GeeBee

With Continental fuel injection you are being really hard on the mechanical fuel pump by running it dry. Not something you want to make a habit.

What shop?

I am slowly coming to the belief that Mooney would be better off in Chapter 11 where someone with the vision, passion, commitment and capital could buy the old Mooney out for the debt and truly start to support the existing owners as well as create a new future. This ownership group seems mired in indecision and inability to execute.for whatever reason. Chapter 11 could wipe out all the old contracts which are inhibiting the future.

They said it was a well maintained airplane that required nothing. All AD's and SB's up to date, gear was perfect, cylinders ranged for 70/80 to a low of 60/80....cold. Total cost $2550. As an aside Fred Hilton took me in the shop and showed their current work. They are an authorized Cirrus center authorized to perform structural repairs. They had one that had a PIO which resulted in a cracked firewall. The firewall is also composite and they had replaced it. Another had a hangar rash on the tail. He told me they get engineered repair kits from the factory and that the kits require curing at 180 degrees for 7-8 hours. They build an enclosure around the repair then heat it with thrermostat controlled heat guns that maintain the temperature within the enclosure to cure the resin. The firewall repair from PIO appears to be a common repair, much like C-182s. They can cut the firewall in half (lower and upper) and repair only the damaged section. They also had a C-210 that suffered a gear up. The work looked excellent. I also know they have a gear up Baron coming in.

I had my airplane scheduled into my IA for an annual on 11-27. He called me on the 26th and advised me he was unable because he fell off a ladder and broke his leg in two spots. My annual expired on 11-30 so I had to scramble. Called Cole Aviation but Joe said he was slammed. So I went through the directory of Mooney Service centers and found Precision Air in Manning, SC. Not only was it an MSC it was a Part 145 station. I called them and told them my predicament, holiday travel schedule and that I needed the airplane back by 12-15. Fred Hilton, the shop manager said he could squeeze me in. I told him I needed to drop the airplane before 12-1 and they said no problem. Next problem was getting there. I needed a chase plane. Chuck (aka RoundTwo) very nicely offered his help to chase with his J model. I dropped the airplane off and was impressed by Fred and his shop. He seemed well tempered and knowledgeable. Yesterday, 3 days early no less, they called and said my airplane was ready. I found it parked on the ramp fully ready, even washed and vacuumed. Precision Air did a great job and came through for me when I really needed help. Ditto Chuck (RoundTwo) who made it a whole lot easier.

Don't know about your POH, but mine requires that as well and for 5 seconds on each tank.

Actually the M20R POH requires you to verify feed from both tanks prior to take off. I checked and the engine will quit in 30 seconds with the fuel valve off. So I start and taxi out on one tank. Change tank to perform a run up then take off.

Trust me, I've had my civics lesson from the same US Attorney (Central CA) 40 years ago when he tried to charge me with conspiracy for flying the company airplane with the boss aboard to a meeting where an alleged environmental violation occurred at Lake Tahoe. That turned out to be a bust for them because the Grand Jury told him to pound sand in my case. I used to innocently think prosecutors did not waste their time charging innocent people, or charging people with more crimes than they actually did. Equally so I was picked to serve on a state Grand Jury about 20 years ago. The crap that was paraded before us shocked me to the core. There was attempts as in my case to ruin innocent people's lives by shoving them into the system on bogus charges just to get at somebody else. In the past years with the abuse of the FISA court along with an entire hoax ran through the same court, and with my personal experiences I've learned personally and up close to only believe what is proven in front of a jury or admitted by the defendant. I am not defending Trevor Jacob, he did a bad thing but I will not attribute to him, things he did not admit to, or the prosecutor did not prove. If a prosecutor wants to allege more, prove it otherwise they need to STFU. That is the way our founders envisioned it to work. Silly me, I actually believe in the Bill of Rights

I think we are saying the same thing but in a way past each other. He admitted and was found guilty of acts of destruction and secreting of the destruction, but he was not convicted of lying. Did he lie? Without a doubt, but without recorded evidence and just the word of FAA inspectors a trial of that charge would not really further the case. As I said, “you are convicted of what they can prove” and they could easily prove the destruction and disposal with the physical. The verbal was a higher mountain not worth the climb.

