GeeBee

Being near the Concorde plant, we had a speaker from them come to our EAA monthly meeting. I can tell you that meeting the TSO is no small task. I once saw a well known Danish electronic defense contractor give up getting a TSO on a nice headset the process was so rigorous. Add to the fact that aircraft batteries are a low production run and you have price.

Regarding LiFe batteries. This is the EarthX design. Let me tell you about it. A friend asked if his brother could borrow my hangar in July before leaving for AirVenture. He had a Glasair with an EarthX battery, a Dynon display and dual electronic ignition. Both brothers left my airport, KGVL under IFR conditions and were flying on top. In Eastern TN, the Glasair's ADS-B was lost. He had an electrical fire caused by.......the battery. With that, the Dynon stopped working, and soon the engine failed. He glided through the overcast, broke out and saw a field, overshot it, made for another smaller field, crashed. He is still in the hospital. Li technology is not for aircraft. Yeah, you can use it to power small items, but when you run big things with high draws even for a short duration, Li techonogy starts to blow up starting with a thermal runaway.. Ask Boeing. Their fix for their Li problems was to encase the battery in a solid billet of titanium 2 inches thick. Tesla has a very sophisticated program that will limit your "throttle" if you draw too hard. You will not do 5 tire burning 1/4 miles in a Tesla. When you add these limitations to the fact that Li tech batteries, be they Li-I or Li-Fe are almost impossible to extinguish if they catch fire make for bad choices aircraft. I have had Li thermal runaway in a Surface tablet aboard a jet and it was not pleasant. Finally had to submerge the thing in a bucket of ice and pour more ice on it.It does not put out the fire, all you are doing is controlling the thermal activity. Airlines now carry "Li pouches" to control a Li overheat. There is a reason why cargo airlines don't want to carry Li batteries. I have used AGM's for years in my boats and cars. I had an AGM in my boat blow the case wide open after a haywire charge went bezerk on it. No spill, no danger. The Navy SEALS use AGMs in their boats because they can take a .30 caliber hit and keep working. Nothing in this world right now beats an AGM for robustness in heavy draw applications.

The thought has crossed my mind!

Thanks for your quick reply. Now I have to spend money because all my spares are 14volt!

I give up. I don't want to disassemble the nav light on my 2005 Ovation to look at the bulb. I know the recog light has a step down to 14volt.. Is the Nav light bulbs 28V or 14 volt. I searched but no definitive answer. Thanks in advance.

Get rid of your Airpath and get a SIRS compass. It has 4 magnets instead of two, very well dampened and requires very little correction when you swing it rather it dials in real easy thanks to 4 magnets. In addition, it uses a silicon fluid of higher viscosity so it won't bounce around and instead of a rubber diaphragm that you are always replacing it uses a brass bellows that does not leak....ever. Airbus uses them, as does many military aircraft. Once you have one you'll see how good it is. https://www.sirs.co.uk/aircraft/light_aircraft I like vertical card units but the problem is with aircraft that have tubular steel structure is sometimes, particularly if the ground runs through the tube steel, it will become magnetized. I have seen people degauss using a DC arc welder but it is not for the novice. If you have a magnetized structure, the vertical cards become a real bear to swing and get set right. Most of the time, people just give up.

The important thing is you landed and checked the mechanical condition. Too often I see people say, "Oh, I can continue without the alternator". Yes you can but can you continue with the alternator banging around inside the cowl, or the belt flopping around or a bearing smoking? After you assess the mechanical condition, circumstances dictate your ability to continue. Airspace, time of day, comm all factor, just remember, aircraft batteries even ones in good shape do not have that much reserve capacity. Oh and the next time, stop in at KGVL, be happy to let you use my hangar and tools, I even am on good terms with my IA there to help you!

Do you crack open the pitot static system when you replace a vacuum pump?

