.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:57:32 -0400

Well , I have GDL 39R which is obviously mounted permanently but the display is either Area 796 ( mounted in a permanent cradle but the device is removable ) or an IPad.
So is that a permanent or portable setup ?

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:37:00 -0400

ICAO job security . . . alive and well.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:29:01 -0400

Warmi wrote:Well , I have GDL 39R which is obviously mounted permanently but the display is either Area 796 ( mounted in a permanent cradle but the device is removable ) or an IPad.
So is that a permanent or portable setup ?

The way I look at it, which means absolutely nothing by the way, is that your 796 is part of the "equipment list" for your plane and even because it's mounted in a dock it's permanent and came with the plane. The GDL-39 is portable device, like mine even though hardwired and mounted, and not part of the "equipment list" in your POH.

That was my guess, clear as mud?

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:43:08 -0400

Well GDL 39R is mouthed permanently since it is the “remote” version ... similar to GDL 82 , I would think but like you said ... who knows ..

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:44:26 -0400

If it's a part of the plane, and its functional, and you use it, I'd list it on my flight plan. What are they going to do if it's wrong, shoot you down?

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by dstclair

no_email@example.com (dstclair) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:28:03 -0400

Paul -- you beat me to it!

Basically, a VFR flight plan is mostly informational -- provides a paper trail that you had a plan and probably followed the other planning regs and is used for SAR. You are not going to get different services based on the equipage you list. An IFR flight plan is a bit different since your navigational equipment will dictate what type of routing and approach you can accept. In this case, I'm unaware of any extra services you will be provided because you have ADS-B In (certified or not).

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:29:47 -0400

Makes sense to me. If ADS-B in was required equipment, that would be a different story.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:47:56 -0400

I agree, I don’t see how it would change things on a VFR flight plan. I don’t file flight plans anyway but instead use flight following on the longer flights. I’m with Tim and like knowing someone is at the other end of my push to talk button if the need arises.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 18:26:42 -0400

ShawnM wrote:I’m with Tim and like knowing someone is at the other end of my push to talk button if the need arises.

Another way to do this is to monitor 121.5, as required by FDC NOTAM “when capable”.

Someone is virtually always on “the other end” if you mash that button. Downside is they won’t immediately know your position, and under stress it can be difficult to articulate your position quickly while dealing with the emergency.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 20:15:10 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:
ShawnM wrote:I’m with Tim and like knowing someone is at the other end of my push to talk button if the need arises.

Another way to do this is to monitor 121.5, as required by FDC NOTAM “when capable”.

Someone is virtually always on “the other end” if you mash that button. Downside is they won’t immediately know your position, and under stress it can be difficult to articulate your position quickly while dealing with the emergency.

Yup, my new Garmin GTR-200 radio has two soft touch buttons on the face and they are user programmable for 5 different functions and "EMR" is one of them and with the simple push of a button I'm on the emergency frequency 121.5.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 21:22:03 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:
ShawnM wrote:I’m with Tim and like knowing someone is at the other end of my push to talk button if the need arises.

Another way to do this is to monitor 121.5, as required by FDC NOTAM “when capable”.

Someone is virtually always on “the other end” if you mash that button. Downside is they won’t immediately know your position, and under stress it can be difficult to articulate your position quickly while dealing with the emergency.

You can do that while using flight following on your active frequency. I would prefer to push the button and say "I'm going down" without trying to tell someone where.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:33:53 -0400

The changes don't really affect me, since I have filed a flight plan exactly never since flight school.

With ELTs, PLBs, ADS-B, flight following, etc...can anybody explain to me the value of having a VFR flight plan? Maybe crossing a big desert or flying across Alaska it might make sense, but mainly it just seems like the purpose is to find your mangled body a couple of hours earlier. I can't remember an incident where somebody's life was saved because they filed a flight plan. I'm genuinely curious what the perceived value is.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:42:43 -0400

The point is, you want someone to come looking for you sooner rather than later. They need a method to know you're flying and where you might be. As long as you have some method that does that, I don't think it really matters that much how you do it. I wouldn't want to be hurt and unable to move and nobody even knew I went flying, much less where.

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 00:09:17 -0400

Most of you probably already know this, but the Flight Service web site has an interactive ICAO flight plan form that is pretty simple to use. It's under the Flight Planning and Briefing tab. Just click on the looking glass icons to bring up a drop down box for several of the fields, then put a check in the appropriate items to populate the field in question. You can save your flight plans as favorites. Of course, you will need to create an account there if you don't already have one.

https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/dashboard;jsessionid=AF5AEBB5F8879635E3C5F7AEB8138688

Training :: Re: ICAO flight plan format :: Reply by rcpilot

no_email@example.com (rcpilot) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:05:30 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Most of you probably already know this, but the Flight Service web site has an interactive ICAO flight plan form that is pretty simple to use. It's under the Flight Planning and Briefing tab. Just click on the looking glass icons to bring up a drop down box for several of the fields, then put a check in the appropriate items to populate the field in question. You can save your flight plans as favorites. Of course, you will need to create an account there if you don't already have one.

https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/dashboard;jsessionid=AF5AEBB5F8879635E3C5F7AEB8138688

It's pretty handy. I use it a lot to get weather but recently just for sh*ts and giggles I used it to file a flight plan(of course right before they changed the format). You can set it up to send you a text to activate and close the flight plan. Easy peasy.

Training :: Ground School :: Author EyeInTheSky

no_email@example.com (EyeInTheSky) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 14:05:41 -0400

Hello. I'm interested in earning a Sport Pilot license and have a couple of questions about ground school training.

Can I take ground school training for Private Pilot (instead of one specifically for Sport Pilot) and use that endorsement to take the FAA Sport Pilot written test?

Can I take the written FAA test before I start flight training?

Thank you!

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 14:40:11 -0400

I don't know about your first question, but yes, you can take the FAA written test before you start your flight training. Personally, I prefer to see them done in tandem, but that is not necessary. Why wait to start your flight training? On the other hand, if you must wait to start flight training, by all means, start your studies toward the written.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by nub_pilot

no_email@example.com (nub_pilot) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:36:37 -0400

My understanding is that you must take the proper written test for the certificate you are pursuing. I had thought about doing the PPL written prior to determining that I couldn't pass a 3rd class medical (or put it at risk of denial).

I ended up buying an online ground school that is good for life with continuous updates, started taking the lessons, but will wait to take the written exam until I find an instructor and get further into my training.

Remember, if you prepare for the written, take the written and pass, you have 2 years to get your certificate. there is an expiration to the written after you have passed.

things to consider.
Jeremy

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:42:11 -0400

For sure you must take the appropriate written test for the pilot certificate you are seeking. There is no question about that.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:45:12 -0400

You certainly can study for the private pilot knowledge test, but your endorsement to take the test must be for the specific test. Such as Private Pilot ASEL, or Sport Pilot Airplane. You can not use a private pilot endorsement to take the sport pilot knowledge test.

Some of my best students have already had the knowledge test taken before they started training. That being said I also teach a ground school class through out local junior college. Often the students have not done any flying. There are some knowledge items that are easier to understand if you have a little practical experience with flying, and there is some flying that is easier if you have the knowledge.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by EyeInTheSky

no_email@example.com (EyeInTheSky) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 16:13:27 -0400

Thank you all for the responses. It is much appreciated! I am doing the written first (and also practicing on a simulator for familiarity) so that I do not have the stress of doing everything at once and make better use of the instructor's time.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 18:16:09 -0400

My take is there would be no harm, and some benefit, in studying to Private Pilot standards. That would give you the vast majority of knowledge areas for the Sport Pilot written, plus some. The only thing you might be missing doing it that way is knowledge areas specific to Sport Pilots, namely the regs and limitations that pertain to Sport Pilots that likely wouldn’t be covered in a Private Pilot course. But it would be just a few things to cover, and whoever signed you off for the Sport Pilot written would certainly emphasize those areas.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 18:27:55 -0400

I agree with FastEddie. There are several ways to train for the written. One is to do some sort of home study course or a private ground school with a CFI or Ground Instructor. That CFI or Ground Instructor could "fill in the gaps" and sign you off for the Sport Pilot written.

That said, I think there are some "computerized" training courses that automatically generate your endorsement to take the written. In this case, you could not use a Private written endorsement to take the Sport Pilot written test. There also could be some formal ground schools where you could get your training that might not be willing to give you a Sport Pilot endorsement having taking a Private Pilot course.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 19:59:31 -0400

Let me clarify one thing about ground instruction. It is a common misconception that its purpose is to prepare you for the knowledge test. Although that may well be one consequence of ground school, it should not be its primary objective. Ground instruction should be designed to promote, supplement, and solidify flying skills.

An aircraft, after all, makes for a busy, noisy, and inefficient classroom. It's hardly the best environment for discussing reasons and procedures for the various flight maneuvers. It's an expensive classroom, because the Hobbs meter is running. And, although ground school information can be gleaned from reading, I find it's better mastered and applied if it's designed around and interleaved with flight training.

For that reason, my curriculum involves simultaneous flight and ground instruction. It's not right for everybody, perhaps for economic or scheduling reasons (or both). But those who are able to combine the two tend to end up learning faster, and better, and become safer and more competent pilots.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 20:18:48 -0400

Ground instruction makes more sense when you can apply it to your flight instruction. Flight instruction makes more sense when you can apply your ground instruction. It all culminates with a successful written exam followed by a successful flight test.

Not only that, but the flight instruction keeps you motivated to hit the books.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by HornedFrogGrant

no_email@example.com (HornedFrogGrant) — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:05:53 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:I think there are some "computerized" training courses that automatically generate your endorsement to take the written.

This is the route that I went, with the King Schools Sport Pilot (Airplane) course. Once you're done with the course, practice tests, etc, you simply download and print the certificate with CFI endorsement, and you're good-to-go for the real test.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:34:32 -0400

HornedFrogGrant wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:I think there are some "computerized" training courses that automatically generate your endorsement to take the written.

This is the route that I went, with the King Schools Sport Pilot (Airplane) course. Once you're done with the course, practice tests, etc, you simply download and print the certificate with CFI endorsement, and you're good-to-go for the real test.

I did the exact same thing but with the Gleim Sport Pilot course and online test prep they offer.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by HAPPYDAN

no_email@example.com (HAPPYDAN) — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:53:25 -0400

I don't know about the other online courses, but Sporty's online course is very comprehensive and includes video training and practice tests for Private, Recreation, and Sport. It is also updated periodically to include new and changing material. This is the course provided by EAA Sport Pilot Academy, and for the Young Eagles program. Of course, it also includes an endorsement certificate which is accepted by CATS and LaserGrade. Several years ago I took a formal sit-down ground school course for Private. The material was Jeppesen, and the instructor was excellent. But the cost was around $500 as I recall, all materials included, but not the actual knowledge test. I was in a class with 10 or so like-minded people, and together we developed an excellent learning environment.

Training :: Re: Ground School :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 11:19:19 -0400

EyeInTheSky wrote:Hello. I'm interested in earning a Sport Pilot license and have a couple of questions about ground school training.

Can I take ground school training for Private Pilot (instead of one specifically for Sport Pilot) and use that endorsement to take the FAA Sport Pilot written test?

Can I take the written FAA test before I start flight training?

Thank you!

My daughter is in her Sophomore year in a 4-year Embry-Riddle Dual Enrollment program in her local PUBLIC High School. Next year, for the final exam, every student takes the Private Pilot Written !!! Some have never flown and will never fly, but they will have passed the FAA Written.

IT'S FREE TO US and paid for by the normal Georgia Department of Ed. The instructor is an Embry-Riddle prof. and licensed FAA Ground Instructor. The class meets every day for the whole year. That is a LOT of aviation material driven in their young minds.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: MEI add-on to CFI-S, is it possible? :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 11:40:58 -0400

The CHARTS the OP mentions that is a table depicting allowable omissions. These tables were created during a period of time when the FAA ADAMANTLY PROHIBITED INSTRUCTION FROM SPORT CFI's BEING COUNTED AT ALL TOWARD HIGHER RATINGS. The omission of Sport time was on
purpose to comply with the FAA letter from their Legal Department that caused that time to not be counted.

Thank God that period has passed. Now, time with a Sport CFI can be credited toward every higher pilots license. As of right now, the tables/charts have not been revised in the publications. In their next revision, I'm sure some credit will be allowed for Sport training.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: MEI add-on to CFI-S, is it possible? :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:33:20 -0400

An MEI would be issued under subpart H. If you don't already hold a CFI issued under subpart H, then the MEI would be your initial CFI under subpart H. Having a CFI-S would have no bearing other than logged time and experience gained.

