wombat

No, you are reading something that doesn't exist. The correspondence test applies between the altitude encoder (The TSO-C88 device) and the altimeter. NOT the transponder. Removing and then reinstalling the transponder does not introduce the chance of correspondence errors any more than washing the plane does. Why do you think Part 43 appendix F says "The ATC Transponder tests required by 91.413 of this chapter may be conducted using a bench check..." ? Are you saying that line is completely useless and means nothing?

@philiplane I have thoroughly read 91.217(a) and 91.217(b). Part (a) is talking about the difference in reported pressure altitude between the altimeter and altitude encoder. I have not mentioned anything about removing either of those. There is no change to either of them. So 91.217(a)(2) remains 'true'. As does 91.217(a)(3) (Both of the "unless" statements) In the case of my aircraft, I've got an ACK A-30 altitude encoder that meets TSO-C88 requirements. I have a GTX-327 that does not. No GTX-327 meets TSO-C88, because it's not applicable to a transponder. In the case of a GTX 3X5, the GAE module meets TSO-C88, but the transponder itself does not. See http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/dossiers/GTX335/GTX 345 335 installation.pdf, page 1-13 table 1-11, row 1, columns 1 and 2, footnote #2. If you slide the transponder out of the sled, the GAE module remains undisturbed and no re-test under 91.217 is required. And 91.413 is the only test I'm saying can be complied with by sending the transponder in for a bench test. There is no periodic re-test of an altitude encoder required as part of 91.217. The encoder is installed, tested, then remains good. For the transponder, The record for compliance is for the transponder itself, not the aircraft. To re-emphasize my point, the correspondence test is between the altitude encoder and the altimeter, and has nothing to do with the transponder. For VFR there is no periodic testing requirement for altitude encoders and I have thoroughly read 91.412 and 91.217 and part 43 appendix F. I'm familiar with transponder to altitude encoders using gray code and RS-232, both of which are digital and not subject to signal drift. They are either correct or incorrect. There is no coax on the signal from the altitude encoder to the transponder. The only coax is between the transponder and antenna which the FAA says you don't need to test because they clearly state that a bench test is sufficient. I'm still not finding your argument convincing. And while you have an impressive background, that's not enough to convince me and I'm sorry because I think you've been steering your customers wrong for a long time. Fortunately this probably isn't a situation that comes up often. While an appeal to authority may convince me to dig deeper into the regulations, this seems pretty clear and the deeper I read the more the evidence indicates that a bench tested transponder satisfies the requirements of 91.413.

@philiplane Yes, I agree, but I don't see how that's relevant here. I'm assuming an aircraft with a TSO-C10b altimeter, and a single TSO-C88 altitude encoder. I didn't (and don't) recommend anyone remove the altitude encoder because it's not necessary for the 91.413 test. For my case, I've got an ACK A-30 altitude encoder, and a (Whatever model it happens to be that was produced in 1958) altimeter. I could undo the set screw in the transponder, (GTX-327) and slide it out, hand it to the avionics shop, they could perform a test on the transponder on their bench that conforms to Part 43 appendix F, make a maintenance record of their test and results, hand it back to me, and I have it legally slid back in, and the set screw tightened, and add the avionics shop's maintenance record text (hopefully on a sticker!) to my aircraft's maintenance records.

