Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:31 AM - Re: Re: transition (Phillip Perry)
2. 04:54 AM - Re: Looking for Tips (Bill Watson)
3. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: transition (Kelly McMullen)
4. 08:31 AM - Re: transition (Bob Turner)
5. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: transition (Phillip Perry)
6. 10:40 AM - Re: Re: transition (Berck E. Nash)
7. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: transition (Kelly McMullen)
8. 02:35 PM - Re: transition (Bob Turner)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
There's been a notice of proposed rule making that, if accepted, would likely get
rid of the requirement for the retract. An aircraft with a PFD and MFD would
qualify as complex.
Don't know the timeline of when t would be accepted, but most of our fleet would
qualify.
Anyone know when a decision is expected?
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
> I actually am entertaining that thought right now. Curious as to how quick I
could make it happen. If I could be done by the end of the year or for sure by
spring it may just work. Could save me a lot of headaches too. The kid flies
real well. Would love to help her get it done.
>
> Tim
>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:47 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tim,
>> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of it,
but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be that great.
>> Bob
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for Tips |
More of the same....
On 10/18/2016 1:39 PM, johngoodman wrote:
>
> I have recently gotten partners in my RV-10, and we are converting it from my
old LS1 engine, to a new IO-540 from Van. I'd like to get some input on several
areas.
>
> First, The Red Cube - Tunnel or on the engine?
I don't have the Red Cube but rather the GRT(?) transducer. First had
it mounted in tunnel and experienced the inaccuracies when the pump was
run. Mounted it engine compartment - very accurate. Don't put it in
the tunnel.
> Next, Remote Oil Filter - AirWolf, B&C, or the standard? Would like to know how
messy it can be with any of them.
I went with the stock mounting - no problem. Easy to mount and remove -
only challenge is dripping during removal. I have a plastic angle
(roughly 2"x2"x4') that I stick under the filter during removal. Drips
right into waste container. Many simple solutions to drip problem.
> Cables or Actuators - Any comments on these for the Oil Cooler, and the heat
deflectors would be appreciated.
The stock cables melt and are slightly too short for quadrant. I
replace them with longer ones from California Cable - recommend them and
their product highly. Very fast turn around on well priced custom cables.
> Tips on what not to do on baffling also appreciated.
Silicon baffling material is great stuff in all respects.
I used stock oil cooler. I occasionally had problems with oil being
over cooled in NC winters. Running less oil (7 quarts at change - add
to maintain at least 6) and adding a small fixed baffle fixed it. Never
any problems with overheating oil. I have never calibrated my oil temp
sensor.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hadn't seen that. You currently can get a two fer or a three fer if you go
for a single engine sea with a plane that has retractable water rudders,
and possibly over 200 hp. Yes, being able to retract water rudders does
qualify for complex if the plane has constant speed and flaps. A C180 on
floats could meet all three needs. The rating would also substitute for
flight review, complex and hp endorsements.
When I got my commercial there was the requirement for complex, but no HP
endorsement existed, so flight schools mostly had Arrows, Cardinal RGs, a
few Mooneys. Now a 182RG would let one get HP, complex at same time.
Personally, I think allowing glass panel to substitute for complex misses
the point. There is nothing about viewing a glass panel that adds any
skill. Where would they draw the line? There is a huge difference between a
G1000 aircraft (complex only in Garmin's menu structure) and a Grand Rapids
or Dynon glass panel. Would 2 screens be required, or just one that you can
split? Consider the Dynon Skyview or AFS units that allow display of six
pack or EFIS at any time. Does IFR certification of the GPS make the plane
complex or the ability to input a flight plan? Is IFR even considered as
part of the proposal?
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There's been a notice of proposed rule making that, if accepted, would
> likely get rid of the requirement for the retract. An aircraft with a PFD
> and MFD would qualify as complex.
>
> Don't know the timeline of when t would be accepted, but most of our fleet
> would qualify.
>
> Anyone know when a decision is expected?
>
> Phil
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I actually am entertaining that thought right now. Curious as to how
> quick I could make it happen. If I could be done by the end of the year or
> for sure by spring it may just work. Could save me a lot of headaches
> too. The kid flies real well. Would love to help her get it done.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:47 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim,
> >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some
> of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not
> be that great.