My subpart H. CFI reads: Flight Instructor Airplane Single and Multiengine

You are not going to be able to get an CFI-S certificate that says Multiengine.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: Himax :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:54:06 -0400

First Time,

I admire your enthusiasm! Don't let that go away.

We had a gang of ultralight guys that hung out at the airport in the 1990's. There was a purple and white Mini-Max in the group.
The Mini-Max is the shoulder-wing father of the Hi-Max.

That thing flew great. It had a Rotax 447 and that was plenty of power. It must have been owned by half the guys at one time
or the other and each owner put about 100 hours on it. I know two owners who taught themselves to fly in it although I don't
advocate that.

I don't know where it is now but I've asked about it and they just say it's still flying. I'd bet it's probably just worn out.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:11:11 -0400

Food for thought.

I got a Private License in FW/SEL in 1985 who probably could not pass a Class III physical these days. I and my Family Doctor both agree that I most likely do not pose a safety threat to aviation when I do the type flying I want to (I.E. Typical stuff a Sport Pilot wants to do).

I just bought a Lycoming-Powered Piper Tomahawk that has always had a current annual. I got it for less than $20,000 and am currently trying to get the FAA to approve a LODA for me to teach ONE STUDENT (my 15 year old daughter) to fly toward her Private Ticket in it with my SPORT CFI rating. I realize a Subpart H CFI will need to train her on PTS tasks that are not in the Sport PTS but are in the Private Pilot PTS. That instructor will do her last 3 hours of checkride prep.

I tie the metal airplane down outside for ($50) per month. I have zero insurance and don't have very much property or money to be sued for, so if someone does, it will cost them more than they get. I am not a cowboy and I fly safely and per the FAR's. It burns 6 gallons per hour ($30). I expect to solo my daughter on her 16th birthday and have her ready for her Private checkride on her 17th, with very close to 40 hours in her logbook. I expect to have all this done well before the Lycoming O-235 engine reaches its 2000 hour TBO. The final step will be to sell the Tomahawk for no less than I gave for it.

You can aviate on a homeless budget. Her Private License should cost us less than $1000.

Attachments

IMG_2721 smaller.jpg (187.69 KiB)

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:29:24 -0400

I would not fly without liability insurance. If I injure or kill someone else, they deserve compensation without having to sue me (but they will), IMHO. Liability insurance is not very expensive.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:57:37 -0400

bryancobb wrote:Her Private License should cost us less than $1000.

One can only hope.

But consider that unexpected maintenance expenses tend to be the rule, rather than the exception. Even simple little airframe parts can have costs that can make your nose bleed.

Not doom-saying or nay-saying...just keep your eyes open to the real costs of flying and maintaining a “legacy” aircraft.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:25:02 -0400

bryancobb wrote:
I just bought a Lycoming-Powered Piper Tomahawk that has always had a current annual. I got it for less than $20,000 and am currently trying to get the FAA to approve a LODA for me to teach ONE STUDENT (my 15 year old daughter) to fly toward her Private Ticket in it with my SPORT CFI rating. I realize a Subpart H CFI will need to train her on PTS tasks that are not in the Sport PTS but are in the Private Pilot PTS. That instructor will do her last 3 hours of checkride prep.

Even if they allow you to provide the training in the Tomahawk, the training time from you as a sport CFI will not count towards her private pilot certificate unless she gets her sport pilot rating first.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:00:47 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
bryancobb wrote:
I just bought a Lycoming-Powered Piper Tomahawk that has always had a current annual. I got it for less than $20,000 and am currently trying to get the FAA to approve a LODA for me to teach ONE STUDENT (my 15 year old daughter) to fly toward her Private Ticket in it with my SPORT CFI rating. I realize a Subpart H CFI will need to train her on PTS tasks that are not in the Sport PTS but are in the Private Pilot PTS. That instructor will do her last 3 hours of checkride prep.

Even if they allow you to provide the training in the Tomahawk, the training time from you as a sport CFI will not count towards her private pilot certificate unless she gets her sport pilot rating first.

Show me the reg.

NOWHERE IN THE REGS IS IT INDICATED THAT A SPORT PILOT LICENSE MUST BE THE GOAL OF THE STUDENT! NOWHERE IN THE REGS DOES IT SAY THAT TO COUNT THE FLIGHT TRAINING AND AERONAUTICAL EXPERIENCE, THE STUDENT MUST HAVE WANTED AND BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT GETTING A SPORT PILOT RATING.

The FEDERAL REGISTER interpretations and clarifications emphasizes the "TITLE OF THE RULING" and says "On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions.”

"Section 61.99 is revised to allow flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical experience requirements for a recreational pilot certificate with airplane or rotorcraft categories."

"Section 61.109 is revised by adding paragraph (l) to allow flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical experience requirements for a private pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air categories."

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:07:17 -0400

Although the hours can count for higher ratings, the privileges allowed a Subpart K CFI are limited (elsewhere in the regs) to instruction given solely in an LSA. So, it's that restriction which you'll be needing to get waived. I honestly don't know how likely that is.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:17:09 -0400

But, the way my request is worded, and if approved, the conditions spelled out in the answer letter
will have more muscle than the FAR's.

What I am asking for is that a Subpart H CFI verify I have provided adequate instruction by doing several "Stage-Checks," much like
a 141 schools do. The H CFI will sign her off to solo after flying with her once after I get her ready to solo. The H CFI will again sign
off for each of her solo X-C's after I prep her and looked over her flight planning. This H CFI will do the 3 hours of checkride prep with her
and sign her off to take the written and her checkride.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:25:47 -0400

Why don't you just pay a CFI to instruct her for her Private in your airplane?

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:34:09 -0400

drseti wrote:Although the hours can count for higher ratings, the privileges allowed a Subpart K CFI are limited (elsewhere in the regs) to instruction given solely in an LSA. So, it's that restriction which you'll be needing to get waived. I honestly don't know how likely that is.

You are precisely correct. All they can do is say "no." The premise of my request has the following elements:

* A Tomahawk is a simple, slow, primary trainer that is somewhat close to being a Light Sport airplane.
* I am not asking to train but ONE student, my daughter.
( ) = Tomahawk

1320# vs (1670#)
120KCAS vs (115KCAS)
45KCAS vs (52KCAS no flaps)
2 Seats vs (2 Seats)
1 Eng Fixed Prop vs (1 Eng Fixed Prop)

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:40:36 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Why don't you just pay a CFI to instruct her for her Private in your airplane?

Because the personal gratification for the rest of her life and mine, knowing she will always be able to say..."My Daddy taught me to fly.
I solo'd on my 16th birthday and took my checkride on my 17th birthday."

It appears, she will be in an Aviation/Aerospace career and I think it would be great for her to be able to say this.

If the FAA won't allow it, then your idea will be Plan "B."

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:08:16 -0400

bryancobb wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
bryancobb wrote:
I just bought a Lycoming-Powered Piper Tomahawk that has always had a current annual. I got it for less than $20,000 and am currently trying to get the FAA to approve a LODA for me to teach ONE STUDENT (my 15 year old daughter) to fly toward her Private Ticket in it with my SPORT CFI rating. I realize a Subpart H CFI will need to train her on PTS tasks that are not in the Sport PTS but are in the Private Pilot PTS. That instructor will do her last 3 hours of checkride prep.

Even if they allow you to provide the training in the Tomahawk, the training time from you as a sport CFI will not count towards her private pilot certificate unless she gets her sport pilot rating first.

Show me the reg.

NOWHERE IN THE REGS IS IT INDICATED THAT A SPORT PILOT LICENSE MUST BE THE GOAL OF THE STUDENT! NOWHERE IN THE REGS DOES IT SAY THAT TO COUNT THE FLIGHT TRAINING AND AERONAUTICAL EXPERIENCE, THE STUDENT MUST HAVE WANTED AND BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT GETTING A SPORT PILOT RATING.

The FEDERAL REGISTER interpretations and clarifications emphasizes the "TITLE OF THE RULING" and says "On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions.”

"Section 61.99 is revised to allow flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical experience requirements for a recreational pilot certificate with airplane or rotorcraft categories."

"Section 61.109 is revised by adding paragraph (l) to allow flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical experience requirements for a private pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air categories."

Copied and pasted from the regulations.
61.109
(l) Permitted credit for flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may credit flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience requirements of this section if the following conditions are met:

If you do not hold a sport pilot certificate, then the instruction time from a sport pilot instructor can not be used to meet the training requirements of the private pilot certificate.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:32:28 -0400

Well...I guess you are right.

The final wording does not resemble what the very thorough discussion on The Federal Register website.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:46:35 -0400

My experience flying for over 55 years is it's best to try and follow the rules precisely. With an activity as regulated as flying and flight instruction, trying to make exceptions is probably more trouble than it's worth. Any kid who earns a Private Pilot certificate while still in high school has plenty to be proud of. I know, I did it. Soloed at 16, Private at 17, Commercial at 18, CFI at 19.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:53:53 -0400

Sounds like an altogether reasonable request, Bryan. Too bad you're making it of a typically unreasonable government agency.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by bryancobb

no_email@example.com (bryancobb) — Mon, 23 Sep 2019 05:49:50 -0400

In my experience, the FAA as a whole, has always been reasonable in my dealings with them.

When I had to replace a bad exhaust valve in my IVO-360-A1A in my Brantly helicopter, my engine guy found that the engine crankcase was the correct item but in 1969, cylinders with the wrong part number were installed. Even though these "nitrided-bore" jugs had been chromed so they were practically identical to the OEM chrome ones, they were still WRONG. The MIDO allowed the deviation from conformity based on the fact that the engine had been flown more than 1000 hours with the wrong cylinders with no problems. They signed the 337 and asked me to stamp a suffix letter on the dataplate.

Pretty reasonable, right?

I admit the FAA Lawyer's letter disallowing Sport CFI hours toward higher ratings was UN reasonable.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:06:01 -0400

Bryan, in my experience most district personnel are quite reasonable. FAA Legal is often not. So, if your issue can be resolved at the FSDO (or GADO, or MIDO) level, you have a fighting chance. If they have to kick it upstairs, all bets are off.

Instructors' Corner :: Re: The Sport Pilot Rating :: Reply by Otto

no_email@example.com (Otto) — Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:05:19 -0400

I teach my daughter some flights and also have her fly with other instructors. Teenagers have 10+ years of intensive practice ignoring their parents. Doesn't matter how smart we are. Definitely fly with her, even if you don't do the instructing. I do hope it works out and you get the green light.

Experimenter's Corner :: Re: Wrench turner :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:27:42 -0400

A quick update. I talked to an A&P at an airport that is 6 miles from my office. He said they have 3 Jabiru powered aircraft that they regularly work on so they are proficient working on them. In fact he pointed me to a zenith that was 3300 powered on the field.

So now begins the prebuy. The shop close to the plane is 1 month behind on scheduling. So it looks like this may go into Oct.

Taking Shawn's advise I'm going to sit in one first before making my offer. I also need to secure a hanger. No way I'm leaving this outside in CTs winters.

Experimenter's Corner :: Re: Wrench turner :: Reply by nub_pilot

no_email@example.com (nub_pilot) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:14:53 -0400

I was talking with a gentleman (Jason) from Michigan in Newport News FBO about the issue of pricy hanger space and he recommended trying to find someone willing to share a hanger, most LSA are a very small foot print and depending on the size of the hanger and what they are storing might be eligible to get both planes in one. like a high wing and low relatively close together.

just something to consider.

Jeremy

Experimenter's Corner :: Re: Wrench turner :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:52:42 -0400

Check with the airport first and make sure “sharing” is allowed. My airport does not allow this. Per the hangar contract it’s one aircraft per hangar. My airport just ran off a bunch of trike and gyro owners because there were sharing hangars. It’s a stupid rule in my opinion but it’s still the rule.

Safety Corner :: Special VFR :: Author Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 19:28:18 -0400

As part of my studying I came across the request for special VFR when the airport was below minimums but just outside the airport was Severe Clear.

My question is twofold. 1) Are sport pilots allowed to ask for and receive SVFR? 2) If so, have any of you sport pilots done this?

Thank you for the free yet valuable education.

