Minivation

You're entitled to your thoughts, and that's fine by me. The FAR's can be very elaborate in some aspects, but also quite ambiguous in others. What constitutes the "basic design of the electrical system" in the context of major/minor alterations in 14 CFR 43 Appendix A? What does "other methods/techniques/practices acceptable to the Administrator" consist of in 14 CFR 43.13? ...... What exactly comprises an "instrument"? I firmly believe this is what A&P training is for. If the regulations specified every. single. policy, allowance, definition, exception, restriction, prohibition, etc. then the FARs would become too large to be practical and too complicated to maintain in the first place. In the absence the exact specifications from the FAA, it is ultimately the mechanic's responsibility to sometimes navigate these grey zones using sound judgment. And in the absence of specific guidance for a very particular task, things ultimately depend on the closest applicable data (AC43.13 in this case) and the mechanic's sound judgment on how to carry out that task all the while evaluating the potential consequences of various failure modes of that procedure and weighing the risks therein (and that's part of what A&P training is for). The exact Sonalert is Mallory P/N SC628, and correct - the part in of itself does not have any particular FAA "blessing" bestowed upon it. However, when Mooney procures that part from Mallory, passes it through its QC program, and designates it a Mooney part, then it becomes part of the M20's certificated type design, and through that association with the M20, itself becomes a "certified" part.

In terms of Garmin units that use SD / microSD cards - firmware for those products that are not part of Garmin's dealer-only install policy can be (sometimes) found under the product page's "Software" section found on the RH side of the webpage: However, for other units that are still covered under the dealer policy, they can only be accessed by dealers through the dealer portal at dealers.garmin.com. The products I mentioned that are "under the dealer policy" are as below: The weird part is (and I asked Garmin about this) - the work in of itself may legally be performed and signed by an A&P and is not restricted to a 145 repair station. Therefore, an A&P who works for a 145 avionics shop with Garmin dealership status can still access this info then perform the upgrades and sign it off under his own A&P without going through the 145 repair station infrastructure, which is the root of the reason behind the 6 shop hours = $600 bill ... all for pushing a few buttons.

Key word is "inherently." The stall switch contributes to an aural alert but does not in of itself show (visually nor aurally) any indication whatsoever.

1. Important terminology difference between "overhaul" and "repair." The term "overhaul" refers to disassembly, cleaning, inspection, repair, reassembly, and testing, whereas "repair" can mean just about anything to bring back a certain component to working status. What was done here was a repair, specifically, a minor repair. In absence of a manufacturer-issued manual, AC43.13-1B Chapter 11 (and common sense) was used, under the same legal framework where a rusty nav light receptacle or leaky shimmy damper can be brought back to condition. 2. 14 CFR 65.81(a) specifies: A certificated mechanic may perform ... maintenance ... of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments)... wherein "appliance" is defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as: Appliance means any instrument, mechanism, equipment, part, apparatus, appurtenance, or accessory, including communications equipment, that is used or intended to be used in operating or controlling an aircraft in flight, is installed in or attached to the aircraft, and is not part of an airframe, engine, or propeller. and "instrument" is defined as: Instrument means a device using an internal mechanism to show visually or aurally the attitude, altitude, or operation of an aircraft or aircraft part. It includes electronic devices for automatically controlling an aircraft in flight. Therefore, whereas a compass is: an appliance that uses an internal mechanism to show visually the (lateral) attitude of an aircraft, and is thus an instrument, a stall switch is: an appliance that uses an internal mechanism but does NOT inherently show visually or aurally the attitude, altitude, or operation of an aircraft, and thus, in my interpretation, is not an instrument and therefore falls into the scope of capabilities of an airframe-rated A&P as per 14 CFR 65.81. On the other hand, the compass should (I'm not saying it always is, but ... not my problem :)) be repaired by a 145 CRS with Class 1 Instrument rating or restricted rating explicitly allowing the make/model of that compass (e.g. Airpath, PAI-700, etc.). That's good to know. Hopefully it doesn't cost an arm & a leg like the Safe Flight doorstop.

