pwnel

1 hour ago, RogueOne said:

 

Not many options with a fixed gear...

OK, but help me out here. According to news reports he had "sudden loss of oil pressure".  Would you pull CAPS for that?  I've had that too - my Mooney gauges was faulty (those pesky grounding straps).  I know the Cirrus POH says pull the chute at the first sign of any trouble but in my scenario I'd have written off the plane and y'all would have higher insurance next year...

You're making a bad start here. Pay peanuts, you get monkeys.  

Simple.  AOPA Legal + Aerospace Reports.  

On 7/29/2019 at 3:46 PM, KSMooniac said:

There was some touching, but I'd wait for the final report before drawing any conclusions about who touched who. Let the process play out, please.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

This sounds exactly like the Weinstein / Epstein defense ......   (hat, coat, door...)

Some very trivial and easy-to-obtain components inside there.  Glad folks are simply overhauling them.  

Just ordered a set for my M20K with Shaw 531 caps based on this thread.

Mike Busch covers this in detail in the last part of his latest book on aircraft ownership.  

7 hours ago, Becca said:

Seriously!  One thing we were talking about is how encouraging they are even for total F-ups (on sunday we watched people actually approach wrong end of the runway!).  Apparently it’s a human factors thing if you start getting grumpy or angry with pilots it increases cockpit stress levels and the mistakes pile on.  A few “good jobs” and “great wing rocks” builds confidence to keep it coming.  And it can’t be easy for the controllers and they seem to manage to squeeze in “welcome to Oshkosh, enjoy the show!” on many Fisk crossings and landings!  Really a pleasure to listen to.

Yip, I'm really impressed by this specific aspect of the ATCs.  And by contrast, I was overhead JFK on Saturday where the controllers laid it into an Execujet flight who just couldn't get anything right. And the more they laid it in, the more he screwed up (opposite headings, wrong altitude - unbelievable - like a student pilot in a 152).

Thanks, good message.  I've spent quite a bit of time watching the EAA livestreams and ATC on YouTube the past few days and there certainly are some folks on frequency who sound dazed and confused :-).  Yet somehow the controllers get everyone down. Amazing job by them. 

6 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I'd email Fred at ADLog and ask him about it.

He says it's not applicable with the M20K only type certified 2 years after the AD ('78) and with my aircraft built in ('85) - 9 years after the AD.

(And I'm really just interested here in how things work - taking the time for the first time in 34 years of maintenance on this plane to be absolutely as perfect as I can be in getting the records in order ).

13 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Exactly! Its easy to look up AD's for your Engine and airframe, but that leaves you grossly incomplete because you have to look up separately for each accessory. For example, vacuum pumps and even turbos are typically not with the engine. There was a recent AD on altimeters used in Mooney's. There have been seatbelt ADs and the list goes on and on.... Its very hard for the pilot owner to do this, I doubt any would get anywhere near a complete list just using the FAA site. This is why IA's subscribe to services to do this and why owners should use ADLog.com. My Adlog.com list for my '86 Mooney includes the Bendix AD.

 

You may be missing how the AD system works. If you have the Bendix switch, the AD applies to your aircraft. If your switch has the excluded date code or white dot, then you'll be able to list the AD in the non-recurring list, resolved as NA due to date code and you won't have to log the recurring 100 hr checks. But without the AD entry in your AD list, saying what was found,  nobody really knows if its applicable till they pull your switch to look at it.   Anything that is possibly applicable and can't be easily determined visually without any disassembly needs to be documented as to why its not applicable. A test you should be considering is how otherwise do you prove the AD doesn't apply, if its not real obvious visually then list it.

Thank you, very helpful.  In my case much of this is also an educational exercise in properly fulfilling my role as owner responsible for maintenance. It does sound like the Bendix AD should be in my AdLog list then.  (It's not). 

1 hour ago, alextstone said:

Hmm.  The AD says: “Airworthiness Directives; BENDIX IGNITION SWITCHES: Applies To All Aircraft Employing Magnetos and Using Bendix Ignition Switches”.