It was not the media. It was the DOJ’s own account that they released. You are convicted of what they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt.

I am going by the press release which said, " "Jacob pleaded guilty on June 30 to one count of destruction and concealment with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation." It is my understanding lying is different than destruction and concealment. Maybe I am wrong, but lying is usually "obstruction" or perjury. What you quote above is true, but that is not what he pleaded.

They were, but once the NTSB enters an investigation, the FAA becomes a participant and a subordinate because even their actions or lack thereof becomes subject.

I would tend to agree, but the entire training regimen that was the result of as you said, "explicitly attribute characteristics to an entire population." that lead to this abuse.

You are correct, but I was pointing out that 91.13 was not what got him the jail. It was the obstruction of the NTSB.

Nope. That is how he lost his license. That is the FAA case. Read the DOJ press release. "Jacob pleaded guilty on June 30 to one count of destruction and concealment with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation." That is what sent him to jail. Obstructing the NTSB investigation. It is a separate violation of another agencies regulations.

If you are ahead of time, it means nothing if you can't monetize it. Ask the Duryea Motor Wagon Company.

The FAA has nothing to do with this case. He obstructed the NTSB including not complying with NTSB 830. The FAR's mean nothing here, this is violation of the NTSB regulations.

The M10 is mimicked by the new Cirrus trainer The M22 was an early Piper Malibu The 301 became a hit seller as the TBM One thing you can say about Mooney regardless of their owner. They never miss an opportunity.....to miss an opportunity.

Based upon the size of 95% of the people I see riding those things, load is no problem. Good grief! If you're not going to walk....stop eating!

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-barbara-county-man-sentenced-6-months-prison-obstructing-federal-probe-plane

You do recall that correctly and the materials and engineering folks at NTSB said it was not a factor. I have to defer to their judgement.

I hate to dash your hopes but the original FAA syllabus was encouraging, indeed saying pilots did not use the rudder sufficiently saying the "rudder is a powerful tool that is under utilized." Now Boeing airplanes could swing stop to stop which is not required under FAR Part 25 because Boeing had internalized a military specification dating all the way back to the B-47. Boeing said, if they had been aware of this internalization on their commercial aircraft they would not have designed them so robust. The 787 is not so robust, but everything up through the 777 is so designed. I would suggest a reading of the NTSB report. In it, you will find Airbus technical pilots, like me had real concerns about the mandated training and the methods contained therein but were basically hog tied by the FAA in their demands to for instance recover from a 90 degree bank roll in wake turbulence. Wide bodies don't get to 90 degrees in a wake turbulence encounter. A fair reading will reveal the training was inappropriate From the report: In a May 22, 1997, letter to the chief test pilot at Airbus, an American Airlines A300 technical pilot indicated his concern that AAMP handout pages stated that “at higher angles of attack, the rudder becomes the primary roll control.” The technical pilot’s letter also expressed concern that “the program infers that aileron application in these situations is undesirable since it will create drag caused by spoiler deflection.” Further, the letter stated that the AAMP instructor had been teaching pilots to use the rudder to control roll in the event of a wake turbulence encounter. The American Airlines A300 technical pilot asked the Airbus chief test pilot for his thoughts on this subject and suggested a teleconference a few days later. In a May 23, 1997, facsimile, the chief test pilot stated that he shared the A300 technical pilot’s concern about the use of rudder at high AOAs and agreed to a teleconference to discuss the matter. "

Because you are steeped in ACM (air combat maneuvering) then got a job with the FAA.

Yikes! Sounds like detonation.

I don't like it but not for any mechanical reasons. When I move a prop, I'm wary of the engine kicking, either backwards or forward (Lycomings seem to want to kick backwards sometimes). I've seen them go both ways. So when I move a prop, I move it as I would if I were hand propping the airplane both in hand and body placement. That way, no matter which way the engine might kick when getting a mind of its own, my pinkies will easily become disconnected from the prop and there will be no tendency to pull me into the blade swing.