Bob - S50

Did you try pulling the Alternate Static Source Knob? Did it help? Easy to ask about after the fact. More difficult to recognize in the heat of the moment. Bob

I'd love to do some formation flying in the Mooney (did it in the AF) but it just doesn't work out this time. Maybe next time.

Neither. I'd save the weight. If someone were holding a gun to my head and making me choose I'd pick airspeed. Like someone said, I can get GPS altitude off my tablet and it runs on batteries. As for airspeed, unless you plan on installing a second pitot tube, you would still have a single point failure that could take out both airspeed indicators. The only thing you would have protection from would be the indicator itself. How often do they fail? Worst case, I fly GPS groundspeed and GPS altitude. If I'm landing with a headwind, my TAS will be higher than my groundspeed so the airplane is not going to fall out of the sky. I might float a bit but at that point who cares? I'll only fall a foot anyway (an inch for the pros out there). If you want something different, think about an AOA gauge instead. That's independent of the pitot static system. Or a Dynon D1 that gives you attitude, slip, GPS altitude, GPS rate of climb, and ground speed. I'm assuming of course that you already have an engine monitor. Bob

A couple things. I agree with the others. Never too late to start protecting against corrosion. We started adding Camguard a couple changes ago when we had about 700 hours on the engine (shortly after we got the plane). If this is your first oil analysis and the engine sat unused for an extended period, do not be too alarmed if you see high metal counts. As long as your filter does not have excessive metal in it, wait until your second oil analysis to see if metal counts are still high. Our first analysis was red on almost every metal. All subsequent checks have been normal. If you watch Mike Busch's webinars, I believe Aeroshell 15W-50 is the one oil he does ... not ... recommend because he says it has too much synthetic oil and cannot adequately carry lead. I believe he likes mono-grade oils like Aeroshell w80 or w100 or if you want multigrade he prefers the Phillips X/C 20w-50 because it contains no synthetic. If you want to watch his webinar, here is a link: http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1149666747001 Bob

I would say, if it is the runway lights [see (3)(x) below] you see, land if you feel comfortable. 1. 1800 RVR is less than 1/2 mile (its just barely over 1/4 mile according to the chart in the AIM page 5-4-49). On a 3 degree GS, 1/2 mile would be about 150' AGL. If you see the runway at 200' then visibility must be over 1800 RVR or you wouldn't see them. And remember, who can prove that flight visibility was not high enough at that point in time? 2. The limitation of not descending below 100' is if you only see the approach lighting [see (3)(i) below]. If you see just about any other lighting that you can identify as being on or at the runway then you can go below 100' and land. I have personally used this in a DC9 at Green Bay. We held until they reported the visibility was high enough for us to legally begin the approach. At minimums all we saw were the approach lights (not runway lights) so we continued toward 100'. At just above 100' we saw the runway and landed (runway 6). Once the legal requirements are met it comes down to your comfort and judgement as to whether the landing can be made safely. Bob Below is a quote from part 91: §91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR. (a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft. ( b ) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when the approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of a DA/DH or MDA, the authorized DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the following: (1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure. (2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command. (3) The DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment available and used during the approach. ( c ) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless— (1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing; (2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and (3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot: (i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable. (ii) The threshold. (iii) The threshold markings. (iv) The threshold lights. (v) The runway end identifier lights. (vi) The visual approach slope indicator. (vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings. (viii) The touchdown zone lights. (ix) The runway or runway markings. (x) The runway lights.

But he isn't converting a 430 to a 430w, he is simply installing a 430 (non-WAAS). As far as I know, upgrading to the 430w just adds the capability to fly LPV approaches, LNAV/VNAV approaches, and makes it accurate enough to be used for ADS-B. Without the upgrade I think he can still use it for IFR enroute, ILS, and non-precision RNAV approaches. I think he just needs to get the testing and paperwork done. Bob

I must be confused. I thought the GNS430 (non-WAAS) was IFR certified for enroute and VOR/LOC/ILS/RNAV approaches, just not LPV or LNAV/VNAV approaches. I don't think its an equipment limitation. Isn't it just a matter of some inflight testing under VMC and then getting someone to perform a 'ground' check with the proper test equipment? If everything works, don't they then just sign off and submit a 337? Whoever had the unit before should have the flight supplement for you and you can download the pilot guide for free off the website. Just asking. Bob

I'm pretty new to the Mooney ('78J) but one thing I noticed is that if I pull the power relatively quickly I get a 'sinker'. I suspect that is because of the reduced airflow across the inner portion of the wing resulting in a loss of lift. Don't know if that is unique to the Mooney or not (I'm guessing it affects all low wing planes). If I wait until the last minute to do that, the sinker comes when I'm pretty close to the ground. My solution has been to start pulling the power earlier but pull it slowly. That results in a more gradual loss of lift and gives me more time to react while I'm still higher above the runway. Have fun, Bob