Sorry for getting back to you late! Just came back from an extended trip out to Texas. Yes, I've since slapped the switch assembly back on, and I'm glad to report it works well. It did take 2-3 flights to get the position adjusted to exactly where I want it, but after that it chirps a few degrees above critical AoA, exactly where it was before the switch broke.

I've taken a look at the G3X Part 23 STC IM as well as the Avidyne IFD440/540 IM and as with most things in aviation, there's a technical answer and a legal answer to the question of whether a Garmin PFD and Avidyne GPS can be interfaced to each other, and the two answers are a bit conflicted. The interface between any modern EFIS with various functionalities and a GPS navigator will be manifold. A series of ARINC429 channels transfers most of the flight instrumentation data while RS232 takes care of most of the auxiliary functions like drawing the "magenta line". In the case of the G3X (via GAD29 adapter) and Avidyne IFD, on a technical level they should interface with each other OK. The ARINC429 protocol is "EFIS/airdata" which both products support. The RS232 protocol would be "MapMX" which is also supported by both products. You would be missing out on a ton of Garmin-specific functions (e.g. radio/xpdr remote control, flight plan syncing, ADS-B weather/traffic display, etc.) but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. The issue comes into play when Garmin's installation manual doesn't explicitly mention the Avidyne IFD (or the white-labelled BendixKing KNS) as "compatible equipment." Normally for stuff like altitude encoders where there's dozens of various options, the Garmin manual would simply say something like "there's too many compatible stuff to list here, so just make sure that they're technically similar" and call it a day, but in the case of GPS navigator interfaces, all the G3X manual lists is the GNS430/480/530, GTN 6xx/7xx series, and the newer "slimline" 100-300 series navigators. In response to this, some avionics installers consider the substitution of the GNS with an Avidyne IFD a "minor deviation" from the STC in that it constitutes no appreciative difference in function (stemming from the premise that the Avidyne IFD is a "slide-in" functional equivalent of the GNS [of course, with some catches]), and as long as the local FSDO is OK, then that's that. However, depending on the FSDO and their mood of the day, their stance on this may vary. Alternatively, in the Avidyne IFD manual, there exists a wiring diagram for an interconnect with a "Generic EFIS." (Figure D-5) but that interface doesn't include the RS232 "MapMX" interface, which would preclude the "magenta line" functionality on the PFD (i.e. the PFD would act like a really expensive EHSI). This limitation sort of defeats the purpose of the PFD-Avidyne IFD interconnect if you ask me. ===== As for BK and their product development strategy, internal company organization, and my experiences doing business with them ... they as individuals are very nice people, but in terms of the company as a whole, they have a ton of soul-searching to do. Maybe one day when I depart my current job I can divulge more about it.

Ditto... It's one thing to get an AML STC that shotguns across 600+ aircraft types for an EFIS or GPS navigator, but my experiences with ACO's and FSDO's is that they become much much more conservative once the subject matter pertains to something that interfaces with the aircraft flight controls. This is ESPECIALLY true in light of the 737MAX debacle that put the FAA under a microscope ever since. That said, this is incredibly frustrating for the short-body Mooney gang. At least some sort of follow-up or one-paragraph explanation on a blog post would have been appreciated.

Yes, replacing nav light bulbs are most certainly something the owner pilot can carry out provided that the task doesn't involve any crazy tooling or procedures (it doesn't). Most M20J nav lights use a half-dome type bulb (usually Type 7512-12) that you can easily purchase online (namely Aircraft Spruce). An easy method of identifying the bulb you have is to remove the bulb and look if there's any markings on it that may give you a hint of what it exactly is. As for determining if the bulb failed vs. something else ... one easy way is to look at the bulb's insides to see if the filament is broken. If it is, bulb's dead. If not, then try checking the bulb with a multimeter and if that still checks out OK, then check for aircraft voltage at the bulb receptacle tip compared to the receptacle housing. Statistically, the actual wires in an aircraft rarely fail, so I doubt you'll need to be fishing wires out of the wing.