My parts catalog says:  Bendix Scintilla part number 10-357210.  

So, it appears to be under the AD...

This 1976 AD does not show up in an AdLog search for my 1985 M20K either. It was suddenly added at an annual in 2003 - nothing in the 18 years before that.  I can't see how Mooney could have legally installed the range of defective switches in any plane after 1976.

Now as @kortopates explains, it's of course good practice to check this, but I have a problem with the Feds mandating pilot operating practice through ADs. In a similar vein we can then end up having ADs for "brake checks" or "free and correct controls" after startup. I'm also not happy with that IA who seemed to have randomly introduced it into my logs. Probably does it to all Mooneys without looking simply for fear of getting sued. 

Either way, moving my logs to AdLog over the weekend have taught me a huge amount.  And I got that tip from reading Mike Busch's latest book on Plane Ownership which I also highly recommend. 

NIcely done y'all.  Hope to finally join next year.  Thanks for the vid - was waiting for an update!

2 hours ago, Steve W said:

I'd think that the line for: "except switches identified by four digit date code (new) adjacent to the model number" should apply if someone were to actually look at your switch.

Amusingly, I just found that it doesn't appear in my early logs(1994) but apparently someone started putting it in starting about 2012 and it's in all the annuals after that.

Right, I read all my logs since 1985.  Like yours, the "virus" was introduced in 2003 by a non-MSC annual and thereafter intermittently shows up on my annual inspections.  Surprised that some well known MSCs doesn't know better and just keep on putting it in the logs like lemmings. 

On 1/31/2017 at 6:39 PM, jlunseth said:

That's an unhappy situation.  I see it is on a removable panel, which should make it a little easier to fix.  The problem is that neither pin nor spring can be replaced without unriveting the box (in your case that box that holds the elec. junction) from the panel.  On my plane it is the O2 door and it is not on a removable panel, it is on the fuselage skin.  So repairing the broken spring is going to someday require taking off the interior panel, unriveting the box, installing the new door spring, riveting everything back on, and touching up the paint or repainting.

Damn.  That explains why the previous owner put a screw in to keep mine closed.  Could never figure out why there were so cheap about fixing the spring.

AD 76-07-12 describes compliance with testing the Bendix Ignition Switch every 100hrs or at every annual.  Every year there's an entry in my logbooks at annual that this AD has been complied with.  Most annuals have been performed by well-known MSCs for the last 35 years.

HOWEVER, my 231 was made in 1985, one of the last few ever built.  This is 9 years after the AD.  The 231 was type certified 2 years AFTER that AD was issued.  The FAA would surely never have allowed an ignition switch with an AD against it to be installed in a new plane?

How is it possible that this pops up every year?  I'm combing through everything as part of a process to move all my logs to the AdLog system and according to AdLog this AD isn't valid for the 231.  @M20Doc @kortopates  you have insight ?  Hope everyone is enjoying the Caravan and OSH!

Just now, SantosDumont said:

At this point I'm tempted to sign up for their managed maintenance service.  $750 seems like a bargain compared to all the time and heartache I've spend on this annual.  

You're getting the free advice anyway from Kortpates above as he's the Savvy Mooney person. Far as I know they don't take new customers in the middle of an annual.  But check with them.

You should reread what @kortopatessays above.  You don't need another IA, that bit is done.

I HIGHLY recommend folks to get Mike Busch's latest book on aircraft ownership so you understand your rights as Paul K explains.  This exact scenario with Continental compressions and being forced into an unnecessary overhaul scenario is described in there. 

https://www.amazon.com/Mike-Busch-Airplane-Ownership-troubleshooting/dp/1073748952/

There's also an entire thread here on LED recog light replacements.  Have your hangar elves read this.  The original recog lights are $10 Sylvania projector lamps which Whelan hacked with custom shaped reflectors and now sells for $150 a pop - if you can get them.  And then they still melt your lenses at $250 a pop, not counting the work you now have to do to trim them to fit....

