Tommy

This http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/20-things-you-may-not-know-about-night-flying/ And the statistics " Accident statistics suggest that flying by night accounts for about 10% of the general aviation accidents, but 30% of the fatalities. That suggests night flying must be inherently more dangerous than aviating when the sun is up." What I don't quite understand is why some MSers asks for advice on whether or not one should willingly do something to increase the risk of flight operation.

Hmmm. Lots of interesting points. The litigations side of things scares as well as saddens me. It is also troubling to see how AF can be seen as "care less" sometimes but I can understand that it probably wouldn't be a viable organization if it starts to take on expensive insurances and training / certification of its pilots.

Not sure if it's legal to take off knowing that you don't have a working landing light. But legality is one thing, safety is another. Flying at night is already difficult and risky enough, why make it more than necessary?

It's hard to say whether 2 weeks is normal or not without knowing anything specific about your plane. My annual averaged 1.5 days with two mechanics working on it plus me helping every time. I always insist on owner-assist not to save money but to learn my plane and to make decisions right on the spot instead of calling back and forth. I always end up saving money (has anyone counted how many screws are there on a Mooney?) and the annual gets done quicker because the shop knows your time is valuable as well. They tend not to muck around if they are seeing you working hard on the plane.

I have done 25 missions for Angel Flight and it's one of the most satisfying kind of flying you can do and it gives you to reasons to fly to air strips that you probably will never go otherwise. Go to the website for the pilot and plane requirement. Mooney is definitely well equipped for majority of the missions except when you need more seats or the patient cannot climb onto the wing due to mobility reason. Having an IFR is a bonus but not essential and remember many of these patients have little or no experience in a small aircraft. And getting toss around in a small plane in an IMC will probably turn them off a great deal. The danger, however, is the desire to push on when the weather is marginal. Majority of the Angel Flight incidents are weather related and it does inflict a great deal of damage to the organisation when a mission resulted in fatalities. It certainly calls in question the rules and regulations governing not for profit charitable flying groups. My best advice take another Angel Flight pilot with you on your first few flights or tag along before you sign up.

I agree with you on the issue of soft vs short field take off. What I didn't quite get is that you say POH is often wrong - which, you might not realise it, is a pretty bold and dangerous statement to make. You cited the Vy speeds being different between TWO models as a reason not to trust POH but someone else pointed out that your 67 POH Vy is without take off flaps. I am merely seeking clarification.

So it's a soft as well as a short field take off then? That's a tough gig. And if there is no difference in terms of obstacle clearance then there is really no reason to rotate early and hover in ground effect if it's a short field? Much safer to accelerate with wheels planting on the ground, right? This is confusing but I guess what I am trying to say is that if you don't have the necessary runway length then a soft field take off technique isn't going to save your ass clearing those trees, probably going to inflict greater damage with higher velocity into the trees.

So did you mis-read the manual then? Sounds to me the Vx of both model with TAKE OFF flaps aren't too much different.

That is a soft field take off technique not a short field / obstacle clearance according to POH. How is that going to achieve better result?

Definitely worthwhile doing it but probably after the engine had broken in because the whole ordeal is a bit of trial and error and your engine will be running at low power setting during the process. Also if there is anything needs to be adjusted the balance might be out again.

Hard to say if it's across two different models of almost a decade apart. What about on a same model? Agree that later POHs will have better advice based on more and better data collected than earlier ones. What I take issues with are the people who think they have MORE and BETTER data than factory based on their own experience with one or two planes. Does it mean I always take the factory advice, no, of course not. I run my engine based on the general recommendation of Mike Busch because he has just as much data if not more than the factory. Sorry wasn't directed at you about my comment on soft field but rather it's directed at those who recommend a soft field in this incident over a short field. My take is that if a short field can't clear those trees then a soft field will most likely result in hitting those trees at a higher velocity. The issue here, as you rightly pointed out, is not the runway condition but the runway length.

