MikeOH

As a native, lifelong southern Californian, I know not of what you speak

In the words of Dr. Phil, "How's that working for you?"

Another, YAY. I've been using W100+ exclusively for the three years I've owned...and the previous owner used it for the previous 13 years and 1000 hours.

Load test is the sure fire way to know.

That's interesting info about battery minders...one of the reasons I haven't used mine is that it always seemed to me that doing ANYTHING electrical TO a battery is not the best idea in the world. Yeah, I know the fancy battery minder is more sophisticated than a simple trickle charger, but I bet it's 'pulsing' the battery periodically. Not much, but just never seemed like a good idea to constantly be doing that. Makes more sense to me to check charge state every month if you're not flying and just bring to full charge and then disconnect. I have the same setup: Concorde and SkyTech. I'm on my way to pick up the battery in a few minutes; 9 years is pretty good, IMO!

I looked up the S/N in the log. book, but have not been to the hangar to verify. I'll do that tomorrow, but really need to already have the battery in order to make my departure time. I do have a battery minder (PO included it with the sale) but have never used it; never needed it as I typically fly 2 to 3 times per week. 20-20 hindsight is I should have hooked it up yesterday after my flight! Oh, well. Yeah, if it turns out it's really 9 years old I'm not going to be too upset! I am a CB, but that might be pushing things to expect a decade!

Thank you! I think I'll get up early tomorrow and head over to AircraftSpruce.

He forgot the safety wire!

I've had my M20F three years and its Concorde RG35 may be EOL...log book shows it was installed in 2011 (of course it's possible it's been replaced since with no entry). Last two times I flew it the prop seemed a bit slow but it always starts in a blade or two, so I didn't dwell on it. But, on a hot start it stopped on a compressions stroke a couple of times before I got it started. The hot start was Monday after getting fuel. Yesterday was the second flight but I just did some T&Gs (oh, the horror. I know). But, when I was starting, I noticed that right after start I was seeing about 3/4 deflection on the ammeter. After taxi and run up it was back to zero. But, normally I don't see that high a charge right after a typical one/two blade start (which this was). No, I don't know when the battery was last load tested, and I doubt it was done at annual last January. It looks like a new one is around $350, so I'd like not to jump to the conclusion it's the battery. I have a flight tomorrow and have time to put in a new battery in the morning, but it's not likely I can find an A&P to load test tomorrow morning and still get the battery installed. Anything else that is likely to have failed, or is replacing the battery without further troubleshooting a pretty good $350 bet?

Correct. They have ATPs, mandatory recurrent training, and a co-pilot. I don't think we want that, either. In the context of existing vintage (read, relatively low cost) aircraft, warning systems are about all that will be economically feasible. However, if the goal is really to stop gear-ups, relinquishing the right to screw up is going to be mandatory; acceptance of a auto-extend system would accomplish that goal for new aircraft. Could you dream up some scenario where it would fail? Yeah, probably...but we'd be in the noise for gear-ups.

Hmm, "He heard and observed an extremely low flying airplane buzz overhead. The airplane made about a 45 degree banking turn towards the ridgeline when he heard a hydraulic noise ("gggeee"); he observed the landing gear doors open and the landing gear extend. He reported that the gear took about three seconds to lower; it wasn't a sudden drop. The witness also stated that it didn't sound as if the airplane was operating at full power, but at about half power. As the airplane leveled off in a southwesterly direction, it barely cleared the powerlines along the road and proceeded towards the ridge before going out of sight. About five seconds later they observed a plume of smoke. The witness mentioned that it appeared as if the pilot was "showing off." You misconstrue if you think I want this particular system in my plane. I brought this up only as a method to eliminate gear-ups...I'm hearing that technology can solve this...adding modern technology would work. But, alas, there is a general attitude of "I don't, and I won't.". It's just amazing to me that many advocate all manner of WARNING systems, but an advanced auto-extend system is scorned...kinda like the Cirrus chutes originally were (still are) And, I don't believe the AD mandates removal...the option is to read the POH (training)!

WOW! Not the best example, I'm afraid. This genius was yanking and banking at low altitude. Sure, the gear put the nail in his coffin, but I'm sure not going to condemn auto-extend as an excuse for his stupidity. And, imagine that, the FAA actually had to issue an AD to tell pilots to read the flippin' POH???

Sorry, Hank, but without some real data I'm going to call hyperbole on stall-spin deaths due to the Arrow auto-extend system! Further, as has been pointed out with new tech bitchin' Bettys, it would be pretty simple to incorporate an AGL altitude system to eliminate your example possibility. I maintain that pilots are good with any level of 'warnings,' but simply won't accept automation putting the gear down if they forget.