-Tony

Safety Corner :: Re: Special VFR :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 20:36:20 -0400

No. A Sport Pilot cannot be give a special VFR clearance.

Safety Corner :: Re: Special VFR :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 20:26:54 -0400

No 1?
No 2?
or just no. no.

Safety Corner :: Re: Special VFR :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 20:39:21 -0400

"AeroSports Update: Sport Pilots; What Are Your Weather Minimums?
The Rules For Sport Pilots Actually Require Them To Fly In Safer Weather Conditions Than A Private Pilot
If you line up 10 sport pilots, or higher-rated pilots operating under sport pilot privileges and ask, “What are the minimum weather conditions you may fly in?” odds are that most of them will answer, “Sport pilots are only allowed to fly in VFR (visual flight rule) conditions.” If that’s the answer we get, the next question should be; “Are you sure?”

The best way to be sure is to look it up in the FARs. Part 61.315 states that sport pilots may not fly when the flight or surface visibility is less than three statute miles. Okay, isn’t three statute miles the same as VFR? The short answer is, not always. In Class G airspace (this is called uncontrolled airspace), below 10,000 feet above sea level, the minimum visibility for VFR flight is only one statute mile. Pilots operating under pilot privileges higher than sport pilot (private, commercial etc.) may fly VFR in Class G airspace with one mile visibility…sport pilots may not.

Another caveat for sport pilots is the use of a procedure called, “Special VFR.” Pilots operating under pilot privileges higher than sport pilot may fly into Class C and D airspace when the visibility is less than the VFR-required 3 statute miles by receiving a special VFR clearance. With this clearance, the visibility requirement drops to one statute mile. Once again, sport pilots must always have a visibility of three statute miles, so special VFR is a no-no for sport pilots.

Sport pilots are trained for simpler flight operations and the sport pilot limitations reflect this. It’s a case of the rules matching the mission. So, if you are operating as a sport pilot and are planning a flight with your flying pals from Class G airspace, your non sport pilot buddies can launch with only one statute mile visibility but, as a sport pilot, you can’t.

Look at it this way, you have to stay home and/or wait for better visibility. It could be argued that the sport pilot is better off for this rule; I hope your flying pals make it to their destination okay! Their departure in low visibility might be legal, but low visibility and “scud running” is a key contributor to accidents.

If you are exercising sport pilot privileges, no matter what pilot certificate you hold, you must follow sport pilot weather rules."

Safety Corner :: Re: Special VFR :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:04:18 -0400

SVFR is not just about visibility. What about a sport pilot flying in or out of a class E airport with 10 miles visibility and 900 broken?

Safety Corner :: Re: Special VFR :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:20:54 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:SVFR is not just about visibility. What about a sport pilot flying in or out of a class E airport with 10 miles visibility and 900 broken?

A Sport Pilot cannot request or be cleared for Special VFR. However, if a Sport Pilot can maintain required cloud clearances, and minimum obstruction clearances and/or minimum altitude, I don't see that would be a problem. I guess it would depend on when he could climb to 500 agl or 1000 agl, etc and still remain 500 feet below the clouds or 2000 horizontal clearance, but probably not if broken. Sounds a lot like trying to thread a needle.

Safety Corner :: Re: Special VFR :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:35:57 -0400

I did a little digging, because I remembered this beng discussed before. As I stated a sport pilot can not get a special VFR for visibility, but they can for less than a 1000 foot ceiling in class E airspace, or Class D, C, and B (if sport pilots are allowed in the particular airspace).

by Paul Hamilton » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:06 pm

Just got off the phone with the FAA and there is no regulation prohibiting sport pilots with an airspace endorsement and 3 miles visibility from requesting SVFR per 91.157 to get around the 1000/500/2000 cloud clearances per 91.155 to fly right next to the clouds and be clear of clouds per SVFR 91.157
Paul is a Sport Pilot CFI/DPE and the expert for ASA who writes the books and produces the DVD's for all pilots flying light sport aircraft.

See www.SportAviationCenter.com www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com and www.BeASportPilot.com to Paul's websites

Safety Corner :: Re: Special VFR :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:54:08 -0400

viewtopic.php?p=10817&sid=4d50796a123f87b74f0c594c611f088a#p10817

Safety Corner :: Pilots Needed for Study on Meteorological Weather Displays :: Author DPL_GATECH

no_email@example.com (DPL_GATECH) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:13:15 -0400

Georgia Tech is seeking pilots to volunteer for a study examining how meteorological information displays affect pilot weather decision-making. Licensed pilots and currently enrolled student pilots who are at least 18 years of age and live in the US are eligible to participate.
As you know, adverse weather conditions in aviation can lead to delays, deviations, and even accidents. As a result, the Georgia Institute of Technology is conducting a study on how different weather display technology influences pilot decision-making.
As a participant in this study, you will be asked to complete an online demographic questionnaire regarding your flight experience, ratings, and other items. Following the demographic questionnaire, the participant pilots will be asked to evaluate various weather scenarios. The study will take roughly 1-hours to complete, and the participants will have to evaluate 30 weather situations. We hope that you will consider participating and assisting us in learning more about weather display technology. Participation will assist us in learning more about weather display technologies with the goal of improving aviation safety. The supported internet browsers are Chrome 4.0 or higher, and Firefox 4.0 or higher. In addition, JavaScript must be enabled. We recommend using a laptop or a desktop. If you work at a secure government facility, you may need to use a personal device due to security constraints.
If you would like to participate in this study, please go to the web address (URL) shown below:
https://tinyurl.com/yxgr2ock
For more information about this study, or to volunteer for this study, please contact:
Dr. Rick Thomas
Associate Professor
School of Psychology
Georgia Institute of Technology
rick.thomas@psych.gatech.edu

Safety Corner :: Remos engine out :: Author Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:42 -0400

http://www.wspynews.com/news/local/mech ... ad21e.html

N448RA is the plane I got about 30 hours on during my initial training. Got a word that it was an engine out at 500 feet, nobody hurt and no damage ... I know they have replaced the engine recently on one of their planes ( the old one was past 2500 hours ) - don’t remember if this was the one.

Ask The Examiner :: 8710 Question :: Author JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 09:09:24 -0400

On my solo practice days I fly to a usually deserted airport 22nm from my home airport. I do a couple of landings and then before heading back to my home airport, I practice various maneuvers. I list this time as cross-country in my logbook.

Should I show all this time in the cross country and cross country PIC columns or only list the time that counts towards my required cross country solo?

In Dr. Shure's excellent DPE video he says to only list the hours pertinent to the rating you are seeking (SP ASEL). My ultimate goal is to transition to Gyroplane as soon as I get my FW ticket. I have a few hours of gyro training. Would it hurt to go ahead and list this on the 8710?

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 12:53:34 -0400

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/logging-cross-country-flight-time/

Since your 22nm destination airport does not meet the requirements for cross-country time for a Sport Pilot certificate, I would not include that time as cross-country on the 8710 form.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:02:25 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/logging-cross-country-flight-time/

Since your 22nm destination airport does not meet the requirements for cross-country time for a Sport Pilot certificate, I would not include that time as cross-country on the 8710 form.

The cross-country solo requirement does not specify and required hours just distance and the 8710 does not ask for any distance information. The DPE will need to confirm that my cross country solo met the requirements by looking at the entry in my logbook. Since my trips to the neighborhood airport meet the requirement for solo cross country why not have those hours reflected in the 8710? Leaving them out would be like leaving out any hours above the 20 hours required because they were not needed.

It seems to me that if the FAA wanted to fully document the cross country solo on the 8710 they would have asked for the information needed i.e. straight-line distance for each leg of the trip.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by chicagorandy

no_email@example.com (chicagorandy) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:47:14 -0400

I'm a little confused. Are you training for a Sport Pilot license? If so, does your CFI say that 22 miles qualifies as Sport Pilot cross-country even though the reg clearly states 25?

That would be your answer I'm thinkin'.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:50:49 -0400

JJ Campbell wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/logging-cross-country-flight-time/

Since your 22nm destination airport does not meet the requirements for cross-country time for a Sport Pilot certificate, I would not include that time as cross-country on the 8710 form.

The cross-country solo requirement does not specify and required hours just distance and the 8710 does not ask for any distance information. The DPE will need to confirm that my cross country solo met the requirements by looking at the entry in my logbook. Since my trips to the neighborhood airport meet the requirement for solo cross country why not have those hours reflected in the 8710? Leaving them out would be like leaving out any hours above the 20 hours required because they were not needed.

It seems to me that if the FAA wanted to fully document the cross country solo on the 8710 they would have asked for the information needed i.e. straight-line distance for each leg of the trip.

Well then, why did you ask the question? Yes, you can log it as cross-country. However, it does not qualify as cross-country toward your required cross-country for Sport Pilot. You could include it or exclude it from your 8710. I would exclude it and just show it under total time. Do it however you choose.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 15:02:13 -0400

chicagorandy wrote:I'm a little confused. Are you training for a Sport Pilot license? If so, does your CFI say that 22 miles qualifies as Sport Pilot cross-country even though the reg clearly states 25?

That would be your answer I'm thinkin'.

Yes, SP license and I know what the requirement is for the cross country - it does not include time just distance. My cross country had 3 legs 2 slightly over 25nm and one was 22 for a total distance of 79nm.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 17:51:49 -0400

JJ Campbell wrote: I know what the requirement is for the cross country - it does not include time just distance.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. FAR 61.313 (a)(1)(i) specifies a requirement of 2 hours of cross country flight training. That is a time requirement, would have to be dual, and it's up to the CFI to determine which flights constitute XC instruction. Then, under 61.313(a)(1)(ii) you are required to have logged one solo XC flight of at least 75 nm, with full stop landings at a minimum of two points and one leg exceeding 25 nm. Those are the distance requirements. As long as you've had the required dual (and the appropriate XC endorsements for each flight), then any subsequent solo flights can be logged as XC, but only if they involve a full stop landing at the destination airport, and a straight line distance of greater than 25 nm.

Here's an actual case in point. In the mid 1980s, you may recall that Jeanna Yeager and Dick Rutan flew around the world, nonstop and non-refueled, in the Voyager aircraft (designed and built by Dick's brother Burt). That 8-day adventure had to be logged as a local flight, because it took off from, and landed at, Edward's AFB, with no full-stop landing more than 25 nm away!

Three other things to remember: if your aircraft has a Vh greater than 87 knots, you must have received and logged dual instruction in flight solely by reference to flight instruments, prior to embarking on solo XC. And to log dual XC, you must hold a pilot certificate. (That is, any long dual flights that predate the issue of your student pilot certificate can't be logged as XC, regardless of distance, landings, legs, etc.) And finally, no flight counts as XC unless it involves some kind of navigation between points (that is, pilotage, ded reckoning, or electronic system).

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 18:18:09 -0400

So, if you get lost just tooling around and land at an airport 25 nm from where you started, you can't log that as cross-country.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 18:42:13 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:So, if you get lost just tooling around and land at an airport 25 nm from where you started, you can't log that as cross-country.

Not unless you navigated to where you got lost.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 18:50:58 -0400

drseti wrote: …then any subsequent solo flights can be logged as XC, but only if they involve a full stop landing at the destination airport, and a straight line distance of greater than 25 nm.

That is interesting and a bit odd. Do you happen to know the FAR citation for this bit of esoterica?

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:22:47 -0400

It's in 61.1:

(iii) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for a sport pilot certificate (except for powered parachute privileges), time acquired during a flight conducted in an appropriate aircraft that—

(A) Includes a point of landing at least a straight line distance of more than 25 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and

(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic navigation aids; radio aids; or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.

There is nothing esoteric about it. It's part of the FAR's that a Sport Pilot candidate should know.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:26:54 -0400

JJ Campbell wrote: Do you happen to know the FAR citation for this bit of esoterica?

Two citations, actually. The landing requirement is in 61.1(b)(3)(i)(C), and the distance requirement comes from 61.1(b)(3)(iii)(A).

Also FYI, the requirement for navigation is in 61.1(b)(3)(i)(D).

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:30:57 -0400

For an hour and a half of related FAR esoteric, see my webinar "Get Out of Dodge!" at http://avsport.org/webinars/videos/xc.mp4

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:38:08 -0400

JJ Campbell wrote:On my solo practice days I fly to a usually deserted airport 22nm from my home airport. I do a couple of landings and then before heading back to my home airport, I practice various maneuvers.