I installed an AV-20 in a friend's M20C back in 2019 and ... it didn't turn out well. I felt really bad for him but after days of frantic searching I found that my Mooney install wasn't the only one having issues. Judging by their theory of operation (AOA = AHRS pitch angle - FPA [tan(VS/IAS)] things should have worked out OK, but using the aforementioned equation, I can only surmise that either the AHRS got messed up (despite my best efforts to "zero" the pitch out at level flight attitude) or the IAS is far off from CAS (I know dropping the gear messes with the static system considerably, but does it that much?) Anyway, a few days after the install, I attended OSH '19 and had the opportunity to talk with Bill Shuert, who was Aerovonics CEO at the time. Nice gentleman, but when I asked him about (a) any ideas about the erroneous AoA, and (b) any possibility for improving the data refresh rate of the AV-30, the answer was basically (a) not my problem and (b) no. It was that exact moment I resolved myself that I would not be recommending an Aerovonics product to a customer unless they insisted on them. I've long pondered about the plausibility of porting over "open-source" to the avionics world. On a technical level, both computer and avionics industries are somewhat similar in that they involve computer hardware/software (well, more like a network of them) to accomplish a purpose or task, but the key differentiator is the market size - billions of people for the larger computer industry vs. several hundred thousand at most for avionics, despite the fact that the entry barrier for the latter is much higher (i.e. certification) and the risk of getting litigated to oblivion is equally ridiculous too. To add to that, if open-source software were to exist for avionics, you can certainly bet XYZ Corporation would snatch up that code, pretty it up, add some proprietary bells & whistles, then go to town to sell it. That's basically what Garmin did with their slew of RS232 protocols in the late 2000s. To that end, I say all this with a greatly exacerbated tone. I am a huge fan of open-source and wiki-based projects as nothing bothers me more than half-assed businesses that overcharge and underdeliver. Of course, in the interest of safety, "crowdsourced" and "proven & reliable" don't often fit in the same sentence (I mean, good luck with anything past DO-178 Level D!) but that doesn't stop me from wondering sometimes "what if we set up a nonprofit avionics manufacturer with the vision & purpose of bettering GA's safety and affordability". Of course it's a pie in the sky, but one can keep dreaming.

I've had the opportunity to fly both the 150 and 152 in their respective "nice" and "shitbox" states. The nice 152 was actually the AOPA 152 sweepstakes bird. The difference is phenomenal, although even the new ones have their limitations once you stuff 2 people inside. The thing is most 150/152 operators don't bother to take care of the smaller squawks (e.g. door catch, crazed windshield, mis-rigged throttle cable, etc.) and these all add up to a terrible flying experience. I'm checked out in the local FBO's 152 but I refuse to fly it because how badly looked-after it is.

Well done and thanks for sharing @201er! After about 60 hours flying the 201 I'm starting to feel comfortable really honing the landing technique in the Mooney, especially in terms of getting the touchdown point spot-on. A while ago I used to compete as a spot lander with NIFA and I learned a ton from that experience ... plus, it was a great feeling being able to consistently hit +/- 10ft as long as the weather wasn't ridiculously crazy. Albeit, this was in the Cessna 150 and 172 of course. After college, I started fly the PA-28 too, so after I got comfortable in that plane, I started honing in my precision landing technique on that type as well. Perhaps I may give the 201 a spin this weekend to practice.