25 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Why? For giving you guys the authoritative journal article on burn's prognosis? Done by Harvard, published by New England, with a title as grim as "Objective Estimates of the Probability of Death from Burn Injuries" 

Or for reminding people that this is an aviation forum that doesn't welcome freedom of speech in the following categories: politics, religion, and Cirrus?  

Hi Tommy, may I suggest rather posting under the new Safety forum here on Mooneyspace.  I would certainly hope that there is a space for hard facts and science on burn injuries - specifically as it pertains to safety choices (for example - I fly all post maintenance test flights in a Nomex flight suit).  This specific thread seems to be the wrong place for a safety discussion.

Basic courtesy folks - just like any dinner table - leave politics and religion out of it please. 

I was considering the same flight for this weekend, going all the way up to Iqualit.  PIREP and pics here when you're back please!

15 minutes ago, elimansour said:

Great idea Ryan.  I’d be willing to help too.  

The South African aviation forum where I've been since 2007 has a "Academy & Safety" section like this.  It's been invaluable as a source of learning and has functioned well for 15+ years.  I'm reposting the rules here as a guide.   Additionally, this section of their forum requires a login to access and read.  This is important as it keeps news reporters away for example and only allows bona fide forum members to access it.

--

GUIDELINES FOR PARTICIPATION

The Academy and Safety section on AVCOM is intended as a section dedicated to promoting aviation safety and learning. It is from this type of environment that individuals should feel at ease to ask questions and have them answered by the more experienced aviators in our forum community. For this reason, this section will be moderated to a very high compliance standard.

Safety awareness and possible future accident prevention is brought about by discussing accidents as and when they happen and speculation about each specific accident as well as typical scenarios relating to each type of accident is encouraged. AVCOM does not purport that any sort of accident investigation is underway in order to apportion blame on any individual, but rather to discuss all probabilities with a view that the vast readership might learn from the knowledge put across and as a tool, might dissuade other aviators from falling into similar traps, etc…

This section requires login access and therefore any individual who browses or participates in this section does so with the full knowledge of the rules pertaining and have agree to abide by those rules.

In order to keep this section at the desired standard, the following RULES and protocol will rigidly be applied by the Moderators:-

• Speculation about accidents is encouraged – any post that attempts to question or suppress speculation will be deleted. (Oxford dictionary: Speculate - Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.)
• Names of the deceased in the case of fatal accidents should not be published on AVCOM until their details are reported in at least one main stream media.
• Accident scene pictures may be posted, but pictures of the accident scene may not contain images of the deceased.
• Condolences are not allowed in this section. Once it is clear that a fatality has occurred in any accident, the first avcomer who would like to express condolences should start a condolence topic in the GENERAL SECTION. Any condolences posted in the Academy and Safety section will be deleted.
• Keep to the topic – any posts that stray from the intended topic will be deleted. Discussions that reach the end of their life will be locked at the discretion of the moderators.
• No personal attacks – It is okay to express your view point no matter how radical it might be. Any post that “plays the man and not the ball” will be moderated and a warning issued to the poster. It is therefore important to ensure that any dialogue refrains from insulting or belittling comments.
• Read the whole topic before participating – All too often, individuals only read the last page or so and start asking questions or adding information that has already been posted. Please read the entire topic and all pages BEFORE you post your contribution.
• No idle chatter – Please keep your posts specific and direct in expressing your sentiments. Please do not post comments that might be specific to an individual, but consider that you are addressing the entire AVCOM community.
• Right to post – All individuals are encouraged to share or express their views. It must be understood that the AVCOM community comprises of professional pilots as well as engineers, businessman, hobbyists and folk from all walks of life. Having the right to post in this section means having the right to express your opinion or ask any question. If you are answering a question then please ensure that your answer is technically correct (as we are attempting to promote safety). If it is just your opinion, then please state that clearly at the beginning of your post and the experienced aviators will correct your assumption/comments in the interests of safety. In the same light, if you are an experienced aviator, please refrain from “throwing your hands in the air” when unqualified comments are made and rather put the effort in to write a concise response that will be everyone’s advantage an in so doing, being a valued contributor to this forum.
• Humorous comments - Please refrain from humorous comments and “play on words”, etc… in this section.
• No Trolls allowed – AVCOM encourages this section for meaningful use. Any individual who attempts to post in this section in order to abuse the privilege or deliberately mislead the audience, will be instantly banned at the moderator’s discretion.
• Remain Objective - Please keep emotion out of posts. It is understandable that in many cases emotions can run high, so if your contribution is emotionally charged, then please refrain from posting until you have had a chance to calm down.
• 24 Hour Edit Policy - Once you have posted, you have a window of 24 hours to edit your comments or correct your statements. After 24 hours, posts are automatically locked in order to preserve discussion continuity.