This is completely appropriate, as long as you have complied with the requirements of FAR 61.93(b)(1)(i) thru(v). However,

I list this time as cross-country in my logbook.
[/quote]

But you shouldn't, since according to 61.1(b)(3)(iii)(A), it has to be more than 25 nm for a Sport Pilot student to log as XC.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:38:22 -0400

In other words, you can't fly back and forth across your airport landing at airports 12.5 miles on either side and count that as cross-country toward a Sport Pilot certificate.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:45:37 -0400

As long as the two other airports are separated by more than 25 nm, as long as you land at each one without landing in between at your home airport, the leg between those two airports is definitely a XC. (Of course, this means your CFI must have given you a solo XC endorsement for that particular leg.)

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 20:06:03 -0400

drseti wrote:As long as the two other airports are separated by more than 25 nm, as long as you land at each one without landing in between at your home airport, the leg between those two airports is definitely a XC. (Of course, this means your CFI must have given you a solo XC endorsement for that particular leg.)

Yes, that would be your departure point for that 25nm leg, ie cross-country. That seems a little like stretching the intent of the rule to me. On a good visibility day, you almost never get out of sight of your home airport.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:07:01 -0400

drseti wrote:
But you shouldn't, since according to 61.1(b)(3)(iii)(A), it has to be more than 25 nm for a Sport Pilot student to log as XC.

That is not entirely correct. It must be more than 25NM to be used to fulfill the requirements of the rating, they can still log it as cross country.

For it to be cross country it simply needs to meet these 4 requirements.
(A) Conducted by a person who holds a pilot certificate;

(B) Conducted in an aircraft;

(C) That includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure; and

(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point.

The distance only comes into play when you are using it to meet the requirements for certain ratings. 25 NM for sport pilot, and 50 NM for Private, commercial, and instrument ratings. You can however use it for the 500 hours required for an ATP rating.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:23:02 -0400

That's why I posted this earlier:

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/logging-cross-country-flight-time/

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:34:41 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:
drseti wrote:As long as the two other airports are separated by more than 25 nm, as long as you land at each one without landing in between at your home airport, the leg between those two airports is definitely a XC. (Of course, this means your CFI must have given you a solo XC endorsement for that particular leg.)

Yes, that would be your departure point for that 25nm leg, ie cross-country. That seems a little like stretching the intent of the rule to me. On a good visibility day, you almost never get out of sight of your home airport.

And this would not count as cross-country toward the Sport Pilot requirements. The FAR says 25nm from the ORIGINAL point of departure, not a subsequent point of departure. You could log the entire flight as cross-country, but not count it toward your Sport Pilot rating other than total time.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 07:22:06 -0400

drseti wrote: But you shouldn't, since according to 61.1(b)(3)(iii)(A), it has to be more than 25 nm for a Sport Pilot student to log as XC.

Well, it's a good thing I do my logbook in pencil. I'll go back and make the appropriate corrections. Thank you and I will watch the video you suggested.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:50:04 -0400

You cannot do a logbook in pencil nor can you erase entries. It needs to be ink and you cross-over errors to make corrections.

Since you can log that as cross-country, just not toward your Sport Pilot certificate, I would just circle the hours that count toward your Sport Pilot certificate cross-country and just include those on your 8710.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:59:09 -0400

Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

So again, it looks like it depends but most likely if you are not doing any professional training and just want to do personal flying ... nobody will care.

Ps.
Looking at my logbook, all my entries are in ink - but then again, as soon as I got my ticket , I stopped using it and switched to the electronic version - still keep the original with endorsements etc but it is hidden away ...

Ask The Examiner :: Re: 8710 Question :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:57:47 -0400

Warmi wrote:Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

So again, it looks like it depends but most likely if you are not doing any professional training and just want to do personal flying ... nobody will care.

The FAA will care and a court of law will care if you ever end up there due to an accident. Do it right. Pencil is not acceptable for legal documents which this is or may become.

Ask The Examiner :: VOR :: Author JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:55:30 -0400

If the aircraft you are using for your Sport Pilot practical has VOR, are you expected to know how to use it?

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:23:34 -0400

What's a VOR?

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:35:39 -0400

You are only supposed to be tested on the items in the practical test standards. I would have to dig mine out, but I don't remember electronic navigation being a required test element.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:40:30 -0400

The acronym VOR doesn't appear anywhere in the PTS. The words "navigation by pilotage, deduced reckoning, and electronic means" do. So, a GPS (or GPS-equipped tablet or cellphone) will certainly suffice.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:55:52 -0400

I took my check ride in my own plane and had to demonstrate I knew how to use the Garmin GPS, it's various functions and how to navigate to an airport. Since I dont have a NAV/COM or any of those other 3 letter thingies it never came up. I had to show my DPE that I knew how to use the equipment that was in my plane. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:05:37 -0400

Put an INOP sticker on it before the checkride...problem solved.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:09:00 -0400

MrMorden wrote:Put an INOP sticker on it before the checkride...problem solved.

Ah, but if you do that, you also have to make a corresponding entry into the aircraft maintenance records.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:11:24 -0400

drseti wrote:
MrMorden wrote:Put an INOP sticker on it before the checkride...problem solved.

Ah, but if you do that, you also have to make a corresponding entry into the aircraft maintenance records.

It also needs to be deactivated. This would mean removing the power wire or some sort of mechanical means of preventing it from being turned on.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:40:14 -0400

Instead of pulling wires and all that bother ...wouldn’t be just easier to placard it with something “ don’t touch the damn thing if you don’t know what it does” and if the DPE asks just say- I will follow instructions to the letter and won’t touch the damn thing.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:06:40 -0400

Easiest solution - if the VOR receiver has it's own push-pull circuit breaker, pull the breaker and put a tie-wrap around it so it can't be pushed in again.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:22:17 -0400

Warmi wrote:Instead of pulling wires and all that bother ...wouldn’t be just easier to placard it with something “ don’t touch the damn thing if you don’t know what it does” and if the DPE asks just say- I will follow instructions to the letter and won’t touch the damn thing.

Because deactivation is required by regulation if you are labeling and instrument inoperative.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:23:40 -0400

drseti wrote:Easiest solution - if the VOR receiver has it's own push-pull circuit breaker, pull the breaker and put a tie-wrap around it so it can't be pushed in again.

That would be an acceptable method of deactivation.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:25:09 -0400

What prompted the question is that due to my concern that the weather will soon turn Winter bad at my home airport, as a contingency plan, I tried another flight school. This school has five Tecnam Eaglets (my normal plane). I took a lesson and as luck would have it I think I got the oldest one in the fleet. The CFI said the DPE might expect me to know how to use the VOR. I've read about VOR but never actually saw one before and I really don't want to add something new to my last minute preparations especially when I know that my plan is to build a E-AB gyroplane which will definitely NOT have VOR.

So, since I know the school has at least two planes w/o VOR, should I have to exercise my contingency plan, I will make sure to stick to the non VOR equipped aircraft.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by rcpilot

no_email@example.com (rcpilot) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 10:18:02 -0400

Speaking of VOR. First time I used flight following to go from KHWV to K39N, I had programmed my GPS for a direct flight. NY Approach tells me to "Fly the Kennedy VOR". Of course not having any of that equipment in my plane and being somewhat ignorant I told them can't do that. They just made me climb over the Class B. Subsequently I discovered that I can program VORs on the GPS so that's what I do now.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by JJ Campbell

no_email@example.com (JJ Campbell) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 10:40:17 -0400

rcpilot wrote: …I discovered that I can program VORs on the GPS so that's what I do now.

Great tip, rcpilot! Thank you.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:43:51 -0400

rcpilot wrote:...Subsequently I discovered that I can program VORs on the GPS so that's what I do now.

Yes. Every aviation GPS receiver I've used has VORs in the database that can be used as waypoints. I often use them as waypoints in my flight plans to skirt Class B and C and other special use airspace I want to avoid.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:11:17 -0400

I usually fly with 4 moving maps (a smartphone, a tablet, and 2 GPSs in the panel). All will navigate VOR radials. I still use the actual VOR receiver, OBS, and CDI from time to time, just to keep up with my obsolete skills.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:30:47 -0400

drseti wrote:I usually fly with 4 moving maps (a smartphone, a tablet, and 2 GPSs in the panel). All will navigate VOR radials. I still use the actual VOR receiver, OBS, and CDI from time to time, just to keep up with my obsolete skills.

On my last Flight Review, the CFI asked my to navigate using the VOR built into the Garmin SL30. It took me a few minutes of button pressing and knob turning to figure it out.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:43:02 -0400

Although my last two planes both had SL-30s, I've never used the digital RMI. They both had CDI/OBS installed. I guess I should try to figure that feature out.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:23:57 -0400

drseti wrote:Although my last two planes both had SL-30s, I've never used the digital RMI. They both had CDI/OBS installed. I guess I should try to figure that feature out.

It's pretty cool with the HS34 HSI display, when you can remember how to work it. Could really come in handy if you ever had to make an "emergency" ILS approach.

Ask The Examiner :: Re: VOR :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:47:13 -0400

Just to be clear, for the benefit of those not too familiar with VOR, dedicated GPS receivers do not receive VOR ground stations. They actually calculate a lat-long spot position of the VOR ground station.

Ask The Mechanic :: That’ll get your attention! :: Author FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:26:56 -0400

This afternoon I was flying Karen to Copperhill, TN where we keep a car parked, so she could party with some girlie friends this evening.

Most of the way through the flight, I noticed something amiss:

Out of nowhere, it certainly focuses one’s attention. I pointed it out to Karen, and told her it was almost certainly a problem with the gauge, sender or wiring, but that I was keeping a close eye on the oil temperature. I was trying to picture a failure mode of the oil pressure regulator that could cause runaway oil pressure, and I couldn’t remember whether an open circuit to the sending unit would cause the gauge to go to max or zero*. As an aside, I think I would have been more nervous if the gauge had gone to 0 rather than max.

In any case, we were less than 15 miles from Copperhill, over marginal terrain but with some altitude to spare, so pressing on made the most sense. After taxiing in, the problem was obvious:

About the easiest possible fix, so...whew! And that fix will involve supporting that wiring a bit more securely.

Anyway, from the Cirrus world I knew the siren song of, “Its probably just a bad connector.” Which is a dangerous assumption, even if warranted most of the time. When I sent these pictures to a Cirrus friend, he immediately asked if Sky Arrow got their connectors from Cirrus!

Anyway, it’s always something!

*I would have thought an open circuit to or from the sender would have resulted in a 0 oil pressure indication, since that’s where the needle rests with the master off. But I apparently am missing something with the way it works.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 18:52:48 -0400

Good head work, Eddie!
Glad you identified the gremlin.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:01:56 -0400

Yes, instruments going to their extreme in a short time usually means bad instruments but hell, it is one thing to rationalize about it on the ground and another see it happen when you are a few thousands feet up

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:38:57 -0400

You are also in the position with a pusher that if something is truly amiss you don't get the smoke, burning smell, or oil streaking on the windshield to clue you in...

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by proemer

no_email@example.com (proemer) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 14:21:37 -0400

Yes, the fuel pressure gauge in my Sky Arrow also shows max high with an open circuit. Had one broken wire at the connector, and numerous cases of connectors loosening all on the fuel pressure sender. Same type connectors giving problems on the Voltage rectifier/regulator.

Surly Cirrus doesn't use these same connectors?

Pete

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:02:25 -0400

proemer wrote:Yes, the fuel pressure gauge in my Sky Arrow also shows max high with an open circuit. Had one broken wire at the connector, and numerous cases of connectors loosening all on the fuel pressure sender. Same type connectors giving problems on the Voltage rectifier/regulator.

Surly Cirrus doesn't use these same connectors?

Pete

I was almost to Copperhill in my Cirrus once when all my gauges went crazy and there was a bunch of static in the radio. Made a precautionary landing in Ellijay and rented a car to drive the rest of the way. Next day returned and decowled and found this:

That’s the primary alternator lead on an all-electric plane. It was arcing, held in close proximity by its rubber boot.

The early Cirrus’ has miserably cheap EGT and CHT connectors as well, causing all sorts of false alarms. Is one CHT really 500°+ due to detonation, or just another connector problem? Cirrus eventually saw the error of their ways and offered an upgraded connector kit. FOR OVER $1,000! One of several such disappointments in my 4 years of Cirrus ownership.

On my Sky Arrow I had a handful of failures of the multi-pin connector going into the Ducati regulator. When I went to my John Deere solution, I used individual spade terminals very glad to be rid of that weak link.