Thanks for the Pirep on this, @Jakes Simmons. The hypothesis about the magnetized tubing is interesting - I'm curious how much of an effect that would play. I haven't installed an AV-30 myself, but I've heard plenty of reports from operations of just about every type (Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Beech, Vans, etc.) about the precession issue. My local FBO has them installed in their 172s and they've been battling the same issue themselves. None of the AV-30 manuals seem to reference any detailed operational theory so it really bugs me not knowing exactly what the source of this issue is. If I may indulge in a bit of speculation, though, given the fact that uAvionix is working on a software approach to remedy this issue, I sometimes wonder if the AV-30 DG simply operates by using acceleration data pulled by an accelerometer (not a gyro) that is effectively double-integrated (∫∫) to obtain position (i.e. heading)? I've noticed that the data refresh rate of the AV-30 is painfully slow (I estimate something like 15Hz compared to the G5's 30+Hz) which leads me to wonder if this slowness is what is causing minute errors in calculation that add up over time? Of course, this is a hail-mary guess, and I could be absolutely off the mark for all that matters. The Link interface seems pretty cool. We've definitely seen a leap in firmware-update technology over the past few decades in the world of GA avionics; whereas the firmware would need to be loaded via custom cable harnesses in the early 2000s, avionics started incorporating USB in the 2010s, and now we're moving towards ad-hoc Wi-Fi loading. Neat. I'm not surprised one bit about Garmin though. They make excellent equipment, but starting in the early 2010s, they've become increasingly notorious for not playing well with outside data protocols, and more often than not, intentionally obfuscating and/or modifying data protocol details to prevent 3rd party compatibility. The ADS-B+ protocol is likely the most notable example, and the only reason other companies like Avidyne, Trig and Appareo are "compatible" with Garmin GPS sources is because these companies went to great lengths to reverse engineer the protocol. They've also changed the verbiage of their latest STC permission letters to preclude non-Garmin dealer technicians from installing used equipment in the future (even though these products would have fallen out of their Dealer Install Policy by that time), which points to a trend of incorporating planned obsolescence into their business practices. Certification has been a particular painful spot for smaller manufacturers lately, especially those that can't afford in-house approval. ACO's across the country had largely been preoccupied with the 737MAX fiasco, and I suspect the ongoing 787 issue and 777/PW4000 incident won't help either.

At least this much is true. Operationally speaking, most people just say [City name] [facility] in their radio calls so for most pilots, I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. However, the stupid part about this whole thing is that it's going to cost millions of taxpayer dollars to rebrand everything related to the airport and to re-mark all the signage on the road, just to name two of what's gonna need to happen. Of course, "millions of dollars" is pocket change in terms of government spending, but even then, why choose a name that is so polarizing? Regardless of political affiliation, any reasonable person is gonna know choosing a politician's name is going to cause a roughly 50/50 split of yea/nay amongst the population. The new name isn't even going to be named after a historical figure like Lincoln where people can at least find some common ground, but rather it's going to be a current senator shrouded with controversy? Either this is some elaborate political echo-chambering or this name change wasn't very well thought out.

Im not as irked at the name changing itself as much as the fact that they keep naming these airports after politicians. I don't care if they're blue or red or whatever - I just don't like politicians, period. Who knows, Reid himself might get "cancelled" a few years down the road too. Just name it Las Vegas Intl and call it a day. Jeez.

If you ask me on the other hand, I personally like toggle switches better because I find them easier to actuate. They're also easier to source & replace compared to rocker switches, especially if the rockers were custom labelled. That said, the Mooneys do use breakered switches, in other words, the switches also act as a circuit breaker. The TE / Potter&Brumfield W31 series switches are a popular choice for breakered toggle switches in GA.

I'm afraid there is no "easy" adjustment of the nomenclature lighting; the only way to get them to a brighter level is to input a higher voltage at J2 Connector, Pins #6 and 7, ideally controlled via the lighting rheostat. Assuming your M20C uses a 14V system, when 0 volts is applied to J2 pins 6 & 7, then nomenclature lighting is off, but at 12 volts, nomenclature lighting is a full intensity. I'm not sure what exactly your J2 Pins 6 & 7 are connected to, but I have noticed not many avionics installers out there are thoroughly diligent with regards to properly hooking up the avionics to their respective lighting busses, so there may be a chance that your pins are connected to system voltage with a series load resistor (to drop the voltage down to something like 5V) or not connected at all.

Unless I'm going crazy ... don't GTN's all have a physical -D-> key?

