wombat

To me this is a really interesting discussion, everyone! Thanks for keeping the discussion civil and researching and debating this topic! I know some other threads have turned argumentative and emotional, but this one is going pretty much exactly as I had hoped. While I have no intentions of using a cannula above 18,000', I do like to understand precisely what I am legally required to do, and why. @LANCECASPER That page from the POH is really interesting and has some critical phrases and words. Thanks for posting it! Also, I think it contains a mistake. The important words are 'should' instead of 'must'. "Should" is not a legal requirement. And the mistake is that they say facemasks are required above 18,000ft per 23.1447. 23.1447 is Equipment standards for oxygen dispensing units and it says "If certification for operation above 18,000 feet (MSL) is requested, each oxygen dispensing unit must cover the nose and mouth of the user." I can't find a link to the FAA's website for it, but here is a link to elaws.us: http://federal.elaws.us/cfr/title14.part23.section23.1447 I don't know enough part 135 or 121 regulations to be confident, but I expect that they would require the use of FAA certified equipment for supplemental oxygen. But part 91 has no language that requires it. The FAA can write regulations that require the use of certified equipment, and has demonstrated so in their transponder regulations (See 91.215 and 91.413) but they chose not to do so here. I conclude that their intent is not to fully limit part 91 operations to only full face masks, despite a random brochure someone at the FAA put together.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and interpretations are in the eye of the reader. If I wrote something that is being misinterpreted, the fault is at least partially mine. What I was specifically trying to address was the error of each scale because the scale is not level which would be the case if the entire floor is not level.. As @Hank gave as an example (a better example than mine), a floor that slopes down toward the center, the aircraft wheels are both at exactly the same elevation but the scales they are sitting on are sitting on a slope. Each scale will individually read less than the true weight that is on it. They would have the same relative error if the entire floor was sloped the same direction, which is the example I was using.

I read that brochure, but it's not regulatory. And the brochure says that cannulas are restricted by federal aviation regulations, which may be true, but... Which regulation? The best idea I have right now is that all of the manufacturers of cannulas are trying to get some sort of FAA certification for their equipment for all of the part 135 operations, and in order to do that they need to meet specific requirements, and those requirements include prohibiting use above 18,000'. So if you buy one for aviation use, you would be using it against the manufacturer's requirements above18,000'. But how does this limit a part 91 pilot? If I simply sucked on a pipe end attached to the end of a hose plugged into the oxygen system, would that be illegal as a part 91 flight? Again, I'm completely ignoring the question of if this safe, or a good idea, or anything other than just the legal aspect.

Let's talk rules for a moment... Not talking safety here, just talking about legality. What says I can't use a cannula above 18,000' ? Conversely, is there anything that explicitly allows me to use use a cannula only below 18,000'? And also prohibits me from using a homebuilt system? Or just breathing in on the end of the hose? FAR 91.211 does not have anything to say about this FAR 25.1447 is about transport category aircraft FAR 23.1443 is about continuous flow oxygen equipment installed in aircraft (Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category)

Yup, that's what I was demonstrating. Originally I phrased it something like "If the individual scales are not level, they might be measuring wrong" And the original situation I was envisioning is that the airplane is parked on a sloping smooth surface. So not only is the airplane not level, any load cell (or scale) will also not be perpendicular to the earth's gravity.

@Fly Boomer I can't find many wrist-only devices that have oxygen saturation. For example the fitbit charge 5 *can* but it is geared toward sleep oxygen measurements. But there are some that have the sensor near the base of the thumb. I still don't know what (if anything other than my regular oxygen sensor) I'll get. @hais Regarding setting a vertical descent rate in hopes of regaining consciousness.... I worry that will be ineffective because I think what would happen to me is that I'd fall asleep. Then as I descend I'll remain asleep, not unconscious. I know the times I've felt more severe symptoms of hypoxia I've been really sleepy. But that's a heck of a better option than doing nothing at all. And it's free!

This is what I was trying to say. As a demonstration, I put one side of my bathroom scale on a 4X4 and compared my weight on that with my weight with the scale flat. The weight difference was 7.4% Sorry for the gross foot pictures, but my slippers and socks were too slick to stay on the scale when it was on an angle.

If the individual scales are not level, they might be measuring wrong. But the overall statement you made is correct.

I very much had that flying over the Idaho mountains at night in IMC. Every time I turned my head, the noise cancelling headset would change pitch just a tiny bit. So I'd then whip my head over the other way, which changed it again and even more. My solution is that I'll take a different route that costs me 30 minutes extra, but keeps me within gliding distance of I-90 or I-84, and/or daytime and/or VFR.