Installed in January of 2017, it’s been bulletproof to date

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:17:27 -0400

I have a John Deere regulator sitting on the shelf in my hangar for the day my Ducati finally dies. I'm glad you've had a good experience with it Eddie. What did you do to connect the two spades that go into one terminal on the Deere, did you just get a splitter connector?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see the splitter in your picture.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:31:10 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:On my Sky Arrow I had a handful of failures of the multi-pin connector going into the Ducati regulator. When I went to my John Deere solution, I used individual spade terminals very glad to be rid of that weak link.

Eddie, in the case of an experimental, I don't see any reason why one couldn't just abandon that multi-pin connector, and go to individual insulated crimp-on spade connectors with the Ducati regulator. Do you?

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: That’ll get your attention! :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:16:19 -0400

drseti wrote:Eddie, in the case of an experimental, I don't see any reason why one couldn't just abandon that multi-pin connector, and go to individual insulated crimp-on spade connectors with the Ducati regulator. Do you?

As delivered, the Ducati voltage regulator in the Sky Arrow was devilishly hard to access. I had already relocated it to a more accessible, and probably cooler location.

Yes, one could just use female spade connectors with the stock Ducati. But the John Deere is just over $30 and just seems to work. I have 2 or 3 Ducati regulators of unknown functionality just sitting in my hangar. With the John Deere its cheap and easy to carry a spare or two just in case, which I do.

Ask The Mechanic :: Burping the Rotax :: Author Paul_G

no_email@example.com (Paul_G) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 20:26:08 -0400

My procedure to check the oil level includes checking it when I finish a flight. When I arrive for another flight in a day or two, is it necessary to burp the Rotax and check it again? If there is no oil leaking, it should be good to go, correct? I'm wondering if it is necessary or can I just crank it up and go? What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 20:39:53 -0400

Everyone seems to have different opinion on this but I remember what Bill Canino told me once and it made sense to me ... if you the only one flying the plane and if , when you come in in the morning, you don’t see a big puddle of oil under the plane then the oil is there right where it supposed to be.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 21:33:55 -0400

If I owned my own airplane and kept it in a locked hanger, that's probably what I would do.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 21:57:04 -0400

No, regardless of who's been flying the plane, if the oil is anywhere on the flat of the dipstick, there's no reason to burp the engine. But again, no matter who's been flying the plane, it is essential to check the dipstick before every flight.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by Type47

no_email@example.com (Type47) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 22:00:28 -0400

Paul_G wrote:My procedure to check the oil level includes checking it when I finish a flight. When I arrive for another flight in a day or two, is it necessary to burp the Rotax and check it again? If there is no oil leaking, it should be good to go, correct? I'm wondering if it is necessary or can I just crank it up and go? What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your input.

If I understand it correctly, as the engine cools, a mild negative pressure is created in the engine case. This sucks a portion of the oil from the oil reservoir into the case.
Burping the engine by turning the engine through ( or holding it at) one or more piston compression strokes allows blowby to creat a mild pressure in the case causing the oil to be pushed back to the reservoir tank.
The only thing that would worry me about not burping would be if the oil level is high enough in the engine for the internal rotating parts to hit the oil and create foaming that is sucked into the system and introduce air bubbles into the lifters, a known weakness with the Rotax.
But I could be wrong.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 22:06:31 -0400

But if the oil tank had 3 litres of oil in it in the first place, and the oil is on the dipstick flat, there can't possible be too much oil in the crankcase.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by Type47

no_email@example.com (Type47) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 22:29:54 -0400

drseti wrote:But if the oil tank had 3 litres of oil in it in the first place, and the oil is on the dipstick flat, there can't possible be too much oil in the crankcase.

Sure sounds right.
I can’t help but suspect that in a few years we will all be feeling silly about all the times we burped our engines when Rotax finally admits that it is unnecessary.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 22:37:43 -0400

On the contrary. It's great exercise, no matter what Rotax says. And besides, when people with wet sump engines ask me what the hell I'm doing, I get to reply "just winding up the rubber band"!

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 23:09:30 -0400

Type47 wrote:
Paul_G wrote:My procedure to check the oil level includes checking it when I finish a flight. When I arrive for another flight in a day or two, is it necessary to burp the Rotax and check it again? If there is no oil leaking, it should be good to go, correct? I'm wondering if it is necessary or can I just crank it up and go? What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your input.

If I understand it correctly, as the engine cools, a mild negative pressure is created in the engine case. This sucks a portion of the oil from the oil reservoir into the case.
Burping the engine by turning the engine through ( or holding it at) one or more piston compression strokes allows blowby to creat a mild pressure in the case causing the oil to be pushed back to the reservoir tank.
The only thing that would worry me about not burping would be if the oil level is high enough in the engine for the internal rotating parts to hit the oil and create foaming that is sucked into the system and introduce air bubbles into the lifters, a known weakness with the Rotax.
But I could be wrong.

The crankcase can not draw oil from the tank, because the line to the bottom of the crankcase from the tank is not below the oil level in the tank. There have been some installations with a high mounted oil tank with certain oil filters with flow back valves that didn't work like they should that had issues with oil from the tank flowing into the engine. Mostly what you get when burping the engine is the oil that was coating the inside of the engine that has drained to the lowest part of the crankcase.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 07:27:08 -0400

I always check oil level after a flight.

Early on, I found that even having just run, I could not get consistent readings without burping.

On a historical note, back in 2007 Aeroshell had not yet introduced its Sport4 oil, so most of us ran on motorcycle oil. I forget the brand (Pennzoil?), but one that I used was known for “foaming”, which allegedly aggravated the inconsistency in readings.

In any case now, if I check right after a flight without burping, no oil may show on the flats. After burping it may then show 3/4 of the way up the flats. Due to that difference, my concern is that if I added oil based on the “before” reading, the “after” reading might actually indicate the engine had been overfilled.

Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 09:25:49 -0400

A few years ago, I had a customer who bought a Rotax powered LSA in CA, and flew it back to PA. He wanted routine service after the trip home. When I removed the oil tank cap, it gushed oil all over my hangar floor. Seems that, coming across the continent, every time he stopped for fuel, a line boy would check the dipstick, find it dry, and add a quart (!) of oil. Nobody taught him (or the line boys) about burping.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:41:31 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
Type47 wrote:
Paul_G wrote:My procedure to check the oil level includes checking it when I finish a flight. When I arrive for another flight in a day or two, is it necessary to burp the Rotax and check it again? If there is no oil leaking, it should be good to go, correct? I'm wondering if it is necessary or can I just crank it up and go? What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your input.

If I understand it correctly, as the engine cools, a mild negative pressure is created in the engine case. This sucks a portion of the oil from the oil reservoir into the case.
Burping the engine by turning the engine through ( or holding it at) one or more piston compression strokes allows blowby to creat a mild pressure in the case causing the oil to be pushed back to the reservoir tank.
The only thing that would worry me about not burping would be if the oil level is high enough in the engine for the internal rotating parts to hit the oil and create foaming that is sucked into the system and introduce air bubbles into the lifters, a known weakness with the Rotax.
But I could be wrong.

The crankcase can not draw oil from the tank, because the line to the bottom of the crankcase from the tank is not below the oil level in the tank. There have been some installations with a high mounted oil tank with certain oil filters with flow back valves that didn't work like they should that had issues with oil from the tank flowing into the engine. Mostly what you get when burping the engine is the oil that was coating the inside of the engine that has drained to the lowest part of the crankcase.

In addition there should be no negative pressure in the crankcase after shut down. The positive pressure that is there when running will equalize to static pressure after shut down. There will always be a couple valves open in the engine. The same way the rings allow blow by to pressurize the crankcase, they will allow it to equalize through those open valves.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:08:54 -0400

I was taught to burp the engine before the first flight of the day and I've been doing it this way for 6 years with zero issues on my SportCruiser. I dont burp it again on subsequent flights that day or at the end of the day. I dont burp it again until my first flight on another day when the cowl comes off for my preflight. After it burps if you give it another pull or two it'll burp a little more also.

My oil levels are always in the flat and I never have to add any oil during the year between my annual condition inspections.

I'm interested in checking it hot after my last flight of the day and then comparing that reading to my next burp during my preflight. Curious if there is a difference of not.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:23:12 -0400

ShawnM wrote:I'm interested in checking it hot after my last flight of the day and then comparing that reading to my next burp during my preflight. Curious if there is a difference of not.

Oh, there's definitely a difference. Oil expands when hot, so the post-flight reading will be higher on the dipstick that the cold engine reading.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:34:25 -0400

ShawnM wrote:I was taught to burp the engine before the first flight of the day and I've been doing it this way for 6 years with zero issues on my SportCruiser. I dont burp it again on subsequent flights that day or at the end of the day. I dont burp it again until my first flight on another day when the cowl comes off for my preflight. After it burps if you give it another pull or two it'll burp a little more also.

My oil levels are always in the flat and I never have to add any oil during the year between my annual condition inspections.

I'm interested in checking it hot after my last flight of the day and then comparing that reading to my next burp during my preflight. Curious if there is a difference of not.

How many blades on average it takes for your cold engine to burp ? Now that SlingPilot mentioned that his planes burps after 5-6 blades I am wondering if my average 30 blades is normal ..even though it has been like that since , well since forever ( in my case that’s 2017 )

Btw... it doesn’t matter how slow I turn - it seems to be more of function of how warm it is out there and how long since the last time the plane was flown ...

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by Paul_G

no_email@example.com (Paul_G) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:51:14 -0400

Thank you so much for all of your replies. I'm trying to come to a conclusion with all of this information.

Here's my question: If I'm confident that there is sufficient oil in my airplane, does it do any damage by not burping the Rotax. I'm concerned that maybe it needs to have some pre-circulation prior to starting. I certainly could use some exercise - and winding up the rubber band could provide that, but I'm concerned that burping is a pre-lubrication need prior to starting. Yes? or No?

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:37:04 -0400

Paul_G wrote: I'm concerned that burping is a pre-lubrication need prior to starting. Yes? or No?

IMHO, no. The only reason I can think of for using crankcase pressure to return oil to the tank is to get an accurate dipstick reading. OTOH, how else can you be confident about your oil level?

EDIT - actually, there is another good reason for burping the engine. It gives you a direct feel for the compression in each cylinder. There is great benefit to knowing before each flight that all valves are sealing properly at TDC, and nothing is leaking past the rings.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 22:05:44 -0400

From a lubrication standpoint there is no reason to turn the engine through if the oil is on the flat of the dipstick. Personall I prefer to pull it through at least 4 compression to make sure there is no hydraulic lock of the cylinders, especially with the carbureted engine.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 05:48:14 -0400

Paul_G wrote:I'm concerned that maybe it needs to have some pre-circulation prior to starting. I certainly could use some exercise - and winding up the rubber band could provide that, but I'm concerned that burping is a pre-lubrication need prior to starting. Yes? or No?

My understanding as a non-engineer...

The worst thing for wear is to drag metal over metal in the absence of an oil film. And plain bearings need oil pressure to provide that oil film, and rings need splash from the crankshaft to lubricate them. And the fastest and best way to achieve those ends is just to start the darn thing. I don’t think there’s evidence that turning an engine over by hand “limbers up” the oil or has any other long-term benefit.

On my Sky Arrow with its high-mounted engine, I rotate the prop one time to bring each blade into reach/view. That would also catch hydraulic lock. But I can’t envision how that could happen on our engines. If you had a gravity feed plane with a leaky needle and seat, the float bowl would just overflow into the overflow tube - I can’t see how it could fill a cylinder instead. Has anyone heard of such a thing in a ROTAX?

Again, I know we have “real” engineers here, so I wouldn’t mind being corrected if any of the above is on error.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:30:17 -0400

FastEddieB wrote: That would also catch hydraulic lock. But I can’t envision how that could happen on our engines. If you had a gravity feed plane with a leaky needle and seat, the float bowl would just overflow into the overflow tube - I can’t see how it could fill a cylinder instead. Has anyone heard of such a thing in a ROTAX?

I am not sure what overflow tube you are talking about. There is a vent tube, but it is well above the inlet and outlet of the carburetor. I have a CTLS sitting in the shop, with the Rotax intake box that is installed it sure looks like a needle that is not seated would allow fuel to flow into the intake.
I also remember from Rotax training they warned us about hydraulic lock, ans showed bent rods to drive the point home.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 23:17:32 -0400

drseti wrote:
ShawnM wrote:I'm interested in checking it hot after my last flight of the day and then comparing that reading to my next burp during my preflight. Curious if there is a difference of not.