I have no issue with incremental improvements; I mean, why not? I'm not as optimistic that they will significantly reduce gear-ups, but am not against them in any way. I'm surprised with your experience that you think ANYTHING in aviation is going to be only $20 However, I am also surprised at the reluctance and push-back to implement auto-extend. There is no doubt gear-ups would be extremely rare. Seems like investing a couple thousand bucks to save what, $20K, for a gear-up is pretty simple math. Oh, yeah, that doesn't count 'cause it's the INSURANCE companies money

Those situations are what the override was for. Would eliminating gear-ups offset the few situations you describe? What's the data show for those Arrows? Anyone know how many Arrows with the auto-extend have landed gear up? I'll bet it's NONE. (Mechanical failures excepted) I think it failed to 'catch-on' because 'real' pilots didn't like a decision being made for them. Even though the system was better at it than they were!

How much more was an Arrow with the auto-extend vs. one without? Do we want to ELIMINATE gear-ups? What level of gear-ups do you find okay? People are going to ignore the verbal warnings just like the horns and buzzers. I don't think it's going to be the panacea that you hope it to be.

Yes, IIRC, the Piper Arrow had an auto-extend landing gear system many years ago. Seems we should just mandate that and it would nearly eliminate gear-ups except for mechanical failures. And a few more due to pilots disabling the system, but insurance companies could just deny claims for those so our rates wouldn't increase. Everyone okay with that technology solution?

OK, back to pillorying... Yes, I think it is hard. Do gear ups have to exist? Well, do CFIT accidents have to exist? How about base-final, or departure, stall-spins? How about VFR into IMC? Loss of control on landing? It comes down to if we want the freedom to accept risks higher than those of Part 121, or even what today's technology is capable of providing. I was only being half sarcastic in my previous post: IF you DEMAND these accidents go away then you MANDATE higher training (ATP) and more of it (6 month Flight Reviews). That WILL work. Is that the GA you envision and desire? As to technology, think that through as well. It has been popular to ridicule the Clorox plane parachutes; now they literally have the 'blue button' auto-land. Why not let the plane land every time? That would cut down on stall-spins and LOC on landings. We have on-board weather. How about AI that would PREVENT you from continuing towards weather that HAL9000 thinks is beyond your capabilities? Again, is that the GA you envision and desire? There is NO question that any and all of the above would reduce accidents, injuries and deaths. Be very careful what you ask for.

Gee, why not mandate we all have ATP ratings and fly with a co-pilot?

Not at all. No question they are 'overpriced' but they ALWAYS have been. Classic capitalism and no real competitors. Buy, or not. My plane came with a 430W so I bend over and take the subscription price because I want to fly IFR. But, no way am I spending another dime on Big G glass avionics; my six pack is just fine, thank you. We keep going back and forth on this...it's the SUDDEN and EXTREME price hike in our insurance premiums that I maintain is NOT 'classic capitalism.'. Yeah, I get it, you think we light GA pilots paying for BOEING's losses is still 'classic capitalism.'. I don't. We need to move on; neither one of us is going to convince the other.

Damn! Looks like they should just do PL and pro turbine! Every other market is a loser....just surprised it took multiple decades to figure out they needed to raise premiums 40% to make it work;)

Hmm, we may be hung up the definition of 'subsidy.'. To me, it's an industry that cannot survive without outside 'donations' from, say, the government. If you are referring to reinsurers that allow individual carriers to survive rare, out-of-norm, losses, then I agree. But, that's not a subsidy to me, anyway.

Oh, puuhhleese! After decades "they" are fed up and have banded together to say,"no more! Stick it to light GA!" and pressured the insurance industry to raise our premiums by 40% in a single year. Yeah, that's way more believable than we're paying for the BOEING MAX losses from a year ago <sarcasm> I do agree 100% with your second point; "they" have been pressuring Congress for years and after these China virus losses you may well be right that user fees are now a near certainty.

Well, I had someone once tell me that, "you can't eat a percent.". It's the real dollar payout that counts. I have no doubt we have the worst loss ratio percentage. But compared to the magnitude of the claims paid out in other aviation markets, I suspect ours are a drop in the bucket. The idea that our whole light GA insurance market wouldn't even exist without outside subsidy doesn't pass the sniff test.

Seems the extraction tool P/Ns are buried in TE's catalog: https://www.te.com/commerce/DocumentDelivery/DDEController?Action=showdoc&DocId=Catalog+Section82021_CPC_sections1-50807pdfEnglishENG_CS_82021_CPC_sections1-5_0807.pdf205842-1 For example, page 47: