Vance Harral

Neither did we, but in our case the set screw wound up "glued" in so tight that the mechanic who performed the next inspection wound up damaging the yoke shaft trying to remove the yoke to perform the yoke shaft inspection. Talk about irony. Because of this incident, I strongly recommend against using any kind of thread locker on the set screw. Yes, it will loosen up and have to be re-tightened periodically. We keep a specific Allen wrench in one of the seat pockets to do so.

I've never used a paid system like Adlog. But years of doing my own AD research has convinced me that the value in such a service would not be in the nice paperwork they produce. The value is almost entirely in the extent to which they can hunt down ADs issued against "appliances" that may or may not be attached to your aircraft. Anyone care to speak to that? To elaborate, it doesn't take much knowledge or skill to produce a list of ADs against a particular airframe/engine/prop combo, but appliances are insidious. An AD issued against the magnetos in your airplane is not going to show up under "Mooney" or "Lycoming". Neither is one issued against your ADS-B out Tailbeacon, your Saf-Air oil quick drain, and so on. Obviously a vendor cannot provide you with good service in this respect without a lot of input from you, the owner. So there's really no way around the responsibility of understanding what components on your airplane, who manufactured them, and what their serial numbers are, so as to keep an eye out for ADs issued against them that aren't going to show up under "Mooney". Accepting that responsibility seems to me to obviate much of the value of a vendor AD service. People understandably sign up for those services because they want a professional to help them be responsible for ensuring they know about all ADs applicable to their airplane. But I'm not sure those professional services can help much with anything other than the grossly obvious. Frankly, I think you can do about as well just monitoring our community here on Mooneyspace. People were posting about the recent elevator counterweight AD before it even became official. I'm certain those of us here were better informed, sooner, than someone who was waiting on Adlog or similar service to tell them about it. And that's for an airframe AD. We're also a lot more likely to tell you when an AD has been issued against V-band clamps on turbochargers, Garmin autopilots, etc. vs. waiting for a vendor to tell you about it.

For those who don't know, the PROTE setup is not a "chamber" in the sense you might think of. It's simply a "tent", into which abundant quantities of nitrogen are injected, to reduce the available oxygen. There's no question this reduces your O2 saturation - you can see it on an oximeter. As such, you can experience symptoms of hypoxia, and that has value. That said, whether or not nitrogen dilution at ground-level pressure produces exactly the same symptoms as reduced partial pressure at altitude is debated. For example, my wife is a professional research scientist. Her and her colleagues work experiments in an actual altitude chamber a few times a year, as part of their research on pulmonary hypertension, and thus have accumulated dozens of experiences over the years. Occasionally they are asked to assist with experiments involving a nitrogen dilution tent like the PROTE chamber. They all swear that the experience and the symptoms in the tent are not the same as in the chamber. The fact that the people in question are scientists doesn't make this any more "data" than "anecdote". It's not a double-blind study, and I'm sure there is some group reinforcement of beliefs in casual conversations. But it stands to reason that in addition to hypoxia, lowering of pressure can have other effects on sinuses, bowels, etc.; all of which may or may not contribute to feelings of unwellness or euphoria. I've done the PROTE chamber thing, but conversations with my wife have made me curious enough to want to get an actual altitude chamber ride and compare the experiences. She has yet to sneak me into one of her experiments, though.

Magnetic field strength decreases cubically with distance, so interference with the compass is largely a function of distance. Our compass is conventionally mounted on the center windshield post. We have two highly magnetic Steelie Ball mounts sticky-taped to the yokes, which are about 24" away from the compass, and there is no discernible effect on the compass. There is a noticeable effect on the compass if I set my phone with its magsafe case anywhere on the glareshield, though, which is a small part of the reason I prefer a yoke or kneeboard mount down low to a suction cup mount up high.