Oh, there's definitely a difference. Oil expands when hot, so the post-flight reading will be higher on the dipstick that the cold engine reading.

Well then if this is true, you could then see oil on the lower half of the flat when in actuality, and the engine is cold, you are below the flat. Not good. I'll stick with my method of burping a cold engine before my first flight of the day as it works for me.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:21:47 -0400

drseti wrote:No, regardless of who's been flying the plane, if the oil is anywhere on the flat of the dipstick, there's no reason to burp the engine. But again, no matter who's been flying the plane, it is essential to check the dipstick before every flight.

I agree with this. Burping is only an exercise to return oil to the tank to get a good level check. If the oil is on the flat of the stick, it's in the acceptable range, and burping will only make the level go up, so it serves no purpose at that point. In fact, it just means that your oil pump has to move more oil from the tank to the engine where it's actually doing some good.

The oil level needs to be checked before each flight. There might not be a puddle of oil on the floor, but what if you you had a failure somewhere that cause 99% of the oil to leak out on your last flight? Unlikely, but then you don't know what you don't know...

I know Eddie checks his oil *after* a flight, and I suspect that the reason is where his engine is located. But I think if there was an oil-related engine failure leading to an incident or accident, you'd be hard-pressed to convince the FAA & NTSB that checking the oil after you fly the airplane is a good practice.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:24:29 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
FastEddieB wrote: That would also catch hydraulic lock. But I can’t envision how that could happen on our engines. If you had a gravity feed plane with a leaky needle and seat, the float bowl would just overflow into the overflow tube - I can’t see how it could fill a cylinder instead. Has anyone heard of such a thing in a ROTAX?

I am not sure what overflow tube you are talking about. There is a vent tube, but it is well above the inlet and outlet of the carburetor. I have a CTLS sitting in the shop, with the Rotax intake box that is installed it sure looks like a needle that is not seated would allow fuel to flow into the intake.
I also remember from Rotax training they warned us about hydraulic lock, ans showed bent rods to drive the point home.

Lock is really only a problem for airplanes where the oil tank is incorrectly mounted at a position higher than the engine, IIRC. This was a problem for early Kitfox airplanes and has been corrected in newer models, for example.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:30:38 -0400

MrMorden wrote:The oil level needs to be checked before each flight. There might not be a puddle of oil on the floor, but what if you you had a failure somewhere that cause 99% of the oil to leak out on your last flight? Unlikely, but then you don't know what you don't know...

....

Indeed but if you check the oil after each flight and you are the only one flying the plane - the very next day there will be only two possibilities - either a puddle on the floor or oil being inside the engine/oil tank - so yeah, you always do need to check the oil level - the question was just when.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:41:21 -0400

Warmi wrote: so yeah, you always do need to check the oil level - the question was just when.

And my answer to that question is: both. I have my students check all operating fluids (oil, coolant, fuel, hydraulic fluid) before every flight (as part of the preflight), to make sure the plane is ready to fly, and then again after every flight (to see if anything has changed in flight).

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:20:38 -0400

IMO you need to always check before, and if you are going to check after, then you need to do both. But IMO for an airplane you own that's not a trainer doing both is overkill, you'll see if anything changed on your next preflight.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:28:12 -0400

MrMorden wrote:There might not be a puddle of oil on the floor, but what if you you had a failure somewhere that cause 99% of the oil to leak out on your last flight? Unlikely, but then you don't know what you don't know...

Missing the logic here. Wouldn’t that have been caught when I checked the oil after my last flight?

Edited to add: I see Warmi picked up on that as well.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:27:15 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:
MrMorden wrote:There might not be a puddle of oil on the floor, but what if you you had a failure somewhere that cause 99% of the oil to leak out on your last flight? Unlikely, but then you don't know what you don't know...

Missing the logic here. Wouldn’t that have been caught when I checked the oil after my last flight?

It was unclear from my post, I meant that oil needs to be checked at some point between each flight. The before or after discussion is a separate issue.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:25:38 -0400

MrMorden wrote:...but what if you you had a failure somewhere that cause 99% of the oil to leak out on your last flight? Unlikely, but then you don't know what you don't know...

War story.

In the summer of 2006 I was hired to fly an E-AB biplane from Phoenix back to Copperhill.

It had used no oil the first leg or two, then I think a quart. I was trying to get back to Copperhill on the second day, but was losing the race with the sun and overnighted in Savannah, TN.

Next morning, I checked the oil and there was nothing on the stick. It took quart after quart, until finally...

YIKES! 5 quarts to even show on the stick. Though that brings the dipstick markings into question. The plane must have been nearly out of oil when I landed. And there’s some pretty inhospitable terrain in that part of central TN. In any case, I was not comfortable flying the plane until the cause of the rapid oil loss was identified, and had the owner drive over and pick me up. Another pilot flew it the rest of the way a few days later. I don’t think the cause of the catastrophic oil loss was ever firmly identified.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 12:32:16 -0400

drseti wrote:And my answer to that question is: both. I have my students check all operating fluids (oil, coolant, fuel, hydraulic fluid) before every flight (as part of the preflight), to make sure the plane is ready to fly, and then again after every flight (to see if anything has changed in flight).

I also visually check ALL my fluids BEFORE each first flight of the day. Even if I flew the plane yesterday and there are no puddles on the hangar floor. It’s how I was taught and I’d prefer a surprise while on the ground and not at 4500 feet over some inhospitable terrain. Oil, coolant and fuel are all checked during my preflight. Only checking it after is like closing the barn after the horse already got out.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 13:59:28 -0400

I guess this is my bottom line:

Always do a thorough pre-flight before every flight. Also, if you own your own airplane, it would be a good idea to check the oil after landing. If there is a problem, wouldn't you want to know it now instead of when you return for your next flight?

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by foresterpoole

no_email@example.com (foresterpoole) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:38:56 -0400

Warmi wrote:
ShawnM wrote:I was taught to burp the engine before the first flight of the day and I've been doing it this way for 6 years with zero issues on my SportCruiser. I dont burp it again on subsequent flights that day or at the end of the day. I dont burp it again until my first flight on another day when the cowl comes off for my preflight. After it burps if you give it another pull or two it'll burp a little more also.

My oil levels are always in the flat and I never have to add any oil during the year between my annual condition inspections.

I'm interested in checking it hot after my last flight of the day and then comparing that reading to my next burp during my preflight. Curious if there is a difference of not.

How many blades on average it takes for your cold engine to burp ? Now that SlingPilot mentioned that his planes burps after 5-6 blades I am wondering if my average 30 blades is normal ..even though it has been like that since , well since forever ( in my case that’s 2017 )

Btw... it doesn’t matter how slow I turn - it seems to be more of function of how warm it is out there and how long since the last time the plane was flown ...

I checked the Tecnam's today (has not flown in 4 days) and it took 10 or so blades, but it has taken up to 20 or so sometimes. On a side note the CAP pilots who flew in thought I was crazy, one was like "why are you doing that?!?!" I had to explain it was not the standard 182 engine...

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:49:33 -0400

foresterpoole wrote:one was like "why are you doing that?!?!" I had to explain it was not the standard 182 engine...

What? You didn't simply say that you had to wind up the rubber band?

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Sat, 07 Sep 2019 10:00:06 -0400

drseti wrote:
foresterpoole wrote:one was like "why are you doing that?!?!" I had to explain it was not the standard 182 engine...

What? You didn't simply say that you had to wind up the rubber band?

Ha! I love that that response.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Burping the Rotax :: Reply by foresterpoole

no_email@example.com (foresterpoole) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:17:49 -0400

Rubber Band, that's a good one!

Ask The Mechanic :: Rotax burping sound :: Author Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:37:21 -0400

Hey,

So I have been burping my 912 uls for seems like ages now before every first flight of the day and just recently ( in the last , say 4 months ) - started hearing like a faint hissing sound when rotating the prop.

Everything works fine and engine burps in about 30 pulls or so ( depending on outside conditions ) but at least twice I heard that high pitching hissing sound like air escaping somewhere in the engine compartment - first time I thought I was hearing things but now it happened again.
Any idea what could that be ?

Thanks

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by Sling 2 Pilot

no_email@example.com (Sling 2 Pilot) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:06:15 -0400

Jeez, 30 pulls? Mine burps with about 6-8 if warm, 10-12 if cold.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:07:52 -0400

Sling 2 Pilot wrote:Jeez, 30 pulls? Mine burps with about 6-8 if warm, 10-12 if cold.

Well by 30 I mean 30 prop pulls , not rotations ... it would be about 10 full prop rotations.
It has pretty much always been like that since 150 hours ( now at 400 )

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:26:36 -0400

Pull slow and easy, not fast and quick. It is the air passing by the rings that is pushing the oil back to the tank. The more time with each pull to let the air past the rigns the quicker it will burp.

Now for the hissing. Does happen with each blade, or only on certain blades?

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 06:16:39 -0400

I think it is with certain blades only but I’m a not sure - it is very faint to the point that I am having hard time hearing it.
It seems to be coming from the passenger side of the engine.

And as I mentioned, I burp the thing often , half of the time with cowling off and I heard it so far maybe two, three times at most so it is not frequent by any means.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:44:11 -0400

If it is not every blade, the 4 culprits that come to mind. A loose or leaking spark plug, a leaking head to cylinder connection, a cracked head, or a leaking exhaust valve. Which side is your exhaust located? I would check or replace the spark plugs, because that is fairly cheap, and you can do that yourself. Second have someone put an ear to the exhaust as the engine is being pulled through listening to see if the hiss is coming from the exhaust. A compression check would be in order for the head issues.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:24:09 -0400

The compression test was done early this year and was perfect - anyway, I will follow your advice and try to check all these things ( spark plugs, have somebody listen for where exactly does it come from etc )

Now if this hissing sound would have been at every blade , would that indicate something else ?

Thanks

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:52:06 -0400

Just thinking out loud...

...”blades” don’t correlate directly to crankshaft/piston position, due to the gearing involved between the prop and the crankshaft. If that’s what was being implied.

As a data point, if burped from cold, 30 blades is not unusual for my Sky Arrow. Even having just run, probably 10 to 15 is average.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:52:00 -0400

Warmi wrote:The compression test was done early this year and was perfect - anyway, I will follow your advice and try to check all these things ( spark plugs, have somebody listen for where exactly does it come from etc )

Now if this hissing sound would have been at every blade , would that indicate something else ?

Thanks

I guess when I say blade, I really mean every compression stroke. If it is every fourth blade that indicative of a singular issue related to one cylinder. Every blade would indicate something else, and thinking about possibilities I don't think it would be good.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:06:48 -0400

My Rotax (Flight Design) mechanic doesn't rotate the prop -- really... he pulls very slowly (maybe a 1/3rd of a rotation) until something is just right in there and viola' he creates the burping sound.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 19:58:58 -0400

AGLyme wrote:My Rotax (Flight Design) mechanic doesn't rotate the prop -- really... he pulls very slowly (maybe a 1/3rd of a rotation) until something is just right in there and viola' he creates the burping sound.

Are you saying he gets the burb with 1/3 of a rotation ?

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:42:05 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:As a data point, if burped from cold, 30 blades is not unusual for my Sky Arrow. Even having just run, probably 10 to 15 is average.

Why burp the engine if it has just run? Mine always has oil on the flat of the dipstick ("Acceptable range") if the engine is warm. I check the stick and only burp if the oil is off the flat. After all, it will only go higher with burping...

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:34:47 -0400

Sorry, just saw this question... Yes, 1/3rd of a rotation... he does it very slowly... I haven't been able to copy it.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by Nomore767

no_email@example.com (Nomore767) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:24:42 -0400

I always remove the oil tank cap before burping less air pressure to the tank and the gurgling sound is louder.
Just my technique.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:29:48 -0400

Nomore767 wrote:I always remove the oil tank cap before burping less air pressure to the tank and the gurgling sound is louder.
Just my technique.

Me too. Can you even hear it otherwise?

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:58:58 -0400

Nomore767 wrote:I always remove the oil tank cap before burping less air pressure to the tank and the gurgling sound is louder.
Just my technique.

I can't imagine that there is much pressure restriction in the 5/16" breather line, especially with the volume of air that is being pumped into the tank.

