Deb

We flew to KGEV (Ashe County, NC) in the NW corner of NC from south Florida. The winds were relatively light until we reached North Carolina. At 9000 ft, they were out of the west at 50 kts. It was a bit bumpy and gusty in the pattern (apt elev 3200 ft), but only 7 gusting to 15 kts on the surface. There hasn't been a cloud in the sky, temps in the 30s in the mornings. Mt. Jefferson, 4660 ft: Base, RWY 28 KGEV: Blue Ridge Parkway:

John, Since the world is only ~25,000 miles in circumference, I would have thought that 12,500 mile range would have been enough. Good to know you've planned for contingencies! CarolAnn is going to be very envious!

We do not know what Mooney or Garmin intend to charge for the upgrade. We were just indicating what the cost is to upgrade a 430 to a 430W. We do not know whether we could send in the GIA 63 and have Garmin upgrade it to a GIA 63W. If the GIAs needed to be replaced, that would obviously be more costly. This was just used as a point of reference. The 430 is closely related to the GIA 63, according to Garmin.

As Jeff said, Tom Bowen unfortunately was unable to attend. Jared Absher, Mooney's Director of Marketing and Sales announced that the WAAS update project for the STEC G1000 Mooneys is due to start in January 2016. As we understand the situation, the type certificates for the G1000 Mooneys encompass the non-WAAS STEC and GFC 700 autopilot airframes, and the WAAS G1000 GFC 700 equipped aircraft. The problem is that Mooney needs to certify the STEC autopilot with a WAAS G1000 system (obviously without the Garmin GFC 700 autopilot.) We believe other manufacturers have certified the STEC autopilot with a WAAS G1000, so this would be largely a matter of validating (test flying) the software in a WAAS G1000 Mooney equipped with an STEC autopilot. A big issue is cost. The two GPS receivers need to be upgraded to WAAS. As a reference, Garmin quotes a list price of ~$3,500 to upgrade a 430 to a 430W. In addition, the 2 GPS antennas (antennae?) and cabling also need to be replaced. The issue is how much is Garmin going to charge Mooney (or us) for the WAAS software. An additional cost would be Mooney's expense in test flying the software and having it certified by the FAA. As far as ADS-B out is concerned, the new Mooneys are shipping with Mooney software version 0401.34, and a GTX 33ES transponder which is ADS-B out compatible. This is a 1090 MHz out solution only. This does not provide UAT 978 MHz ADS-B in or out. A fully integrated ADS-B out and in solution from Garmin comes in the GDL 88 which will display ADS-B weather and traffic on the G1000. As Jeff said, Mooney (as well as other manufacturers) need to work with Garmin on this. Although Garmin announced this in Flying Magazine earlier this year http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/instrumentaccessories/ads-b-solution-now-compatible-garmins-g1000, they have indicated that they expect this to be available in 2017. The GDL 88 may be available with its own (independent) WAAS position source (this is unclear); it currently requires a WAAS position source. This is only a 978 MHz UAT system. For flights FL 180 and above, a 1090 ES transponder is still needed. For existing WAAS GFC 700 G1000 Mooneys, the new software (v0401.34) should work. (Mooney has yet to test it in an existing airframe, but Garmin says it will work. For that matter, it should also work in the non-WAAS G1000 airframes.) Upgrading the transponder to a GTX 33ES should only cost $1200 plus installation and validation. Of course Mooney needs to get this certified. There is good news with respect to the v0401.34 software. It is Gamin GDU version 14.02 (the October 2008 update was v9.03.) Mike Elliott is currently teaching in one of these Mooneys. He says that It supports engine data logging, random holds, and shows on the moving map where a selected altitude will be reached (in VNAV mode) based on groundspeed and vertical speed; this last feature requires WAAS (probably vertical WAAS.) Hopefully Mooney will certify this version of the software for existing airframes soon, and release it via a Service Bulletin.

We picked up a nifty tailwind (for a change) on the way home from the Summit, and saw groundspeeds close to 200 kts.

Undoubtedly as a result of my complaining to the SI commission about my confusion.

Hmm, I seem to recall having confusion with newtons and dynes...

Thanks Robert. We look forward to it as well.

OK. More recent update. There is conflicting information from Garmin. According to Garmin, the software version 0401.34 should work with all WAAS Mooneys. It will support engine data logging. It should work regardless of whether you have a GTX 33 or the GTX 33ES. I apologize for the mixed messages. I'm only the messenger (but I didn't like the first message.)

Item 5 says you have to be in IMC until after the FAF. Here's their example: "Example 1: An instrument-rated pilot, conducting a flight under an IFR clearance, approaches the destination airport, aligned with runway 33 and 17 miles out. ATC issues a clearance that states, “. . . cleared ILS runway (RWY) 33R approach as published, maintain 3000, advise when established.” The pilot operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, complies with the clearance, and continues in IMC—while remaining established as published on each required IAP segment. The aircraft descends past the final approach fix (FAF) as the pilot contacts the control tower and the aircraft transitions from IMC to visual metrological conditions (VMC) before reaching the DA. At this point, the pilot receives an ATC clearance to land; the pilot visually confirms runway environment assured and lands. In this example, the IAP complies with § 61.51(g)(3) and § 61.57(c); therefore, the pilot may log this IAP." This is item 5: "5) When conducted in an aircraft maneuvering in IMC, and the aircraft transitions from IMC to visual flight conditions on the final approach segment of the IAP prior to or upon reaching MDA or DA/DH." It would seem that the approach until the final approach segment must be in IMC, whether flying the full approach or being vectored.

