GeeBee

One of the first things I do with a new airplane is do a fault analysis of the electrical system. The M20R is a pretty robust electrical system but it does have some weak points. First thing with electrical fire or smoke is land ASAP: AVIATE,, VENTILATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE. If night break out the flashlights. Once you are on your way to the ground start your trouble shooting and in the M20R you need to split the system. You need to leave the essential bus powered and depower the non essential bus. You should be able to do that from memory. ALT field off, emergency power on, battery C/B pulled. DONE. I have my C/Bs with color coded collars, and I have the colors noted on the checklists so I loose no time locating them. I also have memorized their locations. You should have the Battery, Alt field, gear relay, gear motor and speed brakes all collared. After you have depowered the non-essential buss, wait a few minutes to see if the smoke has stopped. If it does not, then you have a choice. If VMC, just shut down the whole electrical system. If IMC you need to power up the non essential buss again, then pull breakers on your essential buss one at a time until you find the culprit. Realistically, the offender should have popped already but if not, you have to hunt it down and kill it. With a G1000 the last thing you want to depower is your AHRS, you only have one and if you do, you need to go to the standby AI. The good news is if you have powered the non essential buss up, and it is a G1000/Stec system after two minutes the autopilot will be back up and level the airplane if you have to pull the AHRS C/B. You can't nav with it, but it will level the wings and hold altitude or descend Also with the G1000, when you depower one screen you need to mash the red button to move all data to one screen. The only uncontrollable item if you do this is the hot buss items. realistically current protection should have worked by now, but if it did not, make sure your cabin lights are off, that is all you can really control on the hot buss.

Ask me about "war risks" coverage!

I actually worked for them in the 1980's for about a year as a loss prevention auditor. They know me well.I have had airplanes insured by them since 2010. The difference is in the individual underwriter. I don't mind the exclusion as I have no reason or desire to land a Mooney on unpaved runways anyway. My guess is the underwriter that wrote my dec, has been burned on gear doors loss or it may be my agent agreeing to the stipulation to get a lower quote.

I also have the same policy but it is not in the boiler plate but in the declarations page.

Depends on the type of skis

Yep, just checked. My liability is good, but hull damage on an unpaved runway is not covered. USAIG.

I think if you look at your policy for your Mooney it will specify paved runways only. Heck, I had to pay extra to get it removed for my SuperCub

Who says it will "roll" to a stop? If the coefficient of friction between the tire and the ice at that point is 0, the bearing friction will prevent the tires from rolling (frictional force is the coefficient of friction times force applied). Unless the wind is zero or you plan on parking straight ahead on the runway, you will encounter wind pushing on the airplane's vertical stab. I've had a parked and chocked 727 slide 10 feet across the ramp. I've landed a C-185 on a glacier with skis where the only way to stop was to shut down the engine. On ice, there are no guarantees and past experience is no guarantee of future results. Alton Bay is not "FAA approved" any more than landing on a beach is an FAA approved runway. It is use at your own risk operation. I landed my PA-18 in a forest meadow, on a sand bar and all kinds of surfaces. They were landing spots, but no "FAA approved".

The argument of how to land on an icy runway(and I am talking ice, not snow or water), is one of degrees of absurdity. You are putting yourself in a position where control is impossible to know. One wheel may get traction the other may not. With ice, there is no traction. When there is ice on the runway, I cancel the mission. Call me once learned, twice burned. I've taken off in 4 inches of dry snow, I've rolled out on dry snow, wet snow and 1 inch of water but ice is where I draw the line. So does Aeroflot.If the Russians won't do it, that should tell you something.

You can be pretty abusive to a PT-6 on the start and it will fire up. Maybe not within ITT limits, but It will start and run. If she got in and just put all the levers forward and hit the master and start switches it would light off, although I suspect maybe only one started because the other was further from the battery and could not get enough rotation. Don't forget, the engine was originally designed to power pumps and generators in the third world before it was an aircraft engine. It is pretty robust.

I actually think he could get rid of it but it will require some money and a DER. If he can reconfigure the vent system to that of S/N 447 and beyond and show there is no difference between those airplanes and his reconfigured vent design, he certainly has adequate engineering data for a DER to sign off on the modification.

It could if no treatment was applied to the runway. Some small governments will send the trucks by the airport after they treat the roads. Especially if they really upon air ambulance. You just don't know when or how much.

One of my big complaints about GA is the lack of runway condition reports as well as consistency in reporting. It tends to drive one towards larger airports in cold weather. As we developed AWOS, I hope the AI industry may be able to make a robot to assess runway conditions at small airports and report automatically runway conditions.

I am not seeing KPCO. I see KMPO? If so there are actually 6 notams for ice. Glad you are ok. As they say, "Once burned is twice learned"

My wife purchased this one for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSFF9jH7ai0

I would check with Lycoming on the core issue. If it is not a roller cam engine, the will probably trash the case anyway and not charge you for the core. Worth a look.