So what are the changes to V speeds for a J or Bravo or Ovation over the years of their production? I am curious to know the changes you are referring to. And as far as I know, no popular GA aircraft manufacturer advocates soft field technique over a obstacle clearance one (Vx) for clearing obstacles. The differences in technique are not just confined minor changes of the speed. The time to rotate, the ground effect usage, and the final climb speed are all drastically different. Not disputing that it "may" give a better obstacle clearance than Vx but the technique is risky and maybe gives only minor advantage (10 feet) when it's done ABSOLUTELY right that only when gear collapse is a real possibility that it is justified. Will this apply to our OP's situation? Let's see, new Mooney driver on a sealed runway? I would say stick to Vx and hope for the best.

I can understand if you hold the nose high and bleed the airspeed below 66k after rotation then you are not going to climb very much but what I am struggling to understand is how the technique shown in the video (hovering in the ground effect and build up speed then trade it with altitude by pulling some Gs) is going to beat POH in terms of obstacle clearance? If you are not going to clear the obstacle with published technique, then nothing else is going to. Otherwise the POH will need a re-write? Or is it because this technique is difficult to pull off and, more often than not, the pilot will either miss the ground effect or miss time the pull up and end up hitting the obstacle at a greater speed? Interesting how the POH says you leave the gear until you clear the obstacle!

Sounds you don't have much confidence in your current shop. May I suggest, something that I always do before my mechanics pulling off anything, taking lots of photos before you even start and few photos at different stages of disassembly. So that everything are put back in the right order and complete.

Go buy a Cessna then... They might be 25 knots slower but boy the time you saved from walking that extra 15 metres... Maybe cars should have gas tank filler on BOTH sides so we dont have to walk so much...

I am a firm believer that any plane that costs a whopping 0.75 mil should come with its personal air side concierge. Rich people shouldn't really be doing anything as laborious and trivial as dragging luggage from one side of their massive big planes to another. Actually come to think of it, it should come with a gold elevator too!

Now I can see why some people think chute will encourage maintenance corner-cutting... Tempting

What is the potential danger of having a lot of play?

I don't know. My understanding of the laminar flow is that the speed of the air molecules gets slower the closer it is to the wing surface. In fact the molecules just above the wing surface is almost stationary. So the pressure difference will be there first due to camber and added with the difference in temperature if the article is right. Regardless, the production of melanin is an expensive exercise in biological terms and I am a firm believer that Nature doesn't do thing for no good benefit. Wonder if this holds true when it comes to planes.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631472-600-drone-engineers-accidentally-explain-the-colour-of-albatross-wings/ Wonder if any Mooney Driver had the foresight to have done it already? Nature always have the best solution!

Dumb question, how do you test for rudder play and what constitute as out of tolerance? And would you be able to point out on the diagram the "numbers" of the parts you are referring to, Andy? Thanks!

Okay, guys. I will come clean. It was me. I hacked Clarence's account...

Clarence, don't steal my fun of poking at the hornet's nest!!!!

Thanks Cooper Dog for the PIREP report on this incident. Lots of take home messages. First and foremost, grateful that you and your family were okay. I will give it to @Hank that I also believe that Mooney's structural strength had almost certainly contributed in your miraculous escape. Though none of you were hurt physically, the emotional and psychological impact can be severe and long lasting. Your military training probably had prepared you well for this but your wife may not fare so well. I do wonder if your military background and experience with high performance jet actually did you a disservice in this instance. It's a bit of hindsight but your incident reminds me of one of the three most useless things in aviation: the runway behind you. Always use the full length of the runway even if it's 9000 feet long. You never know when you are going to need that last 100. When I was flying in and out of an international / military airport back in 2013, I never accepted an intersection take off. I figure that I don't have an extra engine like every one else does and I am never in that much of a hurry to go somewhere.

My sentiment exactly. Especially if you fly with A/P on most of the time. So definitely have it in front of you.