A couple of questions pop into mind: Was the red X only over the attitude indicator or did it fail both attitude and heading? Did the failure follow any other anomalies or occur during any significant weather (e.g. gusty winds, turbulence)? From my experiences as an avionics tech, the Aspen devices constantly cross-check between all the primary flight info (i.e. airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, heading, pitch & bank, slip/skid, etc.) and if one or some of these parameters seem out of whack, then the unit will fail the "reasonability test" and will consequently fail the entire unit. For example, if the Aspen detects that airspeed, and altitude are increasing but the pitch is below the horizon (e.g. a significant updraft) then the system will suspect a failure in either the pitot/static system and/or AHRS and will fail the unit. (As a side note: Aspen loosens the criteria for this "reasonability test" via a software patch for installations in helicopters, but I've still encountered many of these failures. I'm surprised they even got it certified for Part 27 installs in the first place) To address your specific case, I would first check if your pitot/static system is clear of any obstructions. I believe there is a static drain located on the rear belly on some Mooneys. If your plane was hangared then I wouldn't be surprised if the system is still OK, but it is true that the plane has sat for a few days and given that TX just went through a freezing spell, any moisture in the lines just might have frozen over, causing errant readings, possibly triggering the Aspen.

I am facing a similar issue, classified as "heavy seep" per Mooney Mx Manual, in the very same spots as you mentioned, plus a few more locations. The owner of the plane has a slot scheduled with a resealing shop later this year, but I'm not sure if the plane will hold up until then. As an A&P, I'm heavily considering doing some local repairs myself, but the Mx Manual doesn't seem to mention any precautions on purging out the wing of vapors. Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but having heard of some horror stories, the last thing I want is a wing exploding in my face. For those that did this procedure, what kind of steps did you take after draining out the fuel but before working inside the tanks? In addition, how difficult is it to remove the inspection cover screws considering they're likely covered with sealant?

Ah, I almost could have been there yesterday too. I was too busy buttoning up the plane after I had it in pieces in order to fix a fuel leak in the belly. Maybe next week.

I myself contracted The Sickness™ back over Thanksgiving. The sequence of events of how I realized I had the disease was a real blessing. At the time, the Mooney was down for Mx so I was borrowing a friend's Cherokee to fly from VA to TX for a business-related trip. I woke up early AM and was feeling really groggy already but I am most definitely not a morning person so I didn't think much of it. I took off and headed west for my first leg but the headwinds that day were terrible (40-50kts @ 4000), so 40 minutes into the trip, I said "fu** it", turned back around, made it back to home base in 15 minutes, told my client that I'd have to try another day, then went home. Over the next 2 days I had a really sore throat and then eventually I noticed that I could no longer smell the shampoo in the shower. At this point I realized I was screwed, so I got tested asap, and surprise... Apart from the sore throat (which cleared after half a week or so), my experience was relatively mild, thankfully. However, I never got my full taste/smell back, which honestly is a huge bummer. I'd say my senses sit at around 80% of what they used to be. Funny thing is, I actually had a reputation for being able to pick up on the slightest scents, and during my days as a line mechanic, it really helped since I could pick up on the smallest avgas, engine oil, or 5606 leaks around the airplane. I can no longer rely on that sense anymore ... but I suppose there exists a silver lining - at least now I can pet/belly rub/cuddle dogs without realizing how stinky they are

Just like a lot of things in life, experience and credibility, which are qualitative, can be approximated, but not quantified by using some numbers and metrics. Someone can gain x hours of flight time but the quality of their experience will vary immensely whether they spent all that time doing touch and goes at their local Class G airport versus trekking around the country into cities big and small, altitudes low and high, VMC and IMC, you name it... And then even if they've checked all the "to do" boxes aforementioned, it really boils down to their aptitude to absorb those experiences and to learn from them. I've been spending the last few months shuttling back and forth between TX and VA and on every trip, I learn something that makes me realize how little I know. Pulling someone's flight data has its limitations. For all that's worth, I could be an absolute dingus and yet my flight info could be picture-perfect because I kept the plane on autopilot from takeoff to touchdown. As discussed previously on this thread, Flightaware's info is mostly sourced from its own users (those with ground receivers mounted on rooftops, etc.) so the coverage is largely dependent on how many feeders there are in the location. Since most ground receivers are for 1090Mhz only, 978MHz planes usually get left in the dark in a lot of areas. I used to be a mechanic for a flying club with two 172's - one had a GDL88 UAT and the other had an Appareo transponder, and the latter plane would almost always show up on Flightaware whereas the former only really showed up if it was either (a) high up enough for distant UAT receivers to pick it up, or (b) on flight following. As for myself, I try to keep my tail number anonymous on this forum out of respect for the airplane's owner. One day when I own my own Mooney, then sure, have at it.

