Deb

CIRRUSNumber: SA19-31Issued: 31 Dec 2019SUBJECT: Non-Essential Interior Electrical Equipment Isolation1. EFFECTIVITYSF50 Serials 0005 & subs2. DESCRIPTIONSF50 Service AdvisoryCirrus Aircraft has been made aware of a cabin fire incident in an SF50 Vision Jet during ground opera- tions. The operator observed smoke exiting from behind the right sidewall interior panel located behind the crew seat (seat 2) and forward of the passenger seat (seat 5). Equipment located in this area of the cabin includes the In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) system, USB power outlets, and 110 VAC power supply. Power to all of this equipment can be removed via the IFE POWER switch located on the center console (as shown below).Although an ongoing investigation has not yet identified a root cause for the incident, as a precaution, and until more information is known, Cirrus Aircraft instructs owners/operators to set the IFE POWER switch in the OFF position at all times; this includes both ground operations and flight operations.Compliance with this Advisory is required until further notice.3. ACTIONSTerminating action for this Service Advisory is pending a resolution to be provided in the release of an upcoming Service Bulletin.EFFECTIVITY:SF50 Serials 0005 & subs

We just finished speaking with Paul Kehner at the factory. It’s back and running normally!

@jiritico (as “Anonymous”) posted a longer version of the above criticism on Kathryn’s Report here: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/06/mooney-m20v-acclaim-ultra-n576cm.html?showComment=1560481914801&m=1#c7719649681294912541. This was posted in response: I read with interest the contribution by “Anonymous” of August 20, 2019. As the former Director of Engineering at Mooney, working there for almost 20 years, and in Aerospace for 45, it reminded me of how many “experts” there are in this industry. With so many educated opinions floating around, especially those that were not around at the inset of the Ultra project, it would be easy to be misled by their armchair quarterbacking. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to set this record straight.While he is a Structures Engineer, he was in no way a Certification Engineer, which is glaringly obvious in his diatribe. Actually, he came to Mooney Kerrville with another group of Engineers from our CA. facility, and was on the team that produced the M10 he refers to as being un-airworthy. And in that respect, he is correct. That airplane that they designed will never see the sky again. Mooney does not certify junk.Citing “FAR”23.601; The suitability of each questionable design detail and part having an important bearing on safety in operations, must be established by tests…, I guess “Anonymous” wants all to believe that we just slapped a bunch of parts together, called in the FAA, slipped them their bribe money, and started selling planes. Actually, it was a 4+ year development project that not only included hundreds of hours of static testing, all the way to structural failure, but FLAMMABILITY testing to the FAA’s own criteria. We used intumescent paint, designed to swell up and form a fire-break when exposed to flame. The melting point of aluminum is less than 1300ºF. On the Ultra, firewall testing was accomplished to a flame temperature of 2500ºF. His reference to “FAR” 23.2270(a)(c), that rule didn’t even exist at the time of Ultra Certification, and is not part of the M20U/V Certification Basis. A Certification Engineer would know this, and understand what a Certification Basis is, and what it defines. Mooney’s safety record over a 60+ year span is envied by all GA manufacturers, even those using Ballistic Parachute systems. Mooney’s Certification Basis has served them, and the flying public, quite well.The M20’s steel safety cage is, in a way, a giant spring, designed to “bend” under crash loads. Static pull tests beyond Ultimate Load forces can bend the cage up to 15”, then returns to its basic shape when the load is relaxed. This simulates forces experienced in a crash. It deforms the hard riveted aluminum structure. The composite shell, however, simply cracks and buckles. At crash forces producing this effect, the chance of “shards flying around” is remote, and quite frankly, not your major problem.It is truly horrific what happened to Mr. Brandemuehl. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. However, from looking at the post-crash photos and reading the initial NTSB report and eyewitness accounts, the impact was violent. He would probably not have survived at all in another airplane. Unfortunately, the shearing of a wing will always result in fuel (100LL) being thrown around, just waiting for a spark to ignite it, and the resulting fire, no matter the aircraft, is the primary source of injury or death. Anonymous’s claims of a giant conspiracy are rather sad, as are his references to people, their nationalities and their motives.

No software update required. They’re back in the database.

Mike Dodge posted on BeechTalk (https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=167808&hilit=App&start=0) an Android JPI EDM utility/downloader. Here’s his post: I was able to push out an initial copy of an app for Android that allows you to download from your older serial-based JPI EDMs (700, 711, 800) using your phone. If you supply a "3rd party" token from Savvy in the settings, it'll auto-upload once done as well, saving steps later. And best of all, no clunky laptop at the hangar. (Apple is much more restrictive on external hardware, so it's a bit harder there - but could be an option if there was enough interest.)https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... jpi.uploadRequired equipment:* 9-pin serial to barrel connector cable to interface with the JPI* USB OTG (on-the-go) cable, something like:> USB-C: https://amzn.to/2HBjhon> USB-Micro: https://amzn.to/2QkYusa* USB Serial Adapter - the library should work with these. I have the first, which I leave in the plane:> FDTI: https://amzn.to/2HBk4FR> Prolific PL-2303: https://amzn.to/2W35P5M> NOTE: JPI-recommended Keyspan devices will NOT work with AndroidThe data rate is configurable under settings as well - this must match what's set in the sub-program menu on your JPI. (PROGRAM > DUMP?, hold both buttons again for a submenu, then page to the FAST? y/n setting). Some adapters may see data loss at using the FAST rate - if having issues, try setting your JPI to "FAST? N" and set the app to match. If you download often, the slower speed really isn't an issue.Hopefully it helps a few people out there...