Ask The Mechanic :: Re: Rotax burping sound :: Reply by Nomore767

no_email@example.com (Nomore767) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:44:03 -0400

3Dreaming wrote:
Nomore767 wrote:I always remove the oil tank cap before burping less air pressure to the tank and the gurgling sound is louder.
Just my technique.

I can't imagine that there is much pressure restriction in the 5/16" breather line, especially with the volume of air that is being pumped into the tank.

Maybe not but since I'm taking the oil cap off anyway in order to check the oil level its really moot...plus I can hear the gurgle louder.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Insurance rate shocker :: Author FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 13:05:24 -0400

I just got a renewal quote for my Sky Arrow’s insurance. After 12 years without a claim, I had hoped for, if anything, a small reduction in premium.

No such luck - it went from $961 last year to $1,218, a 26% increase. Along with the comment: “We are seeing steep premium increases due to the current market”.

Ouch!

Don’t know if this is industry-wide but just wanted to give everyone a heads up of what they might expect at next renewal.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Sling 2 Pilot

no_email@example.com (Sling 2 Pilot) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 17:05:29 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:I just got a renewal quote for my Sky Arrow’s insurance. After 12 years without a claim, I had hoped for, if anything, a small reduction in premium.

No such luck - it went from $961 last year to $1,218, a 26% increase. Along with the comment: “We are seeing steep premium increases due to the current market”.

Ouch!

Don’t know if this is industry-wide but just wanted to give everyone a heads up of what they might expect at next renewal.

Insanity rules Eddie and it’s absolute. I quit Hallmark gotten thru AOPA after the first year. They gave me a quote for the second year with my Instructor. I added him in the middle of the first year for $100 increase. Renewal comes with a slight increase, less then $100. I decide to take the instructor off as a name insured,!as they had added hoops for him to jump thru, which weren’t required 6 months prior. I get a new quote for more and not because i took him off. Insanity!

I went back with AVEMCO, which I had on my Diamond and a renters policy before I bought again. I received a quote with better coverage and a few dollars less.

I know the market hardened, but I can’t put a finger as to why now? Insurance is a Ponzi scheme IMHO.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 17:20:07 -0400

My premium also jumped when I renewed in Feb, Eddie. I think it's industry-wide.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:27:14 -0400

Piling on, my premium jumped when I renewed in May with an apology explaining that premiums were increasing industry wide.

$1,071 in May, 2018; $1,126 in May, 2019. Not as bad as it could have been.

Gee, thanks.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:27:08 -0400

I actually got the same rate as last year just this June - in fact I got a quote for another insurance for a few bucks less but the broker ( Aviation Insurance Resources ) correctly suggested that it is not worth breaking the relationship with USIAG ( my current carrier ) over a few bucks.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:29:54 -0400

Warmi wrote:I actually got the same rate as last year just this June - in fact I got a quote for another insurance for a few bucks less but the broker ( Aviation Insurance Resources ) correctly suggested that it is not worth breaking the relationship with USIAG ( my current carrier ) over a few bucks.

I'm also with Aviation Insurance Resources (Gregg Ellsworth) and AIG Aerospace.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Warmi

no_email@example.com (Warmi) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 18:38:39 -0400

Now ...I am a newbie with 200 hours total and going on my third year with them so they are already making a lot of money with me at $1700 so perhaps that’s why the rate stayed the same

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 19:48:43 -0400

Well, I just spoke with a friend in the Cirrus instructing world. He said that this year the insurance rate for his company tripled! He said that over $100 of each rental dollar goes to insurance.

He said his broker explained that it’s not like each class of aircraft has its own “pool”. All aircraft are lumped together. As such, the insurance industry has had huge losses recently, and that’s why rates are going up across the board. Caveat: this is at least third-hand information, so take it with a grain of salt.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 19:56:06 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:He said that over $100 of each rental dollar goes to insurance.

Eddie, I'm not sure that came out right.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by bitten192

no_email@example.com (bitten192) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 19:59:12 -0400

Same Insurance company as last 3 years. Went up 25%. 65k hull, went from $800 to $1000. I got a quote from AOPA and it was twice as much. My broker said it was not just Light Sports but across the board.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 20:07:15 -0400

Scooper wrote:Eddie, I'm not sure that came out right.

You think maybe he meant $100 of each rental hour?

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Nomore767

no_email@example.com (Nomore767) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:21:55 -0400

I haven’t had the same experience.
Two years ago my premium was $1305 through
AOPA.
Last year I renewed for $815, same coverage through AOPA.
I just renewed with them again for $815
through AOPA till July 2020.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by FastEddieB

no_email@example.com (FastEddieB) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:32:30 -0400

drseti wrote:
Scooper wrote:Eddie, I'm not sure that came out right.

You think maybe he meant $100 of each rental hour?

I had to read it a dozen times or so to get what was wrong with it!

Yes, rental hour.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:02:28 -0400

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my commercial policy went up. The policy for me and my boys on the Taylorcraft went down.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:14:42 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:I just got a renewal quote for my Sky Arrow’s insurance. After 12 years without a claim, I had hoped for, if anything, a small reduction in premium.

No such luck - it went from $961 last year to $1,218, a 26% increase. Along with the comment: “We are seeing steep premium increases due to the current market”.

Ouch!

Don’t know if this is industry-wide but just wanted to give everyone a heads up of what they might expect at next renewal.

Mine went up as well, but more like 10%. My broker said it's an industry-wide trend this year.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:16:21 -0400

Warmi wrote:I actually got the same rate as last year just this June - in fact I got a quote for another insurance for a few bucks less but the broker ( Aviation Insurance Resources ) correctly suggested that it is not worth breaking the relationship with USIAG ( my current carrier ) over a few bucks.

Exactly my experience, and the same brokerage. I also opted to stay with USAIG for about $50 more a year that the other carrier I was offered.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by MrMorden

no_email@example.com (MrMorden) — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:18:11 -0400

I wonder if we're paying for 737 MAX losses...

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:04:33 -0400

FastEddieB wrote:
drseti wrote:
Scooper wrote:Eddie, I'm not sure that came out right.

You think maybe he meant $100 of each rental hour?

I had to read it a dozen times or so to get what was wrong with it!

Yes, rental hour.

Got it. That makes sense.

Ask The Insurance Agent :: Re: Insurance rate shocker :: Reply by chicagorandy

no_email@example.com (chicagorandy) — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:15:41 -0400

"I wonder if we're paying for 737 MAX losses.."

Probably not, but I suspect all the storm damage to aircraft lately will cause rates to go up for all owners. Same goes for boats and houses.

Partnerships :: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Author Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:15:18 -0400

I'm floating the possibility of starting a partnership in CT at Goodspeed airport. Here are the particulars:

Goodspeed 42B: available hangers at about 350 per month.
No fuel which is fine because it will resist the temptation of using 100LL sludge.

The Plane: Either sportcruiser or GOBOSH. About 50k so 25k each.

We will figure out the per hour leaving enough for reserve and incidentals.

Scheduling: I only want 1 partner. I will mainly fly during the week so rarely fly weekend.

If your a jerk or sloppy don't bother. If you want to skip maintainance or SBs don't bother. If you slap it down hard and quietly put it away .... You guessed it dont bother. I don't care if you break it just man up. I also don't care if you are a man or woman or undecided. Just not a jerk. This is only possible if we get along. I don't need a partner but i will with the right person.

PM me if interested.
Tony

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:11:14 -0400

Usually, partnerships work better when they decide those things together.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:02:12 -0400

Right but if they want a carbon cub or know that they will stretch maintainance than why not discuss it now.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:07:04 -0400

Atrosa wrote:Right but if they want a carbon cub or know that they will stretch maintainance than why not discuss it now.

I'm just saying it might be easier to find potential partners if you approach it with an open mind.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by nub_pilot

no_email@example.com (nub_pilot) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:32:31 -0400

I'm open to it, Godspeed is a bit of a distance, but willing to consider for the right deal.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:02:44 -0400

There might be a better place half-way between.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by nub_pilot

no_email@example.com (nub_pilot) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:53:36 -0400

Tim,
where are you located? I'm originally from Appleton and uncle instructed out of Shiocton but moved to Mercer. Unfortunately he teaches PPL and I have to limit to Spl due to medical issues.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 20:23:29 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:Usually, partnerships work better when they decide those things together.

Concur totally.

A good read is, "How to make friends and influence people."

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 21:30:29 -0400

nub_pilot wrote:Tim,
where are you located? I'm originally from Appleton and uncle instructed out of Shiocton but moved to Mercer. Unfortunately he teaches PPL and I have to limit to Spl due to medical issues.

I'm in Roswell, GA just north of Atlanta. I lived in Neenah, WI for 5 years from 1975 to 1980.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:14:54 -0400

TimTaylor wrote:
Atrosa wrote:Right but if they want a carbon cub or know that they will stretch maintainance than why not discuss it now.

I'm just saying it might be easier to find potential partners if you approach it with an open mind.

We can agree to disagree. I've never been divorced and I'm married 23 years because I was upfront prior to our partnership. I didn't jump into it hoping we were on the same page. We have the same goals and outlook on life. Once in the partnership there will be compromise but if they want a Remos or CTLS why bother?

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:09:15 -0400

I've been married 51 years. Together 4 1/2 years before we got married. I've been in 3 airplane partnerships and one beach condo partnership. Yes, we can agree to disagree. However, if you are going to decide everything on your own, you will greatly narrow down your potential partners.

Ruling out high-wing LSA's because you think they are ugly is very short-sighted. For instance, the Flight Design is the most popular LSA for a reason. Having been flying less than a year, there is probably more about LSA that you don't know than what you do know.

Anyway, good luck with your search. I hope you find someone and an airplane that you will enjoy. Partnerships are a good way to own an airplane IMHO.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:36:43 -0400

Thank you for the advice. I appreciate everyone point of view.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:25:18 -0400

I am not looking for a plane partner, but, I believe the poster is smart to reveal his biases right up front. We have all heard war stories about the minority of plane partners or plane club members who don't share a first class maintenance culture, or, leaves it to the other guy to clean up the mess. To kiss a lot of frogs and reveal his biases in person is a waste of time. Which candidate is going to say "gee, I don't really like taking care of the plane, and, if I land hard and put the plane away, it is up to the next guy who pre-flights it".

Good luck finding your plane partner. I am based in Chester. I know of a couple of first class guys who are looking for a Light Sport to teach in. Happy to put you in touch with them and perhaps you could pass along planes for sale situations to each other.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:11:21 -0400

Atrosa wrote:Scheduling: I only want 1 partner.

Tony, you're wise to keep it at that. We have a club on my airport with one aircraft, and 15 partners. Getting everyone to agree on anything is impossible. Kind of like a Mormon marriage.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by ShawnM

no_email@example.com (ShawnM) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:14:51 -0400

I also agree with Atrosa's "up front" approach. Since time is our most precious resource why waste it kissing frogs.

Good luck in your search Tony.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:52:11 -0400

What worked for me on 3 airplanes and one beach condo was to go into partnerships with people I already knew. The first airplane was someone I worked with in South Carolina. We later brought in a 3rd person we worked with who ultimately bought me out when I got transferred to Wisconsin. The second and third airplanes was someone who moved into my neighborhood in Georgia. He's been my best friend for over 30 years. The condo was someone I worked with in North Carolina.

There are advantages to knowing the person (and their spouse) before you plunk down $25,000 for joint ownership. In all those partnerships with 5 different people, including me, we never had one single disagreement or harsh words, even when my condo partner let our insurance lapse just before hurricane Hugo hit North Myrtle Beach. Ouch!

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 06:54:00 -0400

AGLyme wrote:I am not looking for a plane partner, but, I believe the poster is smart to reveal his biases right up front. We have all heard war stories about the minority of plane partners or plane club members who don't share a first class maintenance culture, or, leaves it to the other guy to clean up the mess. To kiss a lot of frogs and reveal his biases in person is a waste of time. Which candidate is going to say "gee, I don't really like taking care of the plane, and, if I land hard and put the plane away, it is up to the next guy who pre-flights it".

Good luck finding your plane partner. I am based in Chester. I know of a couple of first class guys who are looking for a Light Sport to teach in. Happy to put you in touch with them and perhaps you could pass along planes for sale situations to each other.

