Jump to content

Andy

Members
  • Content Count

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Andy

  • Rank
    Senior Crew Member
  • Birthday July 2

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.theandyzone.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Friendswood, TX
  • Interests
    CTSW, flying, flight instruction techniques, writing, Macs, manned spaceflight, hiking, camping
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Make sure you're not getting co-channel interference with any other wi-fi devices, like your smartphone or a Go Pro. I have to turn off my iPhone SE to avoid it sporadically knocking out ADS-B in from my Echo UAT to my iPad.
  2. The model in FS 2020 is a CTSL instead of a CTLS. Got a cockpit closer to a CT2K or older SW. Great photorealism from the sim and the visibility out of the airplane is close to the real thing. Much easier to fly a VFR pattern than in most flight sims. The flight model seemed pretty good but the airport modeling was way off for KLVJ (controlled field when not aand lots of bigness that doesn't really exist). Lots of sim controller tweaking necessary because I used an older CH Pro FlightStick and rudder pedal set. I do have the sim settings set up high, a fairly new Alienware system running it, and glad I do. Right now, I like the VSKYLABS CTLS with X Plane 11 better but it's still early and I will get the FS 2020 model tweaked down. Does make the X Plane 11 environment seem pretty dated...
  3. I have attached the 2015 Keller FAA legal opinion that also steers in the direction that for LSA TBO is mandatory. The solution Arian proposes would address the issues that the opinion writer has about moving past the TBO. I take it from the responses here, there's not much interest in working up a program to pitch; and as a private owner going ELSA is in some ways a better solution. If there is no formal program for going past TBO by next year, I'm going to take mine to ELSA to avoid any possible entanglements. As the airplane ages, it'll probably make it easier to keep it flying anyway. My cut is that the FAA tends to defer to the aircraft manufacturer because of how they have implemented the LSA rules, so if Arian has truly captured where FD has come down, then it's going to be more risk than I want to take by remaining SLSA. I'd love to see an effort made to come up with a "flying past conditional" program because I believe it would be good for the whole LSA community. From the way he responded, though, I take it we'd have to come up with a proposal. Admittedly, it might be more hassle and expense than simply going ELSA, but then I'm thinking about the training and resale market as well. Still, I'm willing to work on something if there's enough interest, though I certainly don't have the expertise to do it by myself. PM me if you think you'd like to press forward with something, and we'll see if we can get enough resources to go forward. Keller - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf
  4. Gents, I e-mailed Arian Foldan about this issue, especially after looking at the FAA legal opinion issued in 2015 (Keller) that said TBO had to be followed. After reading it, it still wasn't clear to me whether there was wiggle room as has been discussed here. I have included the text of my e-mail and his response: My e-mail to him is below: "I’m trying to get some clarity on Flight Design’s stance concerning the Rotax 912 ULS calendar life limit and whether Flight Design, which is the manufacturer of the aircraft, considers the TBO hourly and calendar life limits as mandatory. Depending on which FAA legal opinion you look at, you can find opinions stating they are or are not hard limits (with the Keller opinion in 2015 appearing to be the most restrictive). Most language in the opinions refer to the manufacturer; generally, that term is reserved for the aircraft manufacturer, which is why I’m asking the question. The only thing I remember seeing from Flight Design is an admonition stating you “may” have to abide by the Rotax requirements (which have, in the past, been trumped by FAA legalities, such as the requirements for Rotax schooling for aviation maintainers).Depending on whom you’re talking to within the CT community, some feel that flying on condition (as part 91 operators not for hire can do) past any part of a TBO is acceptable and some are saying that the calendar life restriction (15 years) is a hard limit and the only way to deal with it is to overhaul or replace your engine or convert to ELSA. The import of the answer to this question has a strong affect on any Rotax powered LSA in the market since if the calendar life restriction is “hard”, then every Rotax sold is on a clock to have the engine replaced or overhauled at that limit. In my case, I am just now hitting 1000 hours total time on the aircraft and engine, have followed all the Rotax guidelines, and see no compelling reason to replace or overhaul the engine next year as would be required. Secondly, it has stopped me from buying any Rotax powered LSA to employ as a trainer, since the newer models are financially out of reach and the engine replacement possibility to maintain SLSA status adds to my costs by $20K. Personally, I’d rather not take my aircraft ELSA if I can avoid it, which is why I’m asking the question. Here's his response: Flight Design has not issued any overriding information on engine overhaul requirements. This means we have to defer to