DXB

Hi - If you have them, I'd like to buy: (1) the complete adjustable cowl flap system (I do not need the flaps themselves) - I have a '68 where they were in fixed position and I want to convert them to adjustable. (2) the metal duct tubes on each side that blow air on your feet on each side and are controlled by a butterfly valve near the end (the butterfly valves in mine a broken).

I truly regret having read the title of this thread and everything that came thereafter. Such Cirrus owner behavior in the Mooney community

Hard to believe a Cirrus pilot would behave that way. That community has an impeccable reputation.

And then I bet there's differences in how water traps and dislodges for those of us who have bladders vs. wet wings... less data on the former perhaps

I can’t say I fully understand your points but do appreciate the helpful discussion. My POH preflight list says to dump some fuel from the gascolator first, switching tanks once during the process, before sumping the tanks. I assumed this was to clear any water and sediment in the lowest part of the fuel system that is distal to the tanks’ low points at the wing tank sumps. As this accident shows, significant water can also persist in the tanks proximal to the wing tank sumps even after pulling out a lot of water and then presumably clean fuel at the sumps. I fail to see how dumping fuel from the gascolator at any point in the preflight process would be much more effective at clearing that water in the tanks than drawing more fuel from the sumps. It would be effective at clearing water distal to the tank sumps in the fuel system, but I suspect that water alone isn’t enough to get me to the runway and kill the engine on takeoff - therefore I don’t follow item 1 on my POH preflight checklist every time and didn’t think failing to drain from the gascolator was a key omission in this accident. What am i missing here?

I only drain the gascolator every few flights, and mainly to clear any sediment that might eventually plug up the screen - I don't bother to collect it to examine for water.

Good reminder that if you find a lot of water when draining from the sump, simply continuing to drain until it's gone is insufficient. Would also draining from the gascolator have made much difference here? I doubt it. What was sitting in the gascolator at startup was already burned off before the takeoff attempt, and continuing to drain through the gascolator using the fuel selector ring may not have been sufficient to clear the water settled in some areas of the tank. People describe a cyclic process of agitating the wings from the tips, high speed taxi, letting the plane sit for >30 min before draining from the sump again several times before being sure the water is gone. I'm not sure I'd even be satisfied with that.

Seems unlikely - perhaps unprecedented, which would make it a very notable event. Perhaps @Greg Ellis could clarify?

Per the narrative, I'm not sure when, why, and how the poster pulled an oil sample here, but most people do oil analysis when changing the oil. Looking at the filter at the same time would have caught the issue earlier with far more definitive interpretation. In this context oil analysis added nothing.

That looks like its leaking from the fitting used to fill the reservoir via the thick tube from the other side of the firewall. The very top has a fitting with a skinny copper tube routed to the other side of the firewall for pressure relief (also apparent in the pic). If the pressure relief line isn't fully patent and the reservoir is overfilled, stuff will leak from wherever it can. Perhaps its leaking around loose threads for the filler fitting now that bottom o-rings are tight. You could try to plunge the pressure relief tube with a wire or something. I don't think it's a big deal though - it should stop leaking at some point when the level in the reservoir drops a bit more.

Which one? It would be fun to dig a little deeper...

And in those instances the issue would have been clearly evident using the standard routine measures - e.g. simply looking at the oil filter medium - which might have been neglected too long based on excess confidence in oil analysis. If it's the oil analysis results after oil change that makes you bother to look in your filter then you're not doing it right.