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> --------
> >> Bob Turner
> >> RV-10 QB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Read this topic online here:
> >>
> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are endorsements
given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine sea, you
are expected to show up for the flight test already having the endorsement (if
required).
I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there was no
complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied to both
over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So I got endorsed
flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995 when the rules
changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a complex endorsement
although I may fly RG aircraft.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here's the article on the NPRM..
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/12/proposed-part-61-ch
anges-would-benefit-ga
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are
endorsements given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine s
ea, you are expected to show up for the flight test already having the endor
sement (if required).
> I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there w
as no complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied t
o both over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So I
got endorsed flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995 when
the rules changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a complex
endorsement although I may fly RG aircraft.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here's the actual NPRM:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-6142-0001
The part of the proposal regarding complex aircraft is to allow the 10
hours of "complex time" currently required of commercial pilot applicants
to be acquired, instead, in a TAA (glass cockpit). If implemented as
proposed, it would change nothing about the endorsements required to fly
complex or high performance aircraft, just to those to get a commercial
certificate. The idea is that if you're training to become a commercial
pilot, time in a 1970's 172RG is probably not as beneficial as time in a
modern aircraft. I suspect a big part of the motivation is the fact that
so many modern, high performance aircraft are now fixed gear, and
maintaining a fleet of 172 RGs (what most flight schools use for "complex"
training) is a bit of a silly burden.
I think it's all a bit silly. Little of the training I did to acquire my
ratings and little of the thousands of hours I spent flying around as an
instructor in a single engine aircraft did much to prepare me to fly jets
for the airlines. The fact that I'd spent a few dozen hours in an airplane
that required me to flip the gear lever after takeoff and before landing
certainly didn't do much to prepare me. And, yes, it might have been nice
to have seen a glass cockpit at some point in my career before the CRJ
simulator, but learning to read the glass was easy. Learning to think at 10
miles per minute was the hard part, but fortunately, the airlines (with
serious FAA oversight) did a pretty good job of preparing me for that.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Here's the article on the NPRM..
>
> https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/12/
> proposed-part-61-changes-would-benefit-ga
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 21, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are
> endorsements given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine
> sea, you are expected to show up for the flight test already having the
> endorsement (if required).
> I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there
> was no complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied
> to both over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So
> I got endorsed flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995
> when the rules changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a
> complex endorsement although I may fly RG aircraft.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.comhttp://wiki.matronics.com==========================; -
> List Contribution Wnbsp; -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.<========================================================
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I don't recall, but I don't think there was a high performance endorsement
at the time I did my commercial, which required 10 hours of "complex" time.
I think originally 180 hp was sufficient, as both Arrows and Mooneys came
that way. Later I think 200 hp was required. It was NOT over 200 hp. When I
got my private I could step right from C150 to C207, PA-32 or DHC 2 or DHC3
with no endorsement. (Beaver or Otter) that were tailwheel and 450 hp or
~600? hp. Insurance and common sense were the only restrictions. I was
signed off, not as a formal endorsement for complex, never for tailwhell,
HP etc. Grandfathered for all of that. Have flown PA-23 with pair of C4B5
250 hp engines and Mooney 231 with TSIO-360 (210 hp). Commercial and
multi-engine rating in a 150 HP Apache or 160 hp Twin Comanche was enough
to make you legally eligible to fly right seat in Part 121 airliner at that
time.
Kelly (don't need no stinkin endorsement)
Yes I know you need sign-off for checkride. Checkride gets you flight
review and the training in right aircraft gets you HP and complex
endorsements, all without having any wheels, much less ones that retract.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are
> endorsements given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine
> sea, you are expected to show up for the flight test already having the
> endorsement (if required).
> I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there
> was no complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied
> to both over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So
> I got endorsed flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995
> when the rules changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a
> complex endorsement although I may fly RG aircraft.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
It seems to me that an EFIS could easily be tied to a switch, and read "gear up"
or "gear down", depending on the 'gear switch'. And if you landed "gear up"
the EFIS could put out horrible scrapping sounds. Close enough to the real thing?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461514#461514
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|