Tommy

I struggle to see how DA can influence take off flap setting decision but what exactly are you hoping to achieve? Best rate or best angle? If anything, you want to stick to POH recommendations for best climb performance. What does your POH say?

Early days but I am making a prediction that BRS will become a prerequisite safety equipment for any single piston GA aircraft that is IFR / NVFR capable. What is the service life of a BRS system?A. At 10 years the chute needs to be repacked and the rocket replaced. Every 5 years a small mil spec device called “line cutter” needs to be replaced. Doesn't sound like it will cost a lot to maintain this thing. Q. How much force does it take to pull the deployment handle?A. The safety cover pulls off easily. However, the actual deployment handle requires a noticable effort by either pilot or front passenger who need to exert about 40 pounds of force. This force has been demonstrated by a 12 year old female. So for those of you that fly with your loved ones a lot, it's an option if you become incapacitated. It sure is easier to teach someone to pull the chute over a safe place than teaching how to land.

Can we just agree that it's the definition of T&G that causes much of disagreement. For those who support it, their T&G is open throttle as soon as wheels touch the ground. It's the closest thing to training for a Go Around and it's probably the only sensible way of getting some landing practices in a busy towered airport with long runway. For those who are against it, their idea of T&G is to re-configure the plane, let it roll, then take off with only 800 feet left in a non-towered field. Not a good idea. The money saved isn't worth the risk. From the poll that majority of us practices T&Gs and the benefit of doing them - proficiency in landing, time / money saved, etc - outweighs the risk. Done! Everyone is happy!

I think it's one thing to say that your flying doesn't justify the financial / performance cost of having a BRS, it's quite another to say it's nothing but a gimmick. I, for one, feeling uneasy enough sitting in a well-maintained retrieval PC-12 flying 3 hours over flat dessert terrain at night, let alone in a single piston. But night flying is better than day flying in many ways - smoother air, less traffic, city lights, less active restricted airspace etc. It also means I don't have to rush from A to B in order to beat the civil twilight. Same thing applies to flying a single piston in IMC condition - how do you know the cloud base is not only 300 feet above the ground? There was a time when people were cynical about seat belts...

There is never a lack of cynicism from Mooney pilots towards BRS. Is it really just a marketing ploy to sell more planes? Or maybe BRS can be a life saver in, say, 1) Engine failure at night 2) Mid air collision / breakup 3) Inadvertent spin 4) Engine failure in IMC and high terrain 5) Engine failure over mountainous / dense forest 6) Loss of control from, say, run away / stuck trim To say that you can't pick a landing spot with BRS is probably not true. You might be able to pick the spot over where you pull the chute and get pretty close to where you like to hit the ground.

Any way to set the warning a bit earlier? Like 3 miles? It only gives you less than 12 seconds to scan and respond (much less in your wife's case.)

How?

I can understand Cirrus has it because of poor spin recovery which probably does not apply to Mooneys But what's the point on 172 / 182 then? Wouldn't the same reasons that apply to them apply to us?

Well not quite but... http://www.flyingmag.com/brs-aerospace-to-handle-whole-aircraft-parachute-installations-for-cessna-models?src=SOC&dom=fb Now BRS is available to Cessna 172 and 182. Is this retrofit? And how much will it cost? And who will take up the offer if it comes to Mooney? I can see Cirrus' boss fuming over this.

Indeed, the only logical explanation I have with your G3's mistake is that you actually moved the peak EGT by changing altitude / power setting, so without re-do the lean-find on your G3 again, it was still using your old peak EGT as the reference. There are, of course, potentially other reasons.

Recently bought a brand new car and its break-in calls for a very gentle approach - avoid RPM >4000 for the first 500 miles. This is very much the opposite of what we do to our new engine. I am curious why the difference?

I thought you increased RPM? And you changed altitude? The most important thing is did you re-do the lean find after you change power / altitude?

You did change the power setting so your peak may have changed - in this case, peak EGT is now lower after increasing RPM. If you didn't re-do the lean find, the G3 might still think you were still operating LOP when you were actually operating at peak or ROP. FF does not lie, EGT can. (Yes. I do find that EGT goes down when I increase the RPM)

Think I found the culprit! For some reason the switch was set to Dim! My pax last flight must had bumped it!

I see. Ok got it jump started Amp.megre reads 30 plus now normal after 100 minutes of flying. If it has shorted, will it follow that the problem will be reproducible with few days of not flying?

Jump wire on and all system normal so it must be the battery or something is draining it! Going to jump start it and run for few hours to see if I can get it charged up

Nope nothing. I double checked. I wonder if someone was playing with my plane? The hangar gremlins! But the throttle has a lock on it.

I think it's a concord but very old (5 years) But is this a symptom of a dying battery? Can it fail so catastrophically and suddenly without warning? I have no work done on the electrical system at all. Hmmm...

Off for a flight today but I have zero power whatsoever when I turn the master on. Well almost no power. When I turned the master on the first time, the gyro whines but very faint. Then nothing at all on the second attempt. I flew 2 hours only 3 days ago and prior today no issue at all 14.2 V, ammeter slightly positive. Novoltage warning. Checked the switches all in OFF position. Battery fluid all in right level and the battery and alternatorwere both thoroughly inspected last annual 6 weeks ago. I am in a locked but shared hangar. I believe the plane was not tempered. No new electronics on the plane. What might had happened? Thanks guys

Do you guys always change the filter when you change the oil? 25 hours for a new filter seems excessive.

No one is disputing that, Byron. But to say T&G is part of the problem without providing any higher strength of evidence than your own anecdotal experiences when many others can give you equal number of examples where conscientious pilots who made the efforts honing their landing skills doing T&Gs are the ones we will trust our family with. When will you ever learn the very basic concept of evidence strength, Byron? In the end, you often resort to "I am an airline pilot, I know more than you" approach. My suggestion to you and @PTK is to go and ask the insurance companies and see if they can provide you guys with some credible data.

Equally specious argument: Mooneys are equally complex as airline and military jets...

In the mean time, quite possibly hundreds of pilots stay proficient with their landings and go-arounds by practicing T&Gs so didnot end up totalling their planes or killing themselves when the wind is blowing etc etc. When you advocate no T&Gas as a CFI you need to consider the consequence. You are probably discouraging a great proportion of people from staying proficient with their landing and go-around skills because not many pilots are willing to land and taxi back. Not to mention having to get back in the queue and ask for clearance in a busy GA airport.

I don't have any, that's why I said it's anecdotal (TWICE). But on two occasions you said you had "verifiable stats" without actually providing any reference so please show us your statistics.

Again, Peter, without any statistics - which I bet you don't have either but I am happy to be corrected so show me the ACTUAL number - I like to counter your argument by saying pilots who take the effort doing T&Gs on regular basis to hone their landing skills had effectively kept our collective insurance premium from rising more than what it is now.