No Anthony, you are! Congratulations on 25,000! Thanks for all your knowledge, your interest and for contributing so much to the Mooney community and Mooneyspace. David & Debbie

For the Ovation 2 there is a note on the “Takeoff Distance” chart stating: Landing gear: Down until obstacle cleared and in the Normal Procedures, Takeoff checklist:

From https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/science/amelia-earhart-robert-ballard.html?smid=nytcore: For two weeks in August, a multimillion-dollar search from air, land and sea sought to solve the 80-year mystery of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance. Robert Ballard, the ocean explorer famous for locating the wreck of the Titanic, led a team aboard the resesearch vessel Nautilus that discovered two hats in the depths. It found debris from an old shipwreck. It even spotted a soda can. What it did not find was a single piece of the Lockheed Electra airplane flown in 1937 by Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan, which vanished during their doomed voyage around the world. Dr. Ballard and his crew don’t consider it a failure. For one thing, he says, they know where the plane isn’t. And in the process, they may have dispensed with one clue that has driven years of speculation, while a team of collaborating archaeologists potentially turned up more hints at the aviator’s fate. “This plane exists,” Dr. Ballard said. “It’s not the Loch Ness monster, and it’s going to be found.”

Here’s what Bob Kromer wrote from http://www.donkaye.com/donkaye.com/Bob_Krommer_on_Mooney_Slips-Part_1.html: From the Mooney List December 2, 2005 by Bob Kromer. Slipping a Mooney During development and certification on the M20K 252 at the factory, I encountered the aerodynamic buffeting while slipping on approach as described by Dan Eldridge in his posting on slips in his M20K 231. Obviously, this gets a test pilot's attention and we began an investigation. Thought you might be interested in what we found. For our slip tests, we flew the M20K, the M20J and the Mooney/Porsche engineering prototypes that were at the factory at the time. This gave us a good cross section of different aircraft configurations (short/long fuselage, different pitch trim requirements on approach, etc.) What we found was 1) All airplanes were fine above 85 KIAS in full rudder deflection forward slips, flaps up and flaps down. 2) But somewhere between 80-85 KIAS and lower, AERODYNAMIC BUFFETING FROM THE HORIZONTAL TAIL/ELEVATOR occurred in the M20K and the Mooney/Porsche airframes ALONG WITH A SLIGHT LOSS OF ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS AND A SLIGHT NOSE DOWN PITCHING MOMENT. These conditions were worsened with flaps down compared to the flaps up. Aerodynamic tufting of the horizontal tail revealed what was happening. In the M20K and the Mooney/Porsche with their more forward CGs, almost full nose up pitch trim is required for a "hands off" approach at the target approach airspeed. This puts the horizontal stabilizer of the Mooney tail at a high negative angle of attack (to keep the nose up). With the horizontal tail at this high negative angle of attack and especially with flaps full down, the local airflow over the horizontal tail is getting pretty close to max alpha, the angle of attack where the tail will stall. I want to emphasize that IN NORMAL FLYING, THERE IS PLENTY OF MARGIN - no need to worry about the tail stalling in your M20K or long body Mooney. But start slipping the airplane at 85 KIAS and below or have a little ice on that stabilizer leading edge and those margins can get mighty thin. Combine a slip maneuver with some pretty good yanking on the control wheel in turbulence and you might get a partial tail stall. We did in flight test - in the M20K the result was buffeting felt in the control wheel and the slight nose down pitching moment. So my advice from the test pilot's seat is don't go there - especially if you fly a Mooney model that requires lots of nose up pitch trim on the approach. An aggressive forward slip in those airplanes with the speed low and the flaps down puts the tail in an extreme airflow condition. The airplane will warn you with buffeting and a slight pitch down, but who knows - add some ice and look out. This is not the way to fly your Mooney. My bottom line opinion - keep the ball near center on the approach and you're flying the Mooney design correctly and safely with the safety margins it was meant to have. Best Regards, Bob Kromer and http://www.donkaye.com/donkaye.com/Bob_Krommer_on_Mooney_Slips-Part_2.html: From the Mooney List December 3, 2005 by Bob Kromer SLIPPING A MOONEY Went up to the attic last night and dug through my old flight test data sheets from my Engineering Flight Test days at the factory. I did find the observed data for the slip tests I did. Looked over the data. From those test results, here is some additional information that might help answer some of the questions that have been raised: 1. The data shows that it's the airplanes that require lots of nose up trim for landing that are the most prone to experiencing the tail buffeting condition we talked about earlier when aggressively slipping at or below 85 KIAS. We simply could not get the M20J prototype to buffet in a full rudder sideslip at any CG and flap condition tested, down to 1.1 Vstall. From those test results, I think it is safe to say that the Pre-J models and the J model itself will not experience any tail