@philiplane I think you are reading more into these regulations than exists. Those are not requirements. Appendix F to Part 43 is very clear about this. The tests may be conducted using a bench check. So, in order: #1: You could break the antenna off during this morning's wash job after testing the transponder (plus aircraft systems including antenna). Same difference. #2: There is no requirement for confirming ADS-B Output as part of 91.413 #3: I don't know about bench testing a GTX335/345. Maybe those can't be bench tested in a way that conforms to 91.413 or maybe the bench test requires taking the configuration module. I'm not a repair station. But my GTX327 sure can. So could my KT76, before it bit the dust. And when I installed my ADS-B out system (uAvionix wingtip) we didn't do any calibration and nobody ever has since, even when I switched from the KT76 to the GTX327. And there is no part of 91.413 or Appendix F. to part 43 that requires ADSB lat/long. Re: 91.217. Unless as installed they were tested and calibrated to be within 125' (95% probability), then yes, both the ADS-B out and transponder must be using the same source. If you have a GTX345, or a uAvionix wing or tail beacon, or pretty much everything, that'll be the case. Why would you have two altitude encoders? Re: Your shops.... That's unfortunate. But if you are bench testing a transponder, you wouldn't know which airframe was going to receive it, so of course you couldn't make a maintenance record for an airframe at that point anyway. Re: 91.413.b: I think it highly unlikely that the FAA would consider sliding the transponder out and then in to its tray to be an installation or maintenance action where data correspondence error could be introduced. If they'd consider doing that action as an installation at all.... I choose to remain silent.

@1980Mooney Is there a VFR pitot-static certification? 91.411 is specific to IFR. 91.413 is transponder only.

@philiplane Can you help me find the regulations that state that? The way I read the regulations I don't find anything requiring anything different from before. Appendix F to Part 43 - ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections From here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-43/appendix-Appendix F to Part 43 The ATC transponder tests required by § 91.413 of this chapter may be conducted using a bench check... (Loads of other important information not necessary for this discussion omitted by wombat) Chapter 3, Paragraph 2 C of FAA order 8200.45 From here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/order/8200_45_ADS-B.pdf Dedicated periodic flight inspections of ADS-B are not required. The closest thing I could find is that if you are performing a 91.411 test and have an altitude encoder interfaced to your transponder, the correlation must be checked with your altimeter at the same time in accordance with FAR 43 Appendix E Part c. But for this part of the conversation, I was referring to a 91.413 check, which was maybe not clear. From here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-43/appendix-Appendix E to Part 43 Each person performing the altimeter system tests and inspections required by § 91.411 of this chapter must... (The rest of the appendix omitted, by wombat)

No, @M20 Ogler your aircraft is not totally grounded and you don't need a ferry permit. Just talk to ATC before you enter any of the airspaces listed in 91.215 (b) for an authorized deviation and don't fly IFR in controlled airspace. The authorized deviation can be requested on the radio moments before you enter the airspace it's required for. Alternatively you can take your transponder (without the plane) to a shop and have them bench test it. At that point you can use it like normal but the rest of your static pressure system still needs to be tested before flying IFR in controlled airspace. (You could fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace if you wanted. ) Yes, @hubcap is mostly right, although that message lacks detail that could get you into trouble. Yes, @PT20J is completely correct. And lucky for you, @midlifeflyer and @GeeBee I like to be 'that guy' providing authoritative references. § 91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections. From: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-E/section-91.413 (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or § 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and.... (More content here has been omitted by wombat; important but not relevant to this conversation) § 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use. From: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.215 (b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, and except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder... (More content here has been omitted by wombat; important but not relevant to this conversation) (1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas; (2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL; (3) (Omitted by wombat; important but not relevant to this conversation) (4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL; and (5) All aircraft except... (Omitted by wombat; important, but not relevant for this conversation) (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and (ii) In the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a 10-nautical-mile radius of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of this part, excluding the airspace below 1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface area of the airspace designated for that airport. (c) Transponder-on operation. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, while in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with § 91.413 shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC, unless otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions. (d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows: (1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability, the request may be made at any time. (2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time. (3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation. § 91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections. From: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-E/section-91.411 (a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless - (1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;

Looking at buying a rocket, but I've never flown in one before. Anyone in Washington or maybe Idaho, Oregon, or Western Montana have one and would be willing to take me up for a short flight?

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I have not yet actually purchased the plane I'm looking at, but I'll let y'all know if I do.

