MikeOH

@Shadrach Oh, he's better than that: only 29 posts, I believe

We're going round and around on this. I don't know much clearer I can be: the violation/mistake/whatever should be CAUSAL to the accident, not merely an excuse for the insurance to deny payment. Again, the lack of a valid medical was completely UNRELATED to the cause of the crash. To your extreme example, no I don't think the insurance should pay for a 'pilot' that NEVER had a certificate or medical and falsely obtained insurance; pretty simple to argue that without ever having held any certificate he was completely unqualified, had never been qualified, and the accident was CAUSED by lack of appropriate skill. I'm honestly beginning to think this debate for you is more about 'crime and punishment' for someone who you think lied rather than insurance coverage for an airplane crash. If so, there's really no point in continuing.

Yeah, that is the real question, "What was the pilot thinking???". Decades of reading accident reports and the best I can come up with is some combination of misplaced optimism and overconfidence. My 'reading between the lines' on this one is that the pilot determined there wasn't any 'weather system' or turbulence and that all he had to contend with was a thin marine layer less than a 1000 feet thick. Departing out of Camarillo is completely flat and not far from the Pacific coastline. While not current he was instrument rated. I speculate he felt confident that he could climb wings level straight out (pretty much the DP for RWY26) for less than a minute and be VMC. His self confidence was fatally misplaced, unfortunately.

While I am not convinced he was knowingly fraudulent (your quote regarding "no limit to stupidity"), let's say he was: he said he had a valid medical when applying for insurance. So, what? The lack of medical even according to the NTSB was NOT causal. So, we are back to denying claims on a legal basis based on the insurance contract....and back to wanting insurance companies to start denying claims when they can find any legal out in the contract. Again, the better argument is that he was not instrument current; that is a relevant cause! Then we are back to insurance companies using their judgement on how far out is too far out. I'm okay with that. I don't think any of us want them to start trying to deny claims based on any little thing they can come up with!

Well, I don’t think this is as simple as you might prefer. The evidence here falls way short of establishing the “brazen fraud” you posit. He was certainly licensed (certificated to be pedantic) as I saw nothing to indicate his cert was ever revoked. As far as the medical, I’m allowing for ignorance of what conditions require a new 3rd class medical when already under Basic Med rather than conclude deliberate malice. This guy paid for his mistake with his life, and fortunately didn’t hurt anyone else. And now you want to punish his grieving wife by denying the claim for the plane and having her pay for damage to the farmer’s field out of her pocket? You certainly aren’t punishing him!

Is there any evidence the lack of medical was the cause of the crash? The NTSB didn't think so. Is your contention he should be denied insurance despite the fact that the rule he broke was completely unrelated to the cause of the crash? If so, why stop there? What if he was fleeing from robbing a store but was otherwise legal? Should he be denied coverage because of that? After all, the crime is unrelated to the crash but he did just break the law, not just an FAA regulation. Or, is it just 'anything' you decide is related to aviation? So, if you knowingly fly one day out of 90 currency and crash should you be denied coverage? How about if you knowingly fly 1 pound over gross and crash due to running out of gas? Heck, there is a reg about carrying sufficient fuel so why isn't that a deliberate violation... I mean, you must have been cognizant fuel was low but deliberately and knowingly continued on anyway. Deny that coverage, right? Flying to your annual a few days after your old annual expired because of a weather delay? This guy, even per the NTSB, didn't crash because of lack of a valid medical but from spatial disorientation. Why do you feel he should be denied coverage for something unrelated to the crash? A better argument would be that he was out of instrument currency. So, we are back to who is the arbiter of how far out is too far out before coverage is denied? I'm comfortable with the insurance companies making that call. I guess I'm just tired of all the holier than thou Monday morning QBs looking for any reason to deny insurance coverage so their precious premiums don't go up. The worst are the ones that want to deny coverage for gear ups! But the moral high ground argument (oh, he broke the 'rule' so DENY, DENY, DENY!! I'm so righteous.) are tiresome, as well. Ever knowingly drive over the speed limit? Think your auto insurance should be denied if you crash while speeding? How about someone injured by your illegal actions, be they in an auto or an airplane? Should they be denied compensation from your insurance because you broke a rule or law? How about your example: you let someone drive that isn't licensed and they injure someone in a crash and you don't have assets to cover since the insurance denies coverage? Does that seem just? Change it up a bit: your unlicensed hypothetical driver is in an accident that is NOT his fault; he's sitting at a signal and is rear ended at a stoplight by an uninsured driver. You okay with your insurance denying coverage? How about if someone else in your car is injured? Still okay with coverage denied? Be careful on that high horse; the fall may hurt more than you might think.

To reiterate @Shadrach, and others, what do you buy insurance for? To cover YOUR MISTAKES! Do you really want to pay for a policy that is going to deny YOU coverage because YOU broke a rule? Be VERY careful for what you wish for when saying, "You would think" insurers should deny coverage for legally errant pilots. Ask yourself how many accident reports you have read where the pilot was innocent of any and all transgressions.

The phone number that I put in my earlier post got me to someone at Lord that answered my question, but not sure how 'technical' they were. Basically, they did a 'where used' in their inventory system using the two Mooney part numbers and both came back as 'used on' the J9613-12. No, I have not called Herber back to ask pricing now that I know the J9613-12 is the correct part number. I will repost after I have the price. I did find the J9613-12 online from Airpower for $192.63; Spruce wants $243.75

The issue I've had is that it is VERY difficult to view the back of the engine! Even resorting to using a borescope camera is not that effective.

^^^. THIS. ^^^^. is why I don't have a mice problem.

OK, I called Herber and they couldn't answer the question...but, they gave me Parker/Lord's phone: 877-275-5673. As suspected, the J9613-12 is an assembly number; each containing the J9612-8 and the J7763-1. Unfortunately, they could not provide any direct documentation for that. However, they pointed out that each part is marked with its part number; so, no real issue. Just have to verify the correct parts that match the Mooney maintenance manual part numbers come in the J9613-12 'kit'.

@N201MKTurbo The was my indication of an attempt at humor; I see that I have failed

Keep in mind a full grown mouse can fit through a 3/4” or even smaller hole

Yeah, I guess; but, I would like to point out he is already 'in there' with TWO voltmeters

@Shadrach Thank you! I'll give 'em a call tomorrow.