All Activity

Any opinions on rebalancing after changing cylinders? (3 since balancing after prop overhaul)

For flying with expired database, in Europe, we are allowed as long as it's only one AIRAC cycle (28days) and you can cross-check, however, my understanding examiners will fail the test if the database is expired. I was curious if FAA has any rule or guidance on this for P91 ops, however, it seems Garmin limitation sits above AIM guidance ! I am bit mixing EASA vs FAA (sorry for that) but I am very curious on any discrepancies, I always get questions here and there, especially for GPS operation or substitution, it's far from being trivial and it's hard to follow, it changes quicker than software versions...

You are right, VFR should not trigger PBN clauses... I am not sure about P91 rules but for NCO rules in EASA or ICAO Ops, if the weather is good for VFR or IFR in VMC nothing prevents you from planning visual, contact and circling approche and executing whatever you like: for approch procedures in VMC, you are not even required to carry an equipment and you can ask for LPV and navigate it visually while ensuring visual separation on approch and runway. Only landings in IMC require equipments to be carried. https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/965-2012/Content/Document Structure/07 NCO/2 Regs/20530_NCOIDEA195_Navigation_equipment.htm Aeroplanes operated on flights in which it is intended to land in IMC shall be equipped with suitable equipment capable.... For departure, arrival and en-route you are required to comply with PBN or RNAV specs and limitations for airspace when route separation is mandated (these applies to VFR or IFR in VMC). One easy way to think about it is that the approche procedure is not part of the ATC flight plan (or ICAO format), no one files ILS25 or LPV25 in their flight plans, they just file some navigation fix or airport. However, STAR+IAF, AWY, SID are part of flight plan and require equipment carriage. In US, things could be different as visual separation and visual navigation in PBN airspace is allowed, even in Bravo, and vectoring is pretty much available everywhere, including VFR, so I would have expected VFR not having to comply with PBN specs. However, FAA still mandate VFR to comply with PBN as if it's an "IFR flight", however, this constraints is likely moot if VFR never file a flight plan or if VFR can claim they can navigate visually. The other thing is that even VFR have certified GPS equipment for ADSB which allow them to navigate even in Charlie or Bravo, it does not comply with PBN specs or limitations but it is still display TSO'ed GPS position on iPad even if aircraft is not equipped with transponder or outside radar coverage, you can call this sort of "mini-RNAV" for VFR We have a group of pilots who spent some time pushing back against ICAO PBN, asking VFR to comply with PBN in controlled airspace or routes will kill lot of freedom with no safety benefits. This topic becomes even more interesting when talking about flying IFR procedure in EXP or LSA, I think there is not much to discuss on PBN (RNP or RNAV) when you have GTN installed but no AFMS paperwork As far I can see for FAA guidance, if a VFR can navigate visually, it's all good.

I agree with you. The debate occurs because the AIM provided guidance is the same as what Garmin provides for enroute. But since the AFMS always trumps the AIM the AFMS is the controlling guidance. So it would be a big mistake to show up for Instrument Practical exam with an expired database knowing you’ll be expected to fly an RNAV approach. But in more practical terms if an approach plate has not been updated after the database expired it’s going to be fine even though not legal - unless it’s been retired in which case ATC won’t clear it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t think anyone here is saying suck it up like money doesn’t matter. but there aren’t any legal options. how exactly would you fight back?

Yes, I do dynamic balancing (as an a&p) and every single one of my customers said they could feel the difference.

Except for a few authors, I have not be impressed by the quality of the writing and often questioned the journalistic integrity. I didn't see anything negative about Van's Aircraft... I can't help but think that it has to do with the advertising.

Amen to that. Emergency use only. I made a restroom visit part of passenger pre-boarding check list for my wife. Speedbrakes are awesome if you need to get down from 16k quickly. Had to do it not so long ago for a forced potty break.

My SO experimented with one at home. While the look the same, the Travel Jane worked better (less chance of leakage. But she found that one of the funnels was even better. To be used with the Travel Jane as a receptical. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08T97KZDD?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_1&th=1 This is strictly for emergencies, but we typically fly 14,000 - 17,000, so it is a good 30 minutes to the ground, plus taxi to parking, etc. So, if the need is really there ......

Well you do have to take the prop off to replace a 1 piece crank shaft seal

Does anyone have updated information on the Long Body Gross Weight Increase STC?

Always remember, you can sleep in an airplane, but you can't fly a house!

Great Pinecone! But I believe MikeOh is correct, easier to fly a whole plane! Not sure if 1/2 a prop, one aileron and 1/2 an elevator will work well, not to mention the intense draft!

Yes, here we go down the rabbit hole. This is well and good, but the Reference Guide is yet another pamphlet-like document that is not the voluminous Pilot's Guide often found in the cockpit. Even the Reference Guide is not required unless "navigation is predicated on the use of the GTN." I think most would agree that flying IFR departure/enroute/approach procedures using guidance from the GTN triggers that clause. I'm less sure about VFR ops and lean toward arguing those do not trigger the clause. Getting a bit off topic here, but an AFMS limitation that comes up in CFII debates from time to time is this one: I've had fellow instructors claim there is nothing in FAA literature which prohibits flying an instrument approach with an expired database provided you "verify each waypoint for accuracy". That may be true, but if you're Garmin equipped it doesn't matter, because the AFMS for Garmin navigators explicitly prohibits it, allowing the "verify each waypoint" trick only for terminal and enroute ops. I don't know if other navigators (e.g. Avidyne) contain this same AFMS limitation.