The data card is tied to a specific unit, however, you do not need to enter a serial number. If I remember right, when I registered our unit with Garmin, it asked for some other identifying number (other than the SN). I think what happens is the first time I download the database it puts that identifying info on the data card so it can only be used with that one unit. If someone steals the GPS, the data card is still in the unit so they have all they need to download subscriptions. The question to ask would be if Garmin checks to see if that unit is already registered to another user, and if so, do they try to contact the original owner? Also, as someone suggested, if the thieves steal two units and use one unit to replace the other, when that owner tries to download and update their database, it will not match what they have registered. Will that trigger a problem with Garmin that might identify it as stolen? So many possibilities. Bob

Maybe if we all required a serial number before we would buy an item online and if there was a website that listed the serial numbers of all known stolen items, we might make avionics theft less attractive.

I hate to go counter to the suggestions, but I would be more inclined to think it was the selector valve. If it was a leak at the sending unit or where the line comes through the sidewall, I would think the smell would occur all the time. But you said it only occurs when you have the left tank selected. To me that indicates maybe a leak in the selector valve that only occurs in the left position. I'm also guessing you only smell it after shutdown because airflow and other smells mask the smell of fuel with the engine running. I'm also guessing that the high temperatures help to vaporize the fuel so that it spreads more quickly and makes it more noticeable. Good luck, Bob

Interesting. I am not a mechanic either, but I like to think I'm logical. I do not understand why the rate of consumption should change the further you get from the oil change. The only thing I can think of would be if the oil is getting thinner so it is easier to slide by the rings to get burned in the cylinder or to increase a leak rate somewhere else. Other than that, given the same operating conditions you would think the rate of consumption should not change. So what could do that? Oil breaking down due to heat? Something else getting in the oil and displacing the oil (fuel maybe)? I don't know if an oil analysis looks for fuel in the oil or not. I don't think ours does. When do you check/add the oil? Before the first flight of the day? After the last flight? Could it be you are adding oil before it has all drained down, put some in when you don't really need to, and then end up blowing some of it out the vent tube? I don't know the answers, but it would be interesting to know if you figure it out. On a related note, here is a link for an article on oil: http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201101#pg98 And here is one for a webinar about oil (about an hour long): http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1149666747001 Both are by Mike Busch and talk about the functions of oil, types of oil, etc. The webinar goes into more depth and even makes suggested recommendations for oil use. The discussion about types of oil starts about 23 minutes into the webinar. Good luck figuring it out. Bob

Personally I wouldn't add any. At that rate you'll burn less than half a quart. We always wait until we get down to 5 quarts and then add a quart to bring it back up to 6. If I wanted to be extra conservative, and the current level was below 5.5, I could add some to bring it up to 6 before I left. If we put 7 quarts in it will be gone in short order and start burning into the 6 quarts anyway. Just my opinion. Bob

Nope. Lots of people like me that already own a plane and are just curious to see what others look like and what the asking price is. Evaluate your needs, see how the plane fits those needs, look at past history, then see how the price looks to you. Good luck, Bob

Yes, you are overthinking it. However, if you want accurate readings (relatively speaking) just do it at the same time every time. That is, 15 minutes after shutdown, 30 minutes after, whatever works. You pick, but be consistent. Bob

Airlines are safe because they have a backup for everything.. systems, engines, pilots... everything. GA aircraft like ours usually only have a few backups (one engine, one alternator, one attitude indicator, one airspeed indicator, etc) With that said, if you can break the statistics down into categories, the only ones you have minimal control over are mechanical and unforecast weather (windshear for example). Figure out how many GA accidents were a result of those causes and calculate a new accident rate. That would look better and be more realistic ... IF ... .. you stay proficient .. opt not to go if the weather is questionable .. plan to land with more than the minimum required fuel .. stay ahead of the plane instead of behind it .. exercise good judgement .. etc Good luck, Bob