Rotax. In the maintenance manual, they specify requirements:The verbiage presented there means that it is required by Rotax. Which leads us to the next part: does that mean it is legally required? The short answer is yes. Here is where it can get confusing. The FAA, in creating the light sport aircraft rules, defers to the ASTM for manufacturing requirements. They also defer to the manufacturer for continued airworthiness requirements. In normal category aircraft, the FAA governs all of the manufacture and airworthiness requirements for any aircraft. So they will create rules based on their requirements. Since they do not govern those things for light sport aircraft, they defer, and say that anything the manufacturer requires is legally required.The reason this does not apply to maintenance personnel is because the FAA directly governs that side of things. The manufacturer, for instance, cannot issue an A&P or LSRM certificate. That means they can't govern requirements for those certificate holders.The only way to get this changed would be to petition Flight Design to create a continued airworthiness program for the engine beyond calendar TBO. If members of the community want to put something together, I would be happy to present it to FD. Me again: Looks to me like there's an opportunity to try to get "flying on condition" all tied up in a bow, assuming that FD sees benefit in doing it and can skirt liability to their satisfaction. Andy
  5. Well, I haven't seen anything yet that really captures the CT accurately, and I have the XP/CT model but haven't flown it much yet so I'll take a look. I can agree with you about the freeware CT and older versions, but XP 11 right now is the most sophisticated sim I've got of the ones out there. (i.e., from a systems standpoint since you can fly a C172 with a G1000 for intsance and XP's) other than the Heatblur F-14B in DCS World which does capture the airplane with amazing accuracy. Of course, you get what you pay for; DCS was free but the F-14 model cost around $80. FS 2020 is preordering at $60 and then if you want to get 5 more airplanes and you step up to $90 and 10 you go to $120 and whether its flight models are really better is still TBD. I am looking forward to seeing it, especially if I can fly the same model airplane I have experience in in both sims and see how they compare.
  6. There's a third party CTLS already available for Xplane 11. You can see something about it here:
  7. Yeah, I see this all the time. I use the reported winds as a guide about whether I want to try it; and if I decide to, I'll take three shots at a runway before going somewhere else.
  8. This is what I do in the CTSW and it works well.
  9. It doesn't matter what kind of indication and warning system you have, if you loose situational awareness and stop flying your airplane, you're just as dead. That said, if I had an AOA indicator, I'd certainly use it. As mentioned, it'll give you good info regardless of weight that you can use in takeoff, landing, and cruise. Being Navy trained, I can testify that AOA is your friend if properly utilized. It enables precise control of lift and, just as important for coming aboard, helps keep tight bounds on aircraft attitude and therefore tailhook angle to help you catch those all important wires. In the F-14, there was an AOA gauge type indicator (the Navy uses the term "units of AOA") and the lighted chevron indicator (fast, on speed, slow or yellow/green/red) that the pilots use coming aboard. That said, there was some slop between colors (maybe about a five knot range) and a few of the pilots I flew with would have me (as a backseater) call airspeeds (either a number above or below the on-speed reference or actual airspeed..like 133) to help them spot trends so they could make corrections early and avoid not only getting off but having the chevron change color which the LSO on the ship who's grading their pass could see. In light aircraft, the weight influence is the most compelling argument, with accelerated stall warning being the next more important.
  10. I've got the uAvionix echoUAT with SKYFYX-external GPS and the MRA from FD so it's ready to install. It's got ADS-B in and out and only cost $1400. Displays to an iPad.
  11. You guys might already know about this, but I thought I'd flag the release of the NTSB report. See attachment or go here: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/07/fatal-accident-occurred-july-01-2017.html?fbclid=IwAR3EhaeGI0jk0nXQ4__UdLK7ZPBE1l6mq9O_Rejs-HtPMcZVsHT8yq6KKTw CTCrashDog.pdf
  12. FAR 61.199 spells it out. Think you'll also have to have a Class III or Basic Med to go this way. LSA instruction is enveloped by a Part 61 Subpart H CFI as Tom suggested..
  13. More from EAA about this subject: https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/10-08-2018-eaa-led-reform-ideas-include-lsa-weight-and-homebuilt-regulations
  14. Since I sign with just my name and CFI number as it is on my certificate, any DPE would be hard pressed to know I was a CFI-S unless he knew who I was. That's one of several reasons why the change makes sense, though not the most compelling one. Different parts of the NPRM kick in at different times, so you need to run down what part becomes effective when.
  15. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/27/2018-12800/regulatory-relief-aviation-training-devices-pilot-certification-training-and-pilot-schools-and-other About time!
×
×
  • Create New...