buffeting/partial airflow separation over the horizontal tail in an aggressive sideslip maneuver. So the J and Pre-J models should be okay for slipping on approach. Not comfortable, and in my humble opinion not the way to fly a high performance airplane like a Mooney, but safe. 2. It's the K models (and variations ther3of) and the "long body" models that showed the possibility of inducing a partial horizontal tail airflow separation in an aggressive sideslip condition. I got it in both the Mooney/Porsche and the M20K model prototypes in the landing approach configuration. These are the airplanes that require almost full (if not full) nose up trim for a hands off, trimmed condition on final approach. (Sometime, run your pitch trim to the full nose up position on the ground and look at the negative angle of attack of the horizontal tail. Quite impressive). It's this high negative angle of attack with full nose up trim that puts the airflow over the horizontal tail at a fairly extreme condition. 3. Extending the flaps adds to the downwash angle over the horizontal tail, making the negative angle of attack over the horizontal tail even greater. Mooneys spend a lot of their time at or near forward CG. As the CG moves forward the need for more nose up trim on the approach is required for trimmed flight. So does lower airspeed. So the worse condition for aggressive slipping in the K and up models is slow, forward CG, full flaps - just like we are when configured for landing. Remember, it's anything that requires the need for more nose up trim that adds to the possibility of experiencing horizontal tail buffeting when aggressively slipping on the approach. 4. Aggressive slipping does strange things to the local airflow over the horizontal tail. The bottom line is this - the horizontal tail will see a greater negative angle of attack in the slip maneuver. So add an aggressive slip to the conditions noted in #3 above and you can experience the partial airflow separation over the horizontal tail and the resulting buffeting that we found in the flight tests. The Mooney is such a good design that there is no danger here - just a buffet in the control wheel from the elevator, a slight nose down pitching moment and a little loss of elevator effectiveness. But I want to emphasize - THIS IS NO PLACE TO BE FLYING. Add a little ice to that horizontal tail leading edge or a gusty crosswind requiring heavy elevator input and look out. That minor buffeting and airflow separation can get worse. 5. Someone asked what would happen to an airplane if the horizontal tail completely stalled. The answer - bad news. A sharp nose down pitching moment and a loss of elevator control would result. With increased airspeed as a result of the nose down pitch, the tail might start flying again and elevator effectiveness might be restored. But we're talking a loss of aircraft control here - a pilot's worse nightmare. How much altitude might be lost in this loss of control experience? A guess - 2000 feet. 6. Incidentally, ground effect helps the condition - the downwash angle over the horizontal tail is slightly reduced with the wing/flaps in ground effect. This reduces the local negative angle of attack of the air flowing over the horizontal tail - a good thing when it comes to stalling the horizontal tail. Again - the bottom line. Aggressive slips in your Pre-J or J should be okay from a safety of flight viewpoint. K models and up - margins here are thinner. Chances are you might experience some tail buffeting in the K models and up when aggressively slipping - not a place to be. From my flight test experience, I would avoid aggressive slips on approach in the K's and up. The Mooney is a wonderful design, but all designs have their limits. I certainly don't have all the answers and would never claim to be an "expert" or tell anyone how they need to fly their airplanes, but maybe some of my engineering flight test experiences at Mooney will help you better understand your airplanes. I've got lots of good data in my attic. Hope to share more of it with you in the future. Best Regards; Bob Kromer

They’re here!

From http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_7/features/A-Date-With-AIRAC_1248-1.html: “The AIRAC date occurs every 28 days on a Thursday. Each country determines the exact time of the switchover to coincide with low air traffic volume. In the U.S. it is 0900 Zulu or 1200 a.m. to 0400 a.m. local depending on time of year and zone.“

Deb (both of us)

Yes; it’s behind the MFD.

Jerrod, Are you looking for a school, or just an instructor? There are options a TMB, Endeavour at KOPF (Freddie is a good guy, but we have no experience there) and there are several schools at HWO. Further north, FXE and PMP have schools. There are also instructors with planes at FXE and probably others. If we knew which airport(s) were convenient for you we could be a bit more specific. Debbie

From Trek Lawler (Garmin Field Service Engineering Supervisor) posted on BeechTalk 4/17/2019 https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=166081&start=105: Hello everyone, we just received approval on the revision 18 of the G5 install manual which updates the type design data to reintroduce shielded twisted-pair cable, MIL-C-27500 as an optional wire type for use in CAN bus installation and other minor clarifications to the STC Installation manual. we will have the new manual posted here very soon. let me know if there are any questions,