You are misconstruing my point. I have not claimed that oil analysis has no value because it does not provide clear diagnostic information "on its own" - what I assert is quite to the contrary. I am saying that when used in conjunction with the other standard monitoring strategies that everyone should be doing for their piston aircraft engines, it adds zero value as a routine screening test based on the outcomes that matter - primarily safety, secondarily cost. To prove my point outright, one would need an experiment with owners randomized to two groups with oil analysis vs. no oil analysis while doing all the appropriate routine monitoring similarly and measure safety-related engine events and total expense. I am claiming the likelihood of zero benefit in the oil analysis group in such a prospective experiment simply because screening tests in the medical world with similar properties (e.g. limited sensitivity/specificity) have usually offered no net patient benefit in prospective randomized trials despite integration with all the other clinical information available. People should quit wasting time and (admittedly modest) money on oil analysis - and ignorance is appropriately bliss when it comes to those numbers on your Blackstone report and the company's vague shaman-like interpretative narratives on them. Those who are not already handy with using a borescope, looking at their top spark plugs, examining their filters and screens, tracking their oil consumption, and looking at their engine monitor data should focus on those skills instead. A further risk of oil analysis is that stable numbers on the report will delude the user into thinking no other monitoring is needed.

A very pertinent analogy - much of my seething disdain for routine use of oil analysis in our planes derives from professional knowledge of the history of screening tests for cancer - most of which have done more harm than good by triggering risk-laden invasive testing and sometimes major cancer surgeries on tumors that posed little or no risk. When you do a randomized prospective trial trying to prove benefit of any screening tool in medicine, the answer is usually the same - no net benefit, sometimes harm. The analogy of routine oil analysis in our planes was striking to me when I first started sending it 9 years ago as a new owner and trying to interpret the results in any useful way on top of all the other monitoring I remain diligent about. If one did a prospective trial with oil analysis, I bet the answer would be identical - the odds are heavily stacked against it helping us. BTW, truly useful cancer screening tests can presently be counted on one hand after tons of effort, so the bar for a new one is appropriately high. We all remember the way PSA testing results were applied in the 90's and 00's - it led to impotence and incontinence in a lot of guys from prostatectomies for tumors that would have never caused them a real problem. Those guys wish they never had the test (which is now used in a more nuanced way but still has issues).

Nope. In both cases the owner cutting open the oil filter routinely at appropriate interval oil changes would have provided a more reliable indicator of problems than the oil analysis. It sounds like an owner was sending oil analyses and putting confidence in them rather than looking in his filter - another scenario where oil analysis is actually worse than worthless.

I've as yet to hear any compelling case for its value for our piston aircraft engines, and I certainly didn't find value in it personally during the few years I was religiously using Blackstone. Having value would mean it provides actionable information that could not be obtained easily and in a timely manner by the other routine monitoring we all should be doing. It does provide tons of data that is not actionable, and the potentially actionable info it can provide is far less definitive than that offered other routine monitoring measures we should be doing anyway (e.g. examining filter and screen, borescope of cylinders, annual compression tests). And two features can make it worse than worthless: (1) It often leads to findings with ultimately no significance for the health of the engine that cause pointless worry (2) Some folks have certainly used it in place of far more reliable measures - e.g. the folks being reassured by normal stable oil analyses, only to have their A&P find gobs of metal in the filter from spalled cam/lifters.

THIS! Blackstone or Avlab? The correct and cheapest answer is #3. No oil analysis. I did find Avlab's electron microscopy svc useful once in reassuring me that some nonferrous hard particles I found once were not metallic.

It took a while to get mine adjusted right - it's damn annoying if it goes off at MPs >>12. I could see someone tearing it out from frustration even though it is a useful safety feature when correctly adjusted. It would be nice to upgrade the horn for it, along with the stall horn also, to less abrasive and more modern-sounding noise makers - has anyone done this?

Good question - simple ETD alone really shouldn't disqualify anyone though I'm not sure what the FAA's stance is - it's so common, and most of us have it to some degree - merely a bit of pressure and popping with rapid altitude changes in mildest form. By contrast, ETD causing vertigo is pretty unusual (aka "alternobaric vertigo" which can happen with bad asymmetric ETD and usually occurs on ascent rather than descent). Careful history and testing is important here because such symptoms can closely overlap with Meniere's disease. Also a tympanostomy (ear tube) should be "curative" for folks with this problem though these require some maintenance and can plug or extrude from the ear drum. Best outcome for these folks is when a small nonhealing ear drum perforation is left behind after the tube extrudes.

