Great Ozzie

And the sandblaster... :P

Yeah Craig... if you are using the massive-type plugs, (A2A has simulated) they will foul if you do not lean on the ground. Might be able to get away with it (i.e. mixture full rich) in the air at the higher cruise settings at the lower altitudes we were flying. On the ground, I pull the mixture out about half-way. I look for an rpm drop, then bring it up a little. Afaik, there isn't a way to screw up an engine by leaning at near idle rpms. The caveat tho... it HAS to be up "where it should be" i.e. full rich before takeoff power (there is an exception for higher density altitudes). You can certainly screw up an engine (to failure) by having a leaned mixture at full power. Is why one needs to verify mixture is full rich (and carb heat off) before adding power.

I'm going to duct tape my mouth (or pull the mic jack and save tape & beard) as y'all know my forte is "talks too much". Come to think of it... I've made my share of stupid / silly mistakes (all when I was a student pilot! really!!) that might be entertaining. Sorry to hear you cannot make it Mike.

New graphics card by chance? :Just Kidding:

Hope you and Jeff have the most realistic weather now, Ron. btw... lol! also btw... how could you not agree w/ such a nice guy like Lewis!

Just saw the jcomm post... yeah check tanks for fuel imbalance... try it in the FSX "clear wx theme". My short testing has shown so far a very slight left turn... could zero it out with a bit of rudder trim (located in the center floor to the right of the parking brake -- pic on p.84 of the manual shows it well).

Sounds like the flaps .wav file kept looping... that *was* strange. Btw Rob... fine job with airspeed control on short final (where the clicking starts). Yeah... the Seminole wrt to what you are saying having that higher wing loading... and the drag wrt to engine placement when at idle. And maybe something to do with that T-tail. I liked the Seminole a lot too. Solid, good flying airplane. But bigger? Not by much. :P One should not have to fly a flatter approach. No reason to. And unlike C172 or Cherokee 180... you "fly" a twin to the ground i.e. you do not stall it in. For example, carry power into the transition... slightly nose high attitude right above the runway, pull what power is remaining and let it settle in.

Hi Eamonn, I have most of my time in Cherokees (PA-28s)... most of that in 161s (Warrior IIs) but I have time in the 140s, 151, 181 (or 180?), 28R-201 (Arrow III) and the Dakota (235hp). You could count the Saratoga too I suppose (PA-32) since it's a stretched version w/ 300hp. I'd have to dig out the logs to see if any other models... but that's the general stuff. Both wing styles (Hershey Bar vs. semi-taper) were fun, but the HBs were interesting with that big fat "stubby" wing. I never flew one with that camel hump in the middle of the dash and trim on the roof (that I can remember) like our A2A '65 C model. Switches became more than something out of a Radio Shack catalog to rocker types in the middle and the C.B.s moved to the right panel (and changed to a more "modern" type). Just a couple other small changes in the panel. But am quite familiar with the plane. "flown" i.e. past tense... I hope by next summer to start spending money I don't have to checkout in something. :lol: i just saw an article in this month's AOPA (June) by Rod Machado called "The Four C-note Lesson" for 1.2hrs (w/ instructor) in a glass C172. :crazy: Unbelievable. I remember the $35/hr C152. Katana / DA40 sounds like great fun. There's a guy in Alabama... Greg Koontz... that does aerobatic instruction in a Decathlon. He's got a J-3 too... exactly how I'd like to break-in after all these years off. I was a dope and didn't go after any taildragger time before the taildragger sign-off became required. I could have been grandfather'd in (no sign-off). That and not getting my ATP when it was 1200hrs TT my (two) regrets.

Looking forward to it Jeff... Yous guys are all pros anyway... but if a question arises, hopefully I can help out.

My experience as well for a '78 Arrow III. Same wing as the Warrior II. I attrib'd the difference when compared to a Warrior being due to the gear doors / wheel wells etc. Yeah Warrior IIs a fairly docile staller. Certainly agree there if you're in one that had the 40° flap position.