If you're using G5 altitude to define when you arrive at minimums, please make sure your "secondary" G5 altimeter was/is tested and calibrated by a shop that knows how to do so. Apologies if I'm beating a dead horse about this, but the problems I've seen are not one-offs - I have a number of data points because I work part-time as an instructor. The flight school I primarily teach at has five aircraft with dual G5s. None of them are calibrated, because they don't have to be. Every single one of them reads at least 75' higher than our 5055' MSL field elevation, when set to the altimeter setting given on the AWOS. One of them reads 125' high. Not a single one of them reads low, all the errors are in the "dangerous" direction. The G5 ADI in our Mooney had exactly the same 100-ish-foot-high error, until I asked our transponder/static check guy to come out with his test equipment and calibrate it. I also give instruction to owners in their own airplanes, some of which are equipped with G5s. In some cases, those G5s read very close to the certified altimeter, and are accurate compared to field elevation, like our Mooney is now. I'm assuming these units were adjusted by the shop at installation. All the other cases have the same large errors in the "dangerous" direction. I realize that my 10-or-so data points aren't really enough to identify something systematic about the G5's pressure/altitude system, but what I've seen with my own eyes has made an impression on me, and it could kill someone in low IMC, hence my fixation on it. One piece of information I don't have is what would happen if you flew all these "bad" units down to sea level. It may be that the source of error corrected by calibration has more to do with the pressure/altitude relationship curve over thousands of feet, than a baseline bias.

You'll find many, many pilots who agree with you... ...but most of them are not pilots with a lot of experience, and time in IMC, including approaches to minimums. There is an inverse correlation between this experience, and fascination with iPads, and it's not just because pilots who have a lot of experience are old and/or iPad-phobic. You seem to have pretty much made up your mind on this, and I don't want to be a jerk by arguing about for the sake of argument. What I will say is that if you're genuinely looking to test an opinion you have, you should work hard to find input from those who disagree with you. The easiest way to find that input for this particular topic, is to talk to people with a lot of time flying actual IMC in the system. In my experience, all of these folks really like iPads and the wealth of information they provide; but none of them would even glance at an iPad inside the FAF, much less rearrange their panel to prioritize it over a certified altimeter. If the panel in question were for VFR only, that changes things; but I get the impression you want to use your airplane in IMC. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't actually know the owner of EarthX very well at all, and I'm disinclined to get into a lengthy conversation with him about his aircraft battery business. Having said that, I have two comments, numbered Anthony-style: I generally agree with the posts above, that an EarthX aircraft battery as it exists today is not a compelling product. I think everyone's implicit assumption - that the purpose of EarthX developing aircraft batteries is to make money selling a superior aircraft battery product to piston single owners - is likely incorrect. EarthX makes batteries for many different types of vehicles, and there are literally millions more non-aircraft vehicles in their target market than aircraft. My guess is that the aircraft battery product is some combination of marketing ploy ("aircraft grade" battery for your motorcycle!), R&D side gig, and hobby, on which EarthX is not currently dependent for profit. The guy in question is not an idiot, and I'm pretty sure he's already aware of all the legitimate criticism being made in this thread. I'm extremely confident he is not confused about battery weight, current capacity, or total energy capacity, as compared to competing solutions.

I can vouch that I have made several flights in a Mooney (specifically a 231) with an EarthX battery installed. We did not run out of electrons or catch on fire. The Mooney in question is owned by the principal owner of EarthX.

Your point is well taken, and yes, people should check part numbers. This can be "artificially confusing" for the G5, however, because the number of G5 variants is less than what is implied by the part numbers used for sales purposes. There are exactly two flavors of G5 instrument: experimental and certified. The "experimental" G5 (P/N 010-01485-01, see https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/514383) is not certified for anything. Garmin doesn't want this unit in any certified aircraft for any reason, though I'm sure a few people have played games with stretching the interpretation of rules in a way that jives what they want. There is only one "certified" G5 instrument, and it's certified as primary for any/all of the functions I mentioned above (see the installation manual for details). If you visit https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/570665/pn/K10-00280-01, however, it appears there are three different flavors of certified G5 with different part numbers: one for use as a certified Attitude Indicator, one for use as a certified DG/HSI, and one for use as a certified HSI "with GPS interface". This is misleading. Again, there is only one certified G5 instrument, and it can be used for any of the certified functions. The different names/part numbers just reflect additional gizmos that are bundled with the instrument when you order it. If you order a "G5 Attitude Indicator", you get only the G5 device itself and nothing else. If you order a "G5 DG/HSI", you get a the same G5, but also a GMU11 magnetometer which provides heading information to the G5. If you order a "G5 DG/HSI with GPS interface", you get the G5 plus the GMU11 plus a GAD29B bus converter that allows the G5 to talk to ARINC429 devices. But you can buy the GMU11 and/or GAD29B from one vendor, connect them to a "G5 Attitude Indicator" you bought from another vendor, and still have a legally certified DG/HSI. Garmin is very clear about this if you dig into details and/or talk to their support staff.

