0TreeLemur

Plane has been in the shop 3+ weeks. Shop is over 2-hour drive from home. My A&P has a day job does most of his work nights and Saturdays. Aviation-related withdrawals are setting in.

I was thinking about this today too, and I agree. Why in the world make someone learn how to repair a helicopter if they don't want/need to? We have limitations on our certificates. Why can't A&P's have limitations? Sorry, I can't work on ... (turbines, helicopters, fabric, &c...). I'm a PPSEL. I ain't gonna get in a twin and pretend to know how to fly it. I'd never try to fly a float plane... Given the shortage, it seems that allowing incremental certification for mechanics would make a lot of sense. I suppose the counter argument to this is "you never know what's going to land at your FBO and need repairing". True, but not my problem. Many FBO's have _no_ mechanic.

Understand that. I was an engineering professor for 22 years and made my share of students have a bad day when they didn't know their stuff.

I've been thinking about it for years. I read a recent Flying magazine article that said one of the reasons for the new standards is that it anticipates some online or computer-based training. That might bring about big changes. Going to school 6 hours a day for at least 18 months just doesn't sound like any fun. Working with a local A&P shop and doing only course modules might be doable.

That's a commitment. Good on ya.

Two challenges that I see presented by AI. 1. A fully autonomous AI pilotage system must have a backup not on the aircraft. This will require secure digital comms between a backup facility and the aircraft, and an independent secondary sensor system. 2. An AI system cannot get up out of the chair. Sometimes that is necessary for one reason or another I suppose. In full disclosure, I asked Bing images (AI) to create an image of an aircraft cockpit with no seats or instruments, just a big on/off switch and big button labeled "REBOOT". It failed. Note seats are still there. It had no dials, but many switches and lights remained on the panels. It didn't add the switch/button I asked for. So I had to use gimp to edit that image and get what I wanted. On the plus side, I do like the air ducts down where the rudder pedals would normally reside though.

Tom, my question wasn't clear. I had a JPI EDM900 in my C, so I know how those work. My question is, if connected as shown with the JPI substituting for the analog fuel gauge, will the Low Fuel annunciator lights still work?

JPI EDM900 install proceeding, albeit slowly. My A&P has a day job. I have a question with reference to the attached pdf. We connect the JPI EDM900 in place of the analog gauge. Is it possible keep the connection to the "Low Fuel Level" indicators in the Annunciator in an '83 J, when connected as shown? Thanks, Fred fuel_sender_wiring.pdf

I was taught to orient prop horizonally to keep rainwater out of the hub seal area. If freezing is a concern, I can see that trapping water in the spinner would be bad if it freezes. Does anyone make a prop cover for planes parked outside in cold climates?

The shop that helped me upgrade my PC system to include Accutrak, Accuflite, and altitude hold in my C is located in Mississippi. PM me for details if you want them.

Four weeks ago I ordered from AS 2 ea. 27S3-7 camlocs, which are the longer ones used in the aft-most holes on the top-cowl. They were back ordered and arrived two days ago. Spruce's P/N is 1127004-7. Q: Split washers installed on the stem keep them from falling out. A couple of the holes in my cowl are worn to the point where they fall out anyway. Is there such a thing as an oversized split washer?

She's a beauty! Congratulations! Go Brittain!

Removing an EI CGR-30P engine monitor from a 1983 Mooney M20J (engine: IO-360 A1B6D) for an upgrade. Originally installed by prior a/c owner in 2020. Main display shows RPM & FF at top, plus: Oil Temp., Volts, OAT., CHT (4) or EGT (4). Secondary screen shows est. Fuel Remaining. Photo of actual unit in operation below. This unit has programmed color bars/ranges for a 1983 M20J. Probably applicable to other year M20Js. Other aircraft models will almost certainly require a factory reprogramming. This one unit alone does not allow you to remove the existing instrument cluster. It does not show fuel level, fuel pressure, oil pressure, manifold pressure or Amps. Works great for managing your engine power output and fuel flow. Sale includes display and sensor box, rpm sender, oil temperature sender and ff sender. I'll include CHT and EGT probes, depending on condition after removal. Removed working. Asking 3.300 AMUs as is. PM me if interested. Fred

You are correct. Long day.

Interesting idea. Our J is 14V. Problem is, I have plans for that 2-1/4" hole where the ammeter is. An AV-30-S is going in there. That would be great if the shunt is the same. They have such small resistance not sure how to tell how similar they are. I'll do some digging.

Pirep: Very busy airport under MIA class B shelf. Got assigned an arrival route. Parked at International Flight Center. $50 facility fee waived if you buy 15 gal. min. Fuel price $7.20/gal after they deducted $0.50/gal because I paid tie down fee at $45/night. On departure they held me down at 2,000 ft for 30 or 40 miles as I watched traffic going to MIA pass overhead.

Live and learn, and learn to live... Appreciate all the comments.

I call it the "ball cooler".

The first time I got slam-dunked here I was shooting the ILS 04 and ^^^^this happened.

That seems to be a fantastic idea to improve access to that area.

It took my wife and I about 50 hours to install it. Our C had the original windshield, so we had access to the backside of the panel through the top, which was awesome. In our C, the ammeter shunt was on the passenger side of the firewall like in the photo above, and easy to swap out with the instrument bay panels removed. If your C has the J style windshield with no access to the cabin side of the firewall from above, you will have a very different and more difficult experience. My recollections from 2018: 1. Getting all those thermocouple and transducer wires through the firewall using existing pass-throughs was tricky. Thankfully, the Tefzel wire is pretty slippery. 2. The instructions from JPI state that the ground wire for the engine monitor should be on or very close to the engine, so that ground wire will need to pass through the firewall too. Unfortunately, I noticed that step last. Getting one more wire through the firewall in the space available was really challenging. It's better to pull them all through at once if possible. 3. The circuit breakers in our '67 C were the originals, I'm pretty sure. They were brittle. Putting a screwdriver on the screws, and pushing hard enough to turn them broke some of the breakers. We wound up replacing all of them. I'm using the royal we here, my wife did that part. She tagged every wire before removing it from its' breaker. That let her confidently reconnect them without us having to do any tracing. She's smart. Highly recommend the engine monitor! Good luck. Fred

Not there in our J.

Tomorrow I'm taking our J model to my A&P to install a JPI EDM900 and a few other things to clean up the panel. He's not installed one in a J. I installed one in our C model, under the supervision of a A&P who has since flown west. First question: Where is the current shunt installed in an '83 J? Thanks, Fred

Good catch. Didn't mean MDA. I really have no idea why they had me at 4000. You are correct, I don't know what their MVA is. Who do I call about this? How do I find the phone number to talk to someone at ABC approach? Do I really want to do that? Dealing with bureaucrats is NOT my hobby. (first time I've used that face on MS). I'm learning- I anticipated it happening this time. Next time I want to talk to the approach controller in a way that produces a better outcome . Based on what @Ragsf15e wrote, I think I should request a vector to an IAF. Yesterday, with storms SE of the airport, that would have sent me to IAF ALICE for the RNAV04 at TCL. Alice was not that far out of my way. Don't know why they didn't just do that. I think my lesson here is this: When the approach controller says vectors to FAF, suggest vectors to an IAF.

This does seem simpler. Let them worry about getting me to a decent place to start the approach, rather then just on the correct heading.