I think your A&P just wasted some of your money. From what I've read, compression checks are pretty much useless. They do them as part of an annual because they are required to, essentially "because that's the way we've always done it." Many years ago it was the best they had. Now they have much better options. IMO they should have done a borescope to look at the valve in the first place. While they were in there, they could look at the cylinder walls too. Much more informative. Now you've paid for his time to do a compression check and will end up paying for his time to do a borescope. If they find the valve is bad, while they have the top off and the equipment there, I would personally have them borescope all the other cylinders too. Why get one cylinder fixed and then 6 months later have another one go bad. It may be you only find one bad cylinder or you might find a couple. If the plane is going to be down for several weeks/months, might as well get all the bad ones fixed and not have to worry about it for a few years. But don't fix good ones. If the valve is bad, they will have to pull the cylinder to have it worked anyway. Doesn't matter if they are pulling the cylinder for honing or the valve, it has to come off to work on either. The question is though, how do you know the cylinder walls are bad enough to need pulling? The compression test alone would say no. As mentioned above, the amount of blow by would be more definitive. I wouldn't bother paying the A&P to do a blow by check until he does a borescope. If the valve is bad, why waste the time and money to pay for a blow by check? Good luck, Bob

Instead of 18,000+ it would be about 5000 or so (including time spent upside down). Bob

18,000+ but only 80 in props and 30 in the Mooney. Still reading and trying to absorb as much information as I can.

Seth, So don't fill them up after flight. The leak is probably near the top of the tank. As long as you have ... some ... fuel in the wings, put it away and if you need more fuel for the next flight, gas it up just before you go flying. That also leaves you the option of less fuel/more payload. You can spend time at the pumps before or after a flight. Lots cheaper than getting the tanks resealed. Bob

First, the answer to the thread. I drive 30 minutes. My partners drive 15 to 30 minutes too with the airplane located in the middle of us. As for the quote... I won't give you a hard time about the Cub, that is a different kind of fun flying. It is virtually impossible to justify flying a GA aircraft financially unless you live in a location served only by a commuter airline going to a location also served only by a commuter airline. Otherwise, unless you put 3 people in the plane it will almost always be cheaper to go commercial or drive. On the other hand, it is a lot more fun and sometimes quicker !! Not as reliable (mx, wx) but still more fun. If I can physically get there in one day in the Mooney (regardless of how many days I actually take), I'm probably going to take the Mooney rather than go commercial. I avoid dealing with the TSA. I park the car in the hangar instead of paying for parking. I leave at the time of day I want instead of when the fares are cheapest. The view is better. The legroom is better. I know and like my seatmates. Time wise, I figure with my 30 minute drive to the plane vs leaving 3 hours before a flight out of SEA, my break even point is about a 600 nm flight (SFO, BIL, SLC). Bob

I assume you are talking about the LM site. On a few (but not all) of the weather screens there is a 'plain text' checkbox that makes it more readable. Bob

I watched it and I registered on the site. It will be interesting to see what it develops into. Looks like a nice weather presentation, but at this point has no flight planning capability. That means using either DUAT, DUATS, or FltPlan.com to do the flight planning (route, times, fuel, log, etc) and then needing to log into LM if you want to use it to get a final check on the weather and file. Not too convenient at this point but definitely worth watching. Bob

Chrisk - I also wanted to discourage partners from using high power settings (I was the one that put the group together). We charge by the hour but use tach time not hobbs (don't even have one). We also charge for dry time, buy your own fuel. Using hobbs time encourages people to get airborne as quickly as possible because ground time costs as much as airborne time. This way we are more likely to properly warm the airplane before we go. Using tach time also encourages us to use lower RPM settings and thus lower power settings which minimizes CHT temps. Buying our own fuel also encourages us to fly more efficiently which also means lower power settings since you get less and less increased performance for more and more fuel as you push the power up. And I also like the idea because it encourages proper leaning to conserve fuel. Charging wet time encourages high power settings because fuel is 'free'. You can even write specific procedures into your operating agreement with penalties for failure to comply. If you have an engine monitor that logs parameters, you can use it to track compliance with any parameter that is recorded including RPM, MP, CHT, TIT, oil temp, etc. People respond to incentives (both positive and negative). Create the incentives as needed to encourage the desired behavior. PM - I agree. Get it ironed out before you buy. Make sure you like the partners and put all the rules down in writing. We have a written agreement that covers purchase, maintenance, upgrades, operating procedures, quitting, disputes, scheduling, operating costs, fuel, liquidation... essentially everything we could think of that might cause a dispute down the road. You should also include penalties for failure to follow the rules. Once or more each year we get together and decide if we want to change any of the rules. When I was in the Air Force and we went someplace for an exercise that involved unique operations, we would establish procedures to be followed. There would be a ramp rat who would watch for violations, record who did so, and report the errors he found. If you were found guilty, you owed a six pack of you favorite beverage to the community fridge and everyone could see what you did wrong (and learn not to make them too). Within two days the frig was full enough to last the rest of the exercise and nobody made mistakes anymore. Bottom line, penalties if done right can be fun and a learning tool too. Bob

Ours ('78J) has two screws holding it in place. We had a local leather craftsman make us a new handle out of leather and used the existing screws to hold it in place. Just an idea. Bob