Jump to content

Doug Hereford

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Doug Hereford

  • Rank
    Co-Pilot Member
  • Birthday 01/23/1971

Profile Information

  • Location
    Kansas City
  • Interests
  • Gender
  1. Headings within 5 degrees of N/S and VFR Cruise Altitude

    The only thing to keep in mind is that that technique only checks that one altitude. Reporting equipment switches over at 100 ft increments. The way the code works, you could be reporting correctly at 3300, but erroneously reporting by several hundred feet at say 3400 or 3200. I do agree that cross checking with ATC is better than nothing though.
  2. Headings within 5 degrees of N/S and VFR Cruise Altitude

    Flying Monkey, If you had the full "IFR" inspection done, and the system failed some portion of the inspection, then you are correct that It should not be approved for return to service until fixed. This inspection is done (or should be done) on every aircraft before it leaves the factory. Although, if you don't fly in airspace that requires its use, then you could probably do go. Earlier, guys were talking about the benefits of flight following. A properly working altitude reporting system would be necessary to fully benefit from this. The danger is that your aircraft may be reporting to ATC, a different altitude than you are actually flying on. Spacing decisions could be effected. I am not saying that I think that a VFR only guy should go to the additional expense every 24 months, but I think that in the context of a discussion about near misses, it is worth mentioning this maintenance. Also, removing and replacing many panel mounted radios does fall under the heading of "preventive maintenance" as defined in part 43 app A item 31, however transponders are excluded from this because R&R of a transponder would necessitate a recertification of the integrated system (even if it was an A&P or Repairmen who R&R'd the unit). I mention this because owners should know that if their transponder has been removed and replaced, there is a possibility of altitude reporting errors. In my experience it is fairly uncommon, but I have seen it a few times. The GTX330 can display reported altitude on the screen, but I have seen differences between what the display shows, and what is coming out of the antenna when there is a problem with these transponders. How I interpret the relevant regs is that they would rather an aircraft not report altitude at all, then report erroneous altitude.
  3. Headings within 5 degrees of N/S and VFR Cruise Altitude

    With regard to ADS B. Vertical separation is still going to be based on pressure altitude. That takes you back to the altitude reporting system in every aircraft (except those without electrical systems like I think Tom was referencing). That is why that system needs to work properly.
  4. Headings within 5 degrees of N/S and VFR Cruise Altitude

    With regard to altitude reporting and transponders. In my opinion, all operators who operate in congested airspace, whether VFR only or VFR/IFR, are well to spend the extra money and have both 91.411 an 91.413 inspections done on your aircraft. The VFR (91.413) only check does not verify altitude reporting accuracy. If your system uses gray code to communicate between the transponder and the encoder, it is very easy to lose a code line which can amount to hundreds of feet in reported altitude error. Also keep in mind that if any maintenance is done on the aircraft where error can be introduced into the system (transponder R&R, encoder R&R to name a few), the system techniquely must be checked, regardless of whether operating VRF only. If you guys have GTX330 transponders installed, keep in mind that there is an AD against them for certain software level issues. There is also an AD for KT-76A King units. I have inspected numerous aircraft in the past where these AD's had been missed for years. There are several AD's for United altimeters too, but as far as I know, CT does not use United units. It is unlikely that the AD's would apply in your guys case, unless a non-compliant replacement unit was installed at some point.
  5. 12 year mandatory overhaul

    Where is the Tylenol? (Another Christmas Vacation movie ref.).
  6. 12 year mandatory overhaul

    Forum, I never said that I thought that the video was aimed at any specific certificate of aircraft or airmen. It is obviously aimed at anyone who watches it and subsequently becomes "stranded" in a 912 equipped aircraft. Like I said before, I found out about this video through a customer of mine who saw it and said that he would use it if needed. He obviously thought it pertained to him. He is a non-mechanic, non-repairmen flight instructor and the aircraft is an SLSA. I did not even know who's video it was when I first saw it. Only after watching it a couple of times did I notice the name. I was just astonished by the context (not content) of it. I have watched numerous Rotax maintenance videos and find them to be very informative, but I cannot recall one that illustrates a maintenance procedure to facilitate someone "self rescuing" after an off airport landing. I had actually kind of forgotten about the whole carb debris thing until I saw this video too, but the more I hear, the more concerned I get. My guys drain/inspect carb bowls at every condition inspection, and at the mid time oil change also. I was beginning to think that that was over-kill, but have changed my mind. Hearing about suspected bad hose out there is really concerning too. I am unaware of any safety directive or SB on that subject, but I could have missed it. If there isn't one, it sure sounds like the might be a need for one, especially if all these A&P's can't figure out how to install hoses correctly (a little sarcasm). Corey, If the environment is actually too cold or too hot to survive, should you really be performing any kind of work on an aircraft at all? What does that environment look like exactly? I hate to think that our maintenance culture has moved so far that landing on a road is not an incident all by itself, and that a self rescue video for pilots is an ok thing. On top of that, we have apparently got 180 degree opposing FAA positions on the issue, and by this time tomorrow, Van will be shown the light and realize that he too was wrong. I would be less suprised if I wake up in the morning with my head sewn to the carpet (Christmas Vacation ref.).
  7. 12 year mandatory overhaul

    Ed, I completely agree that the opinion is not very binding one way or another. Take it for what it is worth. I will say that Van's reference to a safety directive is actually the main point I was driving at from the beginning (thread started with mandatory vs not mandatory). Kind of got off into the weeds a little.
  8. 12 year mandatory overhaul

    Pretty glaring inconsistencies
  9. 12 year mandatory overhaul

  10. New Rotax NPRM

    Hi Dick/Roger, If you just search 912 on the FAA website, there are at least 13 AD's on the Rotax 912 back to 1998. There may be more, that was just a quick search. The FAA site is not the best place to go for AD research in my opinion. There shouldn't be many before 98, as I believe the engine gained type certification then....................unless I am mistaken.
  11. New Rotax NPRM

    Yep. Another example of how things are properly made MANDATORY. Since a TC'd Rotax engine (or other power-plant) could wind up on an SLSA, I thought it well to post the NPRM. Also, it might be illustrative of how us "regular joe's" can "get off the sidelines" as your put it Roger, and participate in the system by commenting. This particular NPRM allows comments to be given until January.
  12. New Rotax NPRM

    Roger, Yes, I am aware of that. I mainly posted the link for anybody who might be maintaining other Rotax powered machines as well. It is not an AD yet. We can put in our two cents on it till January.
  13. New Rotax NPRM

    http://www.tdatacorp.com/iaprch/17-1078.htm This looks like it only applies to a very limited number of aircraft at this point. The corresponding Rotax service information has a broader applicability range.
  14. 12 year mandatory overhaul

    Ok, I guess I will assume that you spoke to Edsel Ford. I plan to email him so that I can get a clarification. I will post any communications on this thread. Have a great trip!
  15. 12 year mandatory overhaul

    Roger, Are you going to tell me who at the FAA you talked to?