I'm possibly buying a rocket fairly soon and while I've got several hundred hours in a M20E, that's almost 6 years ago and my hours with a turbo is < 10 and I don't have much experience in planes that are > 165 KTAS. Does anyone have recommendations on somewhere or someone to do some training for me? I live in the Pacific Northwest but the plane I'm looking at is out East. Possibly willing to fly an instructor out to where the plane is and put them up for a night or two, (if/when I purchase it) if anyone is willing to do that. I've got about 1,700 hours total, and commercial single and multi-engine, as well as single engine sea, and my CFI (but not MEI or CFI-I) and I've even got my tailwheel endorsement. So I'm more ready than a fresh PPL. I'm no Don Kaye, but I'm ready enough to know that I want some more specific training before I launch in one of these beasts.

I had to replace a KT-76 the other day. Much less common than the 76A. But I bought a used, 'working when removed' one for $150, and it worked great when I got it.

You are correct that it's 50 miles different (328 to BFI but 373 to TTD). The point I was trying to make was that at that total distance the difference isn't that much, it's a 12% increase. I was looking for the list of MSCs on Mooney's site too and couldn't find it. Great minds think alike. That's a good point about catching a commercial flight from SeaTac being easier than Portland. Galvin went through some ownership changes fairly quickly over the last few years. They got bought by Quantem, then Signature, then Landmark (In some order that ended up with Landmark) but they ended up being the only FBO that the company owned that had a flight school. So they were looking for a buyer or looking to shut the operation down. A local DPE (Skip Moshner) ended up buying the flight school in 2015 and brought back the Galvin name and has been operating as a flight school only since then. When I bought my Mooney in 2014 and mooney.com still had the list published Galvin was not listed as an MSC and even though the plane was at Paine (KPAE, only 22 miles away) I ended up taking it down to Troutdale for the inspection and I've taken my plane back there every year. For what it's worth, Galvin has two Mooneys in their fleet that they use for commercial students and complex endorsements. I instruct there part time and think they have a pretty good operation going.

Prebuy at Galvin at KBFI? Galvin just does flight training, they are not a full FBO, and I don't think they were ever a MSC. Advanced Aircraft, in Troutdale Oregon at KTTD is a MSC and from Kalispell, MT is about the same distance, roughly speaking.

MooneyMitch, DanB and M20F..... Can I have your 'old, worn-out' tires when you are done with them? In my opinion, that tire is fine to keep flying and landing with.

I don't understand why 1,000 miles away from my home base is really that much worse than 10 miles away. It's not my mechanic and I have to find a ride home and then a ride back to get the plane when it's fixed. Car rental and commercial tickets may run $600 or so for both ways, but that's the same price as maybe 5 hours of flying time. Just fly less next month and be a little sad. I flew for work from Seattle to Georgia once. Everybody said "Don't do that, if you HAVE to get there, don't use your Mooney (or any GA plane)". The way I thought about it, is that at pretty much every stop along the way it's probably cheaper and faster for the plane to break down and for me to buy an airline ticket at the last minute to complete the journey. But it all worked great and I had a wonderful time and spent a lot of money!

I grew up on a farm and we maintained a stock of fuel for farm equipment (Diesel and gasoline) that we didn't pay the road taxes on. The diesel at least had a different color so they could check if you used it in vehicles that were on the road, although I never saw or heard of anyone getting checked.

A MRE, a quart of oil, multi-tip screwdriver, escape/safety axe, a life jacket, a few sheet metal screws. And a credit card.

@dlthig Never heard of TruCar, but after a quick look at their website, I agree. @gsxrpilot Exactly. I could afford to buy a T310 but I can't afford to fly and maintain a T310.

@gsxrpilot: I agree with you. I'm trying to close a deal on a C182 that seems like it's pretty far to the right (great deal for the buyer) but it could turn out to be a huge waste of money. Fortunately the three of us that are buying this plane have decided to buy something that is well below what we could afford, so if we do get a lemon it's only an irritation and not a bank-account-breaking problem. PS: This is not replacing my M20E, it's in addition to the Mooney.

