EricJ

Even better, you don't even need your A&P or IA to sign it! Replacing position or landing lights falls under Preventive Maintenance under Part 43 Appendix A, c-17. This is work an owner can do, but a logbook entry should be made. The only wiring an owner is allowed to repair is the landing light circuit, per Part 43 App A c-16. The above, plus the FAR 23.1383 landing light requirements quoted above, tell you that the FAA is generally not overly concerned with details around landing lights. The requirements are basic, owners are specifically allowed to replace them (and position lights, and any related reflectors and lenses), and the only wiring repairs that fall under Preventive Maintenance (i.e., that an owner can do) is to the landing light circuit. Nevertheless, your IA that signs your logbook will have an opinion, and if you want them to sign your annual, their opinion is the one that matters. My IA is one of the grumpy experienced guys that doesn't tolerate owner maintenance and is a stickler for crossing t's and dotting i's on part traceability. But if it falls under Preventive Maintenance in 43 App A, I'm good, and I've replaced my landing light and position lights with LEDs (not even expensive ones!), changed my own battery, did some fiberglass repairs to my cowl, etc., etc. As long as *I* put it in the logbook and sign it, as required, I'm good per the regs and he signs my annual.

Obviously there are plenty of learned opinions in this area that differ, some even expressed by FAA reps. What "industry standard" should be applied? Often "standards" aren't, or just cover external dimensions and maybe electrical connectivity for interchangeability, or a part may meet multiple standards, etc., etc.. If a specific standard isn't cited, it's hard to claim one applies, or which one applies and which one doesn't. MS25241-4522 covers 4522 lamps, but if it isn't cited it's hard to say it applies, and it probably wouldn't be cited if it contained a bunch of specs that weren't relevant to the application. If there's no TSO for minimum specs, it's hard to claim you don't meet them. Changing a landing light also doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a major mod or alteration. There does not seem to be a shortage of people willing to say how it actually is, but they're not consistent. Hence the usual discussions on the topic. Edit: the relevant FAR for landing lights isn't very stringent: § 23.1383 Taxi and landing lights. Each taxi and landing light must be designed and installed so that: (a) No dangerous glare is visible to the pilots. (b) The pilot is not seriously affected by halation. (c) It provides enough light for night operations. (d) It does not cause a fire hazard in any configuration. OTOH, the requirements for position lights are pretty detailed to cover things like angular coverage, chromaticity of the light, etc., etc. Hence TSOs for those.

Actually there probably are specs, e.g., TSO-C30c applies to position lights. Many of the LED replacements for incandescent lamps include a statement that they meet TSO-C30c. I don't think there's a requirement anywhere that a lamp has to be incandescent, just that it meets the minimum specs in the TSO. The IPC for my M20J doesn't even show a position light bulb as a component with a part number, just the socket assembly. I replaced a part that doesn't even appear in the IPC with a part that meets the TSO commonly cited for that component. I think that's pretty defensible. Edit: Ahg...I don't recall which model doesn't show the lamp, but my IPC actually does show an A7512-12 bulb.

My IA nagged me a bit this year since he figured out that I'm flying a lot more than 100 hours/year, so the annual test doesn't cut it. It's not sufficient that you do it every 100 hours, it has to be recorded and I didn't put it in the logbook. Pilot/owner can record that one.

Yes, the outcome of an annual should be either a return to service or a list of discrepancies provided to the owner. A refusal to do one or the other is a reasonable basis for a complaint to the FAA, and the FSDO will be interested. "Should be". The practicality is that a person might refuse, might provide a BS discrepancy list, etc., etc. There have been and certainly are and will be crooked and incompetent IAs (just like any other profession), and the FAA should be interested in relevant feedback. So, yeah, finding somebody else may, unfortunately, be a practical alternative. It's a bummer that this stuff happens, but it does.

There are Mooneys all over DVT, my home field (a bunch of the peeps are here on MS). One day while driving amongst the hangars on the way to mine, I see *my* airplane taxiing from the fuel pump back to the north hangars...wtf!?!?! Then I notice the tail number is slightly different...d'oh. I went over and met the guy, and his airplane is also a '77 J only about 25 serial numbers before mine. Nearly the exact same paint job. He's owned it for something like 25 years. Interestingly, his came from the factory with no step...we were comparing a few things that are same/different. Definitely cool when stuff like that happens.

You have good options: 1) Schmooze the IA into signing it off using the test results and SB. 2) If the IA won't sign it off, get a discrepancy list as per kortopates description. 3) Get somebody else to do the inspection, perhaps via a ferry permit if needed. I'd think either 1 or 2 should be reasonably doable. If not, then definitely #3 and add that IA to the Do Not Use list.

I think to some that may be as distasteful as flying straight-in to final. I do both if traffic permits. FWIW. Maybe I'm just a bad person.

The CiES senders will give you a pretty accurate estimate of what is in each tank based on the float position (which represents what is actually in the tank). A totalizer only tells you how much fuel has flowed through the transducer and a computation of total fuel remaining. It's not a big difference, but it is a useful one. My left tank has a small leak toward the top. I don't top it off if it's going to be sitting for a while, and if it does get topped off and sits it'll leak down a bit. An accurate sender tells me what's actually in that tank, the totalizer can't know.

I use a similar Hessaire in my hangar and it's awesome. Even in Phoenix it keeps things reasonably cool where it's pointed, and it moves a lot of air. It'll use a lot of water on a hot day on the highest settings. I keep two 5 gal water jugs full, and on a long, hot day I'll go through much of that. It's just a trip to the wash rack to fill them back up. Evaporative coolers aren't great in humid climates, though. Here in the southwest or other arid or semi-arid areas they're awesome.

More and more places these days are using the type of machine that just grabs the nosewheel and lifts it. Some of them don't put any torque on the nosewheel when turning, and some do. The ones that do there's not going to be much you can do about. FWIW, the only time I ever spoke up to somebody was when they were using that type of tug (that lifts the nosewheel) and said something along the lines of, "Mooney's have a restricted turning angle and you can damage it if you go past that." The very quick reply was, "They all do." After that I decided I wouldn't be "that guy" any more. My airplane does have the pointer and placards on the truss.

I really dislike doing that, and have very rarely done it anywhere including FB, and had never done it here until this week. And now I've done it twice here this week.

I'm still just puzzled why we pay so much for Jeppesen to take the free gov map/approach data and convert it to a proprietary format.

To add a tiny bit of info; My understanding is that he's at Maricopa County Hospital in the Arizona Burn Center there. I'm familiar with it because my brother spent quite a few months of his life there after being severely burned, getting skin grafts, etc., etc. He volunteered there for a long time after that. I said that just to say that this center is very highly regarded, and from what I saw it is well deserved.

Maybe the pump is getting hot and drawing too much current, maybe there's a short somewhere that is intermittent or dependent on something else, maybe the breaker in the switch is getting tired, but I wouldn't ignore that it's trying to tell you something. I don't know whether the breaker mechanism in the Klixon is thermal or magnetic, but sometimes thermal breakers will trip after accumulating heat for a while...e.g., the circuit has been drawing close to the breaker limit for enough time to trip it. That might happen if the pump starts drawing more current if it is getting hot, etc.