Vance Harral

There are plenty of M20Js in the Denver area. But if you get no better offers and don't mind traveling a bit north, I can offer you a ride in a 1976 M20F out of KLMO. I'm a CFI, and you can sit left seat if you like. 1976 was the last year for the F model. The instrument panel and interior are the same as a 1977 M20J (including the infamous, superior throttle quadrant ). It's the same body length, and feels/flies essentially the same. It's just about 10 knots slower in cruise, as it lacks the sloped windshield, improved cowl, and various fairings of the J model. You'll enjoy those changes if you're flying a J, but curse them if you're working on one. PM me if interested, but no hard feelings if you get a better and/or closer offer.

Me too. This is an interesting point that I had not considered, thanks.

Politely contrary opinion: keep the vacuum step if it's working. The useful load you gain by removing the vacuum pump, manifold, and servo boot is a few pounds at best, and leaving it installed doesn't hurt anything. Your vacuum pump will eventually fail, but likely not for a long time, and you no longer have to worry about when/if it fails: it's not a critical piece of equipment, won't take anything else with it, and you can easily procure a cheap used/overhauled pump when needed - perhaps even for free, from someone who is removing theirs. Cost of the electric step upgrade is $435 for the kit, plus shipping, plus a couple of hours' labor minimum for the installation work. Weight delta is less than variation in the clothes you wear in summer vs. winter, and the only other benefit is just being able to say you ditched the vacuum system, which I guess sounds cool. I do think the design is nice, and it's a good option for an actual malfunctioning system, but that's apparently not the case for the OP. To be clear, I'm all for replacing vacuum gyros with solid state, that's a separate subject. But I don't get the recommendations to spend money to remove remaining tidbits of a vacuum system that powers working steps, wing levelers, etc. I think that money is better spent on actual flying, but happy to listen to counter-arguments.

Only waypoints along the final approach course are retained. Any waypoints not aligned with the final approach course are removed.

Depends on your other equipment. A Garmin G5 can output "air data", including the pressure altitude a transponder needs to transmit Mode C altitude. However, it can only do so on its CANBUS output, and no transponder I'm aware of has a CANBUS input. If your G5 installation includes a GAD29 - which it probably will to allow your Avidyne 440 to display navigation CDI needles on the G5s - then the GAD29 can also be employed to convert CANBUS data to ARINC-429 data. Many transponders have one or more ARINC-429 inputs, and can be configured to receive pressure altitude over ARINC-429. But your installer must make that connection, and since it's not typical, many don't. In summary, (1) determine if your transponder can receive pressure altitude information via ARINC-429 inputs; (2) make sure your dual G5 installation includes a GAD29; and (3) tell your installer to wire one of the GAD29 ARINC-429 outputs to an ARINC-429 input of your transponder. If all that is done, then yes, you can get rid of your existing altitude encoder.

This change was made in GTN software revision 6.11, released in 2016. But it is incorrect to say the GTN "no longer removes the IAF/IF waypoints" after this change. Activating VTF does still remove waypoints, sometimes including the IAF. It just doesn't remove any waypoints that are along the final approach course. So for example in the GPS 29 approach to KLMO below, if you load the approach from the FIPPS IAF, then later activate VTF, FIPPS will be removed from the flight plan, but FIMUR and MELVN and RW29 will remain. Prior to revision 6.11, only MELVN (the FAF) and RW29 (the MAP) would remain.

Don't apologize. I have a master's degree in electrical engineering and about 30 years' experience in the electronics industry, and I went through exactly the same process. Building avionics wiring harnesses is not especially delicate or complicated, but like anything else you've never done before, there is a learning curve the first time. The difference between you and others is that you're actually trying to read the installation manual and follow exactly what it says. Once you've done your own, start looking at field installations done in other airplanes, and you'll soon discover that many of them are done poorly/incorrectly, and yet still "work".

Try this link, for switch caps in black: https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Electroswitch/SW53AA2?qs=5muX3C0yOnj5E%2FJxlK6wTg%3D%3D&countryCode=US&currencyCode=USD I didn't glue mine on as others have mentioned. I'm sure it will fall off eventually, but it's been there for months with no trouble. At about a buck apiece, just buy a dozen and keep spares handy.