The G5 is certified primary for use as an attitude indicator, DG, HSI, or turn coordinator. When configured as an ADI, the G5 display also shows airspeed and altitude tapes, and a VSI indication. But those are for "entertainment purposes only", the G5 cannot replace the factory instruments. In my experience, this is not well understood, and many pilots assume the G5 altitude is "better" than the old round dial. The fact that a GFC500 autopilot gets altitude hold information from a G5 adds to the confusion. to be clear, G5 altitude and airspeed accuracy isn't inherently poor, it just needs to be calibrated to be accurate. The calibration is electronic rather than mechanical, it's set through menus in the unit. The shop that does your biannual static system check can easily perform this calibration, but it takes extra time, and they will understandably bill extra to do the work. Most shops know that (1) it's not required; and (2) many owners don't want to pay extra for this, so they commonly leave the G5 calibration at the factory default setting and only check the certified primary altimeter. In my experience, this almost always results in the G5 altimeter reading high relative to the certified altimeter, when both are set to the same Kollsman setting.

I would not fly instrument approaches in an airplane whose only certified altimeter was on the far opposite side of the panel from the attitude indicator. I don't buy the argument that "The G5 altimeter is good enough even though it's not certified primary", for approaches down to 200' AGL minimums. I've flown in too many airplanes with G5s where a combination of owner ignorance and shop confusion over what the owner wants, lead to uncorrected G5 installations with indicated altitudes which are over 100' in error in the "dangerous" direction.

I used to use and recommend WingX too, but it seems like Hilton and his one-man WingX band dropped off the face of the planet a few years ago. It's not exactly dead, but it seems like it's barely hanging on, with no active support. If you visit https://hiltonsoftware2.com/wingx, you'll see essentially nothing in the way of updates, just some notes about testing with the latest O/S updates. The promo video for v9 is 3 years old. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, and it may still be a fine backup, but I just got the point where it didn't seem supported enough to rely on, even as a backup. I haven't looked into it in a long time, anyone have more current info?

Adding an interior baggage door unlatch mechanism to older Mooneys is a recurring topic on Mooneyspace and elsewhere. Many have done so, it certainly doesn't seem to hurt anything, and I try not to criticize what others do with their "safety dollars" (and time), though not always successfully. Obviously the factory thought it had real - or at least marketing - value. But as one who hasn't bothered with this mod, I'm moved to ask if there's any evidence, anywhere, of any Mooney accident, in which someone perished because they could not open the baggage door and use it as an exit? Sure, it's theoretically possible, but this seems like a really-corner corner case. Thinking about it, to get benefit from the interior unlatch mechanism, it seems like you have to have a situation where: rapid exit is the difference between life and death the airplane has not rolled onto its right side (because then both the cabin door and the baggage door are jammed against the ground) the airframe is bent badly enough that the main door cannot be opened - even with adrenaline - but the baggage door can; and... the party/ies at risk are not able bodied enough to man-handle the main door open, but are still able-bodied enough to crawl over the back seat into the baggage compartment, and fit themselves through the baggage door, in a timely manner I'd say this is... uh.... very unlikely. But maybe I'm missing something, happy to be educated to the contrary. On edit... are people doing this in part because of the old "the interior door handle came off in my hand" thing, where they don't have a pair of vice grips or similar in the cabin?

