mooniac15u

So a BFR (aka bFR) is actually an FR with a CFI per 14 CFR? Seems perfectly clear.

That Avemco language is interesting given their specific statement on their website that they will pay claims even if your medical or flight review expire. " Avemco will pay your covered claim even if your medical, annual or flight review accidentally expires mid-term. " https://www.avemco.com/why-avemco.aspx

I have no such language in my policy from Global. If that language exists in your policy then clearly they would have grounds to deny a claim.

Nobody has mentioned the most fuel efficient descent profile; mixture to idle cutoff and pitch for best glide speed. Descend at 0 gph and restart the engine at pattern altitude. Or better yet, descend all the way to the runway with the engine off. I can't believe anyone burns fuel on a descent when you can let gravity do all the work.

Does your policy contain language requiring you to have a current medical and flight review? Mine does not. Since there is a section on pilot qualifications where they lay out requirements but make no mention of those items it would be difficult for them to deny your claim. Does anyone know of actual claim that was denied due to a lapsed medical or flight review?

Personally, I'm more concerned about the inefficient use of an extra "n" in the title of this topic. Think of the time wasted with that extra keystroke.

My J did that the first winter after I brought it north. It had been living in warmer climates. Replacing the gasket on the gascolator fixed the problem.

The issue is more complex than changing a lightbulb. The navigation lights are supposed to meet specifications for intensity, color, and viewing angle. How is an A&P supposed to make that kind of determination if someone walks in with an uncertified LED bulb?

Are you working with an A&P on this? What advice have they given you?

The 240 knots was for an M20K. Presumably there are structural differences for the Acclaim.

The 240 kt expected flutter speed is also a true airspeed.

It may be difficult to find anyone who wants to enter into such a one-sided agreement. Why would a partner want to invest in any kind of upgrades or expensive maintenance like an engine overhaul? Those things rarely increase the aircraft value enough to get your money back in a buyout. The value in those kinds of investments usually comes in the long-term use. If you can end the partnership at any time for any reason there is no guarantee of getting any return on big expenses.

I asked the folks at Mooney about the feasibility of installing shoulder harnesses in the rear seats of my M20D. They told me the short body Mooneys don't have the same steel frame in the back and there is nowhere to attach the shoulder harnesses.

I'm not sure what your route looks like but KUYF between Columbus and Dayton is usually on the low end of the range for fuel pricing.

The 2G network doesn't actually use much useful bandwidth in its current form. It sounds like the 3G network is a far more attractive target for wireless providers to shut down because they may be able to use that part of the spectrum to enhance LTE. So, if you are looking at some kind of newer cellular switch make sure it's 4G/LTE instead of 3G or you might end up with another unsupported network in the near future.

The 2G coverage in Michigan looks pretty sketchy for T-Mobile. https://opensignal.com/networks/usa/t-mobile-coverage

AT&T shut down their 2G network but T-Mobile has committed to maintaining theirs at least through 2020.

My engine had ~1900 hours at the time of the incident. The insurance company was willing to pay for a teardown inspection which was estimated at ~$10K. The engine shops I talked to were happy to turn it into an overhaul and bill me separately for the difference. In general an insurer will pay for an inspection and to repair any damage to the engine that can be directly attributed to the prop strike. Any other repairs or improvements are the owner's responsibility. The number of hours on the engine is irrelevant. I think the cost of an engine teardown inspection sounds like a lot to us but is probably insignificant to an aviation insurer.

I looked into that with my M20D. I made a very gentle belly landing after a mechanical gear failure and the repair costs were still estimated at over $40k. There was just no way to make it work financially without being an A&P so you could do the work yourself. If you were really motivated you could take the insurance payment and then bid on the salvage. My D was purchased from the insurance company by AirMods. I'm guessing they could make it work because their actual labor cost is lower than what I would have to pay as a customer. I believe they also did not do a full engine teardown but just did the work required with a prop strike.

Messing with it in the air could turn a minor problem into a really bad day. Sorting out the problem on jacks seems prudent.

You are describing your approach to insurance. It is a view consistent with your risk tolerance. It is not the only approach to insurance. Hull value is very subjective. The insurers have a range that they will insure for a given airframe. If you request a value in that range they will quote you a premium. All one has to do is look at the listings on Controller or Trade-a-Plane to see how owners perceive valuation as opposed to actual market valuation. All that aside, insurance isn’t really about valuation, it’s about managing risk. A policy is simply a contract agreeing to compensation in the event of a loss. The impact of that loss relative to your financial resources is a more important factor than market valuation. Some would insure for replacement, while others would insure for the amount they have invested (could be higher or lower than market valuation), and still others may decide not to purchase insurance at all. It all depends on your risk tolerance and the potential financial impact of the loss. If the value of the aircraft is low enough relative to your financial resources the loss might not be significant enough to worry about insurance. This happens all the time with cars. For new cars people usually purchase full coverage but over time as the value drops they may decide that the cost of the insurance is too high relative to the risk and drop back to only liability coverage. Most owners probably use something around the purchase price to set a hull value and then never change that value as the paint fades and the engine hours add up. Have you decreased your coverage over time to ensure that your coverage is equal to the lower market valuation? Damage beyond repair is not rare at all in aviation. A gear up landing in many vintage Mooneys will result in a total loss and the airframe sold for salvage.

It's just further evidence of the vast superiority of the J over earlier models.

An insurance policy is a fixed contract that states how much compensation you will receive in the event of a total loss. It could be far less than market value if that is what you choose to insure it for. Or, it could be your realistic replacement value if that is what coverage you purchase. Market valuation is subjective and constantly fluctuating.

Insurance hull value has very little to do with market valuation. It's whatever you can convince them to write the policy for and are willing to pay the corresponding premium.

Here's the whole chart.