My experience... there is a distinct difference in the two wings (HB vs. Taper) when landing. (edit: my response to Gregg referring to the PA-28s). I liked to carry a little power into the transition with the old wing... not so with the newer one. This comes from the time in 140s... some also in the 180s compared to the 161s. Btw I never felt the A36 was a "floaty" plane like the Warrior IIs and certainly the 140s were not floaty imo. This all at 'book speeds'.

True for the taper wing... Don't expect that with the old hershey bar wing.

And since he is such a big fan, advocate, and promoter of FSX, I'd like post the following link in his honor: http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=40062

No... actually not... in fact, you answer it with the following: Which brings us back to my (earlier) point: "Win" or "lose" or "draw" (settle out of court) there is going to be a cost. So there is always "risk". Who's the "some"? Sorry, I did not see this implied anywhere in the thread. The only "steering" I have seen is "read the EULA". And we know, for example, "AVSIM's" position is "abide by the EULA".

That is an argument you can consider using when working as part of MS Legal. Yeah I figured it would be similar at places like Embry, UND, etc. When I was at Purdue, you did not have to actually be in the PP program to take the flight / ground courses. Myself... I was in the Av. Maint. side of the house using "Flight" as a minor. I think it was just a matter of the courses having "room", with priority given to the PP students.

This just a "fwiw". Professional Pilot Program at Purdue University... Commercial / Instrument was completed by the end of the second (sophomore) year. The whole thing was just a four-year (undergrad) program to get you ready for the regionals / corporate. We are certainly free to make that assumption -- and it very well may be correct. But dollars to donuts you won't hear LM say that! :Big Grin: Certainly they could absorb it... then pass the costs on to the end user. But who here has had to go to court to testify in a trial AND say what a joyous occasion it was?

Well (w/o checking :Big grin: ) of course they did! What company (with respect to lawsuits) says, "Bring it on!" :Big grin: Well... have a look here: http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=3741.0 (WB post in there at the end) http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=3747 In the end... it is for our own "legal department" to make a determination. IBTL Regards,

:LMAO: Tell that one to their legal department!

Aw c'mon TJ... this has nothing to do with LM's "loose 'academic use' guidelines". The only thing "loose" about the academic license is LM does not require proof of student eligibility. If I understand you correctly, Fr. Bill... the answer would be related to $$$.

You need to go back and review the FAQ on LM's website. Btw... the chart on LM's website is quite clear.

Easiest to see on the 2D panel... Mooney > left side above the red rocker switches. Baron > the switch to the right of the fuel pump switches.

The good news is he can order / download to his iphone... The bad news is his iphone does not support FSX...