PT20J has it right above: read the AFMS. That said, one key to the Garmin Autopilots is the "scoreboard" displayed at the top of the G5/G3X/whatever. Left side is lateral mode, right side is vertical mode. Green means active. White means armed (one mode can be active while another is armed). Blinking means transitioning from armed to active. I'm deliberately not providing more details, you can get those from the AFMS. But in my instructing, most people I fly with who are surprised by autopilot actions are not correlating the control inputs they're surprised by with the mode in which the autopilot is operating.

It's the connection from the "shield" wire inside a shielded, twisted pair, to the "block" (usually the connector frame) of the device the shielded wire connects to. See the linked video below:

I highly recommend SteinAir for supplies: http://steinair.com. They have videos that show how this stuff wires together: https://www.steinair.com/support/videos/ Among other supplies, they have a reasonably priced pin crimping tool: https://www.steinair.com/product/4-way-indent-crimper/. Others may pooh-pooh this particular crimper as "cheap", but it got the job done for us with no trouble and our installation has been reliable so far. My recollection is that the GAD13 requires only the low-density pins, but for an extra couple of sawbucks you can get the high density insert as well. They also have a nice, inexpensive ratcheting lug crimper: you'll want both of https://www.steinair.com/product/ratcheting-crimper-frame-only/ and https://www.steinair.com/product/insulated-terminal-die-only/ if you need this. Don't use a non-ratcheting hand crimper for this job! Regarding wiring, the 22AWG M22759 unshielded for this job is just for power/ground, so you probably don't need much. But it's inexpensive, so you can get a dozen feet or so of each and have plenty to spare. I like red for power, black for ground, and white for signal, but there is not really an "aviation wiring color code" to follow, and many installers just use white for everything. The M27500 is "inexpensive" shielded twisted pair, and is only needed if you need more than a 10' run from the OAT probe to the GAD 13, because the OAT probe already comes with 10' of shielded twisted pair wiring. The CANBUS wire is expensive, but you hopefully only need a short section to run from the GAD13 to the nearest adjacent G5 or GAD device. Frankly, you can get away with using M27500 for that run, but most people pony up for the CANBUS wire. Also, while I am not discouraging you from following the Garmin wiring diagram to the exact letter, most modern installations I'm familiar with do not run independent shield termination with 16AWG and/or braid as indicated in the wiring diagram. Instead, they use pre-fabricated solder sleeves with pigtail connections, see https://www.steinair.com/product/14-solder-sleeve-wpigtai/. Suggest buying a handful of these in both the 1/4" and 1/8" sizes. You do, in fact, need small gauge solder sleeves *or* crimps to make the "daisy chain" connection for the CANBUS wiring from the nearest G5/GAD device to the GAD13. Buy extra and be careful, as amateurs (like myself) tend to screw it up the first time. Same thing with the ring terminals: they are inexpensive, so buy extra. Highly recommend you purchase a "de-pinning" tool, in case you make a mistake pinning the connectors. Again, these come in both low- and high-density sizes: https://www.steinair.com/product/insertionremoval-tool-for-larger-type-pins-mil-spec/ and https://www.steinair.com/product/insertionremoval-tool-for-high-density-d-sub-pins-mil-spec/, respectively. I think you only need low density. I know I've put a lot of SteinAir links above, but I'm not trying to shill for them, necessarily. I am testifying that we used their parts and supplies for our own DIY installation and found everything to be of good quality.

You are looking for something that doesn't exist. There is no FAR or other government regulation that constrains the ability of U.S. Citizens to receive and log dual flight instruction. Looking for an FAR that expressly permits children to do this is like looking for an FAR that expressly permits women, Christians, Democrats, people who live in Tennesee, etc. to receive and log flight instruction. There are restrictions on non-US citizens seeking flight training in direct pursuit of a certificate or rating. There is also the Child Pilot Safety Act which prevents children from manipulating the controls of an aircraft in pursuit of an aviation record. I presume neither of these things apply to the OP, though only they know for sure.

I quote straight from the proverbial horse's mouth: the FAA. Look at the very first question at the top of https://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/student_cert Again, you are confusing have a student pilot certificate - which you need to solo - with being a student. Those two things are completely independent.