This question suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the experimental category. Aircraft do not receive airworthiness certificates that just say "experimental". Experimental airworthiness certificates also define a "purpose" for the experimental certificate. The list of valid purposes are defined in 21.191, and the restrictions associated with those purposes branch out from 91.319. The most common experimental purpose is "amateur built". The Mooney examples posted above are "research & development". I'm sure it's theoretically possible to get the FAA to issue an experimental airworthiness certificate for an M22, but the owner would have to decide what purpose to pursue. An M22 turbine conversion would involve such extensive work that it would probably meet the requirements for experimental/amateur-built, in which case after passing an inspection and flying 25-40 hours of solo flight test in a designated "non populated" area, you could fly the airplane in day VFR conditions. Lots of kit planes are "specifically authorized by the Administrator" to operate under night/IFR as well, but that's not automatic for a one-off like you're proposing. Building a pressurized turbine airplane that likely can only be operated day VFR seems silly to me, but... like... that's just my opinion, man. The experimental/research-and-development Mooneys referenced above are theoretically restricted to only flight activities specifically associated with a specific R&D project. I'm as curious as the next Mooniac what's being researched and developed, but you'd have to ask the owner. I'm sure people try to play games with this on occasion, like saying that a flight to visit Grandma is "testing cruise characteristics and range", and that the spouse and kids are "required flight test crew". I've never participated in the process, so I don't know how strictly it's enforced. But in general, as was said in another thread, the purpose of Experimental airworthiness certificates is not to provide an avenue for aviators who don't like the rules for certified aircraft to work around them. So while it might be fun to daydream about M22 vanity project, it's really not a serious discussion. If the goal is to have a pressurized airplane that's not subject to standard airworthiness limitations, there are a plethora of better ways to achieve that than hacking up a 60-year old, limited production, certified airframe.

Attached is the diagram from the IPC. The set screw is item 11, it's an AN565-D416-H4. You can read more about our struggles with it here.

There is a set screw at the bottom of the yoke, meant to take up any shaft-to-yoke slack that remains with the structural bolt installed. You can only see it by laying upside down on the floor of the airplane and looking up. You must loosen that set screw to remove the yoke from the shaft. You'll want to be careful turning the set screw. It is easily broken, especially if someone put thread-locker on it to keep it from vibrating loose and allowing slop in the yoke. The factory part is a hex-head screw, but sometimes it's replaced with a slotted or other-headed screw. It's easy to mangle it. If you mangle it, it's very difficult to drill out. If it can't be drilled out, the only alternative is to wrench the yoke off the shaft by brute force, which leaves a scar on the shaft. You can guess how I know all these things...

It's plenty accurate, but the O2 sensor in an apple watch requires you to keep your arm extremely still while the reading is being taken. This is difficult to achieve in any moving vehicle, particularly an airplane. I bought an apple watch in part to use the oximeter in the air, but it has proven to be impractical for that. I still use a finger sensor instead.

In low wing airplanes, I teach to prime and start on one tank, then switch to the other immediately after engine start. The idea is to prove that you can feed fuel from both tanks. as you say. But I want to do this immediately after engine start so it's several minutes between switching tanks, and takeoff, preferably with a runup inbetween. The risk factor of switching tanks right before takeoff is a scenario where the system can't deliver any fuel from the newly selected tank, but the lines downstream from the fuel selector have just enough go juice in them to get you airborne before the engine quits. I don't worry about that scenario much in a fuel-injected engine. I worry about it a lot in a carbureted engine: the float bowl can hold quite a lot of fuel. It's an interesting experiment in any airplane to turn the fuel selector to OFF on the ground, and see how long it takes the engine to die. I once flew with a guy in a Champ, who regularly turned the fuel selector to the off position shortly after clearing the runway, and taxied all the way to his hangar on just the gas in the carburetor bowl.

I really don't understand people's obsession with filling the tanks for every flight scenario, especially in a Mooney. 54 gallons is nearly 6 hours of endurance in an E model. Almost nobody wants to fly in any kind of piston single for anywhere near that length of time. Put 30 gallons of gas in the airplane instead of 54, now you've got over 3 hours' endurance and about 700 lbs of payload. Completely reasonable for a 3-person trip. Show me an airplane where you can fill the tanks and fill the seats and still depart legally, and I'll show you an airplane whose designers made the fuel tanks too small.