A pitot static check is required for a return to service statement if you have a mode C encoder involved in your system. If you are going to fly VFR in Class B, Class B umbrella or Class C airspace the two systems are inexorably linked. You would be hard pressed to find a repair shop that will just do a transponder check these days because AC43-6 requires a static leak down test when working on the encoder. Also now, with ADS-B the systems are co-existent. If your GPS altitude and your mode C out from your static system are significantly different, or you report an altitude while in controlled airspace that differs from your mode C output (again from your static system), you will get a "cease operations" letter from the FAA prohibiting you from operating in ADS-B required airspace and to cease broadcasting transponder signal until repair is made, certified and a PAPR flight verifies correct operation.

"The instrument is connected to the pitot-static system via a fitting. The fitting is not a part of the instrument' Not always true. Some instruments have their own propriety connector (Aspen for instance) the use of which is demanded in the install manual. If there is no requirement in the install manual, the STC or the ICA then AC43.13 applies. It is not always cut and dry. Equally so, when you crack open the pitot static system, an honest return to service statement would be almost impossible without a pitot static check which would require a someone with a repairman certificate.

FAR 65.81(a) Need I say more? 65.81 — General privileges and limitations. (a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration 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), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned. And yes, if you change the fitting on the back of an instrument which is not approved by the manufacturer in its STC, or ICA it is an alteration and cannot be done by an A&P

Thank you!

If you want to understand the value of TIS on ADS-B see this cockpit view from a C-150 as it collides with a ANG F-16. The F-16 is under control of Charleston approach control and they still collided.

Yes one can say "I say" to anything you want. When the FAA comes a knocking because you got an altitude bust (remember too that ADS-B is a much stronger surveillance system if your GPS altitude and mode C don't match you'll get a letter). However if you have an accident or incident and your insurance company denies coverage because your rendered your aircraft legally unairworthy (read your policy), you won't be fighting the FAA, you'll be fighting the insurance company. Even if the the item was not the cause of the loss. When it comes to saving "Airplane Units" of money, they are more cheap than any of us. Yes one can say "I say" but that don't make you right when the question is adjudicated by a third party. I come from the PA-18 community which given its Alaskan population, stretches things pretty far, but even they are out on this kind of limb As to replacing a O-ring or gasket is not a repair, the simple question will be asked. "Why did you believe it needed replacing". The act of replacement creates its own facts.

Have you read Part 43?

Why would you open it if you were not repairing it or calibrating it? Replace the fitting on the back? That's a repair. Opening it for cleaning? That's a repair. I guess you could open it because you want to learn how it works, but a manual is easier and cheaper. Further is you open most things it usually requires a gasket or seal of some type, which makes it a repair.

If you buy stuff from Spruce that is subject to FAR 43 major component or appliance rule such as a magneto, new or built and I guarantee it comes with an airworthiness release. I have a stack of them. Some recent purchases include magnetos, wet compass, ELT. For unregulated items such as hardware, you can get documentation if you "check the box" and pay.

Under FAR 43 Appendix A (b)4 repair or calibration of an instrument is defined as a major repair. As such FAR 43.5 requires a record of such work to be documented per FAR 43.9 and 43.11 and recorded in accordance with FAR 43 Appendix B. (Which means an 8130 has to follow the unit)

"OK. I get lowering the flaps in order to lower the stall speed and increase your safety margins if caught behind slow traffic on Fisk arrival procedure. But why also lower the gear? Does the gear hanging down also lower the stall speed?" It can have depending on the type of aircraft. In the Mooney I would guess little on span wise flow. Lowering the gear slows span wise flow (Think of it as strakes pointing down) but more important it acts as a pendulum to stabilize the aircraft in a regime where you are working the ailerons and rudder very hard. So gear allows you to work just a little less and any pickup in stability makes things easier. It also makes the throttle less sensitive for speed adjustments.

Exactly Skates, work on slow flight is important. I really disagree with the FAA's recent standards on MCA flight as it does not build the skills and confidence needed to control the airplane at low speeds.