Holds are not required to log an approach (nor is flying the missed approach procedure.) A hold is required to maintain currency but it does not have to be part of an approach.

We spoke with Paul Kehner at Mooney. The current software version on new Mooneys is 0401.34. That's a Mooney version number and not a Garmin version number. (We're trying to get more on that from Garmin.) This version of software supports engine data logging. It also supports the GTX 33ES transponder which is a 1090 ES ADS-B out only unit. At the moment, there's a catch. This software was certified on aircraft with the current model of Garmin WAAS GIA 63W GPS receivers. According to Paul, there units are different from the WAAS GIA 63W GPS receivers installed circa 2008. So, in order to take advantage of this new software (or a GTX 33ES transponder), one would have to update the GIAs to the current model.

We left KGEV (Ashe County, NC) a bit earlier than we'd planned because the front which had chased us from Rochester was coming over the mountains. It was a beautiful day for flying, and we had a bit of a tailwind. The incessant rains in Florida had finally stopped so we didn't have to install the float kit. We visited some friends on the way home in New Smyrna Beach. Self serve fuel was $3.49 and we managed to squeeze in 72 gallons. It didn't rain until after we got home... Daytona Beach: Sunset over the Everglades:

Do you know if your friend is doing this to avoid putting lead in his engine (or the environment – very commendable), or just trying to save some hard earned money (equally commendable.) If for financial reasons, could he not achieve the same goals flying LOP?

I have read on Beechtalk that the APS course suggests running your tanks dry while flying (each tank separately on different flights.) That way, when you fill your tank it will reflect what can be used. I am not recommending this, merely reporting what I have read.

Is this what you're looking for? http://mooneyspace.com/topic/16483-viewing-first-unread-post/

It's a small world. I learned to fly there in the seventies (don't tell my husband – he doesn't think I'm that old.) I don't know when you left, but there's a new EAA building on the NW part of the airport. There's a beautifully restored Citabria and Bellanca Viking in the main hangar. Walt and Gretchen still run the place. You'll notice our Mooney in front of the hose; we were only there for 3 nights and the plane was coated in quarry dust. Ramp and EAA building looking west: Main hangar: Since there was a cold front moving through the area, we left for Ashe County (KGEV) in NW North Carolina. The weather was not great until we passed past Pittsburgh. We flew over KLBE in Latrobe, PA – it's called Arnold Palmer Regional Airport. Pretty cool. Another bad picture of bad weather: It's beautiful in NC. Last time we were here about a month ago there was a lovely J model on the ramp, possibly from St Augustine. Anyone from Mooneyspace?

Gee Ned, we pull up that same approach on our trusty non-WAAS G1000, and "follow a magenta line." If we want to truly task saturate ourselves, we could tune in the Center Point VOR and look to see that the little blue arrow is pointed at 084 degrees at 10.7 NM. But then again, our little Mooney was born in 2006, and was not privileged to merit a true ADF. Alas...

We flew to Brockport, NY (7G0, near Rochester) two days ago (with a fuel stop iat KHBI, Ashboro, NC) to visit family. Because of the convective activity along the Florida coast, we went up through the middle of the state, and ended up passing Savannah, GA 60 miles to the west (we would normally pass about 20 miles east of Savannah.) We were able to fly in between layers and far enough away for a smooth ride. As a demonstration of the laminar flow wing, we noted that as soon as we encountered even very light precipitation (almost mist on the wing), we lost 8 knots. As soon as we passed through, the airspeed (and groundspeed) picked up. Once past Columbia, SC, it was a beautiful day for flying, and the weather in Rochester has been spectacular. We fly back over the weekend (hopefully).

Carl, Thank you for posting on this topic. Since you are a respiratory therapist and teach this subject, we all respect your expertise and value your opinion. It is certainly true that a pulse oximeter placed on an extremity does not measure instantaneous cerebral pO2. Nevertheless, as DXB has posted, peripheral arterial saturation measurements (SaO2) do reflect an overall SaO2 in the body. As you state in your post, they are of great value in the clinical setting. Similarly in the cockpit, those measurements present an overall measurement of SaO2. The limitation of any monitoring system is the frequency of measurements (and how often they are evaluated), and what is done with that information. The goal of the pulse oximeter is to warn of low SaO2. It is hoped that a pilot checks it frequently, and has the ability to respond to abnormal values. As such, it does provide useful information. Many of our Mooneys are capable of flight over 12,500 ft. There is no question that at 25,000 ft the time to respond is brief, and the failure of the oxygen delivery system needs to be recognized immediately. And yes, the pilot must be able to still process the information and react appropriately. While the time of useful consciousness at 25,000 ft may be 3-5 minutes, it is 20-30 minutes at 18,000 ft, and longer at lower altitudes. Thus, if a pilot does not feel "right", he can check his O2 saturation and hopefully respond appropriately. Even with a lag between cerebral perfusion and peripheral perfusion, there is ample time to repond at most of the altitudes we fly at. I recognize that the onset of hypoxia is insidious and that one of its effects is decreased cognition. Nevertheless on balance, having a pulse oximeter is more likely to warn of hypoxia than not. When flying at these altitudes, it is important to be aware of the risks involved, the steps to mitigate them and all of the limitations therein. Although these pulse oximeters may not be ideal, at less than $100 they offer information that is not available otherwise and help mitigate the inherent risks.