Yes, but one does not need a student pilot certificate to receive dual instruction, only to solo. I can see why the local flight schools might not be particularly interested in teaching an 11-year-old. There's a certain cognitive ability and practical height requirement for the instruction to be meaningful, whether it's logged or not. But each kid is different, and there's no specific reason younger kids can't have a lot of fun and a great experience on an occasional instructional flight. As with any other endeavor, makes sure it's the kid's desire, not the adults surrounding him/her. Regrettably, I'm not in that area, or I'd be happy to offer a ride. With a little perseverance, the OP can probably link up with someone like-minded.

What I'm getting at is that each revision of G5 software is associated with a set of documents. i.e. when you go to https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?partNumber=K10-00280-01&tab=manuals, you must select a specific version of software to get the corresponding documents. If you upgrade your G5 software, you're definitely supposed to print the AFMS associated with the new version of software and put it in your POH/AFM, and I think we'd all agree that makes sense. But I don't know what to make of corresponding changes in the installation manual. For the sake of discussion, let's say your G5s were installed with software revision 4.0 in 2017. That installation would have been associated with installation manual rev. 9, and maybe has both units on the primary bus. If you finally get around to installing software revision 8.0 this month, that's associated with installation manual rev. 29. Because of that, the rev 8.0 software could, theoretically, contain code that assumes the dual G5s are installed on separate primary/avionics busses. But your airplane isn't going to be wired that way unless you update your wiring. I'm not suggesting there's any kind of "real" problem here, and I don't think anyone should lose sleep over it. It just piques my interest because I'm involved in a line of work that has similar hardware/software/manual versioning concerns.

Yes, though interestingly, the requirement for the ADI and HSI to be on different busses didn't show up until later revisions of the G5 installation manual. Specifically, that requirement is found in rev. 17 of the G5 installation manual, but not in rev. 13. I can't find any copies of the revisions in-between those two, but the revision notes in rev. 17 cover back through rev. 13, and yet don't make any note of the power distribution requirements. Seems like this requirement was sorta "slid in" to the manual without any fanfare. Anyway, if you get in an airplane with dual G5s and they both power up on the main bus, that doesn't necessarily mean the installer didn't follow the manual. It may have been installed in accordance with an earlier manual. It's not entirely clear to me if you can legally update the G5 software in such an installation without re-wiring the power distribution, but that's a nitpick, and I'm certainly not going to hassle anyone about it.

The G5 ADAHRS works fine without a magnetometer, as evidenced by the fact that a single G5 ADI installation doesn't require the magnetometer. Once you've got the magnetometer, though, you don't want to try to disconnect it from either G5. The reason is that all this stuff talks to each other through a CANBUS backbone. If you remove the CANBUS connection from your G5 ADI, then in addition to losing the magnetometer data, you'll also lose the CDI display, and the mechanism that allows one G5 to detect the other has failed.

It appears the OP had the G5 ADI originally, and recently added the HSI, and is now missing the way track was displayed on the ADI. We had this same experience. The short answer is, you still have track information on the ADI, it's just not as prominent. It's the little tiny magenta triangle in the top "tape", shown at 290 degrees in the picture below. It's easy to miss if you don't know to look for it, but it's there. This particular image shows the aircraft on a heading of 282, and a track of 290.

It's a pretty tight fit, but hard to say whether you got the wrong part without pictures. All I can say is that when I've replaced that screen, the inner diameter portion of the screen always winds up slightly "flared" after pressing it around the structure of the selector.

There's a pervasive opinion that keeping the gear in the wells of an RG aircraft is a critical component of a safe ditching. But the only serious analysis I've ever found suggests it probably doesn't matter, see "Myth 5" at http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm Note that this analysis doesn't involve the specific case of forgetting to raise the gear for a water landing in an amphib, which is a totally different subject, but sometimes trotted out when people insist you'll immediately flip upside down with the gear out. If this assertion doesn't pass your common sense test, think a moment about the geometries. Imagine you're ditching in your 35' wingspan Mooney (17.5' per side) with its 5.5 degree dihedral. The height of the wingtip over the water in a perfectly level touchdown on glass-smooth surface is only tan(5.5) * 17.5 = 1.7 feet. That's not much clearance. It's well within the range of normal beach waves, boat wakes, or blue-water swells. Throw in even a degree or two of bank past level at touchdown, and I'd say it's very likely you're going to catch a wingtip if you ditch gear up. So in practice, the gear up/down decision is the choice between sticking the gear legs in the drink first, vs. sticking a wingtip first. Neither of those is appealing. Both could easily result in rapid submerging. and they're probably in the same range of risk. Proponents of the "keep the gear up" strategy seem to assume you'll slide the belly smoothly into the water, perhaps after skipping a couple of times like a flat stone. But I think that's extremely unlikely in practice, and therefore a bad assumption to plan on. Anyway, not trying to convince people one way or the other about their strategy, just giving some information that doesn't seem to get into the debate very often.