13 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I don’t think that will even happen.  The G5 is CANbus digital data while the century autopilot is -5 to 0 to +5v, 5khz AC analog signal. It’s like interfacing a GTN750 to an outboard motor. 

I hope you don't have to swallow your words soon .  That said, the Aspen system will allow you to interface to Century APs using their (overpriced [$3000!!] and buggy) EA100 unit for attitude data.  It's the only thing stopping me from going the dual G5 route (my Century2000 is working just fine).  A similar interface would be a killer value proposition for the G5s.  And yes, I've heard the same rumour that it's in development so I'm waiting this one out...

On 6/22/2019 at 1:34 PM, gsxrpilot said:

This sure seems like a no-brainer for any Mooney currently flying with an Stec autopilot. 

The difference in labor costs between upgrading an existing Stec to a 3100 vs. ripping everything out and installing a Garmin, would be significant. It's basically the difference between installing the head unit only, or installing the head unit AND all the servos.

I'd be on the list if I had an Stec. With a KFC150, I'm still tempted.

Yip, if I compare this to Don Kaye's experience with the GFC500 thus far it's a very clear favorite too.  If I had an STEC I would sign today, but my Century2000 is working fine for the time being.  

On 6/18/2019 at 5:06 AM, DXB said:

I have no clue what actually happened to this gentleman, but he was in his 50s - an age group that is much less prone to  wildly reckless behavior than younger folks.  It makes me wonder about serious mental /physical impairment beyond just the normal human frailties.

I would argue it's much more a function of personality type here, than age.

I lost a plane and friend when the partner in the plane, a 60-year old university science professor, flying with his daughter for the first time, ran out of fuel.  He enjoyed racing cars, living fast, was on his 3rd wife (30 years his junior), looked a bit like Sean Connery and acted that way too.  Great guy to hang out with.  But I was always worried about his attitude to flying and it ended up killing him and badly injuring his daughter.  Like the Huey accident guy described here - he was used to maintaining his own racing cars and wanted to do the same with the plane - something which the other two partners quickly stopped (even though it was experimental class).  But it shows the attitude.  Lastly, his first flying instructor (which all of us used) was a hard-ass but wildly experienced German bush-pilot also in his late 50s.  He just couldn't handle someone of the same age correcting him - so he switched instructors to a 21-year old who called him "Sir" to finish up his license.  His fatal accident was about 5 hours after getting his PPL.

3 hours ago, slowflyin said:

Air does exit the breather.  Initially, very moist air is pushed out.  Actually, I'm sure dry air from the pump is  mixing with the moist air but after a very short time the humidity levels are very low within the engine.   You end up with dry air pumping in and dry air coming out.   I tried it both ways and after measuring the internal moisture levels I couldn't see any difference.  In practice the levels dropped quicker through the oil filler tube.  I assume the air exchange was quicker with zero backpressure.   For clarification, I measured moisture coming out the breather tube and by inserting a sensor through the filler neck as deep as it would go.     In the end I determined the unit was pumping a very large volume (over time) of very dry air into the engine.   

Thanks for that clarification.  I really enjoyed reading the entire analysis Black Max posts on their website and which originally appeared in Twin Cessna Flyer - (here for interested folks).  That really convinced me of the value.

But it should be easy to apply after flying and I wasn't going to ever uncowl the whole plane after every flight to seal up the breather holes etc.  You seem to have done the remaining homework for the rest of us Mooney flyers.