They're really bad in spring and fall - like starting right now - luckily my Eustachian tube dysfunction isn't that bad - and an extra spray shot of the steroids straight back toward my Eustachian tube orifice this time of year really seems to help that issue.

It's worth noting diphenhydramine (Benadryl) can be detected in blood up to 48 hours after a dose and so might not have been a factor in the accident or even been used illegally per FAA guidelines. Regardless, as an antihistamine, there are so many other cheap, effective options over the counter (OTC) with much better side effect profiles that still using Benadryl for this purpose makes zero sense. As we head into allergy season, it's nice for hay fever cripples like me to review the current FAA guidelines on OTC allergy meds: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/AllergyAntihistamineImmunotherapyMedication.pdf My suggested FAA- approved seasonal allergy OTC regimen based on personal experience and professional knowledge is as follows: (1) first start a steroid nasal spray (FAA approved) - very effective, use it every day consistently for benefit because it has little effect with single use. It has a very safe side effect profile, even with long term daily use (2) if that's not enough, add daily desloratadine or loratadine (Clarinex/Claritin). FAA approved, H1 receptor selective drug with minimal sedating anticholinergic side effects of diphenydramine. (3) if that's not enough, use daily fexofenadine (Allegra) instead of (2). It's an FAA approved, more potent H1 receptor selective drug that causes minimal sedation. Allegra-D (fexofenadine with added pseudoephedrine) is also a great option for extra decongestion and is FAA approved. You can also legally add pseudoephedrine with any of these meds to great benefit- I'd suggest the 12 hr extended release form. (4) if that's STILL not enough, add on daily montelukast (Singulair), which is not OTC and requires a prescription and works by a completely different mechanism. Though it's FAA approved, I'd still be careful with it - it causes brain fog in me so I can't use it - I think I'm in the minority though. (5) If you still have prominent eye symptoms after all that, use one of the listed approved eye drop antihistamines, which are excellent. Some are OTC like Pataday (what I use). Just remember not to put it on top of contacts; put the drops in a few minutes before inserting contacts. (6) If you still have prominent nasal symptoms after all that, use OTC azelastine (Astelin/Astepro) nasal spray 1-2x/day- another topical antihistamine. It is also FAA approved and could also be used up front instead of (2)/(3) but I prefer to use a low side effect oral drug first since you can treat all the affected mucous membranes with one pill. I also find it uncomfortably drying for my nose and so only use it occasionally when things get really bad. It's also worth noting that the most potent OTC H1-selective antihistamine is actually cetirizine (Zyrtec) - an excellent choice instead of (2)/(3) for the folks like me who need all the help they can get. It causes no sedation in me but does so in some folks and unfortunately it is not FAA approved for this reason - you legally can use it intermittently but not while flying.

CO can get in the cockpit various ways, but unfortunately any increase in CO that has precise temporal correlation with opening the heat means there is an exhaust leak from the muffler into the heat shroud. In this case the leak is miniscule and thus not an immediate threat when you turn on the heat, but that can change very quickly. I would suggest inspecting the muffler ASAP.

oops typo - meant 3.5hrs/qt, not the inverse... which is consistent with the formula

It's been a long time since I've been on Air Canada - sounds much worse than I recall. I mostly fly American in the US. Obviously modern service is far below what is once was in the golden age of aviation, but their cabin crew almost always seem competent, polite, hard-working, and professional. On my last flight, being served by two overweight middle aged men in the cabin made me chuckle a bit, reminding me how much things have changed from the days of stewardesses in short dresses and height, weight, and age requirements. Those two guys were great though, and that particular change is probably for the best.

Just don't get a ACK E-04 ELT, total POS. 8 years after install, it has started false alarming relentlessly. And when it goes off, it's very hard to silence - keeps triggering again and again. Company claims adjacent wiring caused it but nothing was changed for years before it started acting up. I disabled it I make sure my PLB is handy for now. I'll replace it with an Artex one in the next year ($$$) - they even made a version of their panel mount controller that fits into the cutout for the ACK because so many folks need to replace those.