It seems that all the manufacturers have had trouble with their 100k thrust class engines. I think everyone has got a little ahead of their ski's on the class as a whole.

Depends on the airport and the operator. Intersecting runways like KSAV require conflict prediction software for regular use. If they don't, and I don't think KSAV does, the parameters widen out so much that LAHSO is confined to some pretty narrow circumstances that really don't occur that often.

No, a sidestep and a parallel is not legal separation between a single and multi engine aircraft. If the ME lost and engine, directional control could create further loss of separation. The controller has to see establishment of diverging course. The jet cannot make his turn until 400' under most operating specs, you can however. This problem is one that you see for instance at KSFO and KSJC. The runways are too close together. Watch parallel operations at these airports and you will see staggering. An aircraft on the hold for 28L will not be cleared for takeoff until the approaching aircraft on 28R lands. Simultaneous approaches are staggered by at least 1 mile so the two do not touch down simultaneously. Again it is loss of engine issues as well as aborts. With a single runway the controller when he clears you to land has two things in mind. Is the runway clear and where do I put that aircraft if he aborts? He needs either 1 mile or observing diverging course as separation assurance. The idea of "first come, first serve" is quaint but not a requirement. The controllers job is to move as many aircraft as he can within time while maintaining separation standards. Being first, or low in the pattern as a right to land only applies to uncontrolled fields.

Again, it is a matter of potential separation and "what if". For instance, if you have parallel runways less than 3500' apart, they will not roll you simultaneously with a multi engine aircraft. Guess why? You may be #1 for take off, but if that ME aircraft is a jet, he is going to roll first because he is out of the way, faster than you are. Pounds of tin per minute. Likewise in this case, his error is not sending you around, but for forcing the situation with less than optimal spacing. If that controller had a do over, you would be #2. As it was he tried to squeeze you in, and when it all came unraveled (most likely because the jet failed to slow) he had two choices. Send you around or send the jet around. If he sent the jet around, and you aborted your landing he would then be in a loss of separation situation. If he sends you around, he can turn you out before the jet arrives thus he has assured separation no matter what happened.

Everyone needs to think about this a little bit. If he sends the leading slow aircraft around, he has got one aircraft in the pattern. If he sends the jet around and then you abort your landing, he's got a serious loss of separation with a passenger airliner. Also, any time he sends a 121 aircraft around, he has to write it up. For some companies, the Captain has to write up a go around as well because believe me, some passengers are going to complain (to get free miles to shut them up that they "were scared for their lives"). A go around for an airliner also takes one pilot out of the loop as he has to go on the PA and reassure the passengers. All in all, it is easier and safer for the little Part 91 guy to go around. If you can't go around after the mains touch, learn to do so. You will likely miss that venison dinner on the hoof someday.

Seeing a lot of people having trouble flying their airplane here.

The problem with composites is they are not very scalable on the down side. Beech found that out with the Starship. You can do it, and Cirrus does it every day but the weight savings are not as dramatic as on larger aircraft. Then even if you do it, you have to amortize the production cost increases which requires a lot of units.

We need to remind ourselves some things here. We all want to be helpful, but the words "unable" are not the end of the world, or a source of punishment. I used to tell all my students from primary, to ATPs, when you are in the batter's box, you are batting. Swing away. Do not let the tower hurry you off a runway, square the tires or do things on the ragged edge. I've seen more guys slide off the runway(especially in winter flying) trying to comply with the tower's wishes than I care to think about. When you are cleared to land, the runway is yours. Unless you receive a LAHSO instruction use the runway you need to comfortably and safely exit. Also, don't accept a LAHSO below 1000'. Swing away batter.

One time I was with ATL approach. They switched me to the south side runways even though I was north of the airport. I was crossing north complex traffic on the down wind with this maneuver. The controller was talking a mile a minute and I could see a traffic conflict developing. We were T-bone with an MD-88 on downwind, same altitude. We tried to get a word in edgewise but could not. We were IMC, I could not make a move until TCAS barked. I disconnected the autopilot ready for the coming melee`. Just as the TCAS barked "Descend!" the controller gave me a 180 "immediately". If the airplane had not been off autopilot and I was primed, we would have been very close or possible collision. After a I landed ground control asked me to call the tower. I did, and the first thing I said to the supervisor is...."How is your guy, is he OK?." Now I knew he had just became disqualified from his position by this loss of separation. He nearly ran metal together. Turns out, I knew him, he went to my church. Good guy, overloaded The point is this. We all operate in the same airspace, we just have different jobs. Just as you live in the same house with your spouse. Everyone is going to make mistakes. Sometimes bad ones. You have a certificate, he has a certificate. Ripping into each other is not the way to go. Someday you are going to screw up and you will need some understanding. If you have a reputation for understanding, you will likely be understood, when the time comes. It is likely this was a "loss of separation" incident and not good for the controller. A wise Captain once told me, "Never get mad or curse in a disagreement you know you will win and never fail to bank a favor." Opportunity missed.