As DXB has eloquently summarized, the physiology of hypoxia occurring at altitude in our Mooneys is very different from that of either breath holding or decompression. As one ascends in a non-pressurized Mooney, the body remains at anbient pressure. When supplemental oxygen is decreased (or removed), there is no decompression event. Respiration and gas exchange continues with a diminished amount of oxygen, an amount which may be significantly less than at sea level, depending on altitude. Experiencing hypoxia in a controlled environment is certainly educational, particularly in the recognition of one's physiologic reaction to hypoxia. It is important to note that one's cognitive function can decrease with even mild hypoxia; studies have shown that volunteers have difficulty performing simple math calculations when mildly hypoxic (calculations they could easily perform at baseline.) As Don Muncy has posted, with the slow and insidious onset of an hypoxic event, the symptoms which occur may not be recognized because cognitive impairment may have already occurred. Thus, hypoxia is unrecognized. Worse, judgement is impaired and even if the hypoxia is recognized, one may not be able to (think to) execute the appropriate corrective measures. Hopefully the discussion in this forum will promote a better understanding of the physiology and risks of flying at hypoxic altitudes and what best mitigates those risks. For a comprehensive review of breath holding physiology: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2005.031625/full.

From: http://www.avmed.in/2011/10/cabin-pressurisation-–-hazards-of-rapid-decompression/ "The physiological effect of decompression depends upon the pressure differential, the duration of decompression and the final cabin altitude. The most severe hazards associated with a rapid decompression to high altitude ishypoxia. This hazard is particularly significant for the following three reasons. a. In the case of high differential cabins with a cruising cabin altitude of 1,500 m – 2000 m (6000 to 8,000 ft), the crew is most unlikely to use oxygen equipment at the time of the decompression. b. If the final cabin altitude is very high i.e. above 10,000 m (33,000 ft), the time of useful consciousness (TUC) for various crew members breathing air may be reduced by as much as one third from the figures which would normally be expected for that ambient altitude. This is due to the fact that during the escape of gas from the lungs, the partial pressure of oxygen in the alveoli is reduced to below 40 mm Hg which is the approximate value for the oxygen tension in the venous blood. There is an actual reversal of the oxygen diffusion gradient across the alveolar membranes and oxygen passes back into the lungs from the venous blood. Immediately following a rapid decompression to these very high altitudes, therefore, the arterial blood leaving the heart would be carrying a little or no oxygen and the onset of hypoxia would be very rapid. This shows the advantage of having the pilot or one of the pilots on oxygen the whole time when ambient aircraft altitude exceeds 8.5 Km (30,000 feet)."

In our experience it has been variable. We were once charged $50 plus $1.50 per battery (D cell) and $1.06 shipping per battery! We now replace the batteries ourselves prior to the annual. The check performed on a non 406 MHz ELT was relatively straightforward when it was demonstrated to us: Disconnect and remove the unit from the plane, then shake it to ascertain the sensor works, then replace. The total time is literally one minute. We have no experience with a 406 MHz ELT. As an aside, we have been billed for logbook review at the annual even though the facility had been the only one to work on the plane previously $150). We've also been billed $50 to check the AmSafe system, and $100 to lubricate the speed brakes. A 3% shop fee was also added, but was disclosed in fine print. We agree these are small charges, but it would feel better if we were told about them up front. (One shop even told us they could not do an annual inspection for their advertised price.)

Mooneys are being shipped with version 0401.34 of the G1000 software. We have been told by both Mooney and Garmin that a new version will be released. Installation instructions will be via a Service Bulletin. We will ask Tom Bowen for an update while he's at the Mooney Summit III (October 1-4, 2015) in Panama City Beach. Earlier this year, neither company provided details because the software was still "in development."

This is a terrible tragedy and our hearts go out to Dr. Moir's family. We do not wish to speculate on the cause of this accident. With regards to the behavior of the G1000 and GFC 700, if it is following a flight plan in GPS navigation and altitude hold mode, the airplane would continue to maintain its track after passing the last waypoint in the flight plan. As Mike said, an acknowledgment is required for a descent to be initiated on a vertical navigation (VNV) flight plan. As others have posted, in the absence of any input the autopilot will attempt to maintain the selected altitude with increasing trim. There is no envelope protection as in the Garmin Perspective system in the later Cirrus aircraft. (Vertical Speed mode and Flight Level Change mode as well as Pitch mode have ranges.)