There are plenty of good partnerships, and the legalities, financial arrangements, and risk management can always be worked out among reasonable people. But I don't think those things should be your first concern. Your first concern should be whether you're genuinely capable of treating an incoming partner as an equal - up to and including the belief that you're as likely to damage the airplane as they are. Not every sole owner considering a partnership is able to do this. That doesn't make the prospective seller a bad person, but they should be honest with themselves about it. I see your situation a lot on aviation forums: a sole owner gets a little beaten down by costs and availability, and thinks about selling a share of an airplane they have owned outright for a while, to an incoming partner. I like to ask the seller if they're OK with bringing in a partner who expects to develop a new set of operating rules, as equals, different in some ways from how the original owner operated. How would you react to the new partner asking to change how the airplane is fueled, when/if the avionics databases are updated, what position the seat is left in, whether the tow bar is left attached to the nose gear in the hangar, leaning procedures, and so forth? In short, are you capable of changing your mindset from it being "your" airplane to it being a shared airplane, and negotiating new operating procedures in good faith? This often doesn't work out as hoped. Nobody thinks they are unreasonable or overbearing, but sellers understandably feel they have worked out the "right" way to operate the airplane, and tend to want the incoming partner to follow suit. And they grouse when they new guy accidentally (or purposely) doesn't follow their lead, which damages the relationship. As a CFI, I get asked the other side of the question a lot: "Should I buy into this partnership"? I generally advise the potential buyer to ask about changing some trivial aspect of operation, like not topping off the tanks after every flight, or changing the panel moving map to North Up instead of Track Up. The outcome of such discussions doesn't matter, but the act of having the discussion and observing the attitude of the participants says a lot about how the partnership will go. The ideal partnership is one which is formed amongst a group of like-minded people, none of which has an airplane. If they can get through the process of deciding on an airplane to buy together, odds are they're like-minded enough for success. This isn't always practical, of course. But I think both buyers and sellers should compare whatever deal they're considering against this ideal model.

This is of great interest to me as a Mooney owner, with regard to OPP and VARMA. There is this reasonable-on-its-face idea that if the manufacturer is still in business and producing parts, the FAA isn't going to bless alternative sources. But there can be a big difference between theoretical and practical ability to produce parts. A manufacturer who still answers the phone, but only to tell you that they won't produce your part until they get a sufficiently large back order log that could take months/years, arguably isn't a manufacturer at all.

This is my primary concern. Moving maps are for situational awareness, not guidance. I'm not a Luddite about moving maps. I don't actually have an issue with pilots who have a geo-referenced approach plate or other moving map up during an approach, and do so myself on my EFB. But when I'm teaching IR students to fly approaches, I turn off the maps in the early stages of training, to emphasize that only a CDI/HSI provides appropriate course guidance. The map is for big-picture stuff, like helping you sanity check the course you've set, and remembering to turn the right way on the PT/HILPT/missed. One thing I very much like about moving maps, is using them as a rough reference during a time when GPS/CDI reprogramming is required at vulnerable times. A benign example would be getting cleared direct to a fix you can see on your approach plate, but that you don't have loaded in your navigator (maybe you loaded a different transition, or you loaded VTF). If you get "cleared direct to ODDFIX", and you can see it right on a geo-referenced approach plate, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a turn in the general direction of the fix and getting your wings back level, before you go heads-down to play with your navigator. I feel similarly about an immediate climbing turn on a missed approach. I've seen too many cases of pilots losing track of their bank angle and getting into a steep turn down low, because they're trying to click buttons or dial knobs while in a turn at low altitude. With one student in particular, I finally made it a rule that he could either turn the airplane or play with the nav stack, but not both at the same time. Moving maps help with this.

I like the Flight Plan page, which shows the waypoint sequence, including distances, and altitudes. The Default Nav page isn't bad, but I'm more inclined to use the Flight Plan page these days. As a CFII, I discourage use of the Map page on a navigator during instrument approaches. I feel like it's an inappropriate distraction.

Mooney went through a couple of different handles on the throttle lever during the brief quadrant run. There are indeed "tall" and "short" variants, mine is the former. One of the variants has a button on top that originally controlled the landing light, but that at least one Mooney driver placarded "Machine Guns".

Is this because the GTN interfaces to the G3X via HDSB rather than discrete signals? If so, I presume there is still some sort of integrity check associated with that connection. Maybe that integrity check is continuous, rather than performed once at startup?