It's normal to think of a Category I approach as a standard "200 and 1/2" straight-in ILS procedure. While it's true that such an ILS is a Category I approach, so is an NDB approach with only circling minimums. There are three major subsets of Category I: precision straight-in, non-precision straight-in, non-precision circling. Precision approaches are limited to straight in procedures with an electronic glideslope (ILS, PAR or MLS) and employ a decision height / altitude (DH/DA) below which you must be in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) consistent with the visibility minimums for the approach. All other Category I approaches use the minimum descent altitude concept for continuing the approach under VMC. Establishing Visibility Minimums by Wally Roberts (IFR Refresher, June 1995) ---------- An SA CAT I ILS is a CAT I approach with a DH as low as 150 feet Height Above Threshold (HATh) using radar altimeter (RA) minima and a visibility minimum as low as RVR 1400 at runways with reduced lighting, using a HUD to DH. Only those operators authorized for CAT II operations using aircraft operationally approved for CAT II operations and equipped with an operable CAT II or better HUD are eligible for this operation. Operators are approved for this operation by the appropriate Operations Specification (OpSpec)/Management Specification (MSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA). Single pilot operations are not permitted to use SA CAT I landing minimums. FAA InFO: 12002 Edit: The above defined CAT I Approaches and that SA CAT I is a CAT I approach. Adding some more definitions (from FSIMS 8900.1 Vol. 4, Chap. 2). Enjoy. CAT II Runway Visual Range (RVR) 1000. FAA Order 8400.13 authorizes CAT II approaches with a DH as low as 100 feet and visibility minimums of RVR 1000 to runways which meet all CAT II equipment, performance, and lighting requirements. The operator must use either autoland or HUD approved to touchdown. Special Authorization (SA) Category (CAT) I. FAA Order 8400.13 authorizes SA CAT I approaches to a radio altimeter (RA) DH as low as 150 feet and a visibility minimum as low as RVR 1400 to runways that do not have touchdown zone (TDZ) or runway centerline (RCL) lighting when the approach is flown using an aircraft with an approved CAT II or III HUD to DH. SA CAT II. FAA Order 8400.13 authorizes CAT II approaches with a DH as low as 100 feet and visibility minimums of RVR 1200 at runways which do not meet all of the lighting requirements (Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights (ALSF)-2, TDZ, RCL lights) for standard CAT II. The operator must use either autoland or HUD approved to touchdown. Standard CAT II Operations. CAT II operations are approach and landing operations conducted with a DH of less than 200 feet (60 meters) but not less than 100 feet (30 meters), and an RVR of not less than 1,200 feet (350 meters). Category (CAT) III Operations. CAT III operations are separated into three subcategories: CAT IIIa, CAT IIIb, and CAT IIIc. CAT IIIa Operations. CAT IIIa is an approach and landing operation with an Runway Visual Range (RVR) of not less than 700 feet (200 meters) without a decision height (DH), or with a DH of less than 100 feet (30 meters), or an alert height (AH), which is typically between 50 and 200 feet, depending on aircraft certification and operator preferences. Both fail passive (FP) and fail operational (FO) airborne equipment can be used in CAT IIIa operations. CAT IIIb Operations. CAT IIIb is an approach and landing operation with an RVR of less than 700 feet (200 meters) but not less than 150 feet (50 meters) and a DH of 50 feet (15 meters) or less, or an AH, which is typically between 50 and 200 feet, depending on aircraft certification and operator preferences. Both FP and FO airborne equipment can be used for CAT IIIb operations. Presently, the lowest FAA-approved minimum for any CAT III operations is RVR 300 (75 meters) due to difficulties in accomplishing safe ground movement for both aircraft and ground safety services, such as Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF). CAT IIIc Operations. CAT IIIc is an approach and operation landing without a DH and without RVR limitations (zero-zero). CAT IIIc operations are currently not authorized.

He's being a bit coy there, fppilot... That's Ron's callsign at Backcountry Prop Club...

For this CAT III Part 121 stuff, I have no clue. We need an adult to step in (RSR... Col. Scott...). I do believe there is some requirement that reported visibility (e.g. RVR) has to be at or above the required visibility minimum on the approach chart in use to legally fly the approach. Under U.S. Part 91 (basically "non-commercial" i.e. not charter and not airline) if the reported visibility is less than what is required on the approach chart, you can attempt the approach (iirc!) but if you land and there is a reported RVR of less than 2400' (and this referring to a CAT I ILS approach*) one is going to have a very difficult time demonstrating to the FAA the flight visibility was 1/2sm or better. (Turn on that GoPro before the middle marker and have a good attorney :lol: ). Also, with respect to your chart, there should be one for the CAT III approach @ EKCH. I found a Jeppesen that has the CAT II with minima the same as the Navigraph (although it did list a DA / DH also). As an example, here is a link to a U.S. Government chart (pdf) for the Indianapolis (KIND) ILS RWY 5R (CAT II & III). Google CAT IIIB EKCH and you should be able to find at least a Jeppesen pdf that includes the CAT II approach (I could not find the CAT III). Your questions are not stupid... some of this stuff can be quite complicated and it definitely going to vary on the type of operation. ------------- *Not referring to the CAT I ILS to 1800'RVR