I'm afraid I've only been there (Clemson) a grand total of 3 hours, plus a few minutes since I've driven by it a few times on I-85. On the particular trip I mentioned my friends and I eventually discovered Cook-Out (a burger chain). Although I enjoyed it at the time, I honestly can't recommend it since their burgers now give me terrible stomachaches. I'm not sure what kind of food Clemson would have, especially considering it's really a college town, so I can only expect most of the restaurants there would be geared towards catering lower-priced eats for college students. I'm sure you've probably heard of BQ1 (Pik N Pig BBQ restaurant is literally on the airfield, and yes, BQ1 is indeed the identifier). Having lived in Texas a few years, I'm still a diehard Mesquite brisket fan (more of the meat and less of the sauce) but objectively speaking, Pik N Pig still churns out good Carolina-style BBQ. Charlotte NC has a few airports sorta arranged concentrically around uptown (main city). Namely, Rock Hill (UZA) is around 7 o' clock, Monroe Exec (EQY) at 4 o' clock, and Concord-Padgett (JQF) at 2 o' clock, although be advised, JQF does have a ramp fee. Let's Meat, located near uptown, is an all-you-can-eat Korean BBQ place (one of the best KBBQ places I know in the Eastern US), although on weekends be prepared for a 2-3 hour wait list (a testament to their popularity). Mr. Tokyo is an all-you-can-eat sushi/hibachi restaurant and unlike a lot of sushi buffet places, this place is legit and their food is fresh. They have three locations in Charlotte, but I've only been to their Hwy 74 (Independent Expwy) location. Jeni's Ice Creams is a great after-dinner dessert place where you can grab a cone and hang out with friends. Amelie's is an exquisite French-style bakery and cafe. Also a great snack/coffee type of place. My favorite off of their menu is their salted caramel brownie and salted caramel latte (did I mention that I like salted caramel?). They have multiple locations around Charlotte. I remember I did all my commercial written exam studying at their Rock Hill location. Chokh Di Noodle House is a Vietnamese/Thai restaurant run by a friend of a friend, and I can confidently say they make the best Vietnamese pho in the area. The physical store itself is relatively small and located in a strip-mall type of setting, but they did a really nice job furnishing the inside area. Located in Hwy 74.

When I lived in Charlotte NC, I flew out to Clemson SC to get myself some Raising Cane's ... only to find out the restaurant was part of Clemson University's campus and they were closed for the summer break. That day probably ranks high up on my "saddest days" list.

That's exactly my thought too. Don't get me wrong - I love Continental engines as much as Lycomings but in the Trophy 221ES conversion, the engine swap also entails a custom fiberglass cowling (and a very heavy one at that!) and custom tuned exhaust system. Unfortunately in the specimen I fly, we recently got the exhaust overhauled, but during the overhaul process, I suspect some dimensions got inadvertently modified. Even after taking the exhaust off, sending it back to the O/H welding shop, getting it reworked (which took a dandy long time) , repairing the fiberglass damage (exhaust had burnt through the cowl in some areas), and putting it back on, there are still some spots that are rubbing, so I'm bracing for Episode #2. I've never heard the plane run from the outside (since I'm always the one flying it at the moment), but I hear that the custom straight-pipes create an awesome sound. However, I'm afraid the maintenance and parts availability are gonna creep up on this bird fast if we're not careful. I'd love to see a Missile conversion for myself one day to see how that performs. Everybody I've talked to that has flown one says the converted planes definitely live up to their name.