Can't say, I've never been to H81. I just know that KTDW has treated us well, many times. @midlifeflyer's story about KAMA being quiet makes sense to me, and I wouldn't avoid it because it's "busy", I just think KTDW has cheaper gas, is closer to town, and now has the restaurant. Getting a bit off topic here, but in my experience, Class C towered airports are a lot more pleasant to fly into than Class D towered airports. I think a lot of pilots get introduced to towered airport ops at a busy Class D, and conclude that flying into a Class C must be even crazier, but it's often the opposite. Here in the Denver Metro area, I'd take a flight into KCOS over one to KBJC or KAPA, any day, and any time of day.

According to my painter, aircraft polyurethane is more flexible and applied thicker than auto paint.

I don't know where you heard about that reputation and I certainly have not seen it other in isolated situations. It's these situations that need to stop the fighting and bickering. This is the single BEST place to talk Mooneys and it's important for all of us to make it a welcoming and productive place for Mooniacs to hang out and share experiences (good and bad) that others may glean valuable information. I'm sorry if someone made comments about your weight. That's not right in any fashion. Also, if you went back to all of my posts, you will see that I have not attacked or said negative things about anyone personally. Including you. We want everyone here, let's help this forum have a really good vibe.

That's concerning. I switched to them last year as their quote was excellent compared to the others and their terms a bit more reasonable (not nickling and diming to add instructors, etc).

W. Brown & Associates stopped underwriting Mooneys thru their online quoting platform that us agents use. They discontinued Flight Design aircraft at the same time. They will still review them manually for individual consideration, though quoting continued coverage is not guaranteed. I would see if your agent has asked W. Brown to manually review.

BUMPING THIS HIGHLY RELEVANT THREAD. While doing a thorough cleaning of my M20C interior over the weekend, I noted the decrepit condition of my 57 year old firewall blanket on the cockpit side: multiple holes, decrepit fiberglass shards leaking out from them. As @N201MKTurbo notes, this looks like a massive job to do properly. Has anyone come up with a satisfactory stopgap solution?

After I got my ppl (about 35 years ago, damn im old!) I thought the same way. Why not top it off? If landing with 1 hour is good, 2 is better for sure? And sheesh, I need to stop anyway. I think that’s a normal (and probably reasonable) way to start out. When I went to USAF pilot training we always started with tanks full, but I quickly learned that to land with an hour of fuel, I’d have to fly a max of about 2 patterns and land. Then, in the Eagle we would commonly land with about 2000lbs of fuel which sounds great, but then you realize that fuel burn on takeoff is in excess of 50,000 pph. At normal settings, it’s 30 minutes or so. Sometimes not comfortable, but if you followed the rules about having an alternate and spoke up when you needed to divert or were minimum (or emergency) fuel, it works. Why did we do it? Because otherwise you can’t get the utility out of the airplane. And Im not suggesting doing this in a Mooney either, but you trade utility (range and load) for fuel. Now, as a corporate pilot, I do this every day. It’s easy with foreflight because the planning profiles are accurate, the winds are accurate, and you can recalculate your plan as often as you like. I commonly depart with half fuel in the Meridian so I can carry 3 or 4 pax instead of 2. I am also happy to tell my boss that I need more fuel if the winds or weather change and I drop a person off the trip to add gas. I don’t get into regulatory minimum requirements with him, but I tell him I want a minimum of 1 hour fuel at landing (or alternate) and I stick to that. Now how about you and your wife in the Mooney? By all means, top it off every flight, but when the kids come, start looking at options. I would fly my M20F 525nm to my folks with my wife, 2 kids and bags. We generally landed with ~15gallons, but I couldn’t start full. I would leave ~2 gallons in one tank and 13 in the other for landing. Once I flew 600nm with them and I did run a tank dry to ensure I had everything in one tank. Landed with ~12 gallons. It’s a non event if you’re ready it barely stumbles. My family was ready and were interested but not scared. Ive also run a tank dry in my K to empty it and check fuel gage accuracy. Now that I know how accurate the CIES gages are, I wont plan on it going completely dry in cruise but I can maximize remaining fuel in one tank and the utility of the airplane by getting within a couple minutes of dry on the low one. And since Ive tested it in cruise, if I do it accidentally (I screw up), I know how it will restart. To do this, you have to be willing and confident in checking your plan as you fly, ensuring that it works, and WILLING to divert if it’s not going to meet your personal mins. Just last winter at Boeing Field in Seattle, I followed a citation down the ILS in a PA46T. It was pretty foggy, but I thought we would see the lights. He went missed, and I was on the approach but much slower than him so I thought I still had a chance. I also went missed, but I did see the lights right as I started to add power. On the missed approach the citation asked to go back around and try it again since he had also seen the lights. I thought there was a reasonable chance that the fog was moving and he would land. Approach asked me what I wanted to do? I said I want to divert to the other side of the mountains and land in Wenatchee, which was VFR. He said do you want to try the approach again? I said no I want to divert immediately. And we went and landed comfortably with an hour of fuel still. You have to be willing to make that call.

Thanks for the info. Interestingly, 20 years ago I owned a 1997 Encore and flew it from Idaho to the mid-west and east coast several times. It was measurably slower at cruise than the 1986 252 I currently fly. Perhaps due to the heaver weight with just 10 hp more. Still it is an awesome upgrade for those that like this size of a TC Mooney and who need to carry more weight. Too bad the managers at the factory couldn't see their way to produce a modernized Encore. "When if's and buts are nuts and candy, all the world will be fine and dandy"

I just renewed mine today with USAIG, no issues and the increase seems very reasonable as I increased the hull value as well. I don't think this is an industry wide issue.

even the issues discussed on COPA are for the ultra wealthy..... Mooneyspace is where its at.....

i don't believe it is an industry shift. it is more than likely one underwriter finding themselves having too many of one type on their books for the actuarial. my aerostar has the issue every year. i will get quotes from 11k to 60k for the same coverage.