Good post. Those are all great points.

I am looking at buying a pulse oximeter with an alarm, which would help protect against my failure to continuously monitor the O2 saturation. Humans are really bad at monitoring something that doesn't change much, and I'm no exception Examples: https://www.turnermedical.com/CREATIVE_PC_60B1_FINGER_PULSE_OXIMETER_p/creative_pc-60b1.htm https://www.concordhealthsupply.com/Wrist-Oximeter-p/75006.htm?gclid=CjwKCAjw6IiiBhAOEiwALNqncUt85iR167brcsAsyhAToxNDzKaX_JBpxzUmbxtC39iAliAH0O1pjRoCjeIQAvD_BwE&click=71&gad=1 If I am at FL220 and find that my oxygen is not working properly, it's an emergency. I bet that with speed brakes on and engine to idle I can get down to lower altitudes pretty quick. Hyperventilation is an option that can help for a short period of time.

What's the failure rate for the built-in O2 system? What is the price of failure if you do nothing? What's the price of failure if you mitigate it with some different options? (Carrying a second pilot with a separate O2? Using a pulse oximeter?) If I'm flying with oxygen, I use my pulse oximeter and only take it off long enough to reposition it onto maybe a finger or something. For me, that is a satisfactory mitigation. I would also be satisfied to to mitigate by flying with another pilot on the same system or a non-pilot on a separate system. But this has all been below FL180, we'll see how I feel after I start getting up a little higher. There is *always* a safer option. You can always just taxi off the runway, abandon the airplane, go home and go to bed. So the question is where does the risk of the activity meet your risk tolerance and your budget for risk management? As long as the activity is legal (which is the government's statement about where you are not allowed to accept the risk regardless of your personal preferences) it's really for you to decide.

I did one of the non-pressure chambers with the FAA, where they use an oxygen concentrator. Here is a video of it. During this event I realized that many of the symptoms I had experienced in previous flights were medium intensity hypoxia. I'm quite healthy and figured that like most things my ability to deal with hypoxia would be significantly above average. But it's not. I'm actually quite a bit worse than average. So when I fly with oxygen, I also fly with a pulse oxymeter.

Great first post. Thanks for all the info. To me it seems like you've put a lot of thought into this already. Since all of your planned flight ranges and loads are well within just about any airplane's capabilities, you don't really need it to be a Mooney. Non other plane can be quite as awesome as a Mooney though. So if you want a Mooney and you can find one that fits your budtget then you should get one. So the questions I've got time/motivation/ideas to answer: 1.a: I agree. 1.b: A cover will damage the paint and maybe the windows, but not having a cover will damage EVERYTHING. On the other hand, covers take time to put on and take off, and you need a place to store them, and when they are wet when you store them, it can get nasty. I would strongly recommend having a cover over as much of the fuselage as you can and using it. Maybe even get wing covers too. 2.all: I don't think you need a turbo at all. But the highest point in South Carolina is 3,500'. I would say you don't need a turbo unless you are regularly going to be flying over 10,000'. If you want one, then get it. I don't think learning how to use one is going to be a challenge at all. If you get it, use it. It won't be nearly the most complex part of fixed wing system management. 3: Kinda, but almost all the parts are either manufacturable by owners (Owner Produced Parts), findable as salvage or new old stock, or something. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose second Mooney purchase is supposed to close on Friday. 4: If you fit in a 172 you'll fit in a Mooney. If you struggle to fit in a 172, you'll struggle more to fit in a Mooney, but you'll still fit. You should totally go get a ride in one before spending any money though.

I think a certified aircraft mechanic should be worth no less than 10X unskilled labor, and that's for the newest A&P. 'Cmon... the training requirements are higher than that for airline pilots. But a mechanic can put thousands of people at risk, but a pilot can only get a few hundred at once.... While I don't *WANT* to pay tons of money for the labor on my aircraft, but considering the training requirements, I think it's fair. I suspect we'll probably see an increase in in-shop A&P training where the non-A&P's earn $15 to $35 an hour (Adjusted for inflation) and the actual A&Ps earn $150+ an hour At least that's what I hope happens, as soon as I finish A&P School. hahahahah

That's good to hear, because that's basically what I'm doing.

@ArtVandelayIt's got the monroy long range tanks. And yeah, inflation is a pain.

I'm trusting that Edison at Wet Wingologists knows what to do.