Not really my place to speak for him, but since gsxrpilot's name was bandied around here briefly, I thought I should note that I talk to Paul on a regular basis. He still has his Mooney, still enjoys flying it (along with his taildragger), and doesn't have anything negative to say about Mooneyspace. He doesn't have anything positive to say about Mooneyspace either - he doesn't talk about it at all. But I know he didn't leave in a huff, has no bone to pick. While his specific reasons for not visiting here any more are his own, I'm pretty certain it has little to do with the nature of this community, and much to do with a healthy desire to get off the internet and enjoy real life. Those of you that think he got "run off" are reading far, far too much into things.

Well, you learn something new every day. I was about to post how you can't do that, but then I thought "Ragsf15e is pretty smart, he probably knows what he's talking about". Sure enough, with GTN navigators and per the AIM, you can legally use GPS guidance on a conventional VOR approach. See https://bruceair.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/use-of-gps-on-conventional-approaches-update/ I'm a little embarrassed that I'm 5 years late on this "news".

Yes, GPS LNAV approaches have fixed sensitivity from the FAF to the MAP. These approaches are "older", I guess (I'm old enough that every GPS approach seems "new" to me...); but they're still in use everywhere obstacles or other factors preclude having an LPV approach. The A-N/NDB/VOR transmitters around which non-precision approaches were originally developed are angular, so course width narrows as you get closer to them. However, the practical behavior of the CDI needle on these approaches depends on where the transmitter is relative to the airport. When the transmitter is on the airport, the non-precision approach narrows significantly from the FAF to the MAP, just like an ILS or LPV. However, in many (my guess is most) cases, the navaid on which a ground-based approach depends is not on the airport, but instead far enough away that there is no significant difference in needle sensitivity between the FAF and MAP. The best analog for that in a GPS implementation is fixed sensitivity, and I'm guessing that's why LNAV approaches work that way. Probably a lot of discussion about it during development, but I don't have any direct insight into how the decisions were made.

While I haven't read the study, I'm sure you're telling the truth. Be a little careful with the audience being studied, though. There are operational differences between "professional crews" and "average GA pilots", worth thinking about. I mention this because anecdotally, as a piston GA CFI, I'll tell you that my experience is exactly the opposite of the NASA study. Pilots I fly with who use electronic checklists are more prone to make checklist errors than those using paper. I don't know why this is, and I don't discourage electronic checklist usage, but it ain't a panacea. I think part of the difference doesn't really have much to do with electronic vs. paper, but rather that because electronic checklists are arguably easier to customize, they're more often to be customized by pilots who aren't actually skilled in the art of what constitutes a good checklist. That would be another major difference between my experience and the NASA study of professional crews.

The operational advantage is not to you, the individual pilot; but to the TERPS staff who design the approaches, other pilots already used to flying them, and the overall integration and track record of the system as a whole. There is a long history and body of work associated with high-precision approaches having angular rather than linear sensitivity (ILS technology was first tested in 1929). TERPS staff know how to design such approaches using standards that have achieved unparalleled operational efficiency and safety, including Cat III autoland in 0/0 conditions. There is no good reason to change all this just because GPS is "naturally" linear rather than angular. It would likely introduce confusion and new problems in exchange for no benefit. I'm not saying it's wrong to be miffed by this if you're new to the game and and a GPS "native". But as with getting ATC vectors as headings rather than track, and consuming weather information with teletype-era abbreviations... everyone already in the game knows how to use these things, and there is no particular operational advantage to changing them. In summary, why shouldn't a GPS-based "precision" approach have angular sensitivity just like an ILS? What would be the operational advantage of having it work differently?