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine who is a dispatcher sat on a jump seat and watched as a crew on a departing 767 lost center system hydraulics (the big one) and skillfully executed the checklists, performed a manual gear extension, electric flap extension, and returned for landing. He commented to the crew, "Wow you guys must fly a lot together". They responded that this flight was the first time they ever met. When you fly formation, you are no longer "single pilot". Yes, your airplane is, but you are a crew. The airline crew, the military pilot are all trained in multi-pilot operations in a highly standardized curriculum that demands their adherence to the crew or squadron concept under pain of being dismissed. There are few weaknesses in adherence. Ever play doubles tennis with a player you never played with before? While you both know the rules, you still do not function at 100% because you do not know your fellow player's strengths and weaknesses. Which is why training formation with the group is so very important especially where the training lacks consequences for inadherence.

Who am I? One thing I am not is a "low time pilot" trolling. Besides 28K hours and 50 years experience, a BS degree in Aero and a Masters in Aviation Safety and Security, I have been a DPE and an LCA. Now I am retired. I bought the Mooney to support my transport needs in support some familial health issues. Thank you MO1676 for clarifying for people who think a Mooney is maneuverable compared to a jet fighter. Guys I've flown a jet fighter that MO1676 would consider a "dog" (Israeli Super Phantom, the F-15 cleaned our clock by the way). The Mooney is not even close. Look guys I am not against formation flying! I am not against practicing formation flying. I am against unproficient formation flying in situations that demand more of the pilot than normal operations such as arriving as KOSH. If you and your mates can formation fly proficiently, go for it! If you have little to no knowledge about the other guy you need to reconsider the operation, until you are confident in the entire formation's skill level. From the very low level preps that I have seen most these "caravans" do I walk away shaking my head. I see verbal briefings substitute for what should be actual practice a lot, and that scares the bujeesus out of me. " This reasoning borders on incoherence. If you continue to have good flying habits the odds on you crashing are actually fairly low. If you actually follow the NOTAM at Oshkosh your chances of being in a midair are also quite low. I'm just allow time screwball pilot probably flying too much airplane and I've made it in safely 18 times. My guess is you've never done it, have never read the NOTAM, and really don't know a damn thing about it. Let me ask you a simple question. How do you assess and mitigate risk in your flying operation or do you consider "good habits" enough? (and yes I have flown into KOSH three times during Air Venture so I know a few things about it)

I think you all need to go back and re-read what I wrote. Look, yes your local chapter has embraced formation flying. You practice and train with the same guys, in the same airplanes. As I said in my OP, that is the way you do it. What we have right now in these "caravan arrivals" is a group of people who have briefed, but not flown much together very much but know "the rules of the road" so to speak. Knowing is not execution and execution is not proficiency when you don't do it over and over again. Further is the practice relevant? Sure you can fly formation but now add the stress of a NOTAM'd arrival procedure and you got more plates in the air. It is like how often airline pilots come to grief on their retirement flight. Sure you can fly the airplane, sure you can do a low approach gear up, sure you can, but add the emotion of the moment and things go wrong, fast. Point is this, formation flight, with unfamiliar squadron mates into a high threat environment requires a higher level of formation flying skill that I don't see in a lot of these "caravans" which is why I won't participate. Because it has not yet happened? I don't know what to say to that in a safety forum. That is just really flawed in the world of safety. I haven't crashed in 28,000 hours and 50 years of flying, but tomorrow is a whole new day with its own risks and threats. Closing the barn door safety, is not my idea of safety. Safety is pro-active not reactive. What WAS the catastrophic result? That is not the question. The question is what COULD have been the result and how do you minimize that risk. Just because you tickled the tiger's tail does not mean it won't eat you next time, ask Roy Horn.

Nothing wrong with the Fly-In. Heck I am President of my local chapter. The issue is risk and exposure. The risk is high, the exposure level is low. Once a year. The outcome? Two airplanes that collide with catastrophic results. Graph that on the risk management scale.

Some people are not going to like what I say, but I'll say it anyway. This formation arrival stuff as presently constituted is just plain nuts. I don't fly formation with people I barely know and have not trained VIGOROUSLY with and I mean not briefings, not flying formation with someone else, not "I know the ground rules". I mean hours of practice. Sure they do it in the military after lots of training, very high standardization and lets face it a Mooney is not maneuverable like an F-16.