Jerry: With that additional information (WAAS and ADS-B status, plus new engine) it sounds like your plane at $299k would be a good deal for the buyer, and would therefore sell quickly. If you put yours on the market, the one from controller would be less good by comparison and would likely sit on the market longer. There are not a lot of those planes for sale at any given time, so adding or removing a single one will alter the market, particularly if it is priced at either end of the spectrum. I don't know enough to have confidence in my statements about your plane (or the one I found on controller) being good or bad deals, but I am confident that there is a market price for both of them, even though they are uncommon and unique items. Pricing (or offering) on either end of the spectrum will make finding the right plane or finding a buyer take a long time or a short time. Even considering that, as a seller you can adjust the speed of the sale by pricing high or low compared to the current market. As a buyer I can adjust the time to make a deal by changing my willingness to buy better or worse 'deal' planes. That doesn't mean a better or worse plane, just a better or worse deal on the plane. If eman1200 were willing to purchase a plane that is not at the far right side of that bell curve toward 'good deal to the buyer' , he would have found plenty of planes to buy in the last couple of years. There is nothing wrong with what he is doing, it's just very likely to take a really long time to find that good of a deal.

This is all my opinion, but I'm going to give it to you anyway. There is a bell curve of 'deal quality' for every market. Some planes are a good deal for the buyer (on the high end of the curve) and some are a good deal for the seller (on the low end of the curve). At any point in time, the 'market' is the sum of all the planes for sale right then and the buyers that want to buy. Every seller's ideal is to be on the bottom end of the curve and every buyer's ideal is to be at the top end of the curve. The farther away from the top end of the curve you are willing to be when you buy, the faster you will be able to buy. If you want something at the very top of the curve you might wait a long time. Years, even. When you are selling if you price your plane so it's at the top of the curve, you'll sell fast. If you price your plane so it's at the bottom of the curve, you might wait a long time. There are planes still for sale on controller.com that were for sale when I bought my plane 2.5 years ago. The same is true for everything else; houses, cars, shovels, etc. As a buyer you decide what you want, then look at the market for those products and those that are similar to what you want. Then you try to negotiate for as good of a deal as you want to spend the time and effort getting. As a seller, you look at the market for those products like yours and decide how good of a deal you want as a seller then price it appropriately. Then you negotiate with buyers and accept when you are happy with the deal. Hardly anybody wants an exact specific plane or configuration. Continuing Jerry 5TJ's example: If I was in the market for a FIKI Ovation and you offered yours for $299k, I would be more likely to buy the 2006 Ovation G2 currently on controller for $275k. It's got a G1000 instead of the G500/GTN750/650 but for most buyers that's close enough. Your plane would probably sit on the market for quite a while. It's a great plane (Much better than my dinky '64 M20E) with great equipment, but at that price I think it'd be a bad deal for a buyer. The price range for an item is from what the top paying buyer is willing to pay to what the lowest-bid-accepting seller is willing to accept. If you only offer below what the lowest seller is wiling to accept, you won't buy anything. If you only offer above what the highest paying buyer is willing to pay, you won't sell anything. The closer you get to those limits, the longer it will take to make a deal. http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1457395/2006-mooney-m20r-ovation2-gx http://strategicaircraft.com/2000-mooney-m20-r-ovation-2-n555tj/

I think I talked to you guys briefly at the Northwest Aviation Conference yesterday.

N6946U is there. Thanks for mentioning this.

The install cost is also a huge factor in this decision. Adding the fuel transducer will be a hassle, but also adding in MP, RPM and OAT and pressure will add a couple of hours each to the install. At $90/hr, upgrading to the G3 would cost an extra $800 or so just for the install as well as the difference in unit price. I'm just glad I am able to convince my co-owner to get anything.

After doing yet more research, it looks like I'm going to go with an Insight G2. While I won't be able to replace any of the existing gauges other than the EGT, the unit is the cheapest one that does the minimum of what I want. We are going to put in ADS-B Out this annual and the panel will already be open, so the install cost for this will be minimal. A better picture of the existing panel can be found here: https://goo.gl/photos/USttYdqsgyKWrfiB9