Latest developments.... The seller and I have negotiated a price that we are both satisfied with considering the condition of the aircraft as documented in the prebuy. I'm on the schedule with Edison at Wet Wingologists this year and will be only ferrying the plane down to him and not flying it in the meantime. Yes, I'm aware of the cost of a paint job and expect to have this plane repainted probably in 2026 to 2028. I have factored this into my estimated cost as well. Fortunately I live in a very dry environment now and also have a hangar so I don't expect there to be a problem with corrosion getting worse. Not that there is significant corrosion now. I looked over every inch of the plane, as did the prebuy shop. Yes, we looked closely at the mounting for the engine and there is a tiny bit of work to be done there. As you say, some of the spots are hot. But when looking at the overall condition of the aircraft, I think it'll be worth it once I've put another $50,000 into the plane. Which is funny because neither of my previous two planes have been worth $50,000 And as far as the $19,000+ for tank sealing.... Well, they have a product that is in demand and they are able to charge that much and still have customers. I don't want to pay it, but I want their services. So good on them for developing a product that they can market and continue their business. If I thought they were making crazy money off of unsuspecting Mooney owners, I could start my own business doing the same. But I don't. As long as Edison delivers the product he promises (well sealed tanks that will last a long time) at the price he promised, good on him!

That is very impressive! Please say you took a bunch of pictures and have a big write-up for us!

I'm satisfied with the climb performance. It is appropriate for where I live (On the East edge of the Cascade mountain range)

Yes, this is a K. A rocket, specifically. Yes, it has TKS. Yes, I flew in it. More briefly than I'd like, but better than nothing. Between the flight and the prebuy we tested just about everything. Didn't test ILS or VOR receiver, but it's got a 750 and there is a clear path to fixing those if there is a problem. The engine has not been sitting for very long. The TKS, maybe. But I tested it and it works, so I'll take the risk. If the sellers and I can come to an agreement on what to do about the cost of these tanks, I'll be transferring the money into the escrow account this week.

@carusoam Yes, it is leaking from the screws in the bottom access panels, the access panel seals, the sump drains, and also as at least two places internal to the wings. Anything less than a full strip and reseal of the tanks is going to be nearly as expensive because so much has to be patched and getting the patches all actually sealed will probably take multiple tries. While I am quite often willing to perform extensive labor for my projects, this is one I am not comfortable doing. I've talked to 5 shops including the three biggest names in tank sealing (Houston Tank Specialists, Wet Wing-ologists, and Weep-no-more) for their evaluation, quotes, and timeline. They've all said that the condition as pictured (or in the case where I simply described it) really needs a full strip and seal, so that's what I'm expecting to do. There is no fuel smell in the cabin at all, but that basically doesn't matter because the very first thing this plane needs is a full strip and reseal anyway. As far as being a 'special' plane... Nope. I don't own it, it's not the slightest bit special. It is one of the very few aircraft with the engine, avionics, and ice capabilities I want that are in my price range. I am negotiating with the broker and sellers on the cost of getting the plane airworthy again. But there are others that are nearly as good and if I add the price of the sealing work and the price of even half of the paint job that this plane desperately needs to the cost of the plane as is... I'll find another plane and watch this one sit on the market for a year. The dye does not act as a sealer, but it does slow down the leak flow rate significantly. You can plug your bottle of coke with a couple of sugar cubes. and while the coke will still escape, it won't pour out, it'll seep out. @GeeBee Thanks for the info. The last time I looked at Mooneys my budget was smaller and mid and long bodies were out of my price range.

Thanks for the report, @GeeBee I take it you do not have the long range monroy tanks, at that price? Either that or the ovation's fuel tanks are different enough from the J&K tanks... Did you have to worry about compliance with AD85-24-03 and SBM20-230A? In the thread about a J that got resealed elsewhere there seems to be some problems that compliance with these should have resolved. https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/AwD-CN/documents/US85-24-03.htm https://www.mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-230A.pdf

In person it's clear that many of them have fresh fuel flowing out of them as well. Not all that much, but enough that when flying the wind makes a trail of fresh blue fuel. Kind of hard to see in the pictures though. Yes, these have been accumulating for years. The plane has not been washed since at least 2020, and when looking at the condition of a new part that was installed in 2020, the other parts were very dirty before then so I would guess the plane hasn't been washed since 2015 or before. LASAR recommended that if I buy this plane, I should NOT wash it until I get the tanks sealed, since the dried fuel dye is probably keeping the leaks from being a lot worse than they are right now. Thanks for the advice on looking for other things, @Fly Boomer. I think my pre-buy was pretty thorough and while the fuel leaks are troubling and there are a few other things that I'd like to fix (Engine monitor needs IRAN and the plane needs paint) I think that other than the tanks, the overall condition is acceptable considering the price.