Hey AGLyme. Bummer about 235KP. I soooo wanted to get my instruction in her. I'm pretty close to sitting for the written but I have no plane to rent. This is accelerating my plane purchase.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:35:47 -0400

It is a shame, I think I put about 4 hours on that plane, then the Flight Design arrived and I transitioned over to the FD and finished my "re-licensing". Were you taking lessons with Mike and Jeff? Those were my instructors, excellent stick and rudder guys. I believe Jeff is on the same search you are. Ping me privately if you want his number. Ask them to teach you in the Cub, an absolute blast. We live in a world class flying area. I hope you get a hangar at Goodspeed, my very favorite airport to fly to.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:09:06 -0400

No such thing as "re-licensing." A pilot certificate is good forever. CFI's expire every two years if not renewed.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:41:07 -0400

You are technically correct Tim.
I earned my PPL in 1978, and, decided I wanted to fly airplanes again in 2018. In my case, I used my public school vernacular term -- "re-licensing"...

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:07:41 -0400

And the term you really meant was "regaining currency"

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 21:50:21 -0400

AGLyme wrote:You are technically correct Tim.
I earned my PPL in 1978, and, decided I wanted to fly airplanes again in 2018. In my case, I used my public school vernacular term -- "re-licensing"...

It's probably best not to confuse people and invent aviation terms that don't exist. Technically, all you had to do is go get a Flight Review with one hour of ground and one hour of flight and demonstrate to a CFI that you were safe and proficient to fly. In reality, you probably needed several hours of dual to get up to speed.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:16:59 -0400

When I re-entered flying after a 37 years absence, I treated the journey as if I did not have a PPL. So, I started all over again including ground school education. Not much had changed. The equipment and avionics were the same. GPS was the major game changer and a substantial safety and convenience improvement. Getting a glass panel with traffic, weather, airport info and auto pilot were important to me and I couldn't afford an upgraded, zero-timed 172, so I decided to buy a Light Sport.

I intentionally sought out tail wheel training because I wanted real stick and rudder experience, and, I was fairly certain I was going to buy a Light Sport airplane which requires (in my opinion) greater stick and rudder skills than the old GA standbys I flew in the 70's. I learned on a Cub and achieved a tail wheel endorsement, then transitioned to Light Sport.

Tim is correct I received my "Flight Review", if I confused anyone with my feeble attempt at lightening the mood, I apologize.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:39:46 -0400

AGLyme wrote:. . . Not much had changed.

I disagree.
Since the 70's, the implementation of ICAO standards, the national airspace structure and the ATC system has changed a lot.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:47:47 -0400

helpful post Bill, thank you.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Wm.Ince

no_email@example.com (Wm.Ince) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:04:51 -0400

AGLyme wrote:helpful post Bill.

I guess we just have a slightly different perspective. That's okay, eh? . . .

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:47:59 -0400

all good CT bro...

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by Atrosa

no_email@example.com (Atrosa) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 23:38:26 -0400

Oh AG.. I assume you live in old lyme. I'm in middlefield. Quick question: does Connecticut charge a tax on airplanes? My house tax is 10k and my car tax is 2k. Plus 6% state income tax plus 6% sales tax... getting tired of paying Connecticut money.

Partnerships :: Re: Possible partnership in CT Goodspeed :: Reply by AGLyme

no_email@example.com (AGLyme) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:00 -0400

No "Property" tax on light airplanes. There is a sales tax when you purchase the plane however. I live in Lyme, which abuts Old Lyme, not to be confused with East Lyme.

Eye Candy :: Wings Over Westerly 9/8/19 :: Author nub_pilot

no_email@example.com (nub_pilot) — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:56:36 -0400

Here are a couple cool planes that were at the fly-in today.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/agMG1RJQUXg[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/UcBi76thkIA[/youtube]

Eye Candy :: Pacific reflection :: Author Captain Bob

no_email@example.com (Captain Bob) — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:43:26 -0400

B32CF369-75DA-4690-885E-F924D0580BF1.jpeg

My Titan Tornado IISS over coastline near Santa Barbara, CA.

Attachments

B32CF369-75DA-4690-885E-F924D0580BF1.jpeg (69.46 KiB)

Eye Candy :: Pics from a few flights in the Ercoupe :: Author hirschr

no_email@example.com (hirschr) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:56:05 -0400

Finally got a chance to get back in the air after a few months recovering from ankle surgery. Luckily in a two control Ercoupe your left foot is just along for the ride!

37E43795-5800-4436-B9C5-8F3B895B31E8.jpeg

8E03D99A-9F94-4FAD-96CE-1BA1A5669AA1.jpeg

Attachments

8E03D99A-9F94-4FAD-96CE-1BA1A5669AA1.jpeg (225.7 KiB)

37E43795-5800-4436-B9C5-8F3B895B31E8.jpeg (168.12 KiB)

Eye Candy :: Re: Pics from a few flights in the Ercoupe :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:09:53 -0400

Nice to see your 'Coupe has the fabric wings. Metallized ones add way too much weight.

Eye Candy :: Re: Pics from a few flights in the Ercoupe :: Reply by hirschr

no_email@example.com (hirschr) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:30:49 -0400

I have heard as much as 40lbs for metal wings. Mine is light if the log book is to be believed (from an April 1998 airframe log entry): New Empty Weight 783.5, new Useful Load 616.5.

Eye Candy :: Re: Pics from a few flights in the Ercoupe :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:11:21 -0400

Never mind. I see you got a Private certificate.

Eye Candy :: Re: Pics from a few flights in the Ercoupe :: Reply by hirschr

no_email@example.com (hirschr) — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:42:50 -0400

Yep, started with an accelerated SP course, and continued with a PP so I could fly the 1400lb gw Ercoupe 415-E model. Sadly the 415-C Sport Pilot eligible Ercoupe project has become a parts donor to keep the E model flying. A few more pics of the recent flights:

erocupe eve flight 3.jpg

erocupe eve flight 2.jpg

erocupe eve flight 1.jpg

Attachments

erocupe eve flight 1.jpg (127.81 KiB)

erocupe eve flight 2.jpg (134.43 KiB)

erocupe eve flight 3.jpg (92.32 KiB)

Eye Candy :: Pancakes and P51s - Cleveland, TN Aviation Day :: Author hirschr

no_email@example.com (hirschr) — Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:13:25 -0400

I took my youngest daughter to the RZR CAP pancake breakfast Saturday morning, we were pleasantly surprised by the vintage airplanes on hand for their Aviation Day event.

IMG_2352.JPG

IMG_2346 small2.jpg

IMG_2344.JPG

Attachments

IMG_2352.JPG (254.42 KiB)

IMG_2346 small2.jpg (248.28 KiB)

IMG_2344.JPG (213.62 KiB)

Eye Candy :: Re: Pancakes and P51s - Cleveland, TN Aviation Day :: Reply by hirschr

no_email@example.com (hirschr) — Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:17:16 -0400

A few more pics:

IMG_2342 (2).JPG

IMG_2341 (2).JPG

Attachments

IMG_2342 (2).JPG (149.78 KiB)

IMG_2341 (2).JPG (251.7 KiB)

Community Center :: Coming to California this month :: Author drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:55:57 -0400

To my Bay Area brethren: I'll be out there for a week, starting 18 September, and would be delighted to meet up with you. I plan to be at the Frazier Lake Airpark (1C9, Hollister CA) on Saturday, 21 Sept, should anyone care to fly in. Ring me up at 570-419-1229 to coordinate.

Community Center :: Re: Coming to California this month :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:54:32 -0400

Thanks for the heads up, Paul. I haven't been down Hollister way in a while and right now my calendar looks good. I'll pencil in Saturday, 9/21.

Community Center :: Re: Coming to California this month :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:52:04 -0400

The weather looks like it will be CAVU on Saturday, so I'll be flying down to Frazier Lake (1C9) to exercise the Zodiac and meet Paul.

Community Center :: Re: Coming to California this month :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:28:25 -0400

Scooper wrote:The weather looks like it will be CAVU on Saturday, so I'll be flying down to Frazier Lake (1C9) to exercise the Zodiac and meet Paul.

It'll be great to see you Saturday, Stan.
73 de N6TX

Community Center :: Re: Coming to California this month :: Reply by drseti

no_email@example.com (drseti) — Sat, 21 Sep 2019 19:22:22 -0400

At 1C9 in Hollister CA, I just received a visit from Stan Cooper in his Zenith CH-601LXi. In case any of my other Bay Area forum friends cares to drop in, I'm here through Monday night, in Hangar B6.

Attachments

n601ke.jpg (46.12 KiB)

Community Center :: Re: Coming to California this month :: Reply by Scooper

no_email@example.com (Scooper) — Sat, 21 Sep 2019 21:08:09 -0400

I really enjoyed the eyeball QSO, Paul. The flight down was a little over an hour with a nice tailwind, but the slog back home bucking a headwind took an hour and a half. It was a gorgeous day for flying!

Upcoming Events :: Re: Midwest LSA Expo, 9/5-9/7/19 :: Reply by chicagorandy

no_email@example.com (chicagorandy) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 13:08:33 -0400

Just checked the 5-day forecast. Looks like the Mt Vernon area will be pretty much rain free, low winds, and mostly sunny for all 3 days.

Should make for a pleasant road trip for me and fun event. Here's hoping I can snag a ride in an LSA while I'm there.

Upcoming Events :: Re: Midwest LSA Expo, 9/5-9/7/19 :: Reply by chicagorandy

no_email@example.com (chicagorandy) — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 18:02:26 -0400

I'm checked in at my motel. I did a quick look-see at the expo when I got into town. The airport is only 5 minutes from the motel at the most. The show is a pleasant, though quite small event. In truth you could see everything and chat with every vendor in a single day with lots of time to spare.

This was opening day so perhaps all the vendors have not yet arrived. I heard they had three vendors cancel due to Hurricane Dorian. The plan will be to have breakfast at the very nice on airport restaurant, wander around the planes a bit, take in Dan Johnson's forum at 11:00, then a lunch, more walking around if there are any vendors I've not visited and then check out a day early and drive back to Chicago.

I'm glad the weather is great and it's always fun to see LSA planes. Still hoping to mooch a ride, but likely this show will be a one and done for me anyway. I'll stick to Oshkosh. lol

Live and learn.

Upcoming Events :: Re: Midwest LSA Expo, 9/5-9/7/19 :: Reply by chicagorandy

no_email@example.com (chicagorandy) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 19:11:42 -0400

Back home from Mt Vernon. About 12-15 or so vendors were in attendance, which probably is a very large percentage of the actual flying machines offered to the marketplace.

Attended a very good presentation by Dan Johnson (LAMA and youtube sensation) regarding the upcoming LSA/FAA possible regulation changes that will affect the LSA market.

In retrospect considering how very small the LSA market is and how actually quite comparatively small businesses the various manufacturers are, it is great to see the participation at Mt Vernon, and see that hope too springs eternal for the future of this segment of GA. I had the opportunity to meet and chat with several different owners who flew their planes to Mt Vernon to put them on display for all to enjoy. Airplane folks are truly some fine and friendly people.

It appeared that rides were offered to some, but I suspect mostly prospective buyers, not mooching tire-kickers like me - lol - so I didn't experience anyone offering me a lift or get a chance to get airborne. Oh well, such is life.

Yesterday afternoon and this morning provided more than enough time to see all the planes and talk to all the vendors so I bugged out at 12:30, right after Dan's forum. GREAT weather, clear sunny and upper 80's, which made for nice plane watching and for a comfortable 280 mile drive down yesterday and then 280 miles back home today..

Upcoming Events :: Re: Midwest LSA Expo, 9/5-9/7/19 :: Reply by TimTaylor

no_email@example.com (TimTaylor) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 19:42:11 -0400

Sounds like fun.

Upcoming Events :: Re: Midwest LSA Expo, 9/5-9/7/19 :: Reply by chicagorandy

no_email@example.com (chicagorandy) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 21:52:22 -0400

When the weather is great and it also involves airplanes it would be hard to NOT be fun - lol - but that said I doubt I'll attend again. It takes me longer to drive there one way than I actually spent looking at aircraft. It would make for a terrific fly-in destination though. Superb airport, good facilities and even a very competent restaurant. A small military museum is also in the building and countless photo essays honoring local county veterans going back all the way to the Civil War. Quite memorable effort by the community.

Upcoming Events :: Re: Midwest LSA Expo, 9/5-9/7/19 :: Reply by 3Dreaming

no_email@example.com (3Dreaming) — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:11:04 -0400

I flew in with the Taylorcraft on Thursday afternoon. I visited with a few people, and then back home. It is a little less than 40 miles flying for me. Chris and the folks that put this on are a top notch bunch.