GeeBee

So basically you confirm my guess

I'm guessing that heat exchanger is not cheap technology.

Purchase cost?

One thing the FAA needs to require in all flight ops manuals is no running check lists while approaching or crossing a runway during taxi. It was the source in the AA incident at JFK and the SWA incident at DCA. I am willing to be it was going on here as well.

First things they need to file a NASA report. Next Flexjet needs to put them in the simulator, re-qualify them and put them on a 6 month re-qual with several line checks in between. If all that is done, case will be closed with a letter of warning. The emphasis on the re-qual needs to be briefings, error trapping and cockpit discipline. Ditto that on the line checks

I always hated taxing at MDW.

I am so glad you are putting words and thoughts out on my behalf stretching beyond all reason what I am saying. All I am saying is look at the risk that is being taken, look at the reason for that risk, look at the results, don't complain about insurance rates. As for people driving slower or faster, I could care less, as long as you stay in the correct lane.

You are misinterpreting. All I am saying is the complaints about insurance rates on this very board are legion. Go ahead, do a search. Yet we are engaging in an operation in which dispatch conditions are minimal and mostly at pilots discretion, and we dispatch to places and reasons which have no plausible and reasonable explanation for the risk. Think about it.

All insurance has exclusions. Maybe there should be an exclusion for landing on a runway made of ice. There is no reason to land here for most folks, especially in a wheeled aircraft. Medivac, sure. Maybe other urgent needs but for a 100 dollar hamburger? Really? Tell me, would you land on a runway covered in ice in a solely wheeled aircraft under any other circumstances? I consider landing here in a solely wheeled aircraft high risk. Back in my younger days I've flown off a few ice covered places in a 185 on skis. I would never think of taking a wheeled aircraft onto ice so slick I could push the airplane around on the ramp. Sure I get the challenge, but I don't get the risk. If we want to "experience" these kind of places for less than public safety reasons and operating conditions, don't complain about your insurance rates. That is all I am saying.

We wonder why our hull coverage is so high.

Anything will fly.....given enough thrust. The MD-80 is proof positive.

While I was shopping for my R model I ran across two airplanes that had fire damage. It came from a back fire which ignited the fuel puddle underneath the main sump. I've made it a habit to move the airplane well clear of the puddle even if it has evaporated. Yeah, I know, you are not supposed to drop fuel on the ground, so sue me.

I mentioned that fact on this very forum and how without precision bucking of the rivets, the sealant was squeezed out and the tank failed. Some people here told me I was wrong. The entire saga was related to me by Edison at Wet Wingologists. Thanks for verifying what that there were indeed problems.

We already have people moaning and complaining about the cost of resealing fuel tanks. Wait until you tell them they have to buy a new engine to go unleaded.

Here is what I have found out. We looked at some other long bodies and they all have much more clearance between the fairing and the tail than my airplane. On the order of 1/4 inch or more. It appears someone some time ago put a washer between the fairing and the riv-nut to create clearance. The washers are not in the IPC. I don't know if this was a factory adjustment to some poorly fitted fairings or not. I checked the parts bag for the faring this time and those washers were missing. So whoever removed the fairing last time, did not put the washers back where they belong creating the interference. There have been multiple facilities that have worked back there the past year since I last installed the fairing in November of 2022 so I don't know "who dun it". After consultation with numerous Mooney experts including Robert at Lasar, Joe Cole et al and calling in a DER it has been determined the skin is not structural. It can be patched and the DER is coming up with a drawing for the repair. It will require re-fitting or re-manufacturing of the fairings to make it work, but there will be more clearance this time. If you have the curl type fairing, check your clearance. Thanks for all your input.

The point of my post is companies do pressure their pilots. The fact that you have to tell the company no, reflects that fact. It happens every day and in every way from operations, to maintenance, to scheduling. The fact is the more junior pilots are more susceptible to that pressure and commuters are typically junior pilots. As to the accident I agree. I would certainly do a load audit as first order of business as the airplane may be heavier than believed which would have resulted in a low Vref, add in some gust or shear, mix well. Low Vref from bad W&B firms the argument for AoA.

In 2017, I had a 12 hour flight that was ending at an airport for which a hurricane that would be downgraded to a tropical storm was forecasted. The east-west runway was forecast to have a wind of 180/40. Crosswind limit was 40. Company guidelines said for a wet runway 29 knots. I was on a re-dispatch flight plan so at around 50W I received a re-dispatch clearance to my destination. I queried the dispatcher about the winds and he said, no problem now forecast 180/38. I said, "Not landing". He said, "Your crosswind limit is 40". I said yes but on a wet runway guidelines is 29. He told me to keep coming that 29 is "just a guidelines" and that "other airplanes were landing". I said, "We're not landing in excess of 29." We kept on coming and I said to my crew, "You know, we have to fly to KXXX but nothing says, we have to land". I arrived at KXXX the winds were 180 35G40 along with rain. I put the airplane on approach, at 500' I asked for a wind check and it was 180 at 39. I pressed the TOGA switches and went to an alternate. We could have saved a lot of time and money if the dispatcher had not refused my concerns and pressed the arrival. As an LCA I had a lot of access to data and for that day I correlated the airplanes that landing on a wet runway beyond company cross wind guidelines simply using AFM limits vs those like me who bailed. There as a direct correlation to seniority. The most junior Captains were more likely to land to the airplane limits rather than the recommended guidelines.

Since 2017? I don't think so. The only thing that has changed is less net experience.

40 years of flying for the majors, I've had a few times.

Auto-thrust claims another victim.

I know it is not a tail strike because the paint on the fairing is shiny and undamaged. Bulkheads are all intact. Again if you notice the scraping took place underneath the fairing.

No on my airplane, one side curls around the bottom and the other side fits inside the curl. That is not corrosion, it is dark from the photo artifact and corrosionX If you look at the paint on the skin, the scraping stops at the end of the fairing mark.

No. The opening has been enlarged as we removed material that had been eroded by the fairing. When we took the fairing off, it had a crack at the crease. A look at the empenage showed scraping. We used a screwdriver and found the metal foil thin. We then removed the eroded metal with a finger tip to create the gap you see in the photos.

I've owned the airplane for almost 6 years. It's been to Maxwell, Cole, Precision Air. I've removed that fairing myself, 4 years, except for last year. If a hard landing with a tail strike was the case, it would have shown